University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The rich auntie effect: increasing socioeconomic advancement for opportunity youth of color

(USC Thesis Other)

The rich auntie effect: increasing socioeconomic advancement for opportunity youth of color

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

The Rich Auntie Effect: Increasing Socioeconomic Advancement for Opportunity Youth of
Color
by
Saidah Marilyn Tinei Leatutufu

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education

May 2021

© Copyright by Saidah Marilyn Tinei Leatutufu 2021
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Saidah Marilyn Tinei Leatutufu certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Monique C. Datta
Joshua Berger
Helena Seli, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2021

iv

Abstract
Social capital is a core contributor to wealth building. Opportunity youth of color are less likely
to have access to the social and professional networks necessary for their socioeconomic
advancement compared to their White counterparts. The purpose of this study was to understand
mentors’ knowledge, motivation, and perception of organizational support regarding the
implementation of culturally relevant education- and employment-oriented quasi-mentorship in
service of growing the opportunity youths’ of color professional networks and assisting with
achieving their career goals. The study participants were Social Impact Agents (mentors),
predominantly of color, who held senior level leadership positions within their organizations,
across various employment sectors. The Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis model combined
with Ladson-Billings’ (1995, 2014) Culturally Relevant Pedagogy comprised the framework
utilized to analyze documents, administer the survey, and interview participants in order to
answer the research questions. The mentors’ reported level of conceptual knowledge to perform
culturally relevant mentoring as well as high value for supporting opportunity youth of color
were identified as assets. The findings and results also revealed that the knowledge, motivation,
and organizational barriers to implementation included the mentors’ reported limited procedural
and metacognitive knowledge when implementing education- and employment-oriented quasi-
mentorship, reported low self-efficacy when supporting opportunity youth of color, and limited
organizational support to effectively implement a pilot initiative. McKinsey’s 7S framework
(Waterman et al., 1980) informed the implementation plan to advance the stakeholders’
knowledge and motivation, and increase organizational effectiveness to successfully implement
education- and employment-oriented quasi-mentorship.
Keywords: Mentorship, opportunity youth, cultural relevance, social capital, wealth.

v

Dedication
To my ancestors High Chief Leatutufu Fualauito’alasi Leuluso’o Poao Uili, Tafaoga Tauava’e
Uepa Amiatu Leatutufu, Marilyn Rose Robinson, Anthony Allen, Zarrie Marilyn Jean Allen, and
to all those dedicated to the endless fight for Black liberation and indigenous sovereignty.

vi
Acknowledgements
I want to acknowledge and thank my higher spiritual power; this journey would not be
possible without my steadfast belief in you. Philippians 4:13 says, “I can do all things through
Christ who strengthens me,” and this moment is a reflection of that truth. Thank you to my
purpose-mate and fiancé. You have provided unwavering support and you inspire me every day.
I see you and I love you. Thank you to my aiga, my family. To my grandparents, parents, sisters,
cousins, aunts, uncles, best friends, and Sorors, your encouragement along this educational
journey is forever engraved in my heart. Alofa atu, I love you.
To my committee, thank you for your direction, motivation, and contribution to this
process. Dr. Seli, I could not imagine completing this task with any other Committee Chair.
Thank you for all of your guidance. Dr. Datta, you have been a powerhouse since 603 and this
experience was stronger alongside the “paper shredder.” Dr. Berger, thank you for accepting my
invitation, being a partner, and believing in this work. To the USC faculty who challenged me to
think beyond the dominant representation of research, who encouraged me to step into my
authority as a Black and Samoan, woman and scholar researcher, I am grateful.
I acknowledge that this study contributes to the effort to decolonize wealth. Specifically,
I am considering ways in which those historically marginalized have priority access to the people
and resources necessary for their own wealth advancement. All of the data in this study was
anonymized to protect the confidentiality of the research participants and no identifying data will
be shared. Additionally, all conflicts of interest are acknowledged to ensure the credibility of this
study. For those interested in learning more, feel free to contact the author, Saidah Leatutufu (Sa-
ee-duh Lei-ah-to-to-foo) at saidahleatutufu@gmail.com.

vii
To all of the Black and indigenous kings and queens, I am forever indebted to you. Know
that you are worthy and your place on this abundant earth is your birthright. My journey is so
that the people I come from and the people I serve may flourish in the beauty, brilliance, and
strength of being Black and indigenous. Finally, to the Black kings and queens taken from us
while along this educational journey and whose names I continue to say: Rayshard Brooks,
Daniel Prude, George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Atatiana Jefferson, Aura Rosser, Stephon Clark,
Botham Jean, Philando Castille, Alton Sterling, Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin, Tamir Rice,
Oscar Grant, Michel Cusseaux, Sandra Bland, Freddie Gray, Eric Garner, Tanisha Anderson,
Roxanne Moore, Aiyana Jones, and the countless others, this is in your honor. With peace and
gratitude, Saidah.

viii
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ vi
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ xii
List of Figures .............................................................................................................................. xiv
Chapter One: Overview of the Study .............................................................................................. 1
Background of the Problem ................................................................................................ 2
Importance of Addressing the Problem .............................................................................. 3
Organizational Context and Mission .................................................................................. 3
Organizational Goal ............................................................................................................ 5
Description of Stakeholder Groups ..................................................................................... 6
Stakeholder Group for Study .............................................................................................. 8
Stakeholder Performance Goals ........................................................................................ 10
Purpose of Study and Research Questions........................................................................ 10
Overview of the Conceptual and Methodological Framework ......................................... 11
Definitions......................................................................................................................... 12
Organization of the Project ............................................................................................... 14
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature ........................................................................................ 15
The Racial Wealth Gap ..................................................................................................... 15
Historical Racial Wealth Disparties .......................................................................... 16
Access to Wealth in the 21
st
Century ........................................................................ 17
Social Capital and Socioeconomic Advancement ............................................................ 24
Types of Social Capital ............................................................................................. 24

ix
Mentoring Opportunity Youth .......................................................................................... 28
Mentorship and Socioeconomic Advancement for Opportunity Youth .................... 28
Limitations to Mentorship for Opportunity Youth .................................................... 30
Clark and Estes' (2008) Knowlegde, Motivation, and Organizational Influences'
Framework ........................................................................................................................ 34

Social Impact Agent Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences ................. 35
Knowledge Influences ............................................................................................... 36
Motivation Influences ................................................................................................ 42
Organizational Influences .......................................................................................... 48
Conceptual Framework: Culturally Relevant Pedagogy Effects on KMO Influences When
Implementing Quasi-Mentorship ...................................................................................... 54

Summary ........................................................................................................................... 57
Chapter Three: Methodology ........................................................................................................ 59
Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 60
Overview of Methodology ................................................................................................ 60
Data Collection, Intrumentation and Analysis Plan .......................................................... 62
Document Analysis ................................................................................................... 63
Survey ........................................................................................................................ 65
Interviews .................................................................................................................. 69
Ethics and Role of Researcher .......................................................................................... 73
Chapter Four: Results and Findings .............................................................................................. 77
Participating Stakeholders ................................................................................................ 77
Survey Participants .................................................................................................... 78
Interview Participants ................................................................................................ 79

x
Research Question 1: What is the Social Impact Agents’ Knowledge and Motivation
Related to Providing Education- and Employment-Oriented Quasi-Mentorship for
Opportunity Youth? .......................................................................................................... 80

Knowledge Findings .................................................................................................. 82
Motivation Findings and Results ............................................................................. 103
Research Question2: How Does HOPE SF’s Own Organization Support or Hinder the
Social Impact Agents’ Capacity to Provide One-on-One Quasi-Mentorship? ............... 121

Organizational Findings and Results ....................................................................... 121
Summary of Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences' Data ................... 137
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 139
Chapter Five: Discussion and Reommentations ......................................................................... 140
Discussion of Findings and Results ................................................................................ 140
Culturally Relevant Mentroring Practices Contributes to Improving Relationships
with Mentees ........................................................................................................... 141

Education- and Employment-Oriented Mentorship Requires Intentionality and Time
................................................................................................................................. 142

Organizational Investment is Critical in Effective Implementation ........................ 144
Recommendations for Practice ....................................................................................... 145
Recommendation 1: Provide Ongoing Skill Development Related to Implementing
Effective Education- and Employment-Oriented Quasi-Mentorship ...................... 146

Recommendation 2: Incorporate Trauma-Informed and Culturally Relevant
Mentoring Promising Practices into Future Social Impact Agent Training ............ 147

Recommendation 3: Provide Forums for Social Impact Agents to Learn from Their
Peers and Mentees ................................................................................................... 149

Recommendation 4: Create Clear Performance Measures and a Feedback Process for
Social Impact Agents ............................................................................................... 149

Integrated Recommendations .................................................................................. 150
Limitations and Delimitations......................................................................................... 156

xi
Recommendations for Future Research .......................................................................... 158
Implications for Equity ................................................................................................... 159
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 160
References ................................................................................................................................... 163
Appendix A: Document Analysis Protocol................................................................................. 179
Appendix B: Survey Protocol ..................................................................................................... 180
Appendix C: Interview Protocol ................................................................................................. 186

xii
List of Tables
Table 1: Organizational mission, organizational goal and stakeholder group’s
performance goal 9
Table 2: Social Impact Agent knowledge influences 41
Table 3: Motivation influences 48
Table 4: Organizational influences 54
Table 5: Data methods and sources 62
Table 6: Survey respondent demographics 78
Table 7: Interview participant background information 80
Table 8: Survey respondents’ challenges with the mentee match 96
Table 9: Impacts of COVID-19 on providing education- and employment-oriented
quasi-mentorship 97
Table 10: Navigating communication barriers in order to provide education- and
employment-oriented quasi-mentorship 98
Table 11: Distribution of respondents’ metacognitive practice when providing
education- and employment-oriented quasi-mentorship 100
Table 12: Survey respondents’ value for serving as Social Impact Agents 104
Table 13: Survey respondents’ value for the overall experience in Pay it Forward 105
Table 14: Survey respondents perception of being a mentor as a part of their personal
identity 108
Table 15: Distribution of respondents’ belief being a Social Impact Agent will help
professionally 112

xiii
Table 16: Survey respondents’ value for personal fulfillment rather the goal
achievement 113
Table 17: Distribution of participant responses when rating skill level for effective
mentorship practice 116
Table 18: Distribution of participant responses for confidence when supporting
opportunity youth 118
Table 19: Distribution of participant responses of Social Impact Agent-mentee
relationship 120
Table 20: Social Impact Agents responses to organizational support of education- and
employment-oriented quasi-mentorship 124
Table 21: Pay it Forward data collection type and frequency 129
Table 22: Youth-related performance measures 130
Table 23: Social Impact Agent monthly questionnaire responses 132
Table 24: Social Impact Agents’ feedback and suggestions for initiative improvement 134
Table 25: Distribution of participant responses for organizational feedback and
support
136
Table 26: Summary of knowledge, motivation, and organization influences 138

xiv
List of Figures
Figure 1: Conceptual framework: Cultural relevant pedagogy effects on KMO
influences when implementing quasi-mentorship

56
Figure 2: Adapted McKinsey’s 7S framework for organizational effectiveness 155

1
Chapter One: Overview of the Study
In 1997, Rose, a 32-year old single, African-American mother of two, put $3,500 down
to purchase her piece of the American dream in San Francisco’s Hunters Point neighborhood.
Without knowledge of what it meant to financially maintain a household or adequate financial
support Rose’s piece of the dream succumbed to the pressures of the 2009 recession. Ten years
later, Fia, a 27-year old single, Chinese-American mother of two, sought her piece of the
American dream. Thirty-thousand dollars short of the required down payment, Fia looked to her
aunt for assistance and she was ready and willing to cover the balance. Fia now owns her piece
of the American dream in San Francisco’s Hunters Point neighborhood. What was the difference
between Rose and Fia holding onto their dream? A rich aunt, or access to a wealth network.
The racial wealth gap in the United States has grown exponentially in the last decade
with White wealth surpassing 20 times that of Black wealth (Dettling et al. , 2017). Wealth, or
net worth, is defined as what people own minus their liabilities (Dettling et al., 2017; Shapiro et
al., 2013). However, wealth is not limited to an individual’s finances. While income is one
source of capital that may reduce the racial wealth gap, Oliver and Shapiro (1995) argued wealth
is comprised of the holistic accumulation of assets and resources including financial and social
capital. Whites are more likely to have access to social networks that connect them to wealth
accumulation pathways such as post-secondary education, employment opportunities,
homeownership, and inheritance (Herring & Henderson, 2016; Keister, 2000; Killewald, 2013;
Shapiro et al., 2013). Wealth accumulation, particularly for opportunity youth of color, provides
financial security and if left unattended, increases the likelihood of intergenerational poverty
(Belfield et al., 2012; Killewald, 2013; Shapiro et al., 2013). Thus, one might consider social
networks as a catalyst for a young person’s educational and socioeconomic advancement.

2
Background of the Problem

If wealth, in fact, is accumulated through an individual’s collective capital, including
economic and social capital (Herring & Henderson, 2016; Keister, 2000; Killewald, 2013; Oliver
& Shapiro, 1995; Shapiro et al., 2013; Yosso, 2005), then populations of color, particularly
Black people with low incomes, have historically not had access to wealth compared to their
White counterparts. For example, the recession from 2007 to 2009 pummeled Black wealth,
resulting in 35% of Black households having zero or a negative net worth compared to 15% of
Whites (Shapiro et al., 2013; Taylor et al., 2011). Moreover, Blacks have had the highest
percentage of people living below poverty compared to other racial groups, Whites, Asians, and
Hispanics, respectively (U.S. Census Bureau, Community Participant Survey [CPS], 2018). The
limited access to wealth building that communities of color experience as a result of explicit
economic exclusion, perpetuates poverty and expands racial wealth inequities. Devaluing the
social capital one possesses also perpetuates intergenerational poverty.
In addition to overrepresenting economic disparities in the United States, Blacks are less
likely to have access to social networks that contribute to their socioeconomic advancement.
While dominant or higher socioeconomic status groups typically transcend economic ranks
throughout their lifetime, they are less likely to defy cultural norms and provide individuals
outside of their social web with the resources necessary to advance socially and economically
(Bourdieu, 1986; Garcia & McDowell, 2010). Wealth networks, such as the one Fia possessed,
are most available to members of dominant groups; when left to negotiate social capital with
individuals deemed to have more power and higher status, opportunity youth, predominantly
youth of color, struggle (Stanton-Salazar, 1997). As a result, opportunity youth experience
substantial economic disparities as they transition into adulthood (Garcia & McDowell, 2010;

3
Hardaway & McLoyd, 2009). Therefore, when examining one’s wealth trajectory it is important
to acknowledge economic and social contributions that got them there and likely excluded
others.
Importance of Addressing the Problem

The problem of intergenerational poverty and the racial wealth gap is important to
address for a variety of reasons. Blacks have the lowest amount of financial wealth compared to
other racial minority groups. Due to the overt economic isolation of Blacks and systemic policies
put in place to benefit dominant groups, Whites compound wealth at higher rates than Blacks
(Herring & Henderson, 2016; Keister, 2000; Killewald, 2013; O’Connell, 2012; Shapiro et al.,
2013; Shapiro, 2017). The researchers argued that prominent wealth engines such as post-
secondary education attainment, employment, homeownership, and financial capital, that
opportunity youth of color are less likely to have access to, exacerbate the racial wealth gap.
Access to wealth accumulation provides equitable economic growth (Shapiro, 2017); therefore, it
is important to mitigate the racial wealth gap to prevent economic inequity and perpetual societal
repercussions, acutely for people of color.
Organizational Context and Mission
HOPE SF is a large-scale transformation and reparations initiative within the Mayor’s
Office of San Francisco aimed at redeveloping four dilapidated public housing sites into mixed-
income communities without mass displacement. HOPE SF’s mission is to create systemic
change so that race and place are not barriers to prosperity and opportunity. In 2005, the San
Francisco Human Services Agency (SFHSA) released a study of families experiencing high
levels of trauma and engagement with San Francisco’s social services ecosystem. The study
revealed that most of the families were concentrated in close proximity to obsolete public

4
housing sites. In response, Mayor Gavin Newsom, at the time, put forth a vision of rebuilding
deteriorating public housing while keeping families in place and that integrated holistic family
services. In 2007, HOPE SF launched with $95 million in funding and cross sector partners to
improve the living conditions of public housing residents and disrupt intergenerational poverty
(www.hope-sf.org, 2019).
HOPE SF is comprised of four housing communities in the southeastern sector of San
Francisco: Hunters View, Alice Griffith, Potrero Terrace and Annex, and Sunnydale-Velasco.
Nearly 80% of the 1,900 HOPE SF households are African American and, like Rose and Fia, the
average household is single, female-headed, with two children (San Francisco Human Services
Agency [SFHSA], 2017). The median household income for HOPE SF households was just over
$16,000 per year compared to $110,000 per year for San Francisco households at-large (Reid &
Berquist, 2018). Furthermore, 66% of HOPE SF households are living on less than 20% area
median income (AMI) or $10,000 per year (SFHSA, 2017). Over a 20-year period, HOPE SF
will replace 1,900 public housing units one-for-one and add affordable and market rate units,
ultimately creating a mixed-income community (www.hope-sf.org, 2019).
There are four strategic priorities that guide HOPE SF’s work. First, the initiative will
build racially and economically inclusive communities. The initiative’s second priority is that
residents can use their power to lead their communities. The initiative’s third priority is that
residents will experience an increase in economic and educational advancement. The last priority
is that HOPE SF creates healthy communities. This study focused specifically on a new pilot
initiative, Pay it Forward (PIF), that HOPE SF implemented to advance the third strategic
priority, increase economic and educational advancement.

5
PIF is an initiative within the HOPE SF that launched in July of 2019. PIF leveraged the
support of the Mayor’s Opportunities for All initiative to activate and advance educational,
economic, and social connections for opportunity youth of color, ages 17 to 24, to unlock
generational wealth for them and their families. Through PIF, opportunity youth are connected to
Social Impact Agents (SIAs) who are individuals that possess access to resources, vast social
networks, and are positioned to contribute to a young person’s growth by sharing their time,
talent, and connections. In order to help families advance economically, HOPE SF intentionally
focused on opportunity youth residing across the four HOPE SF communities that wanted
support with educational enrollment, career identification, asset management, and building their
professional networks.
Organizational Goal
HOPE SF’s organizational goal is that by 2030, over 2,200 former public housing
residents are stably housed, advancing economically, and feel a sense of power and belonging in
their community. The Executive Director, together with the HOPE SF team members,
established the organizational goal in 2018 in an effort to be accountable for tangible results. The
team conducted a root cause analysis based on the 2012 HOPE SF Baseline Evaluation Report
and identified several phases of strategic priorities related to implementing holistic family
services. In addition, each strategy director developed their own programmatic goal.
The vision for the economic advancement strategy is that all HOPE SF families are
connected to prosperity pathways resulting in self-sustaining incomes and connection to the
regional affluence and social capital throughout the Bay Area. More specifically, the goal of the
Pay it Forward program is that 100% of the program participants are connected to education and
employment pathways resulting in self-sustaining incomes, asset building, and increased social

6
connection to the San Francisco community. The Director of Economic Advancement
established both the vision and the goal for this strategic area after analyzing data across a
number of HOPE SF programs and identifying programmatic gaps. While education and jobs
were a priority for the initiative, little was done to achieve the financial security and social
aspects of advancing economically.
Participant data was the primary source for determining if PIF achieved its programmatic
goal. For the youth participants, PIF collected documentation to verify the percentage of program
participants who enrolled in post-secondary education, gained or transitioned into employment,
and contributed to their savings accounts on a quarterly and biannual basis. To assess social
cohesion and connectedness, PIF administered a monthly survey to youth.
It is important to evaluate the organization’s performance in relationship to the
programmatic goal of 100% of program participants being connected to education and
employment pathways resulting in self-sustaining incomes, asset building, and increased social
connection to community for an array of reasons. The wealth gap between HOPE SF residents
and San Franciscans at-large is widening. Particularly, among the opportunity youth residing in
HOPE SF communities, two-thirds were not enrolled in school or employed. Evaluating a
programmatic innovation continues to enable HOPE SF to assess its progress against reaching its
organizational mission to ensure race and place are not barriers to prosperity and opportunity.
Description of Stakeholder Groups
While there are many stakeholder groups within the HOPE SF initiative, there are four
primary stakeholder groups that contributed to and benefitted from the achievement of HOPE
SF’s organizational goal and Pay it Forward’s programmatic goal. The first stakeholder group
are HOPE SF residents. HOPE SF residents are the 1,900 households and over 2,200 individuals

7
that started this initiative. HOPE SF families have endured generations of isolation and neglect
because of institutional racism and are the reason the HOPE SF initiative exists.
The second stakeholder group are the PIF participants. The participants are Black,
Samoan, and Latinx opportunity youth, between the ages of 17 and 24, who live across the four
HOPE SF communities and are members of the aforementioned families. The participants are
direct beneficiaries of the program and are whom the programmatic goals are targeted.
The third stakeholder group are the SIAs. Social Impact Agents are leaders,
predominantly of color, who serve as Executive Directors, General Managers, Senior Advisors,
and manage teams within their respective organizations. SIAs possess control over institutional
resources and are positioned to contribute to an opportunity youth’s socioeconomic growth either
monetarily or through building the youth’s social and professional networks. The SIAs helped to
implement the PIF program and aimed to fulfill the programmatic goals. The SIAs worked
specifically with the program participants to ensure they reached their educational and
employment goals. In order to understand if the SIAs, the primary stakeholder group for this
study, met their goal of providing education- and employment-oriented quasi-mentorship, PIF
administered monthly questionnaires to the SIA’s. The survey specifically gathered information
on how the SIAs worked with youth on a monthly basis regarding the following: (a) helping
youth identify their education and employment goals, and (b) understanding how SIAs gave
youth access, either personally or through their professional networks, to resources that may
have resulted in the youth’s enrollment in post-secondary education or employment and their
ability to build financial assets.
The last stakeholder group is the HOPE SF backbone team situated within the Mayor’s
Office of San Francisco. The backbone team facilitated the strategic vision and implementation

8
plan for the initiative and its programs. The backbone team also worked with its philanthropic
partners to fundraise for programmatic innovations like PIF, provided capacity building to
community partners, and advocated for long-term sustainability of the initiative.
Stakeholder Group for the Study
Although the collaborative efforts of all stakeholders are instrumental to the achievement
of the organizational goal that all residents are stably housed, advancing economically, and feel a
sense of power and belonging, it was necessary to explore the PIF stakeholders’ capacity
specifically in relation with advancing educational, economic, and social outcomes for
opportunity youth residing in HOPE SF. Therefore, the stakeholders of focus for this study were
the SIAs participating in PIF. SIAs were critical to the implementation of the PIF program
because they served as the bridge between the participants identifying their career goals and
achieving their career goals. Additionally, SIAs filled a gap in the research that suggested social
capital is valuable when it is rooted in dominant culture beliefs and practices. SIAs not only
valued the existing capital that the youths possess, but leveraged their own networks to help
youth advance their economic and social capital so they may move toward attaining wealth.
The stakeholder goal is that by June 2021 100% of Social Impact Agents provide
education- and employment-oriented quasi-mentorship resulting in the youths’ growing
professional networks and achieving their career goals. This study explored the SIAs’
competencies related to providing education- and employment-related quasi-mentorship to
individuals outside of their existing professional networks, their understanding of how to help
opportunity youth identify their career goals, and how HOPE SF might provide organizational
support to increase the capacity of SIAs to achieve the organizational goal. Failure to accomplish
this goal may lead to discontinuing the Pay if Forward initiative. Not accomplishing the goal

9
may also lead to continued educational and economic gaps for HOPE SF youth. Conversely,
since HOPE SF is committed to achieving its organizational goal, failure to achieve the
stakeholder goal may lead to increased learnings, programmatic improvements, and expanded
investments in alternative program innovations.

Table 1
Organizational Mission, Organizational Goal and Stakeholder Group’s Performance Goal
Organizational Mission
The mission of HOPE SF is to create systemic change so that race and place are not barriers to
prosperity and opportunity.
Organizational Performance Goal
By 2030, over 2,200 former public housing residents are stably housed, advancing economically,
and feel a sense of power and belonging in their community.
Social Impact Agents’ (SIAs) Group Goal
By June 2021, 100% of Social Impact Agents will provide education- and employment-oriented
quasi-mentorship for opportunity youth, resulting in their growing professional networks and
achieving their career goals.

10
Stakeholder Performance Goals
The mission of HOPE SF is to create systemic change so that race and place are not
barriers to prosperity and opportunity. Table 1 outlines the organizational mission, and the
organizational and stakeholder group’s performance goals that contribute to advancing the
organizational mission. This study focused specifically on exploring the stakeholder group goal.
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions
The purpose of this study was to explore the degree to which PIF can achieve its goal of
ensuring 100% of SIAs provide education- and employment-oriented quasi-mentorship to
opportunity youth resulting in their increased social connection and achieving their career goals.
While a complete performance evaluation would focus on all stakeholders, for practical
purposes, the stakeholder group for analysis in this study were the SIAs. The analysis focused on
the SIAs’ knowledge, motivation and organizational influences related to their ability to provide
education- and employment-oriented quasi-mentorship, their understanding of how to help
opportunity youth identify their career goals, and their knowledge and motivation related to
granting youth access to resources so that they can achieve their goals.
The research questions that guided this study are the following:
1. What is the Social Impact Agents’ knowledge and motivation related to providing
education- and employment-oriented quasi-mentorship for opportunity youth?
a. What factors do Social Impact Agents prioritize when building relationships with
opportunity youth and connecting them to their professional networks?
2. How does HOPE SF’s own organization support or hinder the Social Impact Agents’
capacity to provide one-on-one quasi-mentorship?

11
Overview of the Conceptual and Methodological Framework
This study utilized Clark and Estes’ (2008) Knowledge, Motivation, and Organization
(KMO) Gap Analysis informed by Ladson-Billings (1995) culturally relevant pedagogy (CRP).
Clark and Estes’ (2008) concluded that employees need the appropriate knowledge, motivation,
and organizational tools to achieve organizational goals. The gap analysis is a systematic
approach that helps to refine organizational goals and identify knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences and performance gaps. Subsequently, the Social Impact Agents would
need optimal KMO support to achieve the goals of Pay it Forward. Moreover, since the purpose
of the study was to build the capacity of SIAs to work with youth outside of their existing
networks, CRP informed the knowledge and motivation components of the KMO gap analysis.
Similarly to Yosso’s (2005) conceptualization of cultural wealth, CRP is a theoretical
framework that identifies specific practices that educators, and adults alike, may implement to
effectively work with youth living in oppressed communities to affirm the youths existing
cultural wealth as an asset to their success (Ladson-Billings, 1995). CRP emphasized one’s
ability to intentionally adapt to the cultures of those being served or consciously decide to
become adept in a youth’s cultural practices, creating an environment conducive to the youth’s
success. This study aimed to examine the Social Impact Agents’ ability to become
knowledgeable of the cultural wealth the youth they served possessed so they might be able to
support the youth with identifying and achieving their educational and employment goals.
The methodological framework for this study was a mixed methods approach. The first
method was a document analysis of existing artifacts in the Pay it Forward program. The second
method used was a quantitative survey focused on motivation and organization gaps. The last

12
method was a qualitative interview concentrated on the SIAs knowledge of providing education-
and employment-oriented quasi-mentorship to opportunity youth.
Definitions
This study used terminology consistent with the literature as it relates to developing
social capital and providing education- and employment-oriented quasi-mentorship to
opportunity youth. Each term represents the various concepts that were studied for the purposes
of this research. The following are key terms used throughout the study.
• Culturally Relevant Pedagogy (CRP): A theoretical framework that identifies specific
practices that educators, and adults alike, may implement to effectively work with
oppressed youth to affirm the youths existing cultural wealth as an asset to their success
(Ladson-Billings, 1995). Practitioners adopt and adapt such practices into their teachings
for the benefit of the youth.
• Socioeconomic Advancement: The process of promotion in a person’s financial rank.
Economic advancement includes the development or improvement in one’s
socioeconomic status and their likelihood to attain or sustain wealth (Acs et al., 2018;
Leatutufu, 2019).
• Opportunity Youth: Youth, generally between the ages of 16 and 24, who are neither
enrolled in school nor participating in the labor market (Belfield et al., 2012). Not being
enrolled in school or participating in the labor market may be by choice or as a result of
uncontrollable circumstances such as geographic isolation, scarcity of resources, or
traumatic experiences. Garcia and McDowell (2010) identified this population as low-
status youth, apropos their demographic intersections (race, ethnicity, class, sex, gender,

13
income, etc.) that result in some youth’s substantial social and economic disadvantage.
This paper will use the term opportunity youth.
• Pay it Forward (PIF): An initiative within the HOPE SF to activate and advance
educational, economic, and social pathways and unlock generational wealth for
opportunity youth and their families.
• Quasi-Mentorship: The relationship, either formal or informal, between a trusted, non-
parental advisor and their protégé that enhances the youth’s career outcomes (Bruce &
Bridgeland, 2014; Hunt & Michael, 1983). While traditional forms of mentorship may be
psycho-socially based and associated with higher frequency (Hurd & Sellers, 2013;
Scandura, 1992), this research focuses specifically on alternate forms of mentorship
associated with career connections and not time, hence quasi-mentorship.
• Social Capital: Social capital is the social contacts one has available, number of
resources, including economic, an individual possesses, their willingness to enhance
human connections beyond their familial networks, and their increased community
recognition that would aid in their advancement and allow them to transcend through
societies institutions (Bourdieu, 1986; Coleman, 1988; Stanton-Salazar, 2004; Yosso,
2005).
• Social Impact Agents (IA’s): Adapted from Stanton-Salazar’s (1997, 2011) definition of
Institutional Agents, Social Impact Agents are leaders who serve as Executive Directors,
General Managers, Senior Advisors, and manage teams within their respective
organizations. Stanton-Salazar (1997, 2011) described Institutional Agents as individual’s
who possessed control over institutional resources, and are positioned to contribute to a

14
youth’s socioeconomic growth either monetarily or through building their professional
networks. For the purposes of this research, this paper will use the term identified for the
stakeholder group, Social Impact Agents (SIA’s).
Organization of the Project
Five chapters are used to organize this study. This chapter provided the reader with the
key concepts and terminology commonly found in a discussion about social capital and
leveraging social capital for socioeconomic advancement. The organization’s mission, goals and
stakeholders, and the framework for the project were introduced. Chapter Two provides a review
of the relevant literature surrounding the scope of the study and will address deeper historical
context for educational and economic advancement for youth of color, how social capital
influences career trajectory, and the theoretical and conceptual framework that guided the study.
Chapter Two also presents the Social Impact Agents’ knowledge, motivation and organizational
influences that were explored throughout the study. Chapter Three details the methodology with
respect to conducting the study, data collection, and analysis. In Chapter Four, the findings and
results are presented and analyzed. Chapter Five provides a discussion and recommendations for
practice, future research and implications for equity.

15
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
This review of the relevant literature is organized into three sections. The literature first
discusses the historical context of the racial wealth gap and how four prominent wealth engines
perpetuate the growing wealth gap. Then the review transitions into describing developing social
capital and effective mentoring practices particularly for opportunity youth of color. The final
section explains the theoretical and conceptual framework that will guide this study.
The Racial Wealth Gap
Anti-Black policies and discriminatory practices have historically excluded Blacks and
communities of color at-large from attaining equitable access to wealth. Since social capital is a
contributor to wealth accumulation (Shapiro et al., 2013; Yosso, 2005), one must acknowledge
the factors that hinder non-White people of color, specifically Black people, from obtaining
wealth and that proliferate the racial wealth gap. This review of the relevant literature discusses
three factors that contribute to racial wealth disparities. The first factor is the historical inequities
that limited Black wealth attainment. The second factor describes how prominent 21
st
century
wealth engines maintain the racial wealth gap. The third factor expounds on the varying levels of
social capital that may increase socioeconomic advancement for opportunity youth of color. The
review then discusses the effects of mentoring opportunity youth of color relative to their
socioeconomic advancement. Finally, the review explores the relevant knowledge and
motivational influences informed by CRP and the organizational influences that effect the Social
Impact Agents’ ability to contribute to the socioeconomic advancement of opportunity youth of
color.

16
Historical Racial Wealth Disparities
The racial wealth gap dates back more than four-hundred years to the inception of
African enslavement. One-hundred and fifty years after the Emancipation Proclamation, Blacks
still experience the consequences of enslavement. Slavery, and the oppressive systems that
followed including sharecropping, Jim Crow laws, and explicit economic discrimination,
prevented Blacks from accumulating wealth (Fochesato & Bowles, 2017; O’Connell, 2012;
Shapiro et al., 2013). Moreover, mass incarceration, employment disparities, and anti-Black
policies adversely impacted the social constructs of the Black community and exacerbated
intergenerational poverty today (Alexander, 2005; Alyward, 2017; DeFina & Hannon, 2013;
O’Connell, 2012; Shapiro, 2017; Shapiro & Kenty-Drane, 2005).
The legacy of African enslavement underpins racial wealth disparities. Slavery served as
an early form of institutional racism and the vessel to legally annihilate enslaved Africans
physically, mentally, emotionally, and economically (Fochesato & Bowles, 2017; O’Connell,
2012; Shapiro & Kenty-Drane, 2005; Wilkins et al., 2013). Laws forbid enslaved Africans from
purchasing property and land that would have seeded their asset accumulation (Shapiro & Kenty-
Duarte, 2005). The abolishment of slavery did not resolve that practice; in fact, because those
enslaved were prohibited from obtaining an education, former slave owners used this to
manipulate the enslaved into corrupt business deals that kept freed people indebted to them,
developing the start to modern day poverty (Bertocchi & Dimico, 2010; O’Connell, 2012; Webb,
2006; Wilkins et al., 2013).
Contemporary racial wealth and poverty disparities stem from African enslavement.
O’Connell (2012) found that areas in the United States where there was a stronger connection to
slavery Blacks experienced higher levels of poverty than Whites. Following slavery, racist

17
rhetoric preserved Black inferiority, created Black codes put in place to criminalize free people
(Wilkins et al., 2013), and institutionalized slavery through the United States prison system
(Alexander, 2010). The multigenerational oppression Black people experience has fueled racial
disparities that transcends several categories of well-being including but not limited to voter
suppression and political disenfranchisement (Acharya, 2015), lower rates of post-secondary
degree attainment (American Community Survey [ACS], 2017), higher unemployment rates
(U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics [BLS], 2018), lack of wealth building through homeownership
(Tippet et al., 2014), and higher rates of incarceration (Garrison, 2011). Such inequities had
residual, trauma-induced influences that threatened Blacks self-confidence and worsened the
minimizing of Black social wealth in the 21
st
century (Wilkins et al., 2013).
Access to Wealth in the 21
st
Century
Wealth is a culmination of both tangible (Shapiro et al., 2013) and intangible assets
(Yosso, 2005). One’s wealth is increasingly associated with their ability to access resources
through their social connections or a wealthy person’s willingness to connect them to such
wealth. When examining the de-valuing of social wealth for oppressed populations, one may
consider societal influences that specifically adversely affect people of color with low-incomes,
particularly Black people. Social capital reinforces four prominent wealth engines including
post-secondary education, income and employment, homeownership, and inheritance or access
to financial capital that Blacks are less likely to have access to compared to their White
counterparts.
Post-Secondary Education
The lack of valuing Blacks post-secondary degree attainment the same as Whites
contributes to wealth inequity. Blacks and Latinx’ are likely to experience lower lifetime

18
earnings despite having the same educational level as their White peers (Meschede et al., 2017).
Moreover, social capital between opportunity youth and their parent or familial networks
influences their educational achievement. Researchers concluded that parental involvement,
economically and socially, not only influenced a student’s post-secondary degree completion,
but was associated with student intellectual achievement and enrollment in higher quality schools
(Charles et al., 2007; Shahidul et al., 2015; Yeung & Conley, 2008). How might an oppressed
youth educationally excel if their immediate social circles, such as family, do not have equitable
access to the monetary and social resources for them to do so? For example, while parents of
Black and Latinx students from communities with low-incomes aspire for their children to go to
college, they are likelier to have multiple jobs, limiting their involvement in their child’s school
and less likely to have the social support to navigate post-secondary institutions or the financial
capital to pay for college compared to Asians and Whites (Charles et al., 2007; Yeung & Conley,
2008). Therefore, one may consider the existing limitations in oppressed communities that hinder
students, predominantly of color, from being valued and recognized in the educational space
(Yosso, 2005).
Absent institutional support, oppressed youth of color exercise pre-existing resilience to
transcend through post-secondary education. Resilience characterizes one’s ability to overcome
disruptions, beyond their control, to achieve a positive outcome and maintain their self-identity
(Folke et al., 2010; McKay, 2011; Woods, 2012). McKay (2011) described such disruptions as
residing in impoverished communities or experiencing high levels of trauma through violence
and crime. For example, first-generation college students are more likely to come from the
communities McKay (2011) described that adversely impact their educational decisions
(Hirudayaraj & McLean, 2017; Parks-Yancy, 2012). The researchers argued that the families of

19
first-generation college students, although proud of their students’ accomplishments, offered
little to no educational guidance because of their own lack of knowledge and limited connection
to social networks that yield economic gains. Additionally, while first-generation college
students had more perceived barriers to degree attainment than students with degree-bearing
parents (Harlow & Bowman, 2016; Raque-Bogdan & Lucas, 2016), based on environmental
factors, they experienced higher levels of resilience and motivation (Pulliam et al., 2017) because
they wanted to succeed for their families. Similar to the resilience enslaved peoples portrayed to
get to freedom, oppressed youth of color, particularly Black youth, who persist through post-
secondary education possess organic resilience (McKay, 2011). However, without the
appropriate social and institutional recognition, that resilience limits their ability to attain wealth
through post-secondary education or other means.
Income and Employment
Disproportionate increases in income between Whites and Blacks prevents narrowing the
racial wealth gap over time. Blacks continue to experience higher unemployment rates and lower
earnings than their White and Asian counterparts (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics [BLS], 2018),
reducing their ability to earn enough income to build their wealth portfolio. The research
suggested that the higher the educational level one has the higher their earned income will be
(American Community Survey [ACS], 2017). For example, individuals who completed only high
school earned $30,624 annually while those who completed a bachelor’s degree or higher earned
$61,790 annually (ACS, 2017). Yet, the notion that Blacks who are equally as educated as
Whites have the same income opportunities puts the onus on the behavior of the individual and
disregards the explicit discrimination in the labor force that devalues the education of Blacks
compared to Whites despite being the same (Hamilton et al., 2011; Meschede et al., 2017;

20
Shapiro et al., 2013). No matter the level of educational attainment, institutional practices make
it so that degreed Blacks experience less financial wealth than degreed Whites (Darity et al.,
2018; Meschede et al., 2017).
Limited access to higher wages for people of color perpetuate intergenerational poverty.
For the past 20 years Black youth, ages 15 to 24, have consecutively had lower incomes than
White youth (CPS, 2018). Not only have Blacks experienced unequal earnings compared to their
White counterparts (Fyer et al., 2011; Hamilton et al., 2011), they are also more likely to serve in
positions that lack comprehensive employee benefits (Shapiro, 2017). The evidence highlighted
Blacks, compared to Whites, were more likely to have jobs that did not offer long-term
retirement plans. Furthermore, Blacks and Latinx’ not only had low-wage jobs, they also did not
have retirement benefits (Rhee, 2013; Shapiro, 2017); if they did, many utilized their retirement
accounts as emergency funds rather than long-term investments, depreciating their wealth. Such
practices also effect the social-emotional wellbeing of employees of color.
Coupled with wage disparities, not having the appropriate networks to connect one to
employment resources adversely affects their ability to build wealth. When prospective
employees, particularly students of color, do not have social connections to individuals in their
career of interest or know how to pursue various career options they are less prepared for
employment in the corporate sector (Hirudayaraj & McLean, 2017; Parks-Yancy, 2012). The
researchers argued students of color had difficultly transitioning into employment upon
graduation because they were not aware of how to prepare for the corporate sector and had
limited knowledge of the recruitment process. Zanskas et al. (2011) determined Blacks also
experienced more perceived barriers to employment due to lack of childcare, adequate
transportation, and job preparedness, each examples of barriers that are not present in affluent

21
communities. Blacks, more than other racial groups, reported feeling unprepared to obtain
employment as a result of low educational attainment, lack of confidence, and physical and
mental health disorders. Those perceptions are likely attributed to the lack of institutional
acknowledgement of the existing talent and cultural wealth workers of color possessed (Yosso,
2005). These findings demonstrate the need for relevant and quality professional networks,
access to career exposure, and tangible career connections so that opportunity youth of color may
experience a positive career trajectory. While lack of educational attainment and increases in
income are barriers to people of color building wealth, their limited access to homeownership
proliferates wealth disparities.
Homeownership
Homeownership is a prominent wealth building tool in the United States, yet the
association between homeownership and wealth is not the reality for populations of color with
low-incomes. Among those racial groups who own homes, there is a substantial wealth
differential between Whites and Blacks (Darity et al., 2018; Shapiro, 2017; Shapiro et al., 2013).
People of color are less likely to attain wealth through homeownership due to not having the
financial capital available for the down payment, purchasing at a later age, accumulating less
equity, or not owning a home at all (Hirschl & Rank; 2010; Shapiro, 2017). The researchers
concluded White homeowners dominated each of the benefits of homeownership like being a
homeowner longer, earning more equity, and purchasing younger due to financial support. The
researchers also confirmed people of color, with low educational attainment, were less likely to
own homes. Blacks, in particular, experienced greater homeownership disparities compared to
Latinx and Asian homeowners. Kuebler and Rugh (2013) found when socioeconomic status and
employment was controlled, Blacks were still 41% less likely to own homes than Whites.

22
Additionally, people of color who did own homes lost more in equity during the 2008 recession,
such as Rose, with Hispanics losing 56% of their home equity (Kuebler & Rugh, 2013; Shapiro
et al., 2013).
Homeownership is also the primary source of Black’s wealth portfolio (Tippet et al.,
2014). The researchers established that home equity for Blacks accounted for 92% of their
wealth portfolio (67% for Hispanics and 72% for Asians), compared to 58% for Whites. Tippet
et al. (2014) highlighted the median home equity for Blacks was $54,999 and $51,000 for
Hispanics; however, without taking home equity into consideration, the net worth for Blacks was
$2,237 and $4,010 for Hispanics. Similarly, homeowners of color were more prone to lending
discrimination, a systemic practice that subjected loan borrowers of color to higher prices based
on racial identity and makeup of the neighborhood ultimately leading to property foreclosures
(Hanson et al., 2016; Kau et al., 2011; Williams, 2015). Redlining, subprime loans, and higher
interest rates are a few discriminatory practices that spanned decades since the early 20
th
century.
These practices led to borrowers of color, particularly Black borrowers such as Rose, to
experience a substantial depletion of their wealth portfolios (Shapiro et al., 2013; Williams,
2015) from which they have yet to recover. The researchers argued the availability of financial
capital through familial support accelerated the timeline with which one was able to acquire
economic wealth. As a result, generations that experience perpetual poverty and not having
access to such capital, are likelier to experience financial disadvantages compared to their
affluent peers.
Access to Financial Capital
Preexisting family wealth or financial support from social networks helps to increase
wealth. There is limited research available on how inheritance influences wealth accumulation,

23
however, the existing research recognizes access to financial support is needed to build economic
wealth. Miller and McNamee (1998) described inheritance as the intergenerational transference
of privilege. Having a parent or family member who is a part of the economic elite, such as Fia
had, is important to preserving wealth and key to their children reaching similar economic ranks
(Hansen, 2014). Blacks do not have access to this same privilege and when Black parental
wealth does exist, it does not work in the financial favor of their offspring.
Families’ ability to pass wealth to succeeding generations or having access to such social
networks that supports them in doing so grows their wealth earning potential. The typical
inheritance for Blacks is less than what is necessary for a $1,000 emergency (Shapiro, 2004).
Among those who receive an inheritance, Whites receive 10 times more than Blacks setting their
wealth portfolio earlier and faster comparatively (Shapiro et al., 2013). The research is consistent
when assessing racialized debt accumulation. Communities with lower economic wealth,
predominantly of color, are less able to financially support the next generation (Hansen, 2014;
Meschede et al., 2017). While Black students experienced higher levels of debt accumulation, it
is more associated with attending predatory institutions (Addo et al., 2016) or the parents’
socioeconomic status and not having access to the financial support to protect against
indebtedness (Houle, 2013; Meschede et al., 2017). Additionally, the researchers suggested even
among Blacks with a high net worth that wealth is less transferrable compared to Whites,
creating a higher risk for economic insecurity. Parental wealth is an indicator of future wealth
attainment. Arguably, unless one has access to financial support that works for their benefit, they
are already set years and in some cases generations behind wealthier colleagues.

24
Social Capital and Socioeconomic Advancement
The racial wealth gap underpins economic inequity and if left unresolved, perpetuates
societal repercussions, particularly for people of color. Without recognizing the cultural wealth,
including social and aspirational capital (Yosso, 2005) that exists in oppressed communities of
color, opportunity youth stand to be excluded from quality education, high-earning employment,
and the chance to build economic wealth for their families. Thus, connections to wealth-
generating resources and networks that aid in their success are necessary for their educational
and socioeconomic advancement (Hansen, 2014; Houle, 2013). Failure to address institutional
racism and increase the value and recognition in the existing social capital of opportunity youth
of color proliferates intergenerational poverty. This section describes two types of social capital,
individual and community, and how they may contribute to a young person’s socioeconomic
advancement.
Types of Social Capital
Building Black wealth relies on dismantling the dominant narrative of how one becomes
wealthy. Yosso (2005) argued it is necessary to shift the center of focus from White, middle-
class culture to the cultural and social wealth that already exists within communities of color.
The researcher described a set of knowledge, skills, and abilities that communities of color use to
resist systems of oppression including six forms of capital such as aspirational, familial,
navigational, linguistic, social, and resistant capital. Each of these forms of capital comprise
one’s overall cultural wealth. Social capital specifically for communities of color is affirmed
through the social contacts one has available, amount of resources, including economic, the
beneficiary possesses (Bourdieu, 1986), their willingness to enhance human connections beyond
their familial networks (Coleman, 1988), and their increased community recognition that would

25
aid in their advancement and allow them to transcend through societies institutions (Stanton-
Salazar, 2004; Yosso, 2005). Despite the amount of cultural and social capital present amongst
people of color, the question remains if dominant and privileged groups in society do not value
the capital oppressed communities possess, then is disrupting intergenerational poverty possible?
So, one must consider how social capital is developed and valued at the individual and
community levels.
Individual Social Capital
Social capital is a core contributor to improving a young person’s educational and
socioeconomic trajectory (Shahidul et al., 2015). Bourdieu (1986) defined social capital as the
network of relationships existing within communities (family) or institutions (education) used to
exchange resources and information for the sustained benefit of the members of the network.
However, the Bourdieuian model for what it means to be socially rich does not take into account
that the systems that stunted Black wealth also do not value the existing cultural and social
capital within communities of color (O’Connell, 2012; Yosso, 2005). Bourdieu’s suggestion that
all people have access to relationships with mutually benefiting resources and that those
relationships are equally valued in society at-large centralizes power among dominant groups,
predominantly middle-class Whites (Yosso, 2005). Unequal value of social capital
notwithstanding, a person’s development of social capital begins with their immediate networks.
The value and source of an individual’s social capital is dependent on the value and
source of their family’s social capital (Hansen, 2014; Taga, 2014). While there is limited recent
research available on how social capital might eradicate poverty in the United States, there is
substantial research, globally, that suggests the socioeconomic advancement of youth is
positively associated with the socioeconomic status of their parental and familial networks

26
(Hassan & Birungi, 2011; Hong et al., 2015; Matthews & Besemer, 2015; Taga, 2014). Family
involvement, in the biological and figurative sense, is necessary for opportunity youth to reach
educational and economic success. The evidence determined family social capital and parental
socioeconomic status had a significant positive effect on all the dimensions of one’s social
capital and their confidence in their ability to achieve success. Therefore, if oppressed families
do not have access to affluent networks that value their social capital, it is less likely the youth
that come from those families will connect with those networks. Rather, the youth’s networks
will grow with groups similar to the oppressed communities they come from (Hansen, 2014;
Hassan & Birungi, 2011; Matthews & Besemer, 2015; Taga, 2014) which may not contribute to
their socioeconomic advancement. Thus, as a young person grows their social networks, the
community investment becomes increasingly important.
Community Social Capital
Outside of familial connections, community networks that yield socioeconomic growth
increase an opportunity youth’s probability of succeeding educationally and economically
(Dowd et al., 2013). Opportunity youth are more likely to achieve career related goals when a
mentor or institutional agent is present, particularly when that mentor is culturally representative
of the youth (Davis, 2007; Palmer & Gasman, 2008). Specific interactions with trusted and
supportive adults in the youth’s field of interest are necessary for career achievement. Ashtiani
and Feliciano (2018) emphasized intentional contact with mentors or institutional agents within
the family or community were critical in post-secondary enrollment and completion. In fact,
opportunity youth benefitted more from mentors than their advantaged peers may have from
mere access by way of socioeconomic status. Additionally, when opportunity youth were taught

27
self-efficacy and how to interact with non-parental adults when seeking support, they achieved
their educational goals (Ashtiani & Feliciano, 2018; Schwartz et al., 2016).
Furthermore, peer relationships for opportunity youth enhance their social cohesion and
grows their educational achievement. While examining the role of social capital through school
friendships and its effect on students living in poverty, Brown (2012) found social capital
diminished when peer groups were inconsistent, or community settings changed. However, the
consistent presence of peer relationships and non-familial institutional agents, specifically in
community settings, facilitated access and successful post-secondary transitions for marginalized
students (Dowd et al., 2013; Museus & Neville, 2012; Schwartz et al., 2016). Museus and
Neville (2012) specifically determined students shared a positive experience with adult mentors
or institutional agents who shared common ground, offered holistic support, humanized the
educational experience, and were proactive in student success. Each of these characteristics,
coupled with institutional agents from similar cultural backgrounds of the students led to the
student’s post-secondary success.
When investigating the existing literature on the role of community social capital and its
influence on the socioeconomic advancement of opportunity youth, three conclusions may be
drawn. First, the lack of role models during early education hindered educational aspiration
(Ashtiani & Feliciano, 2018; Dowd et al., 2013; Schwartz et al., 2016). Second, institutional
agents were critical in encouraging opportunity youth to persist throughout college (Davis, 2007;
Palmer & Gasman, 2008). Finally, access to dedicated faculty and programs geared toward
racially minoritized student success influenced collegiate enrollment and completion (Dowd et
al., 2013; Stephan, 2013). Consistent with Yosso’s (2005) cultural wealth argument, the research
suggested institutional agents who are willing to recognize the value opportunity youth possessed

28
contributed to their educational and socioeconomic success. Although opportunity youth may
behold the tools, skills, and capital necessary to resist systemic challenges, not acknowledging
and supporting these characteristics at an individual and community level perpetuates systemic
inequities and sets opportunity youth further behind their privileged peers.
Mentoring Opportunity Youth
Mentorship enhances the social and professional networks of opportunity youth.
Research findings overwhelmingly demonstrated that mentorship is positively associated with a
mentee’s, the person being mentored, personal, educational, and career success (Herrera et al.,
2013). Mentorship is defined as the relationship between a trusted advisor, typically a non-
parental adult, and their protégé (Hunt & Michael, 1983; Keller & Pryce, 2010) or mentee, that
results in the mentee’s personal growth and socioeconomic development (Bruce & Bridgeland,
2014). The evidence highlighted that mentorship promoted long-term educational attainment
(Fruiht & Wray-Lake, 2013; Hurd et al., 2012), increased career promotion (Kay et al., 2009),
and grew the likelihood that mentees became mentors (Malmgren et al., 2010). This section will
review mentorship types, the effects of mentorship on opportunity youth’s education and
employment goal attainment, and the limitations of mentorship in oppressed communities of
color.
Mentorship and Socioeconomic Advancement for Opportunity Youth
Mentorship consists of two types, informal mentorship and formal mentorship. Informal
mentorship occurs when a non-parental adult enters the life of a young person and an informal
mentoring relationship is developed (Bruce & Bridgeland, 2014; Dang et al., 2014; Hurd &
Sellers, 2013). Contrarily, formal mentorship occurs in a structured manner as a result of
participating in a formal mentorship program (Bruce & Bridgeland, 2014). The researchers

29
argued while forming mentoring relationships may be beneficial, it is quality mentoring
relationships that yield positive outcomes for the mentee. Bruce and Bridgeland (2014) defined
quality mentorship as the relationships that resulted in the positive development of youth and
empowered them to reach their highest potential. However, one may question whether or not
opportunity youth of color have access to individuals that represent their career aspirations and
serve as informal mentors given the existing literature on the types of social networks available
in oppressed communities. Moreover, opportunity youth may not access high-quality mentorship
programming that would result in their educational and socioeconomic advancement that are
present in affluent communities.
Mentors are directly associated with a youth’s social network and have an essential role
in valuing the resilience and existing capital youth possess. Mentorship characteristics underpin
the quality of the mentoring relationship. In a meta-analysis of 73 mentoring programs, DuBois
et al. (2011) highlighted four characteristics of effective mentoring programs: these programs (a)
served youth who have been exposed to high-risk environments, (b) recruited mentors who had
educational or occupational backgrounds that met the goals of the program, (c) matched mentors
and youth with shared interests, and (d) provided agency support for mentors. The researchers
found mentoring programs positively affected development gains across multiple areas such as
social and academic development. Similarly, Hurd and Sellers (2014) noted positive academic
outcomes for Black students in mentoring programs were associated with mentors who had
relationships that were longer in duration, had frequent contacts, and higher levels of
involvement. Students of color who received mentorship increased their engagement and
attainment (Davis, 2007) and produced greater educational success (Erickson et al., 2009).

30
Beyond educational success, mentorship also offers favorable employment outcomes for
mentees and influences their career choice and success (Brown et al., 2007; DuBois et al., 2011;
Eesley & Wang, 2017; Kay et al., 2008; Robinson & Reio, 2012). The researchers found while
shared demographic characteristics are important, the attitudinal connections and time taken to
build trust were more effective, comparatively, in producing positive employment results for
mentees such as acceptance into their career of choice, higher earnings, or career promotions. In
instances where same-race connections or demographically similar dyads were measured, the
results showed enhanced social-emotional mentoring experiences (Davis, 2007; Reddick, 2011),
suggesting mentoring relationships where the mentor and mentee shared similar backgrounds,
either racial, cultural, or other, is an added benefit. Mentorship by and large is an accepted
intervention for young people to achieve positive life trajectories (DuBois et al., 2011).
However, it is appropriate to acknowledge existing limitations in the literature that suggest
demographic similarities in mentoring relationships are not as effective. Since same-race or
same-demographic mentorship is unlikely to occur in institutions where people of color are the
minority, more research is needed to understand the effects of mentors or institutional agents of
color and their mentees who share demographic backgrounds.
Limitations to Mentorship for Opportunity Youth
Although mentorship is widely accepted as shifting the life trajectory for youth,
particularly youth living in oppressed communities, some researchers suggested mentorship may
only generate short-term benefits. DuBois et al.’s (2011) meta-analysis also documented
challenges with mentoring programs citing mentored youth did experience positive social-
emotional and academic gains compared to non-mentored youth. However, the researchers
cautioned mentoring programs insufficiently measured the sustained benefit of mentored youth,

31
and argued positive gains for mentored youth were modest. Moreover, prominent mentoring
limitations included the lack of volunteer mentor availability (Bruce & Bridgeland, 2014),
attitudinal dissimilarities, lack of mentor experience (Straus et al., 2013), mentor or mentee
abandonment, cultural differences, and inadequate agency support (Spencer, 2007). Despite the
existing literature on the limitations of mentorship, literature about how to train mentors to value
to lived experiences of opportunity youth of color and gain essential skills to bridge cultural gaps
is scarce.
Trauma-Informed Practice
Trauma-informed practice is relatively new to the fields of sociology and psychology, but
has proved to be an effective mechanism to working with populations, such as opportunity youth,
experiencing high levels of individual or environmental stress and trauma (McKenzie-Mohr et
al., 2011; Reibschleger et al., 2015; West et al., 2014). Trauma-informed practice is traditionally
associated with clinical practices. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration
defined trauma-informed practice as the practitioner’s ability to recognize the effects of trauma,
understand that recovery is possible, and respond with procedures and practices that resist re-
traumatization (Abuse, 2014). Trauma-informed systems of care concentrate on acknowledging
traumatic experiences (Knight, 2015) and focusing on the social-emotional well-being of youth
that equips them with the tools to cope with and heal from those experiences (Reibschleger et al.,
2015). A bourgeoning body of research from trauma-informed practices is “healing-centered
engagement” (Ginwright, 2018, p. 3). Healing-centered engagement is a holistic approach to
working with oppressed populations that acknowledges trauma and healing as a collective
experience in an effort to foster holistic well-being (Ginwright, 2018). As mentoring programs

32
continue to target youth living in high-risk environments, the need for trauma-informed and
healing-centered mentorship will grow.
Since mentoring programs are generally volunteer-based, mentors may not have the
clinical background required to manage trauma as it arises, and trauma-informed training is
limited outside of the clinical setting. Donisch et al. (2016) found juvenile justice, mental health,
and educational providers sought foundational training on trauma-informed practices. The
researchers demonstrated youth providers are aware of the importance of trauma-informed
practice, but have varying experiences of how to implement. In addition to traditional mentoring
curricula, common recommendations for working with youth in a trauma-informed way included
incorporating trauma-informed education as a core part of training (Hodas, 2006; Ko et al.,
2008), allowing youth participation in the development of the curriculum (West et al., 2014),
monitoring vicarious traumatization (Cavanaugh, 2016), and recognizing youth strength and
promoting their resiliency (Hodas, 2006). The research argued one may be trained, but trauma-
informed practices also require recognition of cultural differences that may cause trauma and the
ability to associate with those differences.
Culturally Relevant Practices
Considering the cross-cultural interactions in mentoring relationships, cultural relevancy
centering the culture of the mentee improves the effects of mentor-mentee relationships (Davis,
2007; Reddick, 2011). Although there is not one definition, cultural competency is described as
an individuals, agencies, or system’s ability to understand, communicate with, and effectively
engage with people across cultures (Cross et al., 1989). Cultural competency has evolved, with
much debate, namely because the perspective of who should be competent is not related to nor
centers the culture of the target populations. Scholars, particularly those of color, have long

33
argued the need for subjects of study to share their own history, experiences, and cultures as
opposed to being told from the outsider perspective (Davis et al., 2010). This thinking continues
to raise awareness not only for how stories are told, but how programs are implemented, and
culture is acknowledged.
Scholars challenged the notion of mere competency and proposed a shift to cultural
relevancy. When services value the cultures of participant groups of color (Davis et al., 2010),
honor the attitudes and behaviors unique to each person, and customize services specific to each
culture (Barrio, 2000), it is assumed cultural relevance is achieved. The core enhancement of
cultural relevancy is the addition of centering the cultures of those served while rendering
services. Opportunity youth of color have an array of cultural experiences and practices, hence
the need for a mentor to value those experiences and adjust the services accordingly. Moore and
Toliver (2010) found Black faculty were more prone to support Black students in an effort to
increase Black student achievement especially while navigating challenges at predominantly
White institutions. The researchers concluded Black professors were uniquely positioned to
mitigate institutional racism, recognized their positions as mentors, and assumed responsibility
for providing additional support when Black students struggled. While same-race mentoring
relationships are mutually beneficial for the mentor and mentee, multi-racial relationships are
also mutually beneficial. Reddick (2012) discovered both Black and White faculty appropriately
mentored Black students at predominantly White institutions through shared student experiences
and past experiences of discrimination and isolation, respectively. The shared experiences are
what make mentoring relationships relevant and enable the centering of the culture of the
intended beneficiary, the youth.

34
The research overwhelmingly supports that mentorship leads to positive youth
development (Bruce & Bridgeland, 2014; DuBois et al., 2011). Moreover, there is a growing
potential for trauma-informed and culturally relevant mentorship practices that are advantageous
for mentors and mentees. This review will continue to explore a framework forging these
concepts that may dismantle the socioeconomic inequities opportunity youth of color experience.
Clark and Estes’ (2008) Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences’
Framework
This study utilized an adapted gap analysis as its conceptual framework. The Clark and
Estes’ (2008) Knowledge, Motivation and Organization (KMO) Gap Analysis is a systematic
approach that helps to assess and refine organizational goals and identify knowledge, motivation
and organizational influences and performance gaps. Clark and Estes (2008) concluded that
individuals need the appropriate knowledge, motivation and organizational tools to perform at an
optimal level and achieve organizational goals. The gap analysis is a six-step process that
includes setting organizational goals, defining organization-related performance gaps, identifying
presumed causes of gaps, validating and prioritizing those causes, recommending solutions, and
evaluating the results. Clark and Estes (2008) determined that causes for performance gaps are
related to three factors: knowledge, motivation and organizational influences.
Frequently, performance gaps are misdiagnosed because different individuals have
varying perceptions of causes. Since human perceptions are complex, it is likely that the
perceived organizational problems may vary among organizational stakeholders. Consequently,
unfitting solutions are offered for incorrect problems leading an organization into further
impairment (Clark & Estes, 2008). The gap analysis was designed to uncover misperceptions,

35
use data to identify accurate causes for performance gaps, and circumvent inappropriate
solutions resulting in an action-oriented implementation plan.
This study was designed as an exploratory study following the general steps of a gap
analysis. The study’s goal was to identify both assets and gaps that influenced the SIAs capacity
to support the goals of the Pay it Forward initiative and work with youth outside of their existing
networks. Knowledge and motivation influences, informed by Ladson-Billings’ (1995) CRP,
along with organizational influences that impacted stakeholder capacity were generated
according to context-specific and general learning and motivation literature. These influences are
presented next.
Social Impact Agent Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences
Utilizing the gap analysis framework, the study examined the knowledge and motivation
of the stakeholder group as well as the organizational influences that effected the organizational
goal. Krathwohl (2002) demonstrated four types of knowledge needed for optimal performance:
factual knowledge, conceptual knowledge, procedural knowledge, and metacognitive knowledge.
This study focused on how three of these knowledge types, conceptual, procedural, and
metacognitive, influenced the SIAs ability to perform trauma-informed and culturally relevant
quasi-mentorship. Motivational influences were also prominent in the framework, particularly
the intrinsic value, attainment value, utility value, and self-efficacy of the stakeholder group. The
study investigated the stakeholder group’s value for supporting opportunity youth, their
perception of themselves as SIAs, and their confidence in their ability to fulfill the stakeholder
goal. Finally, organizational influences were taken into consideration as an essential component
to implementing education- and employment-oriented quasi-mentorship. The study concentrated

36
specifically on the organization’s ability to build the capacity of SIAs to offer culturally relevant
education- and employment-oriented quasi-mentorship.
Knowledge Influences
While the research documents the benefits of social capital recognition on the
socioeconomic advancement of opportunity youth of color, there are knowledge influences
Social Impact Agents need specifically to ensure competency in mentorship that incorporates
trauma-informed and culturally relevant practices. The research highlighted effective mentorship
is performed when the mentoring relationship is consistent (Bruce & Bridgeland, 2014), the
mentor is aligned with the organizational goals (DuBois, 2011), and the mentor-mentee
relationship values cross-cultural interactions (Davis, 2007; Reddick, 2011). In an effort to
bridge the gaps between traditional and culturally relevant mentorship, it is important to assess
the knowledge and skills necessary to do so. This section discusses the conceptual, procedural,
and metacognitive knowledge needed to enhance the effectiveness of adult mentors.
Social Impact Agent Knowledge of Trauma-Informed and Culturally Relevant Mentoring
Practices
Conceptual knowledge is the relationship among factual elements and the complexities
within a larger system that allow them to function together (Krathwohl, 2002). Conceptual
knowledge is manifested in knowledge of principles and theories and their role in achieving an
organizational goal. Working with opportunity youth living in oppressed communities requires
one to understand and relate to the youth’s experiences. Due to the dearth of research on trauma-
informed and culturally relevant mentorship, the study adopted elements of these sociological
practices to suggest ways in which SIAs might work with opportunity youth to better provide
education- and employment-oriented quasi-mentorship.

37
Establishing purpose and values early on in the mentoring relationship leads to greater
outcomes for the youth. Mentoring relationships are built on trust and understanding, so when
problems arise mentors and mentees may develop feelings of frustration, disappointment, and
self-doubt (Rhodes et at., 2010). As a result, the researchers developed ethical principles to
enhance mentoring relationships, many of which are aligned with the culturally relevant and
trauma-informed characteristics previously discussed. Such principles include promoting the
wellbeing and safety of the young person. Due to the traumatic events opportunity youth are
likely to experience, the mentor is charged with acknowledging cultural differences and reducing
the potential for power inequities inherent in age and positionality variances that may cause
trauma. Furthermore, historical neglect may have generational effects; thus, effective mentors
should maintain a consistent and reliable relationship (Munson et al., 2010; Rhodes & DuBois,
2008). As prior research suggested, communities of color, particularly Black communities, have
experienced dishonesty and manipulation, so when mentoring an opportunity youth of color the
mentor is expected to maintain a trustworthy and committed relationship (Rhodes et al., 2009).
In addition to shared purpose and values, mentors may also develop a culture that fosters
trust and sustainability. Anastasia et al. (2012) defined several best practices that improved the
quality of the mentoring relationships, three of which are applicable to developing culturally
relevant mentoring practices. The first recommended practice for mentors is to respect the
youth’s family, class and culture. The researchers argued mentors should uplift the background
and culture of youth through support and modeling. The second recommended practice is to
respect individual outlook and attitudes. As previous research discussed (Barrio, 2000; Munson
et al., 2010; Rhodes et al., 2009), mentors should conduct activities consistent with the youth’s
aspirations and their developmental needs (Anastasia et al., 2012), not what the mentor thinks is

38
best. The third recommended practice is to build relationships through mutually enjoyable
activities. Such activities allow mentoring relationships to authentically grow. The recommended
practices are achievable through seeking support from the organization, peers, and external
sources.
Finally, mentors are expected to uplift justice and acknowledge the opportunity youth’s
worth. Since the backgrounds of mentors and youth are likely to vary in nature, the research
suggested mentors mitigate potential biases innate in their own backgrounds not aligned with the
youth’s choices (Munson et al., 2010; Rhodes et al., 2009). Mentors typically choose to serve in
such capacity because they want to inspire their mentee and help them achieve their goals
(DuBois et al., 2011). However, respecting the dignity of the young person and knowing how to
navigate cultural complexities without imposing personal beliefs or destroying the trust and
confidentiality of the stakeholders involved yield better results. The purpose of mentorship is to
promote the social wellbeing and safety of a young person while acknowledging that opportunity
youth possess the aspirational and social capital (Yosso, 2005) to excel in a racially conscious
society. It is the mentors’ responsibility to value that capital and leverage their existing capital so
that the youth has an equitable opportunity to educationally and economically thrive. The
aforementioned conceptual skills inform the procedural knowledge needed to implement
educational- and employment-oriented quasi-mentorship.
Social Impact Agent Ability to Provide Education- and Employment-Oriented Quasi-
Mentorship
Following conceptual knowledge, procedural knowledge influences performance.
Procedural knowledge is the foundation of knowing how to do something (Krathwohl, 2002).
For example, knowledge of content-specific skills and methods for implementation is procedural.

39
Successful mentoring relationships are ones that receive on-going monitoring and access to
resources for the duration of the relationship (DuBois et al., 2011). Specifically, the organization
hosting the mentoring program is charged with contacting each individual involved in the
mentoring relationship such as the mentor, mentee, and parents. Garringer et al. (2015) suggested
the organization provide mentors with relevant resources to mitigate challenges and host forums
for recognizing the work each person put into the relationship. Increased programmatic support
results in the longevity of mentor participation.
Coupled with implementation support, the organization may also offer programmatic
leadership and oversight. Leadership and oversight promote the scalability, sustainability, and
reliability of the program. Successful implementation relies on the organization having a clear
mission and the mentor understanding how their position contributes to fulfilling that mission
(Bruce & Bridgeland, 2014; DuBois et al., 2011; Garringer et al., 2015); thus, effective
mentorship practices align with the organization’s mission and goals. Furthermore, the
researchers argued evaluating the mentors’ performance and the overall program provides
opportunity for continuous improvement and ensuring the program is implemented with fidelity.
Accordingly, mentors are responsible for adhering to the policies and procedures and meeting the
programmatic benchmarks. Possessing foundational knowledge of the importance of building on
the social capital of opportunity youth, being cognizant of why oneself may elect to serve as a
mentor, and having the knowledge of how to effectively work with an individual outside of one’s
typical professional network may resolve performance gaps that hinder achieving the
organizational goal.

40
Social Impact Agent Effectiveness in Supporting Opportunity Youth
The final knowledge influence is the SIAs self-reflective process on their ability to
provided education- and employment-oriented quasi-mentorship to opportunity youth. This
practice is characterized as metacognitive knowledge. Krathwohl (2002) described metacognitive
knowledge as one’s awareness of their own knowledge and practices and how they use those
insights to adapt in any given situation. To effectively provide culturally relevant quasi-
mentorship adults may engage in a self-reflective practice that explores how they might improve
the relationship with the youth, build trust, and improve their practices as a mentor (Dutton et al.,
2018; Lucey & White, 2017).
Although limited literature exists on metacognitive practices targeted for mentoring
relationships, there are several self-reflective practices that mentor-like adults use that SIAs may
adopt to improve their performance while supporting opportunity youth. Lucey and White (2017)
concluded that compassionate and reflective mentoring processes between a mentor and their
mentee positively influenced culturally responsive teaching. The researchers found the reflective
practices examined in the study led to the mentor being more open, accepting change, and
balancing the distribution of power over the course of the relationship. Practicing self-reflection
may improve the quality of the mentoring relationship yielding positive results for the mentee
(Dutton et al., 2018; Rhodes & DuBois, 2008). Dutton et al. (2018) specifically determined that
critical self-reflection resulted in mentors making active changes that were aligned with the
values of the youth to improve the mentoring relationship. The practice of self-reflection not
only improved the mentoring relationship, but increased the mentors’ awareness of how they
wanted to serve the mentee. Conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive influences positively
affect how mentors engage with their mentees (Anastasia et al., 2012; Bruce & Bridgeland,

41
2014; Dutton et al., 2018; Garringer et al., 2015). Table 2 presents the three knowledge
influences suggested to successfully provide education- and employment-oriented quasi-
mentorship to opportunity youth of color.

Table 2
Social Impact Agent Knowledge Influences

Knowledge Type Assumed Knowledge Influence
Conceptual Knowledge of foundational mentorship practices when working
with opportunity youth
Understanding of trauma-informed and culturally relevant
approaches to working with opportunity youth of color
Procedural Ability to support opportunity youth in identifying their career
goals and create paths to achieve their education and
employment goals
Ability to implement practices and procedures of effective
mentorship
Metacognitive SIAs’ self-reflection on their effectiveness of providing
education- and employment-oriented quasi-mentorship for
opportunity youth

42
Motivational Influences
In addition to knowledge, motivation serves as an essential influence of performance.
Without the appropriate motivation from the stakeholders involved, the mentoring relationship is
less likely to result in the intended goal. Clark and Estes (2008) described motivation as what
influences an individual’s work and named three specific behavioral manifestations that may
enhance or interfere with one’s performance: active choice, persistence, and mental effort.
Active choice suggests a person chose to pursue and is actively working toward a specific goal;
whereas a person persists when they continually focus on achieving the goal despite distractions.
Finally, mental effort is associated with the amount of thought one puts into wanting to
accomplish a goal. These three facets of motivation lead to increased performance (Clark &
Estes, 2008). The following literature focuses on three motivation-related influences pertinent to
SIAs: their value for supporting opportunity youth achieve their goals, their perception of
serving as a SIA, and their confidence in doing so.
Social Impact Agent Value for Providing Education and Employment Oriented Quasi-
mentorship
The literature supports that mentors generally chose to serve as mentors because they
valued the relationship with their mentee and wanted to make a difference in a young person’s
life (Anastasia et al., 2012). Motivation researchers posited there are two characteristics that
undergird performance: one’s expectancy they can succeed at a task and their value for engaging
with a task (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002; Pintrich, 2003; Simpkins et al., 2012; Wigfield, 1994).
The researchers suggested expectancy is connected with one’s persistence and mental effort. For
example, when Fia sought her goal of becoming a homeowner she actively chose to pursue
homeownership and possessed the knowledge, remained persistent, and exerted the mental effort

43
resulting in her achieving her goal. The added benefit of an aunt with the financial means to
support her increased her persistence. Rose, on the other hand, made an active choice and tried to
remain persistent, but could not expect financial assistance from a nonexistent network, thus,
experienced diminished mental effort and lost her home.
Value is closer related to making an active choice that increases one’s motivation
(Pintrich, 2003). As the research argued, the expectancy and value placed on a task motivates
one to want to pursue their goal. Higher levels of value influence an individual’s active choice
and are operationalized with task value beliefs. Because of the limited research focused on
culturally relevant mentorship practices, this review of literature focuses on the facets of
mentorship, generally, that contribute to three motivational constructs including intrinsic value,
attainment value, and self-efficacy.
Intrinsic Value. Intrinsic value is based on the enjoyment one feels when doing a task
that is personally valuable and meaningful to them (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002; O’Neil & Sugden,
1992; Pintrich, 2003). The literature is consistent that people elect to be mentors because they
believe they can positively influence the lives of their mentee (Bruce & Bridgeland, 2014;
DuBois et al., 2011; Garringer, 2015). Regarding mentoring youth of color, particularly Black
youth, the literature concluded that mentors of color put more effort into serving as mentors for
youth of color, were engaged for longer periods of time, and prioritized the success of the young
person who may not otherwise achieve the same level of success without a mentor (Moore &
Toliver, 2010; Reddick, 2012). These relationships specifically resulted in the youth’s ability to
achieve their career goals. Given this example, one may argue that active choice, persistence, and
mental effort were present, increasing the value mentors placed on their mentoring relationship
and the fulfillment they received as a result.

44
Despite finding enjoyment in serving the young person, the benefits mentors personally
gain varies. Grima et al. (2014) concluded the psychosocial aspects of mentorship were more
closely associated with benefits for the mentor than the actual career support for the mentee.
Moreover, informal mentorship was perceived to be a more worthwhile experience for the
mentor compared to formal mentorship. This conclusion suggests that while some mentors
engage to enhance their professional development, the personal connections and development
gained holds more importance. As the evidence highlighted, mentorship is a mutually benefitting
relationship. For the mentor in particular, they are likely to grow their personal learning (van
Ginkel et al., 2015), develop a deeper perspective of their role in society (Reddick et al., 2012),
and find rewards in the social aspects of mentorship (Grima et al., 2014).
The application of intrinsic value is relevant to the proposed stakeholder group of study
in three ways. First, this study aimed to understand why individuals volunteered to serve as
Social Impact Agents (SIAs). Second, as previously mentioned the recognition of the existing
cultural wealth opportunity youth possess is absent; thus, SIAs had the potential to leverage their
existing social capital to shift the dominant narrative. Finally, this study intended to understand
why SIAs value supporting opportunity youth; so, it is appropriate to assess their intrinsic value
accordingly.
Attainment Value. In addition to intrinsic value, attainment value is also relevant when
serving as a mentor. Attainment value relates to the value of a task when it comes to one’s own
identity (Pintrich, 2003). Related thereto, mentors choose to serve in such capacity because they
share identity characteristics with the mentee (Reddick, 2011), learn more about themselves as a
person (Reddick et al., 2012; van Ginkel et al., 2015), and the practice is mutually benefiting to
their career (Ghosh & Reio, 2013). Attainment value is also related to why one decides to engage

45
in a task (Pintrich, 2003). The research supports that mentors engage in the activity because they
want to support mentees from similar backgrounds (Moore & Toliver, 2010; Reddick, 2011).
The researchers found that Black professionals were likelier to mentor Black youth than non-
Black youth because they could help those youth navigate oppressive and racially biased systems
such as predominantly White institutions. As Black professionals who resisted the obstacles
people of color experienced in predominantly White institutions, they were able to model
practices and offer guidance that contributed to the mentees’ success.
Attainment value remains relevant because mentoring opportunity youth residing in
oppressed communities, who may or may not have cultural differences, may shape the SIAs’
perspective of their own identity. The research supports that mentors value being able to help
youth from similar backgrounds succeed (Moore & Toliver, 2010; Reddick, 2011). Therefore,
when engaging in mentorship and reflecting on the practice, SIAs may be able to reflect on the
type of person they want to be in society and how serving in such a capacity is helping them to
do that. This study analyzed how SIAs prioritized supporting the youth they work with and how
they actively chose, or not, to give their best when doing so.
Utility Value. In addition to attainment value, mentors also serve in such capacity for
their personal gain, what researchers identify as utility value. Harackiewicz et al. (2016) defined
utility value as one’s prioritization of a task for accomplishing future goals. While mentors want
to positively influence youth from similar ethnic backgrounds, a substantial number of people
also mentor for the career benefits. In a meta-analysis of career benefits for mentors, Ghosh and
Reio (2013) concluded mentors experienced more career success than non-mentors. Career
success included job satisfaction and performance, organizational commitment, reduced turnover
intent, and career promotions. Furthermore, the researchers determined mentors closer in age to

46
their mentee found the mentoring relationship assisted both stakeholders with achieving their
goals. In line with the components of motivation, the literature concluded if benefits are
exchanged in the mentoring relationship, then the mentor is likelier to stay in that role.
Serving as a mentor has not only shown to increase goal achievement of mentors, but also
have positive effects on their social-emotional state. Beltman and Schaeben (2012) found that
mentors in higher education institutions experienced personal growth, gained confidence, and
took pride in serving as a role model for their mentees. The personal gain mentors received as a
result of serving as mentors contributed to their longevity in that role. The mutual exchanges and
benefits to the SIAs that resulted, or not, from the Pay it Forward initiative are discussed in the
findings and results section of this study.
Self-efficacy. While intrinsic, attainment, and utility values contribute to one’s
motivation to want to be and remain a mentor, one’s confidence in their ability to support a youth
also contributes to their motivation. Regarding culturally relevant mentorship, the
aforementioned literature (Barrio, 2000; Davis, 2010; Davis, 2007; Moore & Toliver, 2010;
Reddick, 2012; Reddick, 2011) described best mentorship practices as one’s where the mentee
may have resisted high-risk environments and the mentor could relate to the youth’s cultural
experiences. Consequently, the levels of a mentor’s self-efficacy influence their skills and ability
to serve an opportunity youth of color. Bandura (1994) defined self-efficacy as a person’s belief
in their organic talents to develop influence over events that shape their lives. Self-efficacy is
specifically related to mental effort and determines how people motivate themselves to act.
Therefore, an individual is likelier to be an effective mentor if they feel confident in their skills
and ability to perform the task.

47
Individuals who believe in their existing talents make effective mentors. In addition to
adequate training, confidence is associated with higher levels of mentor satisfaction and
performance (Dutton et al., 2017; Martin & Sifers, 2012; Raposa et al., 2016). The researchers
posited greater self-efficacy led to greater perceived successes for the mentor. Moreover, the
researchers concluded self-efficacy coupled with previous experience working with youth living
in high-risk environments mitigated negative effects of those environments and produced better
mentoring outcomes. Self-efficacy was significant for the SIAs for the following reasons: (a)
they supported youth who have career aspirations; (b) they supported youth who reside in high-
risk environments and in turn may experience environmental stress; (c) the goal of the program
is for SIAs to connect the youth they work with to their professional networks so they may
achieve their career goals. Together, intrinsic value, attainment value, utility value, and self-
efficacy are four task value constructs that may increase an SIAs active choice, persistence, and
mental effort to effectively provide culturally relevant education- and employment-oriented
quasi-mentorship.
Table Three (3) presents the abovementioned motivational constructs shown to
successfully provide education- and employment-oriented quasi-mentorship to opportunity youth
of color. The first motivational construct is intrinsic value. The second motivational construct is
attainment value. The third motivational construct is utility value, and the final is self-efficacy.

48
Table 3
Motivation Influences

Motivation Type Assumed Motivation Influence
Intrinsic Value Value for supporting youth in achieving their career goals.
Attainment Value Perception of being a mentor to opportunity youth of color as a part
of their personal identity.
Utility Value Value for serving as a mentor to support achieving their personal
goals as mentors.
Self-Efficacy Level of confidence in their social networks and their ability to
support opportunity youth.

Organizational Influences
Following knowledge and motivation, the third component needed to achieve optimal
performance and organizational goals is organizational influences. Lack of efficient and effective
organizational processes and tools create performance gaps. According to Clark and Estes
(2008), knowledge, skills and motivation require specific organizational processes and
procedures for successful operation. Additionally, material resources are required to achieve
organizational goals. Insufficient processes and material resources are compatible with an
organizational culture that is not conducive to meeting the desired levels of performance.
Cultural models are the shared perceptions of what should be valued or circumvented in order to
achieve a goal; cultural settings are the familiarities that bring people together to accomplish a
goal (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001) such as public employee acknowledgement or a supervisor
inviting new employees to shadow meetings. Building on cultural models and settings, this
section will review three organizational influences related to implementing education- and

49
employment-oriented quasi-mentorship: effective training, Social Impact Agent development,
and evaluative processes.
Effective Training for Education and Employment-Oriented Quasi-Mentorship
Organizational goal achievement begins with first knowing what the goal is and second,
being aware of the intended organizational methods to achieve that goal. Clark and Estes (2008)
determined that all training does not result in organizational change and organizations that
implement negative change “waste time and money and settle for hit-or-miss results,” (p. 6).
Rather, effective training influences peoples learning. When people are able to collaborate on the
cultural settings, such as implementation changes within the organization, that leads to program
improvement (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001) and foster a culture of continuous learning (Clark
& Estes, 2008; Schwandt & Marquardt, 2000), they are likelier to achieve the organizational
goal. Similar practices are relevant for implementing effective training for prospective mentors.
Effective mentorship begins with training (Hunt & Michael, 1983); a core part of that training is
defining program policies, procedures, and practices.
Successful mentoring programs begin with finite expectations for the mentor, mentee,
family of the mentee, and the organization. According to an extensive evaluation of the
nationally recognized program MENTOR, there are six standards necessary for the effective
practice of mentoring: recruitment, screening, training, matching and initiating, monitoring and
support, and closure (Garringer et al., 2015). Particularly, the researchers suggested mentoring
programs recruit mentors who meet the goals of the program as well as are committed to fully
participate. Moreover, it is suggested prospective mentors receive pre-match training or are
oriented to the program goals and expectations, ethical and safety issues, risk management,
developing positive relationships, and how cultural or demographic characteristics may affect the

50
mentoring relationship. While the knowledge of social capital development supports an adult’s
capacity to work with youth, awareness of bridging the procedural information with conceptual
understanding of opportunity youth’s experiences is mutually beneficial to the youth and adult
(Munson et al., 2010).
Effective and consistent learning leads to organizational improvement. The goal of the
Pay if Forward initiative is that by June 2021 100% of SIAs will provide education- and
employment-oriented quasi-mentorship for opportunity youth, resulting in their growing
professional networks and achieving their career goals. As an emerging cultural setting
(Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001), the SIAs should be familiar with the components of the goals
and the organization should set clear expectations for achieving the goal as a core practice and
essential element of program quality (Bruce & Bridgeland, 2014; DuBois et al., 2011). Similar to
changes in teaching curriculum, mentor training should evolve over the life of the program
which is achievable though ongoing organizational support (Anastasia et al., 2012). Although
literature on culturally relevant mentorship practices is scarce, the research is consistent that
initial and ongoing training influences program improvement and effectiveness that lead to better
outcomes for the mentee (Anastasia et al., 2012; DuBois et al., 2011; Pennanen et al., 2016).
Despite the applicability of general mentorship practices to cultural relevancy, the benefit
to collaboratively developing cultural settings, particularly at the start of a program, is that
training can be customized for Pay it Forward. Contrary to the research-based arguments for
effective mentorship, SIAs do not spend a significant amount of time with the youth they are
supporting. The expectation is one hour per month; hence, the program is best characterized as
quasi-mentorship. Aligned with mentor training best practices (Anastasia et al., 2012; Pennanen
et al., 2016), the organization may provide ongoing training and resources for SIAs to maximize

51
the time they do spend with the youth so that they might achieve the organizational goal. In order
to engage in continuous learning, SIAs may need constant opportunities to learn and the material
resources to successfully support the youth that they work with. The findings and results section
will discuss the SIAs experiences with the training HOPE SF provides.
Social Impact Agent Development for Education and Employment Oriented Quasi-mentorship
In addition to training, mentors also need opportunities to build relationships with and
learn from peers and the material resources that support them in implementing the program.
Mentorship practices have evolved overtime (Garringer et al., 2015; Rhodes & DuBois, 2008).
For an organization to offer development opportunities consistent with the evolving practices
suggests it is adaptable to environmental circumstances. Costanza et al. (2016) argued
organizations with adaptive cultures are more sustainable. Specifically, the researchers
concluded organizations that are willing to change are ones that reduce potential threats, increase
commitment to assessing and evaluating performance, and develop an action-oriented
environment. Moreover, when organizations offer material resources, what Clark and Estes
(2008) characterized as job aids, they enhance the knowledge and skills of the individuals tasked
with accomplishing the goal. Development opportunities and resources are positively correlated
with what the literature identified as best practices when mentoring.
Positive mentoring relationships occur when the mentor understands what the
expectations are as well as which approaches and practices are effective (Pennanen et al., 2016;
Rhodes & DuBois, 2008). Development opportunities in the form of learning exchanges with
other mentors, ongoing organizational support, and material resources such as guidebooks may
increase mentorship effectiveness. In order for Pay it Forward to have successful
implementation, in accordance with the research, the participating SIAs needed opportunities to

52
grow their learning and exchange ideas to improve their mentoring practice. Since the
stakeholder goal is to provide education- and employment- oriented quasi-mentorship, the
organization should model and provide SIAs with similar support. This study explored the SIAs
experiences with the types of learning spaces and resources HOPE SF offered in order for them
to provide education- and employment-oriented quasi-mentorship to opportunity youth of color.
Evaluating Education and Employment Oriented Quasi-mentorship
Improving organizational performance through evaluation is “the only way to determine
the connections between performance gaps, improvement programs, and cost-effectiveness”
(Clark & Estes, 2008, p. 125). Upon identifying the organizational goal and implementing the
necessary changes to achieve the goal it is important to evaluate if those changes benefitted or
prevented program improvement (Kezar, 2001). Clark and Estes (2008) described evaluation as a
way to make connections between performance gaps and improvement, assess program impact,
and create cost-effectiveness. One form of evaluating improvements is to align planned changes
with performance measures. Langley et al. (2009) suggested various forms of data collection
improve organizational learning. As a result, for successful improvement organizations require
defined performance measures, a system for collecting the associated data, and a collaborative
process for evaluating those measures inclusive of participant feedback.
Evaluation is often overlooked for fear of negative results (Clark & Estes, 2008),
however, practicing program evaluation improves program implementation. Particularly,
evaluating implementation supports the expansion, sustainability, and reliability of mentoring
services. When analyzing and evaluating effectiveness of mentorship program evaluations,
DuBois et al. (2011) and Garringer et al. (2015) identified four prominent characteristics. The
first characteristic is that there are clear performance indicators and benchmarks. As previously

53
mentioned, performance measures should be clearly defined and aligned with the goal of the
program so mentors and mentees know what is measured and how it is measured. The second
characteristic is that feedback is inclusive of all stakeholders. To mitigate potential bias, mentors,
mentees, family members, and program support staff should be offered an opportunity to provide
feedback. Inclusive feedback allows for the organization to learn different perspectives of what is
going well and what needs improvement. The third characteristic requires organizations use
instruments that are valid and reliable (Clark & Estes, 2008). Consistent with Clark and Estes’
(2008) argument for valid and reliable evaluations, mentoring programs not only need to collect
consistent information (reliability), but measure what is intended and meaningful to the program
(validity). The fourth characteristic is to share the results with the stakeholder groups. The
purpose of data collection is not to hold onto the information, but to share the results for the
purposes of scaling the program, raising additional funds, and sharing the outcomes with the
stakeholders. As a data-driven organization, the evaluation and feedback practices HOPE SF
implements are essential to the success of Pay it Forward. This study investigated the existing
performance measures and evaluative processes that Pay it Forward used to appraise the
performance of the SIAs. Table 4 reflects the three previously explained organizational
influences. The first organizational influence is effective training. The second influence is
offering the tangible tools to successfully implement the initiative. The third influence is creating
a culture of evaluation for program improvement.

54
Table 4
Organizational Influences
Organizational Influence Type Assumed Organizational Influences
Cultural Setting: Effective Training The Mayor’s Office (HOPE SF) needs to provide
Social Impact Agents with effective training and
professional development to support youth.
Cultural Setting: Material Resources The Mayor’s Office (HOPE SF) needs to provide
Social Impact Agents with learning exchange
opportunities and material resources to effectively
work with youth in support of achieving the
organizational goal.
Cultural Model: Evaluative Process The Mayor’s Office needs to implement concrete
performance measures and a culture of feedback to
track the progress of the Social Impact Agents and the
youth they serve as well as improve the program.
Conceptual Framework: Culturally Relevant Pedagogy Effects on KMO Influences when
Implementing Quasi-Mentorship
Previous sections reviewed the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences
related to Social Impact Agents providing opportunity youth with culturally relevant education-
and employment-oriented quasi-mentorship. This section presents a conceptual framework that
outlines the intersections of each of the influences, anchoring knowledge and motivation in
culturally relevant pedagogy, as they relate to 100% of Social Impact Agents providing
education- and employment-oriented quasi-mentorship for opportunity youth, resulting in their
growing professional networks and achieving their career goals. A conceptual framework is a
constructed system of assumptions, expectations, and theories that may support achieving the
organizational goal (Maxwell, 2013). The conceptual framework served as an explorative
roadmap for the study.

55
An essential component of the conceptual framework is the expected influence of
culturally relevant pedagogy on knowledge and motivation. Ladson-Billings (1995) articulated
CRP as a theoretical framework that identifies specific practices that educators, and adults alike,
may implement to effectively support youth living in oppressed communities to acknowledge
their own cultural assets. The researcher challenged practitioners to reexamine the way they
adapt to student cultures as opposed to suggesting something was wrong with the student. Given
the ambiguity of culture, the intention of CRP deteriorated over time. Following several
adaptations of CRP, Ladson-Billings (2014) offered an evolved explanation that argued for the
amplification of embedding and sustaining culture into teaching practices coupled with the
ability to relate to the youth’s culture. The pedagogical framework informs how teachers learn
from youth and adapt their teaching practices accordingly. This study scrutinized how culturally
relevant pedagogy informed the knowledge and motivation of the SIAs, if at all, and its influence
on achieving the stakeholder goal.
Figure 1 depicts the effects of the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences
on Social Impact Agents and achieving the stakeholder goal. The column furthest to the left
outlines the culturally relevant practices needed for SIAs to deliver effective support to
opportunity youth. These practices include acknowledging environmental effects on youth
engagement and attitudes, centering the well-being and experiences of youth, and valuing the
unique cultures of youth and adapting accordingly. As discussed in the literature, CRP practices
require one to recognize, value, and share in the youth’s experiences. The two arrows emerging
from CRP show that it will inform both knowledge and motivation (K and M) influences. CRP
informs knowledge and motivation because these shape the why and how individuals choose to

56
serve in the SIA role. The conceptual framework fills the culturally relevant practices currently
absent in traditional mentoring relationships, but essential to serving opportunity youth of color.

Figure 1
Conceptual framework: Cultural Relevant Pedagogy Effects on KMO Influences when
Implementing Quasi-mentorship

The second column outlines the knowledge and motivation (K and M) influences. The
conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive influences inform the tangible and intangible skills
Culturally Relevant
Pedagogy
Practices to
improve SIA
implementation
and connection
with youth:
•Acknowledge
environmental
effects on youth
•Center well-being
and experiences of
youth
•Value the unique
cultures of youth
and adapt in
experience
K & M Influences
Knowledge Influences:
•Conceptual: Trauma-informed and
culturally relevant approaches
•Procedural: Support youth create paths to
achieve their career goals
•Procedural: Practices and procedures of
effective mentorship
•Metacognitive: Self-reflection on their
effectiveness
Motivational Influences:
•Intrinsic Value: Value supportnig
opportunity youth
•Attainment Value: Mentoring as a part of
personal identity
•Utility Value: Mentoring for professiaonal
benefit
•Self-efficacy: Confidence in mentoring
Mentor Effects
Youth Outcomes:
•Socioeconomic
Advancement
•Expanded professional
networks
•Education and
employment goal
identification
•Career path creation
•Access to career
resources
Stakeholder Goal:
By 2021 100% of
Social Impact Agents
will provide
education- and
employment-
oriented quasi-
mentorship for
opportunity youth
resulting in their
growing professional
networks and
achieving their
career goals.
Organizational Influences:
• Cultural Settings
o Effective training and professional development
o Learning exchange opportunities and material resources
• Cultural Model
o Implement concrete performance measures and a culture of
feedback to track the progress

57
and tools needed to offer effective education- and employment-oriented support to youth.
Intrinsic value, attainment value, utility value, and self-efficacy inform why SIAs choose to
continue in their role and are the intangible skills needed to achieve the organizational goal.
Directly below the CRP and K and M influences are the organizational influences.
Organizational practices are rooted in organizational culture. Thus, the ability for SIAs to receive
the knowledge needed to implement CRP practices and their decision to choose to serve, remain
persistent, and exert the mental effort relies on the organization’s cultural settings and models,
hence the two arrows pointing to the CRP and K and M influences. The CRP, K and M, plus
organizational influences lead to the intended youth outcomes and the overall organizational
goal. This study examined if the concepts charted resulted in the increased capacity for Social
Impact Agents to provide education- and employment-oriented quasi-mentorship to opportunity
youth so that they may build their professional networks, identify their career goals, and access
the resources necessary to achieve those goals.
Summary
This chapter offered a review of the relevant literature and a conceptual framework that
navigated the study. The chapter started with describing the historical context for why
communities of color, particularly Black communities, experience de-valued social capital
compared to their affluent, predominantly White, counterparts and its contribution to the growing
racial wealth gap. The literature then discussed contemporary access to wealth and the racial
disparities underpinning prominent wealth building engines: post-secondary education, income
and employment, homeownership, and access to financial capital. The review detailed how
social connections embedded in White-dominant culture fuel each of these engines. The review
segued into the various types of social capital and how each contributes to socioeconomic

58
advancement for opportunity youth of color. Examining promising practices for mentorship
followed coupled with the limitations to mentorship including trauma-informed and culturally
relevant practices.
After exploring the literature on building wealth, expanding social capital, and mentoring
opportunity youth, this chapter introduced the theoretical and conceptual framework that directed
this study. This study used Ladson-Billings (2014, 1995) culturally relevant pedagogy to inform
Clark and Estes (2008) knowledge, motivation, and organizational gap analysis. The knowledge
influences included factual, conceptual, and procedural influences. The motivational influences
included intrinsic value, attainment value, utility value, and self-efficacy. Last, the organizational
influences included effective training for SIAs, availability of mentor development and material
resources, and a culture of evaluation. Finally, this chapter introduced the conceptual framework
that charted the effects of culturally relevant pedagogy on the knowledge and motivation
influences and how organizational culture supports the practice of each. These concepts together
are expected to result in 100% of Social Impact Agents providing education- and employment-
oriented quasi-mentorship to opportunity youth, resulting in their growing professional networks
and achievement of their career goals.

59
Chapter Three: Methodology
Chapter Three explains the methodology used to conduct this research study. The
purpose of this study was to explore the degree to which Pay it Forward is able to meet its goal
of ensuring that by June 2021 100% of SIAs are providing education- and employment-oriented
quasi-mentorship to opportunity youth of color, resulting in their increased professional networks
and achieving their career goals. Although the intent of PIF was for participants and SIAs to
connect in person as an evidenced-based best practice, the Novel Coronavirus, COVID-19,
eliminated that possibility. On March 13
th
, 2020 the United States declared a national emergency
in response to the presence of COVID-19 (Federal Register, 2020). Three days later, San
Francisco Mayor London Breed issued a public health order requiring residents to stay at home,
which resulted in schools shutting down, offices closing, and leisure travel being cancelled
(Mayors Press Office, 2020). COVID-19 caused an abrupt shift in the way in which people
connected from in-person to a new virtual realm. These influences are discussed in the findings
and results section of this study.
At the same time one was learning to navigate a growing global health pandemic, Black
people were also confronting a racial pandemic. On the same day the United States declared a
national health emergency, Louisville police fatally shot 26-year-old Breonna Taylor, a Black
woman. While Taylor’s death caused national protests, the May 25
th
murder of George Floyd, an
unarmed Black man, at the knees of Minneapolis police sparked an international outcry against
police killing unarmed Black people (Dreyer et al., 2020). The Black Lives Matter movement
refutes anti-Black racism and demands the valuing and protection of Black people (Garza, 2014).
COVID-19 and the killing of Taylor and Floyd served as a backdrop for this research and Pay it

60
Forward, an effort to illuminate the brilliance that exists within opportunity youth of color and
dismantle the systems that expect them to become another Breonna Taylor or George Floyd.
Amidst the dual health and racial pandemics, this study concentrated on the SIAs’
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences related to their ability to provide
education- and employment-oriented quasi-mentorship, their understanding of effectively
supporting opportunity youth identify their career goals, and their knowledge and motivation
related to granting youth access to resources so that they can achieve their career goals.
Additionally, the study investigated organizational gaps that hindered achieving the stakeholder
goal. This chapter will provide an overview of the methodology, the data collection and analysis
plans, and the ethics and role of the researcher.
Research Questions
Related to providing education- and employment-oriented quasi-mentorship for
opportunity youth of color, the following research questions directed this study:
1. What is the Social Impact Agents’ knowledge and motivation related to providing
education- and employment-oriented quasi-mentorship for opportunity youth?
a. What factors do Social Impact Agents prioritize when building relationships with
opportunity youth and connecting them to their professional networks?
2. How does HOPE SF’s own organization support or hinder the Social Impact Agents’
capacity to provide one-on-one quasi-mentorship?
Overview of Methodology
This mixed methods study implemented three approaches to answer the research
questions: document analysis, a survey, and interviews. Document analysis (Creswell &
Creswell, 2018) is the process of reviewing existing documentation for the purposes of

61
answering the research questions. For the purposes of this study, the documents reviewed were
internal to Pay it Forward. A document analysis was used to inspect how the SIAs were matched
with their mentee, the training materials and resources made available, and any methods used to
measure initiative progress.
In addition to document analysis, this study collected quantitative data using a survey, a
set of questions used to gather data (Robinson & Leonard, 2019). The survey items were meant
to answer both research questions and specifically, collect information on the motivation- and
organizational-related influences. The survey assessed the SIAs’ motivation for serving in a
mentor capacity and their experiences with HOPE SF, the primary organization of focus. The
survey responses revealed the SIAs’ reactions related to the motivation and organizational
influences outlined in the conceptual framework.
Finally, in addition to the document analysis and survey, the use of interviews yielded
qualitative results. Surveys offer one-dimensional data; for example, there is limited space and
opportunity to gain a full understanding of a respondent’s opinions and perceptions of their own
motivation with a survey. However, interviews provide an opportunity for the researcher to ask
follow-up questions in order to get more detail from the research participants (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). The interviews expounded on both research questions with a particular focus on
the SIAs knowledge of providing education- and employment-oriented quasi-mentorship to
opportunity youth of color. Table 5 outlines the two research questions and the correlating data
collection methods.

62
Table 5
Data Methods and Sources
Research Questions Document
Analysis
Quantitative
Survey
Qualitative
Interview
What is the Social Impact
Agents’ knowledge and
motivation related to
providing education- and
employment-oriented quasi-
mentorship for opportunity
youth?
Existing initiative
material including
orientation
materials, training
resources, progress
measures
23 items to
assess
knowledge and
motivation-
related
influences
13 items to assess
knowledge- and
motivation-related
influences; 7
participants
How does HOPE SF’s own
organization support or
hinder the Social Impact
Agents’ capacity to provide
one-on-one quasi-
mentorship?
Existing initiative
progress measures
and feedback
mechanisms
6 items to assess
organizational-
related
influences
3 items to assess
knowledge- and
motivation-related
influences; 7
participants

Data Collection, Instrumentation and Analysis Plan
This study executed three data collection methods to understand the knowledge,
motivation and organizational influences related to SIAs offering education- and employment-
oriented quasi-mentorship to opportunity youth of color. The first data collection method was
document analysis. Upon passing the Institutional Review Board, I performed a detailed review
of documents relevant to the research questions. At the time of the survey and interview
administration, November 2020, Pay it Forward was halfway through its pilot year. The second
data collection method, survey, was administered shortly after the document analysis. The
anonymous survey was distributed to all 24 of the Social Impact Agents participating in Pay it
Forward. Although the survey was anonymous, respondents had an option to identify themselves
if they were willing to participate in the last data collection method, interviews. To ensure a

63
diverse group of respondents, interviewees identified their education levels ranging from non-
degree bearing to professional degree holders. Each of these data collection methods combined
offered a full picture of potential gaps or promising practices for offering education- and
employment-oriented quasi-mentorship.
Document Analysis
Document analysis is the process of reviewing existing documentation for the purposes of
data collection (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Documents provide predominately qualitative data
that allow the researcher to interpret and give meaning to communications, existing protocols,
and policies and procedures for the purposes of answering the research questions (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). I had access to the relevant Pay it Forward documents that were used to train the
SIAs and evaluate the organizations level of support for the SIAs ability to provide education-
and employment-oriented quasi-mentorship.
Data Collection Procedures
The document analysis was the first form of data collection and occurred in a three-step
process including determining the relevancy of the documents, reviewing for document accuracy
and authenticity, and creating a system for coding the documents (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
The analyzed documents were stored in a virtual organizational folder and took approximately
three weeks to analyze. The first step of the analysis determined the relevancy of the documents
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Provided the aforementioned knowledge and organizational
influences, it was relevant to review documents related to the Social Impact Agents’ match
methods, training materials, and mechanisms for receiving feedback. The second step of the
document analysis was to review the documents for accuracy and authenticity. Merriam and
Tisdell (2016) argued that the investigator is responsible for verifying the documents, the reasons

64
the documents were produced, and the conditions under which they were produced. Thus, I used
these suggested questions as a guide to determine accuracy and authenticity of the selected
documents.
Data Analysis
In order to analyze the data collected from the document analysis, I created a descriptive
thematic coding system (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The document
analysis protocol is presented in Appendix A. During the document analysis, I answered
questions such as what types of documents exist, how the documents are presented to the
participants, and how is feedback incorporated into the documents. Copies of the documents
were obtained to conduct the analysis. After organizing and preparing the data for analysis, I
coded the documents. Utilizing ATLAS.ti, an application used to systematically code qualitative
data, I developed a descriptive thematic coding system (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016) that streamlined the data for the analysis phase of the study.
Creswell and Creswell (2016) referenced Tesch’s (1990) eight step coding process; I
applied an adapted version of this process. First, the documents were reviewed for the
underpinning meaning and the purposes of identifying the general topic. Second, descriptions
were provided for the categories and themes the documents were analyzed. Third, similar topics
were grouped and organized according to the relative categories and themes. Fourth, those
themes were mapped to the associated knowledge and organizational influences. Finally, the
coding and categorization of the document analysis was used for the purposes of linking the data
to the variables outlined in the research questions and the study’s conceptual framework, and to
identify any gaps that hindered achieving the organizational goal. The document analysis
provided insights into the organizational settings inquired in the research questions.

65
Survey
In addition to the document analysis, a survey was administered as a form of data
collection. According to Robinson and Leonard (2019), a survey is an instrument composed of
questions used to collect data. Surveys may be administered to a select group of respondents or
an entire population. For the purposes of this study, a survey was used to measure the motivation
and organizational influences of the Social Impact Agents. The responses to the survey provided
insights into the SIAs’ motivation related to providing education- and employment-oriented
quasi-mentorship and the organization’s ability to build the capacity of the SIAs to achieve the
stakeholder goal.
Participating Stakeholders
The survey participants were the SIAs participating in the Pay it Forward pilot. Social
Impact Agents are organizational leaders, predominantly of color, who serve as Executive
Directors, General Managers, Senior Advisors, and manage teams within their respective
organizations. SIAs possess control over institutional resources, and are positioned to contribute
to an opportunity youth’s socioeconomic growth either monetarily, by sharing their time and
talent, or through building the youth’s professional networks. The SIAs are intended to help
implement the Pay it Forward initiative and ensure the programmatic goals are met and work
specifically with the youth participants to assist them reach their education and employment
goals.
HOPE SF, the oversight organization, intentionally selected individuals who serve in
managerial or supervisorial roles in their organizations, self-identified as having an expansive
professional network, and expressed the ability to broaden the professional networks of
opportunity youth in support of them achieving their career goals. At the time the study

66
launched, there were 24 Social Impact Agents participating in Pay it Forward. Forty-eight
percent identified as male and 52% percent identified as female; 55% percent identified as Black,
15% Asian; Hispanic, Pacific Islander, and multi-racial were each 8%, 3% were White, and 5%
were unknown. The survey was administered as a census to all 24 Social Impact Agents,
however, 13 responded. A description of the survey respondents is provided in the findings and
results section.
Instrumentation
The survey instrument was adapted from the University of Wisconsin-Madison Institute
for Clinical and Translational Research (UWICTR) pre- and post-survey for mentors for pre-
medical students (Pfund et al., 2014). The UWICTR survey was composed of 23 items and five
sections; the sections included professional background, mentoring background and training,
mentoring skills, training satisfaction, and demographics. UWICTR administers this survey
before training occurs and after training occurs. The instrument is made up of open- and closed-
ended questions and Likert-type items (Robinson & Leonard, 2019). This tool was selected for
its assessment of an individual’s knowledge, skills, motivation to mentor, and their satisfaction
with the organizational resources. The UWICTR survey asks specific questions about the
mentors’ ability and skills to build relationships with their mentee, share experiences, work with
someone from a different background, help the mentee identify their career goals, and help their
mentee access resources that support achieving the mentee’s goals.
Similar to UWICTR’s intent, the adapted survey asked specific questions related to
understanding the SIAs motivation and their experience with the organization. The survey
instrument for this study was comprised of five sections including the SIA mentoring experience,
mentoring skills, practices, program implementation and organizational support, and

67
demographics. The survey protocol is presented in Appendix B. The skills sections measured the
SIAs intrinsic, attainment, and utility values, and self-efficacy (Bandura, 1994; Eccles &
Wigfield, 2002; Harackiewicz et al., 2016; O’Neil & Sugden, 1992; Pintrich, 2003), and their
perception of the organizational support. Since culturally relevant pedagogy informs the
motivational influences, utilizing the survey was appropriate to assess the SIAs’ motivation to
provide one-on-one quasi-mentorship, and their ability to not only relate to the youth, but to help
them achieve their educational and employment goals. Additionally, the survey sought to
understand the SIAs perceptions of and experiences with HOPE SF.
Data Collection Procedures
The survey was administered as a census (Robinson & Leonard, 2019) to all of the SIAs
participating in Pay it Forward. At the time of the survey administration, PIF was halfway
through its pilot year. Utilizing Qualtrics, a digital survey platform, an anonymous survey link
was emailed to the research participants. Given the small population size and the limited
response rate, the survey was left open for one month. The survey instrument had 34 items
including open- and closed-ended questions and Likert-type items and took approximately eight
minutes to complete. To secure the data, in addition to the responses being anonymous, the
survey responses were stored in a password protected Qualtrics account, on a password protected
device. Finally, university-approved software was used to perform a descriptive statistical
analysis of the survey responses.
Data Analysis
Descriptive statistics was used to analyze the data gathered from the closed-ended survey
items. Creswell and Creswell (2018) recommended a six-step process for electronic quantitative
data analysis, as such this process was adapted. The first step was to report the percentage of

68
submitted responses, meaning the number of individuals who responded to the survey compared
to the entire survey pool. Twenty-four SIAs were invited to respond to the survey, and a total of
13 responded. The second step, determine response bias, was critical. Creswell and Creswell
(2018) defined response bias as the effect of nonresponses. As a result, I analyzed respondents
and non-respondents while acknowledging the anonymity of the survey served as a limitation.
The third step was to provide a descriptive statistical analysis. Specifically, the analysis extracted
means and standard deviations as well as frequencies for the closed-ended items. Utilizing
ATLAS.ti, the open-ended items were coded, categorized, and calculated according to the same
categories used for the qualitative interviews. The survey results are presented as tables and
figures in the quantitative results sections of this study.
Validity and Reliability
A quantitative survey is an informative data collection method when it is valid and
reliable. Validity generally refers to an instrument measuring what is intended to be measured
and quantitative reliability refers to the same types of questions generating the same information
(Robinson & Leonard, 2019). There are two strategies I used to maximize validity and reliability.
First, I compared the proposed instrument with existing tools to validate the proposed research
instrument (Robinson & Leonard, 2019). Comparing surveys with existing tools that have similar
respondent populations increases validity. Despite there being a dearth of surveys related to
understanding the skills mentors possess to provide culturally relevant quasi-mentorship, the
adapted UWICTR instrument does gather data about conceptual and metacognitive knowledge.
Similarly, to maximize reliability, questions were adapted from existing tools that targeted
similar respondents.

69
In addition to comparing the proposed instrument to existing tools, the survey was piloted
to maximize reliability (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Robinson & Leonard, 2019). Specifically,
nine doctoral student peers tested the survey to ensure the items were not leading and captured
what is intended to be captured. The pilot test revealed there were no outlier answers, thus, the
reliability of the instrument was confirmed (Robinson & Leonard, 2019). However, I did
eliminate the question that requested annual gross income based on feedback from my doctoral
peers on the necessity of the question. The intent survey responses confirmed that it measured
what was intended to be measured consistent with the knowledge, motivation and organizational
influences it increase validity and reliability. The survey results suggested the data collection
method was valid and reliable.
Interviews
Interviews were the last form of data collection used for this mixed methods study.
Creswell and Creswell (2018) defined interviews as a set of open-ended questions designed to
unearth the perspectives and opinions of the participants. There are three types of interviews
used to conduct qualitative research. Standardized interviews ask specific questions in a
predetermined order, semi-structured interviews generally has flexible questions and yields
open-ended answers, and unstructured interviews are exploratory with no predetermined
questions (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). This study implemented a semi-structured interview that
inspected the SIAs knowledge and motivational influences. The interview protocol is presented
in Appendix C. The interview responses offered in-depth perceptions of the SIAs’ knowledge,
intrinsic, attainment, and utility values, and their perspectives on the amount of support offered
from HOPE SF as it relates to providing education- and employment-oriented quasi-mentorship
to opportunity youth.

70
Participating Stakeholders
The primary participants for the interviews were a subset of the abovementioned Social
Impact Agents. While the interview participants came from the same population as the survey
respondents, all survey respondents had an opportunity to complete a separate Qualtrics link at
the end of the survey to self-select if they would like to participate in an interview. The goal was
to interview eight to ten SIAs. The interview respondents represented varying levels of education
and mentorship experience. Stratifying the interview population offered proportionate
representation of the entire research population (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
Instrumentation
This research study implemented a semi-structured interview approach (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). A semi-structured interview is specifically appropriate to explore the varying
perspectives of the knowledge influences and some motivation and organizational influences.
The responses offered an additional layer of detail that the survey did not capture. For example,
the survey captured the respondents’ confidence in their ability to provide one-on-one quasi
mentorship, but the interview focused specifically on their knowledge, procedural and
metacognitive, and their values when supporting opportunity youth of color.
The interview asked three types of questions as described by Patton (2015) (as cited in
Merriam & Tisdell, 2016): experience and behavior, opinion and values, and knowledge
questions. Since the framework for the research study is the Clark and Estes (2008) knowledge,
motivation and organization gap analysis informed by culturally relevant pedagogy (Ladson-
Billing, 1995), the interview aimed to understand the SIAs’ procedural and metacognitive
knowledge. The interviews provided answers to both research questions: what is the SIAs’
knowledge and motivation related to providing education- and employment-oriented quasi-

71
mentorship to opportunity youth and how HOPE SF supports or hinders the SIAs’ ability to
provide one-on-one quasi-mentorship. Specifically, the interview items were focused on
understanding the SIAs’ knowledge of supporting opportunity youth of color. Related to
procedural knowledge, the interview items sought to understand how the SIAs engaged with the
youth participants, built trust in the relationship, fostered a culture of respect and power balance,
and facilitated goal identification and achievement. Regarding conceptual and metacognitive
knowledge, the interview items targeted clarity on the SIAs experience in Pay it Forward, what
they valued about serving as a SIA or not, why they valued serving as a SIA or not, insights they
may have had about culturally relevant mentorship practices, and the support they needed from
the organization. As a result, the types of questions outlined in the interview protocol primarily
helped to identify the knowledge needs.
Data Collection Procedures
The Pay it Forward program was midway through its pilot year at the time interviews
took place. The interview protocol consisted of 16 items and each interview took approximately
one hour to complete. In order to maintain the health and safety of all stakeholders, due to
COVID-19, and in accordance with the Institutional Review Board, the interviews occurred on
Zoom, an online video chat platform. To mitigate the conflict of interest I had with the research
participants, a doctoral peer, “the proxy interviewer”, conducted the interviews and deidentified
the transcripts. The proxy interviewer utilized Merriam and Tisdell’s (2016) suggestion of audio
recording. Additionally, they used the Zoom recording and transcription feature, with explicit
permission. The recordings did not begin until permission from the participant was granted and
then were erased when the recording was no longer needed. To maintain confidentiality,
participants were able to use an alias and turn off their video while participating in the interview.

72
A recording device without video served as an alternative to protect anonymity. Finally, the
proxy interviewer took deidentified, typed-written notes to capture gestures, tone, and how the
participants responded to the interview items.
Data Analysis
Due to the limited time available to collect quantitative and qualitative data, I analyzed
the data as it was collected. The proxy interviewer and I debriefed after the first three interviews
to confirm the data addressed the purpose of the study. Additionally, after the debriefings and
receiving interview transcripts, I wrote reflective memos (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) on issues
raised and unanticipated learnings. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) suggested that memos provide
space to learn how qualitative data relates to the broader theoretical and conceptual frameworks.
The memos allowed me to acknowledge potential biases that influenced the research based on
my own knowledge and the answers that were expected compared to the answers that were
given.
Similarly to quantitative data analysis, Merriam and Tisdell (2016) suggested a process
for analyzing qualitative data. First, the data was viewed through the lens of the aforementioned
purpose of the study. In addition to analyzing the data according to the purpose of the study, the
data was analyzed through the lens of the epistemological framework, culturally relevant
pedagogy. For example, trauma-informed practice was not specifically noted in the interview
items, however, I looked for common themes in the responses related to trauma-informed and
culturally relevant practices. A thematic coding system was also implemented, what Merriam
and Tisdell (2016) identified as “trees” (p. 208). I used axial coding to sort the themes into
various categories based on the conceptual framework (Gibbs, 2018). Following the sorting, the
categories were merged into the overarching themes based on the knowledge, motivation and

73
organizational influences that answered the research questions. The findings of the qualitative
data analysis are presented in the qualitative findings sections of the study.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
Since this is a mixed methods study, there are two approaches that were used to
maximize credibility and trustworthiness. Specifically, credibility checks the research findings
against reality and trustworthiness, or consistency, confirms if the research findings can be
replicated (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Merriam and Tisdell (2016) suggested one approach to
increase credibility is triangulation. Triangulation is described as cross-checking data results
through the different data sources used. For example, the responses in the interviews were
checked against the survey results and the document analysis. Both the survey results and the
document analysis contextualized the interview responses and were analyzed against the
participants’ perceptions of providing one-on-one quasi-mentorship. The survey results were
consistent with the detail offered in the interviews, thus, increasing credibility and
trustworthiness. A second approach to increasing credibility is respondent validation.
Respondent validation is the process of confirming research findings with interview respondents
as to not misinterpret the meaning of their responses (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Since I did not
serve as the primary interviewer, respondent validation did present limitations. However, to
maintain the credibility and trustworthiness of the data I worked with the proxy interviewer to
ensure the transcripts were not misinterpreted and the responses were consistent with the
participants intention.
Ethics and Role of Researcher
The trustworthiness of research is directly associated with the ethical practices of the
researcher (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Historically, researchers performed ethical misconduct

74
when extracting information from oppressed populations (Tuck & Yang, 2014). However,
researchers are now held to a higher standard and accountable to being transparent, doing no
harm on and building trust with the research participants (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Given the
research participants are predominantly people of color, I had a responsibility as the researcher to
not perpetuate that harm. To mitigate the potential for ethical misconduct it was important for the
participants to understand the problem being explored and the purpose of the study (Creswell &
Creswell, 2018). Since I am a member of the organization, there was a positionality dynamic,
however, participants were made aware that refusal to participate in the research study is a right.
Furthermore, each of the participants engaged in Pay it Forward served on a volunteer basis, thus
there was no threat to their agency funding because HOPE SF did not fund the represented
organizations. As their participation in Pay it Forward was voluntary, so was their participation
in the research.
In addition to emphasizing that participation in the research was voluntary, identifying
information was omitted from all documentation, with the exception of those participants who
chose to be interviewed. The proxy interviewer provided respondents with a link to a separate
form to gather identified information for the purposes of selecting interview participants.
Moreover, because I had an existing relationship with the participants, a proxy interviewer
conducted and transcribed the interviews, and removed all identifying information so the privacy
and confidentiality of the respondents was maintained (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Prior to
being interviewed, the proxy interviewer reminded the participant that the responses were
completely confidential, and that all identifying information will be removed from the
transcripts. Once the identifying information was removed, all files were stored in a password
protected cloud-based storage system, on a password protected device. The participants were

75
made aware that raw data would not be shared with any stakeholders outside of the research team
and the interviewees also received an information sheet providing details about the research and
the efforts taken to maintain confidentiality.
As a member of the organization that oversees the performance of Pay it Forward, I
acknowledged my positionality and the power dynamic present in the relationship with myself
and the research participants. I jointly oversee the Pay if Forward initiative with three other
colleagues. Although each of the participants voluntarily responded to a request from the host
organization to participate in PIF, to mitigate unconsciously penalizing participants for not
participating in the study, I shifted oversight responsibilities to my colleagues and identified my
role strictly as the researcher. The SIAs were made aware that the research was separate from my
position and would have no impact on their organizations or their participation in Pay it Forward.
Furthermore, I acknowledged that my bias and interest in the research could affect this
study. I am a Black and Samoan woman who grew up in public housing. I am a direct reflection
of the youth Pay it Forward serves and the Social Impact Agents reflect the types of mentors I
had that helped me achieve the goals I have thus far. Additionally, it is my job to work to ensure
residents, particularly Black households, are stably housed, advancing economically, and have a
sense of power and belonging in their communities. As such, I did have high expectations for the
success of the Pay it Forward initiative. I expected PIF to achieve the outcomes the organization
set forth, later discussed in the organizational findings and results. However, the role of the
researcher is not to tell the story of the participants, rather to be in partnership with the
participants and elevate their self-identified solutions without interjecting my thoughts or
experiences. To mitigate my assumptions and biases, I remained open and honest through written
reflection (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). I separately noted when assumptions and biases arose so

76
that they do not appear as interpretations of the findings. Finally, I have experience with data-
driven decision-making (Malloy, 2011), therefore, I allowed the results of the data to inform the
findings, results, and recommendations. Maintaining confidentiality and safety of the participants
information and engagement in the study was a top priority throughout this process, so I
continuously monitored threats to that protection and adjusted immediately if a threat became
apparent.

77
Chapter 4: Results and Findings
This mixed methods study facilitated three types of data collection: document analysis,
electronic survey, and virtual, semi-structured, interviews. The document analysis, survey, and
interviews were collected to understand the knowledge, motivation, and organizational (KMO)
influences on the Social Impact Agents (SIAs) capacity to provide culturally relevant education-
and employment-oriented quasi-mentorship to opportunity youth of color. At the time of data
collection, Pay it Forward was nine months into the initiative with six months remaining in the
pilot year. I performed the document analysis first and reviewed the Pay It Forward initiatives
training materials, feedback mechanisms, procedures, and mentor-mentee match processes.
Following the document analysis, I administered the survey to 24 SIAs. Finally, the survey
responses were used to identify the research participants who elected to be interviewed. The
following chapter will provide the findings and results of the document analysis, survey, and
interviews as they relate to the KMO influences on the SIAs capacity to provide culturally
relevant education- and employment-oriented quasi-mentorship.
Participating Stakeholders
The primary stakeholder group of focus for this study were the Pay if Forward (PIF)
SIAs. The Social Impact Agents, predominantly people of color, serve in senior leadership
positions and manage teams within their respective organizations. SIAs also possess control over
institutional resources and are positioned to contribute to an opportunity youth’s socioeconomic
growth through helping the youths identifying their education and career goals, and building the
youths social and professional networks. The SIAs helped to implement the PIF initiative and
aimed to fulfill the stakeholder and initiative goals. The SIAs worked specifically with
opportunity youth of color to ensure they identified or reached their educational and employment

78
goals. A total of 24 SIAs were invited to participate in this research study. Demographic data of
who participated in the study is described below.
Survey Participants
All 24 SIAs participating in Pay It Forward were invited to participate in the research
study. After five email invitations over three weeks, a total of 13 SIAs responded to the survey.
The survey requested demographic data including gender, race and ethnicity, degree possession,
and prior experience with being a mentor (Table 6). To protect the anonymity of the respondents,
the SIAs’ position title and organization were not collected. The Survey results revealed 54% of
respondents identified as male and 46% as female. Respondents were permitted to select multiple
race and ethnicities which resulted in the following: 12.5% Asian, 43.8% Black/African
American, 12.5% Hispanic/Latinx, 18.7% Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, 6.2%
multiracial/multiethnic, and 6.3% other. Eighteen percent of respondents possessed a Doctorate
degree, 9.1% possessed a professional degree such as a Doctor of Medicine or Juris Doctorate,
36.4% possessed a Master degree, 27.2% possessed a Bachelor degree, and 9.1% possessed
another type of advance degree. Seventy-one percent previously served in a mentor capacity,
28.6% had no previous experience. Of those with prior mentorship experience, 90% served as a
mentor for four or more years.

Table 6
Survey Respondent Demographics
Characteristic n %
Gender
Female 6 46
Male 7 54
Race/Ethnicity

79
Characteristic n %
Asian 2 12.5
Black/African American 6 43.8
Hispanic/Latinx 2 12.5
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 3 18.7
Multiracial/Multiethnic 1 6.2
Other 1 6.3
Advance Degree Possession
Bachelors 3 27.2
Doctorate 2 18.2
Masters 5 36.4
Professional Degree (i.e. MD, JD) 1 9.1
Other 1 9.1
Prior Mentor Experience
No 4 28.6
Yes 9 71.4

Note. n = 13

Interview Participants
Each survey respondent was provided an opportunity to volunteer to be interviewed. I
aimed to have eight to 10 SIAs interviewed for this study. To protect the confidentiality of the
interview participants, my doctoral peer conducted the interviews. My doctoral peer provided a
separate Qualtrics link, only accessible to them, at the end of the survey. Although eight survey
respondents agreed to be interviewed, seven were completed. Three attempts were made with the
eighth interviewee, however, on the first occasion, the interviewee rescheduled, and did not
respond to the second and third attempts of contact. The seven interview participants are
reflective of the intended population and represent varying levels of education, employment
industries, and prior experience as mentors. Table 7 outlines anonymized background
information of the seven interview participants and their assigned gender-neutral pseudonyms.

80
Table 7
Interview Participant Background Information
Name Advance Degree Possession Description
Alex Bachelors Employed in the private sector and
had no prior mentorship
experience.
Cameron Non-advance degree holding Employed in the government
sector and had prior mentorship
experience.
Hayden Bachelors Employed in the government
sector and had no prior mentorship
experience.
Jaime Masters Employed in the nonprofit sector
and had prior mentorship
experience.
Kennedy Professional Certificate Employed in the government
sector and had prior mentorship
experience.
Quinn Masters Employed in the nonprofit sector
and had prior mentorship
experience.
Taylor Professional Degree (i.e.
MD, JD)
Employed in the government
sector and had no prior mentorship
experience.

Note. To protect the confidentiality of the research participants, gender-neutral pseudonyms were
assigned to all of those who were interviewed.

Research Question 1: What is the Social Impact Agents’ Knowledge and Motivation
Related to Providing Education- and Employment-Oriented Quasi-Mentorship for
Opportunity Youth?
The interviews and survey were used to assess the knowledge and motivation assets and
gaps, and the factors and values that SIAs prioritized when building relationships with

81
opportunity youth and connecting them to their professional networks. The interviews were
specifically used to offer an in-depth understanding of the SIAs' knowledge. The knowledge
assets are determined according to the percentage of interview participants who demonstrated
foundational mentoring practices identified from related research and implemented those
practices in a trauma-informed and culturally relevant way even if not directly referring to them
by these terms in the interview. The knowledge gaps are presented as limitations according to the
percentage of interview participants who did not demonstrate having the capacity to support
opportunity youth identify specific education and employment goals and the skills related
thereto.
In addition to the interviews assessing the SIAs’ knowledge, they were also used to offer
an understanding of the SIAs’ motivation. The motivation assets are presented as the percentage
of interview participants who expressed high value for serving as a Social Impact Agent,
accepting being a mentor as a part of their personal identity, detailing how they benefitted from
the mentor-mentee relationship, and their level of confidence while serving. Finally, the survey
produced quantitative results that revealed motivation assets and gaps. Motivation assets
identified from the survey are presented as means of 3.0 and above on a four-point scale and the
gaps, conversely are means below 2.9.
The knowledge and motivation findings and results are presented next. First, the
knowledge findings are presented with five emerging influences discovered in the document
analysis, survey, and interviews. These influences include the SIAs’ possession of the
foundational knowledge of mentoring practices, implementation of trauma-informed and
culturally relevant practices, moderate ability to support opportunity youth identify their career
goals and create paths to achieve their educational and employment goals, limited skills in

82
providing education- and employment-oriented quasi-mentorship, and limited self-reflection on
their effectiveness while providing education- and employment-oriented quasi-mentorship.
Second, the motivation findings and results are presented with four identified influences. These
influences include the SIAs’ high value for supporting opportunity youth of color, perception of
mentoring opportunity youth of color as a part of their personal identity, service for personal
value rather than personal gain, and their mixed levels of confidence when implementing
education- and employment-oriented quasi-mentorship.
Knowledge Findings
The seven interview participants described varying levels of capacity when providing
education- and employment-oriented quasi-mentorship. The interview responses were
thematically coded using ATLAS.ti. The key knowledge findings are presented according to the
influences offered in the conceptual framework. The research participants consistently described
their foundational understanding of mentorship, their ability to relate to their mentee, limitations
with respect to supporting their mentee identify specific education and employment goals, and
limited self-reflection practices. The next section describes these knowledge-related influences.
Social Impact Agents’ Possession of the Foundational Knowledge of Mentoring Practices
Foundational knowledge of mentoring practices is representative of the aforementioned
research-based characteristics that provide methods for how mentors and mentees build trusting
relationships, show mutual respect, and maintain consistency. First, I reviewed the documents
used to train the SIAs and facilitate the match process; then I analyzed the interview transcripts.
Several interview questions offered insights into the interview participants’ foundational
knowledge including exploring how they developed trust and maintained respect, how they kept
their mentee engaged in the mentorship process, and how they knew their relationship with their

83
mentee was successful. Although the level of prior mentorship experience varied among the
interview participants, all of them possessed some level of these foundational characteristics.
Document Analysis. The start to a successful mentor-mentee relationship begins with the
match process. I investigated how the Social Impact Agents and youth were paired, and the
criteria were for a SIA and youth match. First, the PIF team had a guide on “Effective Mentor
Recruitment.” The guide highlighted effective mentor recruitment, recruitment methods, and
making a recruitment plan. Notably, the recruitment methods centered targeting individuals with
prior mentoring experience or those mentors who were referred, presenting the mentor
expectations, and recruiting individuals with the interest and time. The PIF coordinator sent an
email invitation to prospective SIAs who fulfilled the following criteria: 1) current senior
leadership within their organization, 2) had a presence on LinkedIn, and 3) were previously
known to work with youth. An excerpt from the email invitation is below:
On behalf of the Mayor, HOPE SF, and in partnership with Opportunities for All, we
request your support with launching “Pay it Forward.” "Pay it Forward" is a call to action
to activate and advance prosperity pathways and unlock generational wealth for HOPE
SF youth and their families. We are seeking individuals to pay it forward and serve as
Social Impact Agents. Unlike traditional mentoring, Impact Agents are individuals who
possess access to resources, vast social networks, and are well-positioned to contribute to
a young person’s growth by sharing their time, talent, or connections, like our networks
have done for us. You’ve been identified as someone we need to advance socioeconomic
outcomes for youth.
Prospective SIAs were asked to complete an interest form indicating if they were interested in
supporting an opportunity youth and if they could commit one to two hours per month to do so.

84
The respondents were then invited to an information session and those who wanted to continue
to participate were invited to the initial training.
Regardless of having prior experience as a mentor, all of the Social Impact Agents
participated in a Pay it Forward orientation that reviewed basic mentorship practices so that they
entered the program with a baseline level of knowledge. The primary document analyzed was the
“Implementing Mentoring Programs” presentation. I also reviewed the presentation from the
HOPE SF staff at the PIF kickoff event.
The foundational training SIAs participated in was an in-depth orientation to
implementing mentoring programs. The orientation covered the benefits of mentoring programs,
evidence-based practices, and the program implementation factors. First, the orientation
reviewed the evidence of why high-quality mentoring programs yield greater academic and
social outcomes for youth compared to “low-quality mentoring programs that showed
documented damage to youth.” The orientation also reviewed how mentoring best practices were
applied in Pay it Forward. Second, the orientation explained the characteristics of effective
mentors. Consistent with the existing literature, commitment, empathy, respect, communication,
and maintaining a balance of professionalism and fun were prominent. Furthermore, expectations
were set for the SIAs. The need for mentors to consistently attend the sessions with their mentees
was prevalent because the time commitment for SIAs was unlike traditional mentoring programs.
SIAs were informed that they were expected to connect with their mentee at least once per month
for one to two hours. Given the limited time to connect with their mentees, the orientation
emphasized SIAs attending sessions with their mentees and keeping open communication when
they were unable to attend a session.

85
Finally, the orientation discussed the program structure. This section went into detail
about the match process. Specifically, the criteria for consideration when matching highlighted
having similar racial, ethnic, or linguistic backgrounds, compatible interests, shared values, and
common life experiences. Although the training offered evidence for why the frequency of
meetings between SIAs and mentees matters, emphasis was placed on SIAs being consistent with
their monthly meetings rather than increasing the number of meetings held.
The supplemental documents I reviewed included the presentation for the kickoff event
and general mentoring program resources. The kickoff presentation included the purpose and
goal of PIF, the role of the SIAs, why HOPE SF decided to target a specific group of youth, and
the holistic services those youth were getting in addition to education- and employment-oriented
quasi-mentorship. SIAs were also reminded of the program expectations, their expected time
commitment, and given points of contact should challenges or questions arise.
Upon completing the orientation, the SIAs completed the “Pay it Forward Matching
Questionnaire.” The SIA-mentee matches were facilitated in two ways. The first match
facilitation was self-selection. In February 2020, the SIAs and mentees participated in the Pay it
Forward kickoff event at the LinkedIn headquarters. The PIF team facilitated a series of “get-to-
know-you” activities between the SIAs and the mentees. At the end of the event, the SIAs and
mentees completed a survey to indicate the connections they made and who they would like to be
paired with. If a SIA and mentee indicated each other as their top choice on their form they were
matched. Ten of the 24 SIAs were matched with their mentee according to self-selection.
For those who were not matched during the kickoff event, the PIF coordinator used the
“Pay it Forward Matching Questionnaire.” This form was customized for the SIAs and the youth.
The SIAs were asked to identify their gender, race and ethnicity, current or recent job(s), favorite

86
subjects in school, extracurricular or professional interests, strengths and previous experience as
a mentor, and ideas they had to develop the social capital of their mentee. This information was
used to match the SIAs to their mentee according to the mentees career interests, what they
wanted out of the relationship, and their extracurricular interests. All of the SIA-youth matches,
including those made at the kickoff event, participated in a one-on-one introduction on Zoom
with the PIF coordinator to start the trust building process. The documents validated that a
recruitment and match process was in place and aligned with foundational mentoring practices.
Interview Findings. The proxy interviewer spoke with seven Social Impact Agents to
understand their foundational knowledge of mentoring practices. To determine the participants’
foundational knowledge of mentoring practices, they were asked about the general ideas they
kept in mind when supporting opportunity youth, how they have gone about developing trust
with their mentee, and how did they know if the relationship between them and their mentee was
successful. Three themes emerged from the interviews that confirmed the participants possessed
the foundational knowledge of mentoring practices: building trust, mutual respect, and
consistency and follow-up.
Building Trust. Prior to supporting opportunity youth identify their education and
employment goals, the seven interview participants noted that establishing trust with the mentee
was essential. That trust building happened through having a prior relationship with the mentee
or began with the PIF coordinator during the facilitation of the match process. Cameron, Hayden,
and Quinn mentioned that having an existing relationship with their mentees prior to
participating in Pay it Forward helped to build a trusting relationship. Cameron explained, “I
already knew both of my mentees before. So I've kind of already gained trust.” Similarly, Quinn
shared:

87
I was able to meet her you know, a few years back when she was still in high school and
being able to see her kind of grow over the years and just making sure that she knew that
she can trust me and be able to come in and be able to just be yourself.
Hayden also mentioned that they previously worked with their mentee. The former connections
Cameron, Hayden, and Quinn had with their mentees helped to maintain their existing trust.
Alex, Jaime, Kennedy, and Taylor did not have existing relationships with their mentees
and referenced the warm hand-off between the PIF team, the SIA, and the mentee being
particularly helpful to establishing trust. The SIAs and the mentees participated in a kickoff
event in February 2020, two weeks before the local COVID-19 shelter-in-place order, that served
as an introduction for the SIAs and mentees. For those SIAs who did not gain a match during the
kickoff event, the PIF team used the matching questionnaire the SIAs and mentees completed to
fulfill the match. The PIF team facilitated Zoom meetings for all of the SIAs and mentees. “I
think it helped also the way that they set up the first intro,” Alex explained:
We had a Zoom call together. So it was like a very warm transfer, especially because I
didn't get to meet her at the social they had in February because she wasn't there. So I just
think, you know, who already has the relationship on both ends, if they can help make a
warm transfer I think that's huge, because I think it showed that trust on both sides.
Alex continued to describe their shared experiences with the mentee including bonding over the
experience of going to school in the south and having similar family compositions. These
commonalities helped Alex to have, “conversations that weren't like fabricated or contrived, was
just very natural.” Similarly, Jamie described meeting their mentee in person at the networking
event and making an “instant match” because of being from the same community, working with
similar people, and having the opportunity to transparently share, “Where I've come from, where

88
I'm at, where I'm trying to go.” The facilitated connections served as a catalyst for the
relationship building process.
While all of the participants acknowledged trust building has occurred over the last year,
Taylor questioned the genuineness of the relationship between their mentee. Taylor explained:
So we've actually never met in person, our very first interaction and our only interactions
have been over the video screen. And Yeah, it's you know, it's kind of
awkward…especially if you know there's like this person is being paid through the
program to sort of participate in this sort of relationship…in many respects, like there's
that weird sense that hangs over the relationship because like you know if given a choice,
would he choose to converse with me on a monthly basis.
Taylor added that in order to establish trust with their mentee and uphold a professional
relationship they, “kept it to professional type questions for a while during the beginning before
started delving into like somewhat more personal questions.” This approach helped Taylor
establish boundaries with their mentee and to clarify the purpose of the relationship.
Mutual Respect. In addition to building trust, upholding mutual respect was a repeated
practice for the Social Impact Agents. All of the participants described mutual respect as
intuitive in the relationship and not something that needed to be intentionally discussed or
established. Cameron plainly stated mutual respect is a, “if you give you receive a kind of thing,”
but not something they intentionally thought about with respect to their mentees. Quinn linked
mutual respect with, “the culture thing,” and “the values that you hold true to who we are,” and
Alex associated it with age, noting that them and their mentee:

89
Both come into with a mutual respect for one another so I think it does help that we're
close in age. I know I am older than her and perhaps, right, she looks up to me, but I'm
not talking down on her as if she was a child.
Four of the seven participants particularly mentioned that their mentee guided the mutual respect
with their investment in the program, their level of communication, and their commitment to
remaining engaged. Related to Alex, Hayden described their effort to have mutual respect as,
“being open minded, working around them, listening, supporting her interests, making it about
her and what value you can bring to her and the relationship as opposed to making it one sided,”
confirming that mutual respect is still intended to meet the needs of the mentee.
Consistency and Follow-Up. Finally, consistency and follow up emerged as a common
foundational practice among the SIAs. When asked how they would know the relationship
between them and their mentee was successful, all seven participants alluded to their mentee
remaining engaged. “We haven’t missed a call,” Alex mentioned, “she kept showing up…I feel
like there was value to her also by knowing that I was going to consistently show up.”
Consistency also helped to build trust. For example, Kennedy detailed:
I kept a text stream on my phone so you know, I don't let too many days go by before I
send her a kind note and I do not let a day go by without acknowledging a note that she
sends me. So I think that consistency as is lends itself to building that trust…It was
actually yesterday morning I sent her like a meme with a little note and her response was
‘Good morning and thank you. I needed to hear that.’
In this instance, Kennedy explained this type of communication contributed to improving a
relationship that “was challenging to get started” given the life experiences the mentee was
handling. Consistent communication and follow-up on agreed upon action items from both the

90
SIAs and the mentees served as a method to building trust and an indicator for success of the
relationship.
Summary. The data suggests that the Pay it Forward team did train on foundational
mentoring practices. Moreover, the SIAs demonstrated foundational knowledge of mentoring
practices based on prior experience of being a mentor or once having a mentor and
understanding the importance of valuing youth. Although the SIAs reported varying levels of
mentorship experience, they utilized the baseline training provided at the inception of the
program and the connection made between the PIF team and the youth to enhance the mentoring
relationship.
Social Impact Agents’ Organic Implementation of Trauma-Informed and Culturally Relevant
Practices
Due to the dearth of research on trauma-informed and culturally relevant mentoring
practices, there was no specific guidance on how the SIAs should support their mentees if life
experiences outside of education and employment came forth. Thus, organic implementation
implies that the SIAs practiced trauma-informed and culturally relevant practices without being
specifically trained on those practices. Moreover, organic implementation is the reflection of
how the SIAs, predominantly people of color, innately related to the opportunity youth they
mentored. At the time of the study, the SIAs were supporting Black and brown transitional aged
youth during a period where anti-Black racism was intentionally unmasked, making these youth
susceptible to becoming another Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery, or George Floyd. Despite
these difficult realities, there are specific activities associated with trauma-informed and
culturally relevant practices that the interview findings unearthed. When reviewing the interview
transcripts, language reflective of valuing the social-emotional well-being of mentees, honoring

91
their attitudes and behaviors, and customizing interactions according to those behaviors were
deemed trauma-informed and culturally relevant.
Interview Findings. A dominant factor of trauma-informed and culturally relevant
practice is valuing the unique experiences of opportunity youth of color who live in high-risk
environments. All seven interview participants acknowledged having to “meet them where they
are” regarding building a relationship during a global health pandemic, a racial pandemic, and
communicating in a COVID-19 imposed virtual realm. In response to what general ideas do they
keep in mind when engaging with their mentee, Cameron explained, “I would say lead with love
is like my go to. No matter what's going on, lead with love is super important.” They expounded
on a story of their mentee making “a very bad emotional decision” related to illogically giving up
their housing during a pandemic. Cameron described reinforcing the mentees feelings and
decision, “but be wise enough and be a mentor enough to say it's okay to feel that way, but I
don't think that's the best long term decision when you really think about it.” Without making the
decision for their mentee, Cameron was able to help their mentee rationalize why giving up there
housing may not have been the best decision for them at the time and after connecting the
mentee to the appropriate resources, they were able to remain housed.
Aligned with Cameron’s response, Jaime described when engaging with transitional aged
youth:
Meeting them where they're at, that's the biggest thing that comes to mind for me you
know. I really have learned, especially now with us everything being online having to do
the Zoom sessions is really just being able to listen, to understand that our transitional age
youth now are going through trials and tribulations and things that I didn't have to go

92
through when I was their age. And I think we should do a much better job of trying to
understand where they are and the things that they're going through, how we can support.
Jaime explained that they lost touch with their mentee for a couple of months because the mentee
lost their phone, was in college, and was the “breadwinner” for the family, “so it was very
difficult to stay in touch,” but, “I understand life...” Jaime, as well as two other interview
participants displayed a consistent level of understanding and flexibility when a mentee could
not make a meeting due to unforeseen circumstances.
Hayden, Quinn, and Taylor also acknowledged their mentees having to navigate
challenging home lives and that effecting their decisions to pursue their education and
employment goals. Hayden offered humility as a focal point of engaging with their mentee, and
recognized, “a lot of times we forget about the emotional part of like what they're going
through,” and associated their experience of being “Black and gay” as a connecting point with
their mentee. Moreover, Quinn described, “I think transitional youth today is just, they're just
wanting to survive. You know with everything that's going on like the violence stuff in the
community, they're just trying to survive in what they call home.” Six of the seven SIAs
discovered their mentees served as primary caretakers in their households, so living in survival
mode was common. For example, Taylor illustrated that their mentee was a secondary head of
household who helped his mom, “navigate through a lot of the bureaucracy and interpreting and
translating on her behalf,” and supported his brother through his first year of college. Taylor
described checking in on their mentee to ensure they are, “Processing their responsibilities okay
and I appreciate that at least, speaking about my mentees experiences, like it's not just school
work or it's not just the career search that they're focused on,” the mentees are also navigating
transitioning into adulthood and the SIAs are learning how to support that as well.

93
Summary. Although expectations to connect with the mentees on social-emotional and
cultural levels were not explicit in the training, all of the participants adapted to those
experiences. Showing care, acknowledging the mentees experiences, and affirming the mentees
choices without bias were consistent themes. Although trauma-informed and culturally relevant
practices were not explicit training topics, they were organically implemented.
Social Impact Agents’ Moderate Ability to Support Opportunity Youth Identify Their Career
Goals and Create Paths to Achieve Their Education and Employment Goals
Supporting opportunity youth to identify their career goals and creating paths to achieve
their education and employment goals represents the SIAs’ procedural knowledge related to
supporting and implementing the stakeholder goal. The intended purpose of PIF was for SIAs to
support youth identify their education and employment goals, and then provide access to paths
that would help them achieve those goals. However, the implementation of that intent was
carried out to a moderate degree according to the interview findings.
Interview Findings. The choice to focus on education and employment goal
identification when the Social Impact Agents connected with their mentees was mentee-centered
and mentee-led. All seven of the research participants were mindful to inspire, rather than make,
their mentees decisions; thus, decisions were not always related to education or employment.
When asked to describe a time they have offered advice to their mentee, the SIAs repeatedly
shared that they do not give directed advice in support of inspiring their mentees and creating a
safe space. Alex mentioned, “I don't offer too much advice, though. It's a little bit more listening
and collaborating kind of helping her to draw her own conclusions.” Jaime shared, “I don't give
advice, I just tell you what I've been through. Take it for whatever it is it that you want to do.”
Kennedy said, “I really try my best not to give advice. I try to share my own experiences,” and

94
Quinn explained, “I'm not here to judge her and I just want to make sure she knew that whatever
choice she made she would still be loved by those who wouldn’t judge her decision.” In each of
these instances, the guidance was not related to education and employment goal identification,
but the life experiences the mentees wanted to talk through with their SIAs. Although identifying
career goals and creating paths to achieve those goals was limited, it was as a result of the
mentees guiding what they wanted to receive out of the relationship at the time.
Despite not giving specific advice, five of the seven participants did note instances where
they either supported their mentee identify an education or employment goal, or helped to try and
connect them to the path that would allow them to achieve that goal. “I definitely did,” Jaime
mentioned, “one was school that was something that was very high on the list…trying to do as
much as I could do to support that.” Jaime further explained that they attempted to connect their
mentee with a paid internship, but that did not come to fruition because that was during the time
they lost contact with each other. Alex detailed supporting their mentee navigate a specific goal
of transitioning careers and doing that virtually:
I think now I'm realizing like she probably isn't interested in going to events or virtual
events. For her it's more so, like, what can we do to help her get a better job essentially
and I think that's my focus now so like I told her for December, make sure you send me a
resume before December and we'll talk about how to craft it and put the right language in
there. And she's putting her LinkedIn together.
Alex also encouraged their mentee to identify her personal why statement in support of guiding
her career decisions. Alex emphasized following up on action items, sending their mentee new
job leads, and ensuring her resume is aligned with positions she applies. Taylor was also
intentional about understanding, “what have you [mentee] done to sort of advanced your career

95
goal and what can I do to help you along that path towards your career goal.” Additionally,
Hayden mentioned working alongside their mentee, who attends an arts college, to research
criteria for entering the arts illustration industry. Hayden explained:
One of the goals that we have right now is to reach out to some of the anime illustrators,
to see how they got the job…I was able to do something on my end…and she also has
done some on her end…So right now, she's working on the plan for the next steps on to
how to get an internship or how to get an actual job in that field…so I gave her til’ the
end of next Friday, our next meeting, to like have a plan.
This level of intentionality fostered increased communication and trust in the relationships
between the SIAs and their mentees.
Summary. The SIAs supporting their mentee to identify their career goals and then
creating a path to achieve those goals only occurred when the mentees led the decision. The SIAs
consistently reported not imposing their own ideas on the youth, but prioritized inspiring the
youth the make informed decisions through sharing their personal experiences. The interview
findings demonstrated that the SIAs do have the ability to support youth to identify their career
goals while also implementing culturally relevant practices for effective education- and
employment-oriented mentorship.
Social Impact Agents’ Limited Skills in Providing Education- and Employment-Oriented
Quasi-Mentorship
Providing education- and employment-oriented quasi-mentorship reflects content-specific
skills and methods for implementation. These skills depend on the organizations’ ongoing
implementation support, the program coordinator providing the SIAs with relevant resources to
mitigate challenges, and hosting forums for learning. The survey results and interview findings

96
determined that this level of programmatic support was limited, therefore, limited the SIAs’
skills to provide education- and employment-oriented quasi-mentorship.
Survey Results. One open-ended survey item provided insight into the respondents’
thoughts on providing education- and employment-oriented quasi-mentorship. In response to
describing their overall experience while participating in Pay it Forward, the survey results
revealed mixed experiences. First, the SIAs who were unable to connect with their mentee match
due to the mentee’s unresponsiveness or having different interests than their mentee did not have
an opportunity to provide education- and employment-oriented quasi-mentorship (Table 8).
Second, COVID-19 produced limitations to providing education- and employment-oriented
quasi-mentorship (Table 9). Lastly, when the mentor-mentee match and communication were not
barriers, the SIAs were able to support their mentees (Table 10). Table 8 outlines the experiences
of those SIAs who were unable to connect with their match. The connection between the SIA
and mentee never happened, was sporadic, or was not meaningful due to different interests.

Table 8
Survey Respondents’ Challenges With the Mentee Match
Survey Item Quote
10. Overall, Please describe your
experience participating in Pay it
Forward.
Unfortunately, I was unable to connect with my
mentee. There was no follow thru or call back
received from my mentee.

My mentee and I have not connected in some while. I
believe my mentee did not find value in the
experience. I am happy to speak further about this.

It was ok. I didn't really connect with my mentee as I
work in a completely different field than his interests.
We also had very different interests outside of work.

97
Table 9
Impacts of COVID-19 on Providing Education- and Employment-Oriented Quasi-Mentorship
Survey Item Quote
10. Overall, Please describe your
experience participating in Pay it
Forward.
I have had an overall good experience. The toughest
part has been continuing to engage my mentee which
I think has been tougher during Covid. I don't think
there are clearly enough defined roles in terms of
initiating communication between the mentor and
mentee. Most of my meetings with my mentee were
initiated by me and otherwise did not occur without
my follow-up

I think the experience would be far better if we
weren't faced with the pandemic.

Note. Thirteen survey respondents answered Q10, however, this table captures the responses that
align with the knowledge influence finding, Social Impact Agents’ limited skills.

Table 9 reveals the SIAs’ thoughts on how COVID-19 influenced the relationship with their
mentee. Additionally, a respondent explained communication was not reciprocal with their
mentee, suggesting the need for greater role clarity between the SIA and the mentee. Table 10
reflects the responses of SIAs who were able to navigate communication challenges due to
COVID-19 and still offered support to their mentees. The survey results confirmed that the
Social Impact Agents possessed a mixed level of skills to provide education- and employment-
oriented quasi-mentorship during COVID-19.

98
Table 10
Navigating Communication Barriers in Order to Provide Education- and Employment-Oriented
Quasi-Mentorship
Survey Item Quote
10. Overall, Please describe your
experience participating in Pay it
Forward.
It has been good, tough to manage through the
pandemic. I've been able to help my mentee navigate
challenging circumstances such as housing and
education. All in all, I look forward to signing up
again.

Great experience, enjoying getting to know my
mentee and her goals. Challenges include having to
meet virtually and getting to the root of what my
mentee really finds valuable from these sessions.

Note. Thirteen survey respondents answered Q10, however, this table captures the responses that
align with the knowledge influence finding, Social Impact Agents’ limited skills.

Interview Findings. The opportunities for SIAs to connect with each other were limited
due to COVID-19 as two participants explained. Kennedy explained there was “no organized
way to bring us all into the same place. And part of that is due to COVID.” Taylor affirmed that
hosting a large networking event over Zoom, “would be a nightmare,” and outside of the control
of PIF to do safely. Launching the Pay it Forward initiative at the start of the global health
pandemic did present implementation challenges.
In addition to COVID-19 serving as a barrier to learning, Hayden thought instructional
resources would have been a necessary tool for new mentors. Hayden shared:
One thing I wish to program had was, maybe like a manual or a handbook for like first
time mentors…because I feel like even though I've had interns, I've never had a mentee.

99
And I feel like the relationship is much different, like what it is with a mentee, it’s very
more interpersonal.
Although the program coordinator did have access to a plethora of how-to guides and promising
practices, they were not distributed to the SIAs. None of the participants stated having received
the aforementioned mentoring resources. Moreover, there was concern that the staffing was not
adequate to support the caliber of program. Hayden recognized not knowing if the program
coordinator had support and the need for supportive staff to assist with implementing PIF. Scarce
staffing capacity limited the amount of support offered to the SIAs to grow their skills when
providing education- and employment-oriented quasi-mentorship.
Summary. The lack of ongoing program support and availability of mentoring resources
limited the SIAs ability to provide education- and employment-oriented quasi-mentorship. While
COVID-19 did change the interactions between the SIAs and their mentees, the SIAs still
expected to receive sufficient support for a pilot initiative. I will further explore the
implementation limitations when presenting the findings and results of the organizational
influences.
Social Impact Agents’ Limited Self-Reflection on Their Effectiveness Providing Education-
and Employment-Oriented Quasi-Mentorship
Self-reflection involves one’s awareness of their own knowledge and practices and how
they use those insights to adapt in any given situation. Self-reflective practices influence how
SIAs might improve the relationship with their mentee, build trust, and improve mentoring
practices. While SIAs did adapt throughout their relationships with their mentees to implement
common mentoring practices in a trauma-informed and culturally relevant way, the interview

100
findings reveal that the SIAs intentional self-reflection practice on their effectiveness as mentors
was limited.
Survey Results. Two survey items captured 13 SIAs’ metacognitive practice (Table 11).
Overall, the SIAs showed mixed levels of self-reflection. Regarding biases and prejudices
specifically, 100% of respondents either “agreed” or “strongly agreed” that they actively worked
to reduce the biases and prejudices they may bring to the mentor-mentee relationship (M = 3.2;
SD = 0.4; n = 13). While doing the work to effectively provide education- and employment-
oriented quasi-mentorship is present, SIAs learning more about themselves while participating in
PIF is a slight gap. The mean for those who learned more about themselves was 2.9 (SD = 0.9; n
= 13). Seventy-seven percent “agreed” or “strongly agreed” with learning more about
themselves, and 23% “disagreed” or “strongly disagreed” that they learned more about
themselves. Although three-fourths of the SIAs reported learning about themselves throughout
the process, nearly a quarter did not suggesting an area of improvement.

Table 11
Distribution of Respondents Metacognitive Practice When Providing Education- and
Employment-Oriented Quasi-Mentorship
Survey Item M SD Response n %
7a. I work to reduce the biases
and prejudices I may bring
to the mentor/mentee
relationship

3.2 0.4 Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree

10
3

76.9%
26.1%

7f. I am learning more about
myself while serving as an
SIA.
2.9 0.9 Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
1
2
7
3
7.7%
15.4%
53.8%
23.1%

101
Interview Findings. The SIAs shared varying levels of practicing self-reflection while
serving in that capacity. Constant topics for self-reflection included building a stronger
relationship with the mentee, reviewing shared experiences, and reflecting on how to improve
the time spent when connecting with the mentee. Five of the seven participants engaged in
limited self-reflective exercises or no self-reflective practices at all, such as Cameron who
admitted to only following up with their mentee when necessary, but not reflecting or journaling
after their interactions. Contrarily, Jaime mentioned that the experience taught them a lot more
about them self with respect to maintaining a consistent relationship and they, “think reaching
out a lot more probably could have helped or would have helped,” to improve the relationship
with their mentee. In fact, the interview prompted Jaime to want to reach out to their mentee to
check in with them after not speaking for a couple of months.
Quinn and Hayden shared more expansive reflective practices and processes. Quinn
described that following a session with their mentee they:
Reflect on what we talked about…during that time. And I kind of analyze my own self,
like did I give her the right advice? Or did I say the things she wanted to hear? Or was I
just being nice or, you know, being truthful?
During the times Quinn reflected, they stated there were moments:
Where I kind of feel like I was second guessing my mentorship in a way where I hope
that I was able to articulate what we were talking about in that moment…was that the
right thing to say, or was that the right thing to do?
Despite second guessing their ability, Quinn saw value in the interactions with their mentee
reflected in the mentees, “eagerness in her still wanting to learn” and continuing the PIF process.

102
Parallel to Quinn, Hayden described an intentional self-reflection process. After each session
with their mentee, Hayden explained:
I think about things that I could have done better. Like, how can I facilitate our meetings
better? How can I add better things to the agenda? And also, I try to think about what
didn’t I say, and like, how can I be a better mentor to my mentee?
This line of questioning helped Hayden to want to improve the interaction with their mentee as
well as to improve the likelihood their mentee achieves success. Hayden disclosed:
I always feel like, I don't know, I always feel like I'm missing something. And I always
try to work on myself, like what skills can I learn to be a better mentor to my mentee?
What can I do to better support her to make sure that she is better off?
The self-reflective practices of Quinn and Hayden are not only indicative of wanting to provide
effective education- and employment-oriented quasi-mentorship and supporting opportunity
youth achieve their career goals through growing their professional networks, but they also saw
value of self-reflection as a practice for self-improvement.
Summary. The SIAs did not widely report metacognitive knowledge or practicing self-
reflection. The SIAs did report actively working to reduce their biases and prejudices when
supporting their mentees and more than half of them learned something about themselves while
serving as a SIA. It is not clear that those who did not engage in self-reflection had mentoring
relationships that were not as effective as those who did, even though one of the seven
participants did admit that in hindsight, reflecting on the relationship sooner may have improved
their connection. The interview findings, however, did highlight that the two people who
intentionally engaged in self-reflection experienced improved interactions with their mentees and
self-improvement.

103
Motivation Findings and Results
A survey and interviews were used to generate the motivation results and findings. The
survey assessed the SIAs motivation assets and gaps. Twenty-four SIAs were invited to
participate in the survey and 13 responded. Motivation assets identified from the survey are
presented as means of 3.0 and above on a four-point scale and the gaps, conversely are means 2.9
and below. The survey results were analyzed using Qualtrics. The results and findings
demonstrate that the SIAs’ motivation to serve in such capacity is high particularly across
intrinsic value, attainment value, and utility value. The results revealed mixed levels of self-
efficacy when serving as a SIA. The following motivational influences are presented in
accordance with the results and findings: the SIAs high value for supporting opportunity youth of
color, high perception of mentoring as a part of their personal identity, service for personal value
rather than personal gain, and mixed levels of confidence when implementing education- and
employment-oriented quasi-mentorship.
Social Impact Agents’ High Value for Supporting Opportunity Youth of Color
Value for supporting opportunity youth through education- and employment-oriented
quasi-mentorship is shown through one’s belief that they will succeed at a task and their
expressing value or enjoyment in doing the task. One’s value placed on a task is increased when
that task is associated with helping someone of a similar background and doing what is deemed a
societal good. The results and findings suggest that the SIAs highly enjoy mentoring opportunity
youth of color and value the experience.
Survey Results. Two open-ended survey items provided insights into the SIAs value for
supporting opportunity youth of color. First, the SIAs were asked to describe why they chose to

104
serve in that capacity (Table 12). Table 12 demonstrates the respondents’ value for wanting to
serve as SIAs. Individuals repeatedly chose to serve as SIAs because they wanted to specifically
give back to youth. Four respondents saw participating in PIF as an opportunity to give back to
youth, share their experiences, and expose the youth to new opportunities.

Table 12
Survey Respondents Value for Serving as Social Impact Agents
Survey Item Quote
4. In one to two sentences please
describe why you chose to serve as
a Social Impact Agent (Mentor)
I wanted to connect to youth in the SF area more and
this program had a unique emphasis.

I love connecting with young people and being of
service where I can so that I can share my experience
and expertise to help others.

I wanted to give back to young people to help and
support their goals and dreams. Growing up, I did not
have a mentor to guide me.

I wanted to give back to the youth in my community.
I wanted to expose youth to new opportunities.

Note. 13 survey respondents answered Q4, however, this table captures the responses that align
with the motivation influence finding, Social Impact Agents’ high value for supporting
opportunity youth.

105
The second open-ended item asked SIAs to describe their overall experience while participating
in PIF (Table 13). Four survey respondents thought participating in PIF was “fruitfully
tremendous,” “great,” “valuable,” and “enjoyable.” To them, PIF was perceived as an
opportunity to connect with someone who may not otherwise have had the resources, cultivate
meaningful relationships, and provide introspection to the SIAs. Two respondents in particular
noted, “The experience with my mentee has been valuable in making me appreciate my own
journey,” exhibiting a mutually benefitting relationship that is highly valued.

Table 13
Survey Respondents Value for the Overall Experience in Pay it Forward
Survey Item Quote
10. Overall, Please describe your
experience participating in Pay it
Forward.
My experience thus far has been fruitfully
tremendous. Me and my mentee have built a trusting
and etch[sic] relationship. This initiative is helping
cultivate what it means to be there for someone who
needs the support and guidance. The Pay it Forward
Initiative motivates you to be emotionally and
mentally stimulating to your mentee and not just
financial. I'm having a great experience and grateful
of this opportunity.

The experience has been great thus far. I enjoy
building meaningful relationships with the young
women I am working with. This is a tremendous
opportunity and I am happy I am able to give back.

Overall the experience with my mentee has been
valuable in making me appreciate my own journey
and in the process help a young person navigate
through their own.

I enjoy being a mentor to my mentee. Pay It Forward
has afforded me the opportunity to give back to an
individual that I may not have been able to meet and
mentor. I am reminded through Pay It Forward and

106
Survey Item Quote
my mentee that everyone needs someone. Although I
am a mentor, I believe my mentee has taught me few
things herself.

Note. 13 survey respondents answered Q10, however, this table captures the responses that align
with the motivation influence finding, Social Impact Agents’ high value for supporting
opportunity youth.

Interview Findings. Seeing value in doing a task is illustrated in first, actively deciding
to do the task and second, remaining persistent. Jaime articulated this value as “intentionality,”
and wanting to serve as a model for the young people they encountered. Aligned with the survey
results, four of the seven participants specifically mentioned that wanting to give back to their
community influenced their decision to serve as a SIA. When asked why they chose to serve as a
Social Impact Agent, Cameron described:
I think it's real simple. It's Pay It Forward, it’s the name…you know mentors played a
significant role in my life and always kind of have that in me to always give back to
young people…I just have a deep passion for youth, the passion for giving back.
Cameron’s experience with having a mentor increased their passion for giving back to young
people and encouraged them to remain connected to their mentees. Alex had a similar response
stating that the experience in PIF is positive because they “wanted to find ways to give back
within my own community.”
Similar to Cameron’s experience with having a mentor influence their decision to serve
as a SIA, that also motivated Hayden and Quinn to continue as SIAs. “I had a mentor that was
there for me mentally and emotionally to be that support system,” Hayden shared, “and I wanted

107
to provide that same support system into my mentee,” increasing their value for being a SIA.
Quinn echoed the same love for the role. Quinn detailed:
I really enjoy being a mentor, especially to, you know…growing up, I'm just really trying
to make it, trying to fit…in a world that does doesn't look at us…that we can't do
anything other than you know what they say, you know… I love being able to mentor my
mentee.
Quinn verified that being a SIA is enjoyable, thus, motivating them to continue. Having an
existing relationship with their mentee coupled with building that relationship in the nine months
PIF was implemented increased their value for the role.
Summary. Overall, the SIAs demonstrated a high value for supporting opportunity youth
of color. The survey and interview findings consistently revealed that the SIAs wanted to give
back to young people in their community. Specifically, the participants reported serving as SIAs
is an opportunity to share their experiences, emotionally connect with their mentee, and receive
learning as well. When deciding to serve as a SIA, the participants shared wanting to give back
and support youth; at the time of data collection, that intent was met.
Social Impact Agents’ Perception of Mentoring Opportunity Youth of Color as a Part of Their
Personal Identity
The perception of one’s desire to serve as a mentor because it is important to who they
are and the person they want to be contributes to their motivation to continue to act. The survey
and interviews uncovered that participating SIAs did so because they wanted to give what others
had given unto them. As previously discussed, SIAs chose to serve in such capacity because they
shared similar experiences as their mentees, deemed it their purpose to give back, and the
practice was personally fulfilling.

108
Survey Results. One survey item showed how the participants’ attainment value
influenced their role. An open-ended survey item asked the participants to describe why they
chose to serve as a Social Impact Agent. The responses captured the SIAs’ perception of
mentoring opportunity youth of color as a part of their personal identity. Table 14 lists the five
respondents who described serving as a part of who they are. One respondent described being a
SIA as their “duty” and another mentioned, “I wanted to become that person I needed when I
was looking for…guidance as a youth,” suggesting they served because it was their purpose.

Table 14
Survey Respondents Perception of Being a Mentor As a Part of Their Personal Identity
Survey Item Quote
4. In one to two sentences please
describe why you chose to serve as
a Social Impact Agent (Mentor)
First of all, to give back as many gave to me when I
was younger. Also, to give access to the many
resources and network that could potentially assist
youth in future goals and endeavors

I feel it is my duty toward community responsibility
to pay it forward and uplift where I am able.

I wanted to become that person I needed when I was
looking for support and guidance as a youth.

Public service and giving back has been my purpose.

I am a native San Franciscan and felt compelled to
provide the knowledge I have acquired to the next
generation.

Note. Thirteen survey respondents answered Q4, however, this table captures the responses that
align with the motivation influence finding, Social Impact Agents’ perception of mentoring
opportunity youth as a part of their personal identity.

109
Interview Findings. Similar to the intrinsic value shown, the seven interview
participants believed being a mentor was important as a part of wanting to give back to
community. Four SIAs specifically identified their experiences with mentors as shaping who
they wanted to be and this opportunity helping them to fulfill that goal. For example, Alex shared
their experience being an AVID (Advancement Via Individual Determination) student and going
on to tutor other AVID students in college, “I was in AVID…So in college, I was an AVID tutor
and worked with youth. I've just always been, I guess, connected too. I give back. That's how I
was raised.” Notably, being raised to give back is a part of Alex’ identity and contributed to their
value to want to serve as a SIA.
Alex later shared, “I never had like a formalized program. So what can I do to kind of
give back in the way that I felt like I had, you know, lacking throughout my time.” The feeling of
wanting to replace what the SIAs did not have when they were their mentees age was consistent
among the participants. For instance, in response to why they chose to serve as a Social Impact
Agent, Hayden explained:
I really wanted to be that person that I needed when I was like, you know, in high school
or in college. I wanted to be that guide for youth to help them on their journey and get
them to the place that they want to be. And I really like this program was really beneficial
because I felt like you know, like it's the people that's helped me in my journey that
helped me get to where I wanted to be. And I want to be that.
Hayden reiterated that they wanted to be the people they wish they had when they were younger
and the people that they met along the way who helped them; for these reasons, they were
motivated to serve as a SIA. Taylor also spoke about sharing similar experiences as their mentee
with having to serve as a “system navigator and translator” for their immigrant parents and these

110
shared experiences motivated them to want to help their mentee more. The interview findings
demonstrate that when the SIAs share similar experiences with their mentee, they are
increasingly motivated.
Additionally, Quinn talked about their experience with their mentor and wanting to
replicate that for their mentee. Quinn illustrated that their mentor:
Put me in spaces and places that I was very uncomfortable in…that was probably at his
caliber and it's shaped me to where I am today. As far as being comfortable in
uncomfortable spaces. I wanted to really get back to someone who I saw myself you
know back then when I was that age.
Quinn affirmed that being committed to supporting someone who came from a similar
background motivated them to want to be a mentor. The interview findings make known that
those participants who had mentors wanted to replicate those experiences for others. Kennedy
highlighted that reality and shared:
Having a person that I could confide in, who had no expectations of me other than to, you
know, apply what I was learning and, you know, one of the impacts that…he had, no, his
only expectation that he expressed to me was that my job is to pay it forward.
Kennedy’s job was to “pay it forward” and they understood that to mean to give back in the way
their mentor gave to them. Prior experience with having a mentor and cultural similarities
between the SIAs and their mentee exhibited an increased value the SIAs placed on the
relationship and their motivation to continue to serve.
Summary. The survey results and interview findings confirmed that the Social Impact
Agents had a high perception for mentoring opportunity youth of color as a part of their personal
identity. The data repeatedly displayed that the SIAs used their personal experiences with

111
mentorship to influence their roles as mentors. Moreover, many of the research participants
conveyed mentoring as their personal responsibility in service of giving back to youth in their
community and participating in Pay it Forward was the mechanism for achieving that.
Social Impact Agents’ Service for Personal Value Rather than Personal Gain
Mentoring relationships are usually mutually benefiting to the mentor and the mentee.
Motivation through utility value is generally associated with one valuing a task because of the
potential for personal goal achievement. However, as the study’s data displays those who elected
to be SIAs did so for personal value rather than personal gain. Both the survey and interviews
assessed whether or not the SIAs thought they would professionally benefit from mentoring
opportunity youth of color. The data confirmed that the SIAs generally served for personal
fulfillment.
Survey Results. Descriptive statistics and qualitative analysis were used to examine the
utility value the SIAs experienced related to mentoring opportunity youth. Specifically, the 13
survey respondents were asked if they believed serving as a SIA provided them with valuable
experience related to achieving their professional goals (Table 15). Eighty-five percent of the
respondents “agreed” that being a SIA was valuable experience related to achieving any
professional goals, whereas 15% “disagreed” or “strongly disagreed” (M = 2.8; SD = 0.6; n =
13). Although a mean of 2.8 suggests that utility value is a gap, most survey respondents agreed
that being a SIA was valuable to achieving their professional goals. However, the open-ended
survey items and interview findings revealed this was not their main reason for volunteering.

112
Table 15
Distribution of Respondents’ Belief Being a Social Impact Agent Will Help Professionally
Survey Item M SD Response n %
7g. I believe serving as a SIA
provides me with valuable
experience related to
achieving my professional
goals.
2.8 0.6 Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
1
1
11
7.7%
7.7%
84.6%

113
Table 16
Survey Respondents Value for Personal Fulfillment Rather the Goal Achievement
Survey Item Response
4. In one to two sentences please
describe why you chose to serve as
a Social Impact Agent (Mentor)
To gain more fulfillment from service to others. To
impact the life of a willing individual.
10. Overall, Please describe your
experience participating in Pay it
Forward.
I enjoy being a mentor to my mentee. Pay It Forward
has afforded me the opportunity to give back to an
individual that I may not have been able to meet and
mentor. I am reminded through Pay It Forward and
my mentee that everyone needs someone. Although I
am a mentor, I believe my mentee has taught me few
things herself.

Note. Thirteen survey respondents answered items 4 and 10, however, this table captures the
responses that align with the motivation influence, Social Impact Agents service for personal
value rather than personal gain.

Contrarily, when responding to the open-ended survey items, the respondents did not
explicitly state that they served as a SIA to achieve their career goals, but they did not negate the
professional benefits either (Table 16). One respondent noted that they wanted to be a SIA, “to
gain more fulfillment from service to others.” When describing their experience, another
respondent stated, “…everyone needs someone. Although I am a mentor, I believe my mentee
has taught me,” indicating a mutually benefitting relationship. The survey results revealed that
the SIA-mentee relationships are not predominantly rooted in professional achievement, but
personal value motivated them as well.
Interview Findings. One of the seven interview participants discussed how the
relationship with their mentee was mutually benefitting. Alex gave an example of sharing a

114
professional goal and their mentee holding them accountable to achieving that goal. Alex was
going through the process of getting a promotion at work and they explained that their mentee
was interested in hearing about the process. When Alex’ mentee asked, “How’d your big
presentation go?” Alex perceived that as, “…a little bit of a check in on her and actually to hold
me accountable like keep me posted on what's going on with your career stuff.” Thus, Alex
realized that their relationship fostered mutual accountability and even through their intention of
supporting their mentee to identify their career goals they, “hope to be an example I guess of,
like, you can still be super connected to the community, but also get yours and get what you need
to advance as an individual.” Alex validated that one can be committed to giving back as well as
committed to achieving their goals.
Summary. The data indicated that the potential for professional gain was not a primary
driver for the research participants motivation. The interview findings demonstrated that
attainment value was more apparent than utility value. Specifically, the SIAs acknowledged
receiving intangible benefits such as personal fulfillment and shared accountability. This shared
accountability was reported as a SIA supporting their mentee identify their career goals and the
mentee probing the SIA on their progress with achieving their own career goals. The survey
results suggested that the SIAs did perceive receiving professional benefits, reported valuing
supporting opportunity youth of color, and believed the experience was valuable to their
professional goals.
Social Impact Agents’ Mixed Levels of Confidence when Implementing Education- and
Employment-Oriented Quasi-Mentorship
The Social Impact Agents’ confidence when implementing education- and employment-
oriented quasi-mentorship represented their level of self-efficacy. One’s self-efficacy expounds

115
upon their belief and confidence in their ability to perform a task. The survey was used to inspect
the SIAs’ level of confidence when supporting opportunity youth of color. The results showed
that there were mixed levels of confidence in their skills when implementing education- and
employment-oriented quasi-mentorship, but high levels of confidence when working with youth
from backgrounds different than their own.
Survey Results. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the motivation of 13 survey
respondents regarding their confidence when providing education- and employment-oriented
quasi-mentorship. A total of 13 survey items measured the SIAs’ belief in their skills and ability
to implement education- and employment-oriented quasi-mentorship. Respondents first rated
nine items associated with their skill level on a four-point scale (not skilled at all = 1; extremely
skilled = 4). Motivation assets are those skills displayed with means of 3.0 and higher, and gaps
are those with means of 2.9 and below. These skills were identified as foundational to
implementing effective mentoring practices.
Table 17 reflects how the research participants perceived their skills when responding to
“please rate how skilled you feel you are in each of the following areas. Think about your skill
generally, with your mentee.” Overall, the survey respondents showed mixed thoughts about
their skill level when implementing effective mentoring practices. The mentoring skills revealed
as assets included active listening, establishing a relationship based on trust, identifying and
accommodating different communication styles, acknowledging the mentees’ existing success,
and helping the mentee acquire resources. Eighty-three percent of the respondents thought they
were “skilled” or “extremely skilled” at active listening (M = 3.3; SD = 0.8; n = 12), 92.3%
thought they were “skilled” or “extremely skilled” at building a relationship based on trust (M =
3.5; SD = 0.7; n = 13), 100% thought they were “skilled” or “extremely skilled” at identifying

116
and accommodating different communication styles (M = 3.1; SD = 0.3; n = 13), 77% thought
they were “skilled” or “extremely skilled” at acknowledging their mentees’ existing success (M
= 3.1; SD = 0.8; n = 13), and 72.8% thought they were “skilled” or “extremely skilled” in
helping their mentee acquire resources (M = 3.0; SD = 1; n = 11). The mentoring skills revealed
as gaps included building the mentees’ professional networks, working with mentees to set
education goals, working with mentees to set career goals, and motivating mentees. Only 53.9%
of respondents thought they were “skilled” or “extremely skilled” in building their mentees
professional networks (M = 2.6; SD = 0.9; n = 13), 40% thought they were “skilled” or
“extremely skilled” working with their mentee to set educational goals (M = 2.5; SD = 0.7; n =
10), 58.3% thought they were “skilled” or “extremely skilled” working with their mentee to set
career goals (M = 2.7; SD = 0.7; n = 12), and 69.3% felt “skilled” in motivating their mentee (M
= 2.8; SD = 1; n = 13).

Table 17
Distribution of Participant Responses When Rating Skill Level for Effective Mentorship Practice
Survey Item M SD Response n %
6a. Active Listening 3.3 0.8 Not skilled at all
Somewhat Skilled
Skilled
Extremely Skilled

2
4
6

16.7%
33.3%
50.0%

6b. Establishing a
relationship based on
trust
3.5 0.7 Not skilled at all
Somewhat Skilled
Skilled
Extremely Skilled

1
4
8

7.7%
30.8%
61.5%
6c. Identifying and
accommodating
different
communication styles
3.1 0.3 Not skilled at all
Somewhat Skilled
Skilled
Extremely Skilled

12
1

92.3%
7.7%

117
Survey Item M SD Response n %

6d. Building the mentees’
professional networks
2.6 0.9 Not skilled at all
Somewhat Skilled
Skilled
Extremely Skilled

1
5
5
2
7.7%
38.5%
38.5%
15.4%
6e. Working with mentees
to set education goals
2.5 0.7 Not skilled at all
Somewhat Skilled
Skilled
Extremely Skilled

6
3
1

60%
30%
10%
6f. Working with mentees
to set career goals
2.7 0.7 Not skilled at all
Somewhat Skilled
Skilled
Extremely Skilled

5
6
1

41.7%
50.0%
8.3%
6g. Motivating your
mentee
2.8 1.0 Not skilled at all
Somewhat Skilled
Skilled
Extremely Skilled

2
2
6
3
15.4%
15.4%
46.2%
23.1%
6h. Acknowledging your
mentees’ existing
success
3.1 0.8 Not skilled at all
Somewhat Skilled
Skilled
Extremely Skilled

3
6
4

23.1%
46.2%
30.8%
6i. Helping your mentee
acquire resources (e.g.,
grants, internships,
letters of
recommendation,
employment, etc.)

3.0 1 Not skilled at all
Somewhat Skilled
Skilled
Extremely Skilled
1
2
4
4
9.1%
18.2%
36.4%
36.4%

Note. n = 13, with the exception of 6a (n = 12), 6e (n = 10), and 6i (n = 11).

In addition to rating their skills, survey respondents rated their level of confidence when
mentoring opportunity youth of color on a four-point scale (strongly disagree = 1, strongly agree

118
= 4). Consistently, the motivation assets are displayed with means of 3.0 and higher, and gaps are
represented with means of 2.9 and below. These items included evaluating their confidence in
their ability to work with youth who may differ in cultural background, age, and economic status,
and their belief in their professional networks helping their mentee achieve their career goals.
Overall, the survey respondents reported high levels of confidence when mentoring someone
who may be different than themselves (Table 18). One-hundred percent of the survey
respondents “agreed” or “strongly agreed” that they were confident in their ability to work with a
mentee whose cultural background (M = 3.5; SD = 0.5; n = 13), age (M = 3.5; SD = 0.5; n = 13),
and economic status (M = 3.5; SD = 0.5; n = 13) may be different from their own. The survey
respondents also reported high confidence in their ability to help their mentee achieve their
career goals through their professional networks. Ninety-two percent of survey respondents
believed introducing their mentee to their professional networks would help them achieve their
career goals (M = 3.2; SD = 0.8; n = 13).

Table 18
Distribution of Participant Responses for Confidence when Supporting Opportunity Youth
Survey Item M SD Response n %
7b. I am confident in my
ability to work with a
mentee whose cultural
background may be
different from my
own.

3.5 0.5 Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree

6
7

46.2
53.8%
7c. I am confident in my
ability to work with a
mentee whose age is
different from my
own.
3.5 0.5 Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree

6
7

46.2%
53.8%

119
Survey Item M SD Response n %

7d. I am confident in my
ability to work with a
mentee whose
economic status may
be different from my
own.

3.5 0.5 Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree

7
6

53.8%
46.2%
7e. I believe introducing
my mentee to my
professional network
will help them achieve
their career goals.
3.2 0.8 Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
1

7
5
7.7%

53.8%
38.5%

Note. n = 13

Despite showing high levels of confidence in their ability to provide education- and
employment-oriented quasi-mentorship, the survey respondents exhibited mixed reactions to the
overall relationship with their mentee and whether or not they made a positive impact on their
mentee’s life (Table 19). The survey respondents were mostly confident that they were making a
positive impact on their mentee’s life (M = 2.9; SD = 0.7; n = 10). Seventy-three percent either
“agreed” or “strongly agreed” that they made a positive impact on their mentee’s life, 27.3%
“disagreed.” In essence, almost one third of surveyed SIAs indicated a lack of confidence in their
ability to make a positive impact on their mentee’s life. When looking at the measure of central
tendency, the mean of 2.9 on a four-point scale similarly indicates a moderate level of self-
efficacy in making a positive impact on their mentee’s life. This data reveals a concern.
Moreover, 64% of survey respondents either “agreed” or “strongly agreed” that the overall
relationship with their mentee was going well, and 36% either “disagreed” or “strongly
disagreed” that the relationship with their mentee was going well (M = 2.9; SD = 1.0; n = 11).

120
More than one third of surveyed SIAs did not believe the relationship with their mentee was
going well. This demonstrates an area of improvement. The relationship status between the SIA
and the mentee is consistent with the varying skill levels expressed when implementing
education- and employment-oriented quasi-mentorship.

Table 19
Distribution of Participant Responses of Social Impact Agent-Mentee Relationship
Survey Item M SD Response n %
8a. I feel confident that I am
making a positive impact
on my mentee’s life

2.9 0.7 Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree

2
6
2

27.3%
54.5%
18.2%
8b. Overall, the relationship
with my mentee is going
well
2.9 1.0 Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
1
3
3
4
9.1%
27.3%
27.3%
36.4%

Note. n = 10 for item 8a and n = 11 for item 8b

121
Summary. The survey results established that the research participants had mixed levels
of confidence when implementing education- and employment-oriented quasi-mentorship. The
respondents were confident in their ability to mentor an opportunity youth from a different
background; they were also confident that their professional networks could help their mentee
achieve their career goals. However, the respondents showed mixed belief in their skills to
implement education- and employment-oriented quasi-mentorship. In general, the mixed levels
of confidence did not hinder the SIAs motivation to continue to serve in that capacity.
Research Question 2: How Does HOPE SF’s Own Organization Support or Hinder the
Social Impact Agents’ Capacity to Provide One-on-One Quasi-Mentorship?
Document analysis, a survey, and interviews were used to inspect the organizational
assets and gaps that may have supported or hindered the Social Impact Agents’ capacity to
provide one-on-one quasi-mentorship. A document analysis provided insight into the types of
training materials and evaluation mechanisms the organization implemented to support the SIAs
capacity. The survey scrutinized HOPE SF’s communication of the goal, the effectiveness of the
training and resources, the organizations response to feedback, and the overall support. The
organizational assets identified in the survey are presented as items with means of 3.0 and above
on a four-point scale, and the gaps are presented as means of 2.9 and below. The interview
findings offer detailed context into the organization’s support for the SIAs to provide one-on-one
quasi-mentorship. The findings and results of these data collection methods are presented below.
Organizational Findings and Results
Investigating the organizational assets and gaps disclose the areas the organization is
doing well, and where the organization may improve. The organizational findings and results
exposed four organizational influences. First, the results and findings revealed that HOPE SF

122
lacks reoccurring training for Social Impact Agents. Second, HOPE SF lacks an available space
for SIAs to learn from each other. Third, the organization can improve its communication of
clear performance measures to assess Social Impact Agent success. Last, HOPE SF needs to
enhance its mechanism for receiving and responding to feedback on programmatic success.
HOPE SF’s Lack of Reoccurring Training for Social Impact Agents Limits Program
Implementation
Effective training begins with articulating the intended goal and how the primary
stakeholders can achieve that goal. Moreover, offering reoccurring training fosters an
environment for continuous learning. To understand the types of training offered to the Social
Impact Agents, I reviewed the initial training documents and looked for evidence of reoccurring
trainings offered to the SIAs. The findings and results suggest that offering trainings in addition
to the initial orientation is an area for improvement.
Document Analysis. Several documents were available that were intended to support the
SIAs capacity to provide education- and employment-oriented mentorship to opportunity youth.
The PIF coordinator managed a Google folder of “general mentoring program resources.” This
folder included best practices in mentoring, tools to avoid an early match termination, a guide for
effective mentoring practices, and a guide to building lasting relationships. Each of these topics
were discussed in the initial orientation and could have increased the SIAs effectiveness had they
been periodically offered.
One document that addressed reoccurring training specifically is the 120-page “Ongoing
Training for Mentors” guide. This guide presented twelve training sessions with their associated
curricula, agenda, and outcomes. Training sessions that may have mitigated some of the
aforementioned challenges with communication and working with opportunity youth to identify

123
their career goals include the following: establishing and maintaining boundaries, effective
communication in the mentor-mentee relationship cycle, goal setting with your mentee, planning
activities with your mentee, money matters, and preparing for closure. Due to limited staff
capacity, these trainings were not offered. Additionally, as the survey results and interview
findings discovered, COVID-19 did hinder the program coordinator’s ability to facilitate virtual
trainings. The trainings outlined in the “Ongoing Training for Mentors” document were
developed to offer in person, thus, creating increased difficulty for dissemination. Although the
tools and resources for reoccurring training were available, there is no indication that they were
offered to the SIAs.
Survey Results. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the survey respondents’
perception of organizational support during their participation in Pay it Forward. There were a
total of 13 survey respondents, however, the number of respondents for survey items 8c thru 8e
varied, 12 respondents, 11 respondents, and 10 respondents, respectively. Regarding the level of
training offered, participants were asked to respond to their knowledge of the programmatic goal,
the effectiveness of the training, and the resources offered. Overall, there were mixed reactions
to the training and resources SIAs had access (Table 20). Ninety-two percent of respondents
either “agreed” or “strongly agreed” that the goal of PIF was clearly communicated, 8.3%
“disagreed” (M = 3.5; SD = 0.7; n = 12). Ninety-one percent of respondents either “agreed” or
“strongly agreed” the trainings were effectively presented, 9.1% “disagreed” (M = 3.1; SD = 0.5;
n = 11). This item specifically related to the initial training provided. Finally, the resources the
team provided to the SIAs is an identified gap. Eighty percent of respondents “agreed” or
“strongly agreed” that the resources were helpful, and 20% “disagreed” (M = 2.9; SD = 0.6; n =

124
10). After further investigation, there is no indication that the resources available in the “general
mentoring program resources” folder were offered to the SIAs on an ongoing basis.

Table 20
Social Impact Agents Responses to Organizational Support of Education- and Employment-
Oriented Quasi-Mentorship
Survey Item M SD Response n %
8c. The goal of Pay it Forward
was clearly communicated
during the orientation and
the mentor-youth matching
period.

3.5 0.7 Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree

1
4
7

8.3%
33.3%
58.3%
8d. The Pay it Forward
trainings are effectively
presented.

3.1 0.5 Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree

1
8
2

9.1%
72.7%
18.2%
8e. The resources the Pay it
Forward team provides are
helpful to serving as a
Social Impact Agent.
2.9 0.6 Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree

2
7
1

20.0%
70.0%
10.0%

125
Interview Findings. Similarly to wanting access to more knowledge tools, two interview
participants articulated a desire for additional training and ongoing support throughout the Pay it
Forward initiative. In order to increase their effectiveness, Cameron wanted, “More ongoing
support…just like check in, not, you know, Google Form. It's more like something like a quick
15-minute check in, say, how you doing, how's everything with your youth.” They were referring
to a monthly questionnaire the SIAs completed to offer feedback or request support. I will
expound on this questionnaire when discussing enhancing the mechanism to receive and respond
to feedback.
Hayden, one who was new to mentoring, also desired ongoing support in the form of
training resources. When asked what can HOPE SF do to enhance the SIA experience in PIF,
Hayden shared:
I wish there was some kind of handbook or pamphlet that was there for first time mentors
to help us maybe brainstorm or like help guide us on asking mentees questions to really
help, because sometimes I was like ‘oh my God…I never had a mentee’…but I wish
there was some kind of documentation or documents that can really help me to be okay.
Hayden emphasized the desire to have the available documents to reference and use as a guide
when trying to implement mentoring practices. The resources Hayden mentioned did exist with
the PIF team. However, their reaction confirmed that the resources available to the PIF team
were not made available to the SIAs.
Summary. Although the tools and resources to offer reoccurring training to the SIAs
were available, they were not effectively used. The SIAs reported being knowledgeable of the
goal, but wanted support with achieving the goal. Limited capacity to train on the part of the PIF

126
team constrained the SIAs ability to successfully provide education- and employment-oriented
quasi-mentorship.
HOPE SF Lacks the Forum for Social Impact Agents to Learn from Each Other and the
Material Resources to Effectively Work with Opportunity Youth
Peer learning is documented as a practice for effective mentoring. Peer connection offers
the opportunity to build relationships, discuss challenges, and evaluate experiences. Beyond
resource guides and monthly surveys, exchanging experiences is an effective mentoring practice.
Although HOPE SF intended to provide the space for SIAs to learn from each other and share
ideas, that did not occur.
Interview Findings. The interview findings demonstrate that the SIAs wanted, and
perhaps needed, a chance to collaborate, but that need was not met. According to the February
2020 Pay it Forward kickoff event presentation, the PIF team intended to provide two learning
exchanges, the first as a mid-point check in and the second to close the pilot year, as well as
quarterly networking events for the SIAs and mentees. Due to staffing capacity and shelter-in-
place restrictions, those events did not occur. All seven participants expressed wanting ongoing
support from the program staff in the form of learning exchanges with other SIAs. Alex shared:
I really would love to know how other pairings are going. What are other people's
experiences? I think if there was a way to have a bit more of a community among the
whole group would have been nice just to see like, okay, you're going through similar
challenges or whatever, just like knowledge sharing is something that I know I was
looking for. Especially since I've never participated in like a formal program like this.
Any of those additional ongoing best practices would have been helpful.

127
Other SIA comments reflected a similar sentiment. Jamie suggested having more opportunities,
“Like at LinkedIn” for SIAs to connect, even if virtually, to discuss how to mitigate relationship
challenges. Jaime continued to share that quarterly events with the SIAs and mentees would
provide the chance to hear from other SIAs as well as the youth. They described the youth could
provide insight into how to improve relationships with other mentees that are not going well.
Consistently, Hayden wished the SIAs:
Could just have…one collective gathering of all the mentors and then like a collective
gathering of all the mentees…it'd be nice if I was able to hear about other mentors
experiences and also if other mentees were able to hear about other mentee experiences.
The interview findings are consistent with the gap found in the lack of reoccurring training and
limited access to mentoring resources. These findings confirm those resources were limited or
nonexistent.
Summary. The research participants explained that they were generally able to maintain
the relationship with their mentees without the learning exchanges. However, the interview
findings repeatedly demonstrated that learning exchanges amongst peers would assist the SIAs
with building relationships with their mentees, providing effective ways to mentor opportunity
youth, and knowing how to help their mentee identify their education- and career-related goals.
Lack of staff capacity and implementing a pilot program during a global health pandemic served
as barriers to supporting SIAs to effectively implement education- and employment-oriented
quasi-mentorship.

128
HOPE SF Lacks Communication of Performance Measures to Assess Social Impact Agent
Success
Communication of performance measures underscores how program stakeholders are
supported and evaluated relative to achieving the stakeholder goal. The availability of
organizational support implicates whether or not specific stakeholder goals are met. In order to
understand if one is achieving a goal, they have to be aware of how success is measured. Pay it
Forward does have documented performance measures for the youth participants. However, how
those measures were communicated to the SIAs and with what frequency is unclear.
Furthermore, there were no documented SIA-specific performance measures. The following
analysis examined a document specific to Pay it Forward-related performance measures.
Document Analysis. The “Pay it Forward 2020 Pilot Description” offered a detailed
description of the initiatives intended performance measures. This document described the
initiative objective, the criteria for youth participating in PIF, the criteria for the SIAs, and the
services offered. The document also presented the initiatives theory of change as follows:
(1) HOPE SF youth who receive (a) career exposure and (b) customized, one-on-one
mentorship, will be more likely to enroll in college, enter their career pathway of
choice, increase their feelings of social connectedness, and increase their feelings of
confidence.
(2) Youth who receive a monthly cash transfer will be more likely to (a) increase a
practice of savings and (b) manage financial emergencies.
Although available, this theory of change is specific to the youth, not the SIAs. Moreover, the
document outlined the types of data the PIF coordinator would collect to track youth progress
(Table 21).

129
Table 21
Pay it Forward Data Collection Type and Frequency
Document Type Frequency
Mentee Report Card Per semester beginning end of
Spring 2019
Mentee College Class Schedule Per semester beginning Fall
2019
Mentee Offer Letter or Pay Stub 2x at June 2019 and June
2020
Mentee Bank Statement Quarterly beginning June
2019
Mentee Survey (assess the youth’s
perception of power, agency, values, self-
efficacy,
money use)
Text based
Monthly/Quarterly

Note. This level of data collection is specific to the youth participants.

There was also a table with specific youth-facing performance measures to track their
progress against the theory of change (Table 22). The document noted, “we [HOPE SF] will
track the following performance measures via survey.” The PIF coordinator, in partnership with
an external community based organization (CBO), was accountable for tracking these
performance measures and supporting the youth to achieve these outcomes. The relationship
between the SIAs and the mentees may have contributed to the “family, friends, and
relationships” outcome area, specifically the “improved social networks and involvement, and
feels socially connected” measures, however, during my investigation, I did not discover a
document that explicitly outlined the SIAs’ accountability to helping advance these performance

130
measures. These measures were not offered in the initial training or kickoff event presentation;
therefore, I am able to conclude that the organization did not communicate how they intended to
hold the SIAs accountable for achieving the relationship-related outcomes.

Table 22
Youth-Related Performance Measures
Outcome Area Measure Explanation
Family, Friends,
and Relationships
Increased satisfaction with
own friendships

Has one or more friends they feel close
to, has improved the number, quality
and frequency of their friendships

Improved social networks and
involvement
Has a broader social network, is active
in their social network, number of
contacts on social network sites
Feels socially connected Feels respected, valued, loved,
supported and cared about; reports
having someone they can contact in
times of emergency or need
Employment,
Training, and
Education
Is in suitable employment Is in part-time employment (at least 16
hours per week); is in full-time
employment (at least 35 hours per
week)
Is in suitable education or
training
Is in full-time education or training; is
in part-time education or training;
enjoys education or training
Has maintained employment Has maintained employment for 6-
months, 1-year; has work-life balance;
enjoys work
Improved self-efficacy has developed an aspiration to work;
has developed self-confidence; is
satisfied with their employment,
education, or training
Income and
Financial Inclusion
Improved financial capability Has developed an understanding of
how to use and manage bank accounts;
has developed an understanding of
essential mechanics of finance

131
Outcome Area Measure Explanation
Is budgeting and living within
means
Has improved knowledge of how to
make a budget; is able to adhere to
budget; is able to avoid going into
overdraft
Improved access to
appropriate financial product
and services
Has a bank account; makes appropriate
use of savings; makes informed and
appropriate use of credit

Note. These performance measures are specific to tracking the success of the youth participants.

Summary. Documented performance measures for the Social Impact Agents did not
exist. The only documented measure that the SIAs acknowledged knowing was the stakeholder
goal, that by June 2021, they were expected to provide education- and employment-oriented
quasi-mentorship for opportunity youth, resulting in their growing professional networks. It is
inadequate to assume that the expectations set forth in the initial training are synonymous with
measures for success. The organization lacks clear performance measures for the SIAs and has
limited ways of tracking the SIAs’ progress towards achieving the stakeholder goal.
HOPE SF’s Limited Practice of Receiving and Responding to Social Impact Agents’ Feedback
on Initiative Success
Understanding program success, promising practices, and areas for improvement requires
a comprehensive evaluation process. Embedded in that evaluation process is soliciting feedback
from the stakeholders involved. Receiving and responding to feedback is indicative of effective
organizational support. A document analysis and survey were used to explore HOPE SF’s
practice of receiving and responding to the Social Impact Agents feedback.
Document Analysis. The primary method for the SIAs to provide feedback to the PIF
coordinator was through the “Pay it Forward Monthly Questionnaire.” The monthly

132
questionnaire is a general form and is one of the expectations of the SIAs participating in PIF.
The survey information collected was done prior to the start of this research and one of the
archived documents analyzed. The questionnaire asked the following: did you connect with your
mentee this month, if not please explain why; how did you connect with your mentee this month;
how much time did you spend; and what was the focal point. The questionnaire also requested
that the SIAs describe how they made an educational and career, or general connections for the
mentee. Finally, the questionnaire provided space for SIAs to list any questions, concerns, or
support needed, and offer any feedback or suggestions to improve Pay it Forward. Table 23
highlights the types of questions, concerns, and support requested, if any. The responses
indicated in Table 23 were from existing organizational data and the respondents are different
from the research study participants. Pseudonyms were not provided in the existing
organizational data, instead respondent identification numbers were used such as Respondent 1
and Respondent 2. Generally, there were not any concerns the SIAs had with their mentees.
Those who did have concerns expressed challenges with connecting with their mentee due to
COVID-19 or the mentees needs being beyond the expectations of the SIAs. One respondent
shared the relationship was meaningful, but wanted to find ways to offer career connections
virtually.

Table 23
Social Impact Agent Monthly Questionnaire Responses
Respondent Responses
Respondent 1

If other mentors are finding unique ways to
connect virtually, would love to hear about
them! Thankfully, I don't think COVID-19
has hindered my ability to build a relationship

133
Respondent Responses
with [my mentee] so far - I just hope I can
continue to find ways to be a resource even
during social distancing..
My main concern is that it has been difficult
to connect in person due to the pandemic so
we have stayed in consistent phone
communication.
I'm enjoying building a relationship with [my
mentee], she's great - hope that she also finds
our monthly check-ins to be a good use of
time. My concern is really around not having
enough to offer via career connections/social
capital given the impact that COVID-19 has
had on my own opportunities during this time.
Would love to hear what other agents are
doing to propel the connections between their
mentee and extended networks
Respondent 2

I am concerned that I have not heard back
from my mentee
Respondent 3

I am still working remotely and have limited
time given my current family dynamics.

Respondent 4 My main concern is that we have not been
able to connect. Hoping that all is well with
her at home.

Respondent 5 My mentee's main needs seem to fit beyond
the stated purpose of this program. Those
needs overshadow her needs from me which
makes it challenging to have a meaningful
meetings related to her professional needs.

Note. Table 23 was generated from existing organization data. To protect the anonymity of the
respondents, names were replaced with respondent identification numbers.

In addition to articulating questions and concerns, the SIAs were given space to offer
feedback or suggestions on improving the PIF experience. Table 24 displays the feedback of

134
those who had any to offer. After review of the monthly questionnaire, the feedback varied
across facilitating connections with mentees, acknowledging the impacts of COVID-19, and
wanting resources for first-time mentors. The document analysis also revealed on two different
occasions one of the SIAs, Respondent 1, requested to speak with someone from the PIF team
about re-engaging their mentee. It is not apparent that the PIF team responded to this request.

Table 24
Social Impact Agents Feedback and Suggestions for Initiative Improvement
Respondent Responses
Respondent 1

I would love to speak with a member of the
Pay it Forward team to get suggestions on
how to reignite my connection with [my
mentee].

Would like to speak with someone at Pay if
Forward regarding strategies to re-engage
mentee.

Respondent 2

This is a tough time for everyone so just
checking in with someone can be very
helpful. That is what I am able to offer at this
time.
Respondent 3

Really appreciate the opportunity to share
knowledge and my own experiences. we all
come from similar upbringings and providing
youth with the chance to see that they(we) can
make it is something all black and brown
youth should be exposed to.

Respondent 4 Perhaps assist in facilitating connection or
putting mentorship on pause while life is
happening for the mentee.
Respondent 5 A handbook or Guide for first-time mentors.

135
Respondent Responses
Respondent 6 None. I just think I really didn't have this time
to fully give when I have to lead the
connection rather than the mentee.

Note. The respondent identification numbers differ from the respondent identification numbers in
Table 23.

Similar feedback also came up in an interview. During their interview, Kennedy shared:
There is a monthly survey that comes out and asked a few questions that's helpful. But,
you know, the 30 or 40 minutes that you [interviewer] and I are spending together today I
think it would be more impactful if someone from HOPE SF were to ask some of the
questions that you're asking me.
SIAs sought support facilitating connections with their mentees, admitted that virtual
communication was limiting, and they wanted access to the general mentoring program
resources. The data discovered in the monthly questionnaire analysis is consistent with the
limitations in the previously discussed findings and results.
Survey Results. In addition to analyzing the monthly questionnaire, descriptive statistics
were used to analyze the research participants responses to two items related to organizational
support (Table 25). The first items asked the participants to rate, on a four-point scale (strongly
disagree = 1; strongly agree = 4), the HOPE SF teams openness to feedback for improving Pay it
Forward. The second item asked participants to rate, on a four-point scale (not at all good = 1;
very good = 4), the support from the HOPE SF team. Overall, HOPE SF’s openness to feedback
and support was deemed an asset. One-hundred percent of survey respondents either “agreed” or
“strongly agreed” that HOPE SF was open to feedback (M = 3.8; SD = 0.4; n = 13), and 92.3%

136
of survey respondents thought the support that the HOPE SF team offered was “good” or “very
good” (M = 3.3; SD = 0.6; n = 13).

Table 25
Distribution of Participant Responses for Organizational Feedback and Support
Survey Item M SD Response n %
8f. The HOPE SF team is open
to feedback for improving
Pay it Forward.

3.8 0.4 Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree

3
10

23.1%
76.9%
9. Overall, how would you rate
the support from the HOPE
SF team?

3.3 0.6 Not at all Good
Not Good
Good
Very Good

1
7
5

7.7%
53.8%
38.5%

Note. n = 13

137
Summary. The findings and results exhibited that HOPE SF had a mechanism in place to
receive feedback, but experienced challenges with responding to feedback. The monthly
questionnaire was perceived to be an adequate tool to gather questions and concerns from
participating SIAs, however, if the staffing is not available to address the feedback, that can limit
the initiative’s effectiveness. COVID-19 was confirmed as a barrier to connection for the SIA-
mentee relationship and, seemingly, HOPE SF’s staff capacity. Despite the tools and resources
being readily available, the PIF coordinator struggled with distributing those resources, thus
hindering the ability of the SIAs to provided effective education- and employment-oriented
quasi-mentorship.
Summary of Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences’ Data
Table 26 presents the knowledge, motivation, and organization influences explored in
this study, and their determination as an asset or a need. Regarding the research participants’
knowledge, the data showed that they possessed the foundational knowledge of mentoring
practices and organically implemented trauma-informed and culturally relevant practices.
However, there are needs related their ability to support opportunity youth identify their career
goals, their skills associated with providing education- and employment-oriented quasi-
mentorship, and their self-reflection practices. The data determined that the participants were
highly motivated to support opportunity youth of color. The participants showed high value for
supporting youth, absorbed being a mentor as a part of their personal identity, and mentored for
personal value rather than personal gain. Conversely, the participants had mixed levels of
confidence when implementing education- and employment-oriented quasi-mentorship. Finally,
the data collection revealed HOPE SF has significant room for improvement. There is a need for

138
HOPE SF to provide more training to the SIAs, create the space for shared learning,
communicate how success is measured, and improve feedback response.

Table 26
Summary of Knowledge, Motivation, and Organization Influences

Assumed Influence Asset or Need
Knowledge Influence: Social Impact Agents’ Possession of the
Foundational Knowledge of Mentoring Practices
Asset
Knowledge Influence: Social Impact Agents’ Organic Implementation of
Trauma-informed and Culturally Relevant
Practices
Asset
Knowledge Influence: Social Impact Agent’s Moderate Levels of Ability
to Support Opportunity Youth Identify Their
Career Goals and Create Paths to Achieve Their
Education and Employment Goals
Need
Knowledge Influence: Social Impact Agents’ Limited Skills in Providing
Education- and Employment-Oriented Quasi-
Mentorship
Need
Knowledge Influence: Social Impact Agents’ Limited Self-Reflection on
Their Effectiveness Providing Education- and
Employment-Oriented Quasi-Mentorship
Need
Motivation Influence: Social Impact Agents’ High Value for Supporting
Opportunity Youth of Color
Asset
Motivation Influence: Social Impact Agents’ Perception of Mentoring
Opportunity Youth of Color as a Part of Their
Personal Identity
Asset
Motivation Influence: Social Impact Agents’ Service for Personal Value
Rather than Personal Gain
Asset
Motivation Influence: Social Impact Agents’ Mixed Levels of
Confidence when Implementing Education- and
Employment-Oriented Quasi-Mentorship
Need
Organizational
Influence:
HOPE SF’s Lack of Reoccurring Training for
Social Impact Agents Limits Program
Implementation
Need

139
Assumed Influence Asset or Need
Organizational
Influence:
HOPE SF Lacks the Forum for Social Impact
Agents to Learn from Each Other and the Material
Resources to Effectively Work with Opportunity
Youth
Need
Organizational
Influence:
HOPE SF Lacks Communication of Performance
Measures to Assess Social Impact Agent Success
Need
Organizational
Influence:
HOPE SF’s Limited Practice of Receiving and
Responding to Feedback on Initiative Success
Need

Conclusion
Using the evidence gathered, chapter five will offer recommendations for solutions to the
prioritized knowledge, motivation, and organizational gaps this study identified. I will provide
implementation methods and a framework to operationalize organizational improvement. A
particular focus on solutions that center equity will underpin the subsequent recommendations in
service of providing culturally relevant education- and employment-oriented quasi-mentorship to
opportunity youth of color.

140
Chapter Five: Discussion and Recommendations
HOPE SF has an opportunity to improve its organizational practices in order to achieve
the organizational and stakeholder goals. The following chapter presents the discussion of this
study’s findings and results, and four recommendations for practice that HOPE SF can
implement to support organizational performance and advance its mission. Additionally, the
limitations and delimitations for this study are disclosed as well as recommendations for future
research. Finally, this chapter acknowledges how the identified recommendations may influence
advancing equity for oppressed communities of color.
Discussion of Findings and Results
The present findings and results indicate that the Social Impact Agents for Pay it Forward
are highly motivated to support opportunity youth of color, have the capacity to implement
culturally relevant mentoring practices, and with adequate organizational support, can provide
education- and employment-oriented quasi-mentorship. An individual’s and community’s wealth
accumulation is dependent on their tangible (Shapiro et al., 2013) and intangible (Yosso, 2005)
assets, and as earlier research suggested, social capital is a core contributor to that accumulation
(Bourdieu, 1986; Shahidul et al., 2015; Stanton-Salazar, 2004; Yosso, 2005). This study explored
whether and how Social Impact Agents implemented culturally relevant mentoring practices that
are aligned with the existing literature (Bruce & Bridgeland, 2014; DuBois et al., 2011; Herrera
et al., 2013) to support the socioeconomic advancement of opportunity youth of color. Three
themes emerged in the data that are congruent with the research-based mentoring promising
practices including cultural relevance contributing to trust building, mentorship requiring
intentionality and time, and organizational investment being critical for effective
implementation.

141
Culturally Relevant Mentoring Practices Contribute to Improving Relationships with
Mentees
Mentors and mentees who share racial, ethnic, or other cultural backgrounds are able to
engage in an enhanced mentoring experience (Davis, 2007; Reddick, 2011). This study explored
the SIAs’ knowledge of trauma-informed and culturally relevant mentoring as under-researched
mentoring practices. Cultural relevance is achieved when cultures representative of people of
color are valued and embedded into program implementation (Ladson-Billings, 2014; Ladson-
Billings, 1995), minoritized groups can share their own stories as opposed to being told from a
dominant culture perspective (Davis et al., 2010), the attitudes and behaviors of the targeted
cultures are honored, and relationships are customized to each culture (Barrio, 2000). Consistent
with the existing literature, the SIAs were offered an opportunity to share their own stories and
experiences supporting opportunity youth of color. The SIAs shared the value for supporting
opportunity youth of color, their process for building trust with their mentee, and the growing
connections they made with their mentees. These actions and experiences contributed to their
implementation of culturally relevant mentorship as an asset.
Cultural relevance also improves trust building between the mentor and mentee (Davis,
2007; Reddick, 2011), an essential characteristic to advancing mentoring relationships (Rhodes
et al., 2010). The SIAs conveyed that trust building was an iterative process that involved
valuing where the mentee was in their life, expressing care and understanding, and not imposing
judgement on their mentees’ decisions or experiences. The trust building was enhanced through
mutual respect, uplifting the mentees’ decisions for their own goals (Anastasia et al., 2012), and
consistency (Munson et al., 2010; Rhodes & DuBois, 2008). The SIAs repeatedly reported that
building trust, maintaining mutual respect, having open communication, attending sessions

142
consistently, and supporting mentee-led decisions were necessary to improve the relationship
with their mentees. Overall, the findings demonstrated that the SIAs had a working knowledge of
culturally relevant mentoring. Despite not having had explicit training on cultural relevance
while in Pay it Forward, the findings revealed that the SIAs had the capacity to implement
culturally relevant mentoring practices.
Education- and Employment-Oriented Mentorship Requires Intentionality and Time
Quality mentorship yields positive youth development and inspires youth to reach their
highest potential (Bruce & Bridgeland, 2014). Both the SIAs’ knowledge and motivation was
examined in relation to implementing education- and employment-oriented quasi-mentorship.
While the SIAs possessed the conceptual knowledge of mentoring practices, their procedural
knowledge specific to education- and employment-oriented quasi-mentorship is an area for
improvement. Goal-oriented mentorship, specifically mentoring programs that intend to
influence employment outcomes for youth, necessitates the mentors intentionally focus on the
program goal (Davis, 2007; DuBois et al., 2011), possess attitudinal and interest connections
with their mentee, and allocate time to build trust (Brown et al., 2007; DuBois et al., 2011;
Eesley & Wang, 2017; Kay et al., 2008; Robinson & Reio, 2012). Although previous research
argued longer mentor-mentee relationships with high contact frequencies yielded greater
educational and employment success for the mentee (Davis, 2007; Erickson, 2009; Hurd &
Sellers, 2014), there is minimal indication from the data that the Pay it Forward youth did not
achieve similar education- and employment-related outcomes. However, the research
participants did report prioritizing trust building and centering the mentee’s desire to focus on
education and employment goals only when they decided, a tenet of culturally relevant pedagogy
(Ladson-Billings, 2014; Ladson-Billings, 1995). Conversely, the SIAs’ metacognitive practice

143
may be improved. Although the SIAs generally reported actively working to reduce their biases
and prejudices, aligned with culturally relevant practices (Barrio, 2000; Davis et al., 2010:
Ladson-Billings, 2014), one-fourth admitted to not learning more about themselves throughout
the process, and only two reported engaging in intentional reflective practices. Deliberate self-
reflection improves implementation and positively influences culturally relevant mentoring
practices (Dutton et al., 2018; Lucey & White, 2017).
Motivation was an identified asset among the research participants. The SIAs reported
high value for supporting opportunity youth, expected they could achieve the stakeholder goal
(Eccles & Wigfield, 2002; O’Neil & Sugden, 1992; Pintrich, 2003), perceived being a mentor as
a part of their personal identity (Pintrich, 2003), and found the process mutually benefitting
(Ghosh & Reio, 2013; Harackiewicz et al., 2016). Conversely, the SIAs’ reported low level of
self-efficacy is striking. One’s level of self-efficacy is a substantial predictor of their behavior
(Bandura, 1994) and influences their mental effort when performing a task (Clark & Estes,
2008). Nearly a third of the research participants reported not perceiving that they made a
positive impact on their mentee’s life and more than a third did not believe that the relationship
with their mentee was going well. Higher levels of self-efficacy implicate increased mentor
performance, and the mentor and mentee experiencing better mentoring outcomes (Dutton et al.,
2017; Martin & Sifers, 2012; Raposa et al., 2016). The expressed levels of self-efficacy in the
findings and results suggest that a significant number of the SIAs may experience challenges
with investing an adequate amount of effort when supporting their mentee. Motivation was
largely an asset for the SIAs; yet the data demonstrated that there is an opportunity for HOPE SF
to invest in the resources necessary to grow the SIAs’ self-efficacy when implementing
education-and employment-oriented quasi-mentorship.

144
Organizational Investment is Critical in Effective Implementation
The knowledge, skills, and motivation needed to operationalize specific goals require the
availability of organizational processes and procedures (Clark & Estes, 2008). The data revealed
that the organizational support necessary to achieve the stakeholder goal of providing education-
and employment-oriented quasi-mentorship is a significant area of improvement. The data also
confirmed that even with the foundational knowledge of mentoring practices and the motivation
to support opportunity youth, sparse organizational support makes implementation difficult.
Providing ongoing training and support not only contributes to growing the mentors’ knowledge
(Anastasia et al., 2012; DuBois et al., 2011), but are standards for effective mentoring practices
that influence program improvement and yield greater outcomes for the mentees (Anastasia et
al., 2012; DuBois et al., 2011; Garringer et al., 2015; Pennanen et al., 2016). Pay it Forward
offered limited training to the SIAs. Consequently, a fifth of the research participants found the
provided resources unhelpful and the newer mentors reported having to self-teach effective
mentoring practices.
In addition to ongoing training and support, opportunities to learn from peers enhances
mentoring experiences (Anastasia et al., 2012; Pennanen et al., 2016). The research participants
continually reported wanting to have the space to learn from other SIA experiences and the
mentees in support of improving their mentoring practices. However, HOPE SF did not respond
to the requests for support discovered in the document analysis. Since mentorship practices
evolve overtime (Garringer et al., 2015; Rhodes & DuBois, 2008), providing periodic
development opportunities can maintain an organizations relevancy and sustainability (Costanza
et al., 2016).

145
Setting clear expectations for achieving the program goal with the associated
performance measures also contributes to the program quality (Bruce & Bridgeland, 2014;
DuBois et al., 2011; Garringer et al., 2015). While the SIAs were aware of the PIF goal, the
performance measures to assess whether or not that goal was being met were unclear. According
to the findings, HOPE SF had performance measures to understand the mentees’ success, but did
not offer communication of how the SIAs were accountable to helping accomplish the mentee-
related outcomes. Moreover, effective mentoring programs are inclusive of all stakeholder
feedback (DuBois et al., 2011; Garringer et al., 2015), and responding to that feedback
contributes to effectiveness. Although HOPE SF had an existing mechanism to receive
stakeholder feedback, the findings demonstrated an opportunity to improve responding to and
implementing feedback. Despite having punitive undertones, evaluation practices help to
improve program implementation and organizational performance (Clark & Estes, 2008). HOPE
SF has an opportunity to improve its organizational investment that increases knowledge and
motivation, offers space to exchange learning, and provides adequate staffing to address
participant concerns.
Recommendations for Practice
Evolving into a learning organization supports sustainability, growth, and leadership
improvement (Garvin et al., 2008). Subsequently, the recommendations presented aim to
maintain HOPE SF as a learning organization. The knowledge, motivation, and organizational
needs validated in the findings and results section are categorized as recommendations that
traverse knowledge-, motivation-, and organizational-related solutions according the Clark and
Estes (2008) gap analysis model. Although the research participants were external to the
organization, the proposed recommendations for practice suggest ways HOPE SF can achieve

146
internal organizational change in response to external influences. The recommendations include
ongoing skill development, systematizing cultural relevance, creating space for cross learning,
and developing a learning culture through evaluation.
Recommendation 1: Provide Ongoing Skill Development and Post-Learning Related to
Implementing Effective Education- and Employment-Oriented Quasi-Mentorship
Knowledge and motivation influences organizational change (Clark & Estes, 2008). Two
types of knowledge were identified as areas for improvement that effect the Social Impact
Agents’ skills related to implementing education- and employment-oriented quasi-mentorship:
procedural and metacognitive. In response to the SIAs’ moderate ability to support their mentees
and their limited self-reflective practices, HOPE SF may provide ongoing skill development as
well as post-orientation training. Skill development, or training, offers recipients the “how to” of
performing a task, iterative feedback, and improved performance (Aguinis & Kraiger, 2009;
Clark & Estes, 2008, p. 58). HOPE SF may consider ongoing training that accommodates
multiple channels of learning to reduce cognitive overload (Mayer, 2011). The skill development
may also encourage the SIAs’ intentional self-reflection on their practice as a mentor and
specific goals they want to achieve (Medina et al., 2017). For example, offering different case
scenarios in response to the SIAs’ monthly feedback, providing resources on effective mentoring
practices, connecting participation in Pay it Forward with the SIAs’ past personal experiences,
and frequently prompting questions for reflection may enhance the SIAs’ learning and mentoring
skills. Moreover, providing post-orientation assessment that evaluates how the learning was
applied increases learning (Mayer, 2011). Effective mentoring programs are ones that provide
foundational training, assess progress, and evaluate how the learning as a result of the training is

147
applied (Bruce & Bridgeland, 2014), therefore, as a mentoring best practice HOPE SF may
incorporate post-orientation training as a component of Pay it Forward’s training curriculum.
In addition to improving the SIAs’ procedural and metacognitive knowledge, increasing
their self-efficacy through ongoing skill development is an opportunity. One’s belief in their
effectiveness when performing a task directly influences their motivation (Badura, 2000).
Although the SIAs were confident in their general mentoring skills, a considerable number did
not believe they made a positive impact on their mentee’s life. Therefore, HOPE SF may
consider providing the resources necessary that assist in increasing the SIAs’ self-efficacy. The
availability of effective mentoring aids and training (Clark & Estes, 2008) coupled with the
aforementioned procedural and metacognitive strategies are effective mechanisms to build the
SIAs’ confidence in their ability, and their satisfaction, performance, and commitment (Borgogni
et al., 2011; Dutton et al., 2017; Martin & Sifers, 2012; Raposa et al., 2016) when providing
education- and employment-oriented quasi-mentorship.
Recommendation 2: Incorporate Trauma-Informed and Culturally Relevant Mentoring
Promising Practices into Future Social Impact Agent Training
Despite trauma-informed and culturally relevant mentoring practices being under-
researched as mentoring practices, the findings validated that these concepts were important to
building trust in the mentor-mentee relationship. As previous research established (Anastasia et
al., 2012; DuBois et al., 2011; Munson et al., 2010; Rhodes & DuBois, 2008), trust building is a
core component to effective mentoring, especially when mentoring opportunity youth of color
who live in high risk environments (Rhodes et al., 2009). Therefore, there is an opportunity for
HOPE SF to document the promising culturally relevant mentoring practices that the research
participants shared and incorporate those practices into future SIA training. The promising

148
practices may include adjusting to the mentees’ current life circumstances, otherwise known as
“meeting mentees where they are,” building trust in a virtual environment, mentoring youth who
may experience trauma, and mentoring through a lens of radical love (Colonna & Nix-
Stevenson, 2015). Explicitly training on trauma-informed and culturally relevant mentoring
practices can enhance future SIA-mentee experiences.
In delivering training on culturally relevant mentoring practices, HOPE SF may consider
implementing a hybrid mentoring model that is reflective of the current environment.
Customizing relationships to specific cultures increases cultural relevance (Barrio, 2000).
COVID-19 mandated that Pay it Forward shift to a virtual communication culture, one that
required electronic-mentoring (e-mentoring). While the findings and results revealed that some
of the Social Impact Agents were able to build trust with their mentees, the SIAs also reported
that the in-person interactions helped to grow that trust, essential to effective mentoring
relationships based on existing research (Anastasia et al., 2012). Therefore, HOPE SF may first
consider incorporating in-person interactions between the SIAs and mentees when feasibly safe
to do so. As reported in the findings, the in-person interactions were valuable to the trust building
process, thus, while virtual interactions between the SIAs and mentees may accommodate the
time constraints they experience, the in-person interactions may yield increased trust and
relationship building, promising practices prescribed in the existing mentoring literature
(Anastasia et al., 2012). Finally, the findings and results indicated that virtual training may be a
feasible approach to training future SIAs. Thus, HOPE SF may maintain virtual skill
development including the orientation, foundational training, and post-orientation training.

149
Recommendation 3: Provide Forums for Social Impact Agents to Learn from Their Peers
and Mentees
Peer learning improves knowledge and collective efficacy (Bandura, 2000; Topping et
al., 2017), and enriches mentoring experiences (Anastasia et al., 2012; Pennanen et al., 2016). In
response to the SIAs’ multiple requests to learn from their peers and the youth on how to
improve their mentoring relationships and practices, HOPE SF can provide regular (i.e.,
monthly, quarterly) forums for the SIAs to revisit the initiative vision, exchange ideas for
practice, celebrate successes, and discuss how to embed proposed changes into achieving the
initiative goal (Kotter, 2007). Moreover, the learning exchanges are an opportunity to grow the
SIAs’ collective efficacy (Bandura, 2000). These mutual and multi-directional exchanges
(Topping et al., 2017) may contribute to the SIAs’ belief in their ability to effectively implement
education- and employment-oriented quasi-mentorship. As collective efficacy increases, the
group is likelier to invest adequate amounts of effort, increase their commitment, and overcome
perceived challenges (Bandura, 2000), ultimately, achieving the stakeholder goal.
Recommendation 4: Create Clear Performance Measures and a Feedback Process for
Social Impact Agents
Evaluation supports ways to identify performance improvement, program impact, and
cost-effectiveness (Clark & Estes, 2008). Beyond cost-effectiveness, HOPE SF may provide the
SIAs with clear performance measures and feedback so that they know how they are expected to
achieve the stakeholder goal. While stakeholder accomplishments vary with respect to feedback
offered, organizational leadership should understand how to give “formative feedback” as a
mechanism to modify thinking and improve learning (Shute, 2008, p. 154). Regarding effective
mentoring programs, specifically, clear performance measures and reciprocal feedback supports

150
program sustainability and the reliability of services (DuBois et al., 2011; Garringer et al., 2015).
Additionally, verbal and written feedback serve as methods to improve stakeholder self-efficacy
(Bandura, 2012). Therefore, in addition to the previously discussed learning exchanges, HOPE
SF can expand and utilize the existing monthly feedback forms to meet the identified
organizational evaluation needs. HOPE SF can provide SIA-specific performance measures
(DuBois et al., 2011; Garringer et al., 2015), offer written feedback in response to the monthly
questionnaire (Bandura, 2012), and share the results of evaluation processes (Clark & Estes,
2008). Aligned with previous research (Aguinis & Kraiger, 2009; Bandura, 2012; Bandura,
2000; Borgogni et al., 2011; Clark & Estes, 2008; DuBois et al., 2011; Garringer et al., 2015),
when individuals are aware of the stakeholder goal, know how to perform a task, understand how
their performance is measured, and receive feedback, they become holistically invested and
organizational change is sustained.
Integrated Recommendations
Based on an analysis of quantitative and qualitative data related to the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences of the Social Impact Agents, HOPE SF may consider
allocating additional resources to operate an effective culturally relevant mentoring initiative.
The proposed recommendations support the stakeholder feedback; if applied, the
recommendations may be of benefit to the youth being served and the sustainability of the
initiative. In order to implement comprehensive training and ongoing support, executing the
recommendations through an adaptation of McKinsey’s 7S framework for organizational
effectiveness is an appropriate approach (Waterman et al., 1980). McKinsey’s 7S framework
emphasizes that preparing for future organizational change and success is anchored in seven

151
elements: strategy, structure, systems, skill, staff, style, and shared values or goals (Singh, 2013;
Waterman et al., 1980).
Effective mentoring practices require the stakeholders to understand the mission and how
their efforts contribute to fulfilling the mission (Bruce & Bridgeland, 2014; DuBois et al., 2011;
Garringer et al., 2015). McKinsey’s 7S framework centers the organizations shared values.
Shared values include the organizations beliefs, culture, and the mission and vision (Singh,
2013). Moreover, shared values keep the stakeholders aligned with achieving the organizational
goal. Therefore, future SIA recruitment criteria should include identifying individuals who value
the Pay it Forward vision, and believe they can contribute to accomplishing the organizational
goal. Additionally, HOPE SF should reinforce the vision and goal at every stage of skill
development. Consistent reminders of the organizational goal and how the stakeholders are
helping to accomplish the goal improves motivation (Clark & Estes, 2008), maintains the shared
values, and sustains organizational effectiveness (Singh, 2013).
Pay it Forward is a people-centered initiative. Hence, contrary to the original approach
(Waterman et al., 1980), upon reaffirming the shared values and goals, the people-centered
elements may be considered. High quality mentoring programs include ones whose mentors have
the appropriate skills and are committed (Bruce & Bridgeland, 2014; DuBois et al., 2011).
McKinsey’s 7S framework identifies the people-related elements as style, staff, and skills. Since
the Social Impact Agents are volunteers, the staff element is presented as stakeholders. Style
involves how leadership interacts with their stakeholders and spend their time (Singh, 2013;
Waterman et al., 1980). As the recommendations suggest, hosting quarterly learning exchanges
and taking no more than a week to respond to the monthly feedback can enhance HOPE SF’s
leadership style. Furthermore, allocating full-time oversight of the PIF initiative to an existing

152
team member or nonprofit partner will increase the amount of time spent on ensuring the
initiative’s success.
In addition to style, the presence of stakeholders and skills contribute to organizational
effectiveness. The stakeholders are the people who advance the organization’s mission and are
treated in two ways according to Waterman et al. (1980). First, stakeholders should understand
how their performance is appraised. Second, the organization is responsible for contributing to
the stakeholders’ confidence, motivation, attitudes, and behavior. Thus, as a part of the
comprehensive training, HOPE SF may offer a detailed overview of how the SIAs’ performance
is measured. The initial training may include specific performance measures (DuBois et al.,
2011; Garringer et al., 2015) regarding how the SIAs build the professional networks of their
mentees, help their mentees identify their education and career goals, and how the SIAs create
paths for their mentees to achieve their goals. Subsequently, HOPE SF may explain how they
plan to collect the data through both the learning exchanges and feedback form, and how often
they plan to collect the data. Collecting qualitative and quantitative data will also assist with
understanding the SIAs’ motivation and attitudes towards achieving the stakeholder goal. Since
the SIAs’ self-efficacy was identified as an area for improvement, the clarity of performance
measures coupled with the proposed learning exchanges and ongoing skill development may
grow their efficacy (Borgogni et al., 2011; Clark & Estes, 2008; DuBois et al., 2011; Garringer et
al., 2015).
The stakeholders’ skills rely on the availability of training and resources for how to
perform a task (Aguinis & Kraiger, 2009; Clark & Estes, 2008). Skills are necessary to do the
organization’s work (Singh, 2013). While the conceptual knowledge of mentoring was present
among the research participants, ongoing training that enhances their procedural knowledge will

153
grow their skills needed to achieve the stakeholder goal. Specifically, in accordance with the
evolution of mentoring (Garringer et al., 2015; Rhodes & DuBois, 2008), HOPE SF may offer
promising mentoring practices as well as invite facilitators to train on trauma-informed and
culturally relevant practices during the quarterly learning exchanges. Additionally, Clark and
Estes (2008) argued that “job aids” and education help to resolve skill gaps (p. 58). HOPE SF
may distribute monthly or quarterly guides for effective mentoring practices. Finally, to grow
future SIAs’ skills, HOPE SF may also learn and document the culturally relevant mentoring
practices that the SIAs implement. The proposed forums and tools may increase the SIAs’
knowledge and skills needed to develop organizational effectiveness.
Following the people-centered elements, McKinsey’s 7S framework outlines three
structural components required for organizational effectiveness: strategy, structure, and systems
(Waterman et al., 1980). Strategy is composed of the actions that prepare the organization for
external influences beyond its control. As such, organizational change requires leaders to plan
for uncertain events and understand the impacts of the external environment (Austin, 2016).
Strategizing to prepare for unexpected events includes documenting practices and processes used
to exchange knowledge, having multiple initiative leaders in place should leadership changes
occur, adapting to the external environment, and soliciting stakeholder feedback on the
organizations value to community. HOPE SF may use the nonprofit partner that works with the
youth as the primary implementor of Pay it Forward and the HOPE SF team may have a
dedicated staff person to serve as secondary oversight. Additionally, during the evaluation
process, HOPE SF may inquire with stakeholders about PIFs’ effectiveness and its contributions
to community. These strategies together with the aforementioned recommendations provide the
opportunity for initiative sustainability.

154
Organizational structure “defines the roles, responsibility and accountability
relationships,” (Singh, 2013, p. 44). The structure informs how the stakeholders communicate
with each other and devolve power. To support an effective organizational structure, HOPE SF
may incorporate a detailed description of roles, responsibilities, and mutual accountability
measures in the recruitment materials and training. For example, the findings demonstrated that
there was a lack of clarity of roles and responsibility, and the SIAs were seeking additional
organizational support. Accordingly, when recruiting new SIAs, HOPE SF may detail what their
role and responsibility is to achieving the stakeholder goal as well as the organization’s
accountability to providing support, then, incorporate those expectations in the initial and
ongoing training. Moreover, HOPE SF may inform the SIAs how all of the stakeholders, HOPE
SF staff, SIAs, and youth, are held accountable and their level of agency to achieving the
stakeholder goal. Comprehensive structures enhance organizational effectiveness (Singh, 2013).
Systems represent the final structural element essential to achieving organizational
effectiveness. Systems are the day to day procedures that sustain the organization (Singh, 2013;
Waterman et al., 1980). Effective systems are simple and make problem solving efficient. Each
of the other 6S’ influence an effective and efficient system (Waterman et al., 1980). Therefore, to
improve its current system, HOPE SF may, first, allocate a portion of an existing team members’
time or fund the nonprofit partner to coordinate Pay it Forward’s daily operations. The
coordinator is then accountable for updating the training curriculum and materials with
promising mentoring practices as well as documenting culturally relevant practices. The
coordinator is also responsible for organizing the learning exchanges and is accountable for
collecting the quantitative and qualitative data, and responding to the monthly feedback. Finally,
the coordinator is responsible for documenting the evolution of different initiative processes and

155
procedures to support the transfer of knowledge as leadership changes. Systems establish
processes for implementation and influence organizational excellence (Singh, 2013).
Figure 2 represents an adapted version of Waterman et al.’s (1980) McKinsey’s 7S framework
for organizational effectiveness. The diagram is intentionally circular because it is unclear which
element will drive organizational change (Waterman et al., 1980). However, shared values
remain at the center because values underpin each of the other 6S’, and knowledge and belief in
the values set the organization’s culture. Lastly, the seven elements are interconnected.
Waterman et al. (1980) argued that advancing one component without advancing the others is
difficult. Thus, organizational change requires advancing all of the components for optimal
performance.

Figure 2
Adapted McKinsey’s 7S Framework for Organizational Effectiveness

Note: The adapted framework replaces staff with stakeholders. Adapted from “Structure is Not
Organization” by R. H. Waterman Jr., T. J. Peters, and J. R Philips, 1980, Business Horizons,
23(3), p. 18.

156
Limitations and Delimitations
The research study presented limitations and delimitations. Limitations are potential
weaknesses within a study and what the researcher cannot control; delimitations are the
boundaries or limits the researcher chooses to include or exclude in the research plan (Simon &
Goes, 2013). Several limitations were present in this study. The first limitation was my power
and positionality. Being the person whose role it was in my organization to oversee the
successful implementation of Pay it Forward posed a significant limitation. Not only have I been
engaged with the research participants, but have built a relationship that may have persuaded
their responses to the survey and interviews. Thus, to reduce the potential for response bias that
favors Pay it Forward, a proxy interviewer was used to encourage the participants to fully engage
in the interview in a transparent and honest manner.
Furthermore, although the survey responses were anonymous and a proxy interviewer
was used to mitigate response bias, honesty from the participants may have served as a second
limitation. There is concern that the research participants wanted to provide answers that are
perceived to be favorable due to their existing relationship with the Pay it Forward team as
opposed to contributing to the improvement of Pay it Forward. Thus, as the researcher, I
reiterated the anonymity of the responses, that the research is solely for the purposes of
improvement, and that there is no penalty for not participating or providing honest responses.
Simon and Goes (2013) also noted a third limitation with survey responses. The
researchers posited when surveys have time constraints, the respondents are less inclined to
participate because of their lack of available time. In this case, the survey was open for one
month. Moreover, the survey offered very specific responses to questions that, more often than
not, force a respondent to choose. To mitigate this limitation, interviews for some of the

157
respondents provided the opportunity to specify more detailed opinions. A final limitation was
the small sample population (n = 13). Although the 24 Social Impact Agents who participated in
Pay it Forward were invited to participate in the study, 13 responded to the survey. Additionally,
the goal was to have eight to 10 interview participants, however, only seven SIAs were
interviewed.
In addition to limitations, this study presented delimitations. The first delimitation was
my selection of the problem (Simon & Goes, 2013). Although the racial wealth gap is an
expansive problem, I chose to look at the problem in the context of mentors supporting
opportunity youth of color, residing in public housing, and through the lens of the SIAs’ ability
to grow the youths’ professional capital. Moreover, the selected framework navigated the
direction of this study. The use of culturally relevant pedagogy to inform the KMO gap analysis
produced specific results related to working with people from oppressed communities of color. It
is this framework that guided the research questions and the items in both the survey and
interview protocols. The selected stakeholder group also served as a delimitation. I purposefully
wanted to focus on the perspective of the Social Impact Agents as mentors since there is limited
research that focuses on this group and how they might implement culturally relevant mentorship
practices. These specifications may or may not implicate the future practice of mentorship with
vulnerable populations. Although I do possess personal and professional biases related to this
research study, the study was conducted in a transparent, truthful, and replicable way that can
inform the future of education- and employment-oriented quasi-mentorship for opportunity youth
of color.

158
Recommendations for Future Research
This study focused on the perspective of the Social Impact Agents, or quasi-mentors.
Therefore, recommendations for future research include the following: 1) an expansion of this
study to evaluate the entire pilot year and the stakeholder goal, 2) performing the study from the
perspective of the opportunity youth served, and 3) a field study of individuals mentoring
opportunity youth of color and their application of trauma-informed and culturally relevant
practices. First, this study took place midway through the Pay it Forward pilot year. The findings
and results suggested that some of the relationships between the SIAs and mentees were
growing. Thus, it is appropriate to assess whether or not the SIAs were able to accomplish the
stakeholder goal at the end of the pilot year. Evaluating PIF at the completion of the pilot year
may also inform future PIF cohorts.
Second, in response to an identified delimitation, a future study can center the perspective
of the opportunity youth. Mentorship has proven to yield positive youth development (Bruce &
Bridgeland, 2014; DuBois et al., 2011), increase educational success (Erickson et al., 2009), and
produce greater career success (Brown et al., 2007; Eesley & Wang, 2017; Kay et al., 2008;
Robinson & Reio, 2012). Furthermore, an indicator of the SIAs achieving their goal is if the
youth they served accomplished their intended outcomes. Appropriately, it is advantageous to
expand this study to highlight the youths’ experiences of receiving education- and employment-
oriented quasi-mentorship and how that may have influenced their socioeconomic advancement.
Finally, the dearth of research on culturally relevant mentoring practices is justification
for further exploration. Mentoring programs serve majority youth of color, yet there is limited
information on the effectiveness of culturally-centered mentorship (Sánchez et al., 2018). This
study made assertions of culturally relevant mentoring based on the theoretical framework.

159
While early research determined that mentorship contributed to educational and career success
(Brown et al., 2007; Eesley & Wang, 2017; Erickson et al., 2009; Kay et al., 2008; Robinson &
Reio, 2012), little is known about the lived experiences of the mentored population or if they
represent the Pay it Forward youth. The research provided limited information on the youths’
lived experiences, any trauma the youth resisted, or the influence of living in high-risk
environments on their educational and career attainment. Hence, the mentoring field would
benefit from an intentional study on the importance of culturally relevant mentoring practices
when serving opportunity youth of color.
Implications for Equity
Higher education institutions and employers alike pride themselves on implementing
diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. Amidst the age of the Black Lives Matter
movement (Garza, 2014), institutions have branded themselves as diverse, equitable, and
inclusive hubs to attract talent while appearing as choice organizations (Jonsen et al., 2019). For
example, the University of Southern California Rossier School of Education’s mission is to,
“prepare leaders to advance educational equity…to improve learning opportunities and outcomes
in urban settings to address disparities that affect historically marginalized groups,” (USC
Rossier School of Education, n.d.). The opportunity youth served in Pay it Forward represent
those groups. Extant research undeniably demonstrated that Whites are more likely to have
access to wealth building opportunities than non-Whites (Herring & Henderson, 2016; Keister,
2000; Killewald, 2013; Shapiro et al., 2013). Furthermore, dominant and affluent groups are
likelier to have access to the social networks needed for socioeconomic advancement (Garcia &
McDowell, 2010; Hardaway & McLoyd, 2009; Stanton-Salazar, 1997). Disregarding the
evidence means supporting systems constructed in favor of White and wealthy cultures while

160
abandoning minoritized groups, predominantly people of color with low incomes. Offering
opportunity youth of color their rightful access to wealth building networks disrupts generations
of institutional harm and encourages an equitable and just society.
Conclusion
The racial wealth gap shows no signs of narrowing (Bhutta et al., 2020). In fact, if left
unresolved, by 2053, Blacks will have zero ($0) net worth (Asante-Muhammad et al., 2017).
This study aimed to understand how professional networks influence opportunity youths of color
socioeconomic advancement. Specifically, this study explored Social Impact Agents’ capacity to
provide culturally relevant education- and employment-oriented quasi-mentorship in service of
growing the youths’ professional networks and assisting with achieving their career goals. This
area was important to research for three reasons. First, access to wealth building is not equitably
distributed across Whites and non-Whites (Herring & Henderson, 2016; Keister, 2000;
Killewald, 2013; O’Connell, 2012; Shapiro et al., 2013; Shapiro, 2017). Second, access to social
networks that are representative of affluent communities contribute to opportunity youths of
color socioeconomic advancement (Garcia & McDowell, 2010; Stanton-Salazar, 1997, 2011).
Finally, eliminating economic inequities can help narrow the racial wealth gap (Darity, 2018;
Shapiro, 2017).
The Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis model combined with Ladson-Billings’ (2014,
1995) culturally relevant pedagogy comprised the framework utilized to analyze documents,
administer the survey, and interview seven Social Impact Agents. That framework was also used
to validate the knowledge, motivation, and organizational gaps related to achieving the
stakeholder goal. Eight areas of improvement were identified from 13 knowledge, motivation,
and organizational influences. The findings and results confirmed three overarching areas for

161
growth that support optimal organizational performance. First, there is an opportunity to increase
the SIAs’ procedural and metacognitive knowledge. Second, there is space to improve the SIAs’
self-efficacy. Finally, enhancements to HOPE SF’s cultural settings, training and resources, and
cultural model, evaluative processes, is required.
Recommendations to alleviate the knowledge, motivation, and organizational needs are
grounded in an implementation plan to increase the SIAs learning and skills, document and
duplicate culturally relevant mentoring practices, and develop clear performance measures for
successfully implementing education- and employment-oriented quasi-mentorship. McKinsey’s
7S framework (Singh, 2013; Waterman et al., 1980) informed the implementation plan to
advance the stakeholders knowledge and motivation, and HOPE SF’s organizational
effectiveness. The plan proposes that HOPE SF intentionally center the shared values, select
stakeholders who believe in the mission and vision and know how they contribute, have frequent
interaction with the stakeholders, invest in skill development, have a strategy available to
respond to external influences, create an accountability structure, and develop systems for
effectiveness and efficiency.
During a time that mourns the 2020 murders of 25-year-old Ahmaud Arbery, 26-year-old
Breonna Taylor, and 22-year-old Sean Monterrosa, mentoring initiatives such as Pay it Forward
may never resolve the racial consequences of indigenous genocide and African enslavement
(O’Connell, 2012; Shapiro & Kenty-Drane, 2005; Wilkins et al., 2013). However, such
initiatives invite systemic change and the notion that opportunity youth of color, such as the
aforesaid, are worthy and deserving of a life well into their elder years. Such initiatives also
promote that those historically isolated from wealth building have priority access to wealth with
abundant support. This research and the studies that follow are an effort to decolonize wealth. An

162
effort to affirm that Fia’s experience is the rule and not the exception, and to assert that people
such as Rose have access to a rich auntie so that they may acquire and preserve their piece of the
American dream.

163
References
Abuse, S. (2014). SAMHSA’s concept of trauma and guidance for a trauma-informed approach.
Health and Human Services Publication, 14(4884). Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and
Mental Health Services Administration.
Addo, F. R., Houle, J. N., & Simon, D. (2016). Young, black, and (still) in the red: Parental
wealth, race, and student loan debt. Race and Social Problems, 8(1), 64-76.
Aguinis, H., & Kraiger, K. (2009). Benefits of training and development for individuals and
teams, organizations, and society. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 451-474.
Anastasia, T. T., Skinner, R. L., & Mundhenk, S. E. (2012). Youth mentoring: Program and
mentor best practices. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences, 104(2), 38-44.
Asante-Muhammad, D., Collins, C., Hoxie, J., & Nieves, E. (2017). The road to zero wealth:
How the racial wealth divide is hollowing out America's middle class. Institute for Policy
Studies. https://ips-dc.org/report-the-road-to-zero-wealth/.
Austin, W.M. (2016). Making space: Strategic leadership for a complex world. El Segundo,
California: The Aerospace Press.
Bandura, A. (2012). On the functional properties of perceived self-efficacy revisited. Journal of
Management, 38(1), 9-44.
Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 9(3), 75-78.
Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Human
Behavior 4, 71-81. New York: Academic Press.
Barrio, C. (2000). The cultural relevance of community support programs. Psychiatric
Services, 51(7), 879-884.

164
Belfield, C. R., Levin, H. M., & Rosen, R. (2012). The economic value of opportunity
youth. Corporation for National and Community Service.
Beltman, S., & Schaeben, M. (2012). Institution-wide peer mentoring: Benefits for mentors. The
International Journal of the First Year in Higher Education, 3(2), 33-44.
Bhutta, N., Chang, A. C., Dettling, L. J., Hsu, J. W., & Hewitt, J. (2020, October 2). Disparities
in wealth by race and ethnicity in the 2019 survey of consumer finances. FEDS Notes,
(2020-09), 28-2.
Borgogni, L., Dello Russo, S., & Latham, G. P. (2011). The relationship of employee perceptions
of the immediate supervisor and top management with collective efficacy. Journal of
Leadership & Organizational Studies, 18(1), 5-13.
Bourdieu, P. (2011). The forms of capital. (1986). Cultural Theory: An Anthology, 1, 81-93.
Brown, B. P., Zablah, A. R., & Bellenger, D. N. (2008). The role of mentoring in promoting
organizational commitment among black managers: An evaluation of the indirect effects
of racial similarity and shared racial perspectives. Journal of Business Research, 61(7),
732-738.
Bruce, M., & Bridgeland, J. (2014). The mentoring effect: Young people’s perspectives on the
outcomes and availability of mentoring. Washington, DC: Civic Enterprises with Hart
Research Associates.
Cavanaugh, B. (2016). Trauma-informed classrooms and schools. Beyond Behavior, 25(2), 41-
46.
Charles, C. Z., Roscigno, V. J., & Torres, K. C. (2007). Racial inequality and college attendance:
The mediating role of parental investments. Social Science Research, 36(1), 329–352.

165
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. IAP.
Coleman, J. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. The American Journal of
Sociology, 94, 95–120.
Colonna, S. E., & Nix-Stevenson, D. (2015). Radical love: Love all, serve all. The International
Journal of Critical Pedagogy, 6(1).
Costanza, D. P., Blacksmith, N., Coats, M. R., Severt, J. B., & DeCostanza, A. H. (2016). The
effect of adaptive organizational culture on long-term survival. Journal of Business and
Psychology, 31(3), 361-381.
Cross, T. L., Bazron, B.J., Dennis, K.W., Isaacs, M.R. (1989). Towards a culturally competent
system of care: A monograph on effective services for minority children who are severely
emotionally disturbed. Georgetown University Child Development Center.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED330171.pdf.
Creswell, J. W. & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Darity Jr., W., Hamilton, D., Paul, M., Aja, A., Price, A., Moore, A., & Chiopris, C. (2018).
What we get wrong about closing the racial wealth gap. Samuel DuBois Cook Center on
Social Equity and Insight Center for Community Economic Development.
Davis, D. J. (2007). Access to academe: The importance of mentoring to Black students. Negro
Educational Review, 58(3/4), 217.
Davis, D. J. (2010). The academic influence of mentoring upon African American undergraduate
aspirants to the professoriate. The Urban Review, 42(2), 143-158.

166
Dettling, L., Hsu, J., Jacobs, L., Moore, K., & Thompson, J. (2017, September 17). Recent trends
in wealth-holding by race and ethnicity: Evidence from the survey of consumer finances.
FEDS Notes. Washington: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (U.S.).
Donisch, K., Bray, C., & Gewirtz, A. (2016). Child welfare, juvenile justice, mental health, and
education providers’ conceptualizations of trauma-informed practice. Child
Maltreatment, 21(2), 125-134.
Dowd, A. C., Pak, J. H., & Bensimon, E. M. (2013). The role of institutional agents in promoting
transfer access. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 21(15), 1-44.
Dreyer, B. P., Trent, M., Anderson, A. T., Askew, G. L., Boyd, R., Coker, T. R., ... & Montoya-
Williams, D. (2020). The death of George Floyd: Bending the arc of history toward
justice for generations of children. Pediatrics, 146(3).

DuBois, D. L., Portillo, N., Rhodes, J. E., Silverthorn, N., & Valentine, J. C. (2011). How
effective are mentoring programs for youth? A systematic assessment of the
evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 12(2), 57-91.
Dutton, H., Bullen, P., & Deane, K. (2018). Getting to the heart of it: Understanding mentoring
relationship quality from the perspective of program supervisors. Mentoring &
Tutoring, 26(4), 400–419.
Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of
Psychology, 53(1), 109-132.
Eesley, C., & Wang, Y. (2017). Social influence in career choice: Evidence from a randomized
field experiment on entrepreneurial mentorship. Research Policy, 46(3), 636-650.

167
Erickson, L. D., McDonald, S., & Elder Jr, G. H. (2009). Informal mentors and education:
Complementary or compensatory resources? Sociology of Education, 82(4), 344-367.
Federal Register. (2020, March 13). Declaring a national emergency concerning the novel
coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak [Press release].
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/03/18/2020-05794/declaring-a-national-
emergency-concerning-the-novel-coronavirus-disease-covid-19-outbreak
Fochesato, M., & Bowles, S. (2017). Institution shocks and the dynamics of wealth distribution.
Did the abolition of U.S. slavery reduce wealth inequality? Santa Fe Institute, 1-18.
Fruiht, V. M., & Wray-Lake, L. (2013). The role of mentor type and timing in predicting
educational attainment. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(9), 1459-1472.
Fryer, R. G., Pager, D., & Spenkuch, J. L. (2013). Racial disparities in job finding and offered
wages. The Journal of Law and Economics, 56(3), 633-689.
Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational
Psychologist, 36(1), 45-56.
Garcia, M., & McDowell, T. (2010). Mapping social capital: A critical contextual approach for
working with low-status families. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 36(1), 96-107.
Garringer, M., Kupersmidt, J., Rhodes, J., Stelter, R., & Tai, T. (2015). Elements of effective
practice for mentoring: Research-informed and practitioner-approved best practices for
creating and sustaining impactful mentoring relationships and strong program
services. MENTOR: National Mentoring Partnership.
Garvin, D. A., Edmondson, A. C., & Gino, F. (2008). Is yours a learning organization?. Harvard
Business Review, 86(3), 109.

168
Garza, A. (2014). A herstory of the #BlackLivesMatter movement. Are All the Women Still
White? Rethinking Race, Expanding Feminisms, 23-28.
Ghosh, R., & Reio Jr, T. G. (2013). Career benefits associated with mentoring for mentors: A
meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 83(1), 106-116.
Gibbs, G. R. (2018). Analyzing qualitative research. (2
nd
ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Ginwright, S. (2018). The future of healing: Shifting from trauma informed care to healing
centered engagement. Occasional Paper, 1-7.
Grima, F., Paillé, P., Mejia, J. H., & Prud'Homme, L. (2014). Exploring the benefits of
mentoring activities for the mentor. Career Development International.
Hamilton, D., Austin, A., & Darity Jr, W. (2011). Whiter jobs, higher wages: Occupational
segregation and the lower wages of Black men. Economic Policy Institute Briefing
Paper, 268, 1-13.
Hansen, M. N. (2014). Self-made wealth or family wealth? Changes in intergenerational wealth
mobility. Social Forces, 93(2), 457-481.
Hanson, A., Hawley, Z., Martin, H., & Liu, B. (2016). Discrimination in mortgage lending:
Evidence from a correspondence experiment. Journal of Urban Economics, 92, 48-65.
Harackiewicz, J. M., Canning, E. A., Tibbetts, Y., Priniski, S. J., & Hyde, J. S. (2016). Closing
achievement gaps with a utility-value intervention: Disentangling race and social
class. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111(5), 745.
Hassan, R., & Birungi, P. (2011). Social capital and poverty in Uganda. Development Southern
Africa, 28(1), 19-37.
Herrera, C., DuBois, D. L., & Grossman, J. B. (2013). The Role of risk: Mentoring experiences
and outcomes for youth with varying risk profiles. MDRC.

169
Herring, C., & Henderson, L. (2016). Wealth inequality in Black and White: Cultural and
structural sources of the racial wealth gap. Race and Social Problems, 8(1), 4-17.
Hirschl, T. A., & Rank, M. R. (2010). Homeownership across the American life course:
Estimating the racial divide. Race and Social Problems, 2(3-4), 125-136.
Hodas, G. R. (2006). Responding to childhood trauma: The promise and practice of trauma
informed care. Pennsylvania Office of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services, 177,
5-68.
HOPE SF. (2019). History. https://www.hope-sf.org/history/
Houle, J. N. (2014). Disparities in debt: Parents’ socioeconomic resources and young adult
student loan debt. Sociology of Education, 87(1), 53-69.
Hunt, D. M., & Michael, C. (1983). Mentorship: A career training and development
tool. Academy of Management Review, 8(3), 475-485.
Hurd, N. M., & Sellers, R. M. (2013). Black adolescents' relationships with natural mentors:
Associations with academic engagement via social and emotional development. Cultural
Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 19(1), 76.
Hurd, N. M., Sánchez, B., Zimmerman, M. A., & Caldwell, C. H. (2012). Natural mentors, racial
identity, and educational attainment among African American adolescents: Exploring
pathways to success. Child Development, 83(4), 1196-1212.
Jonsen, K., Point, S., Kelan, E. K., & Grieble, A. (2019). Diversity and inclusion branding: a
five-country comparison of corporate websites. The International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 2016(1), 1-34.
Kau, J. B., Keenan, D. C., & Munneke, H. J. (2012). Racial discrimination and mortgage
lending. The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 45(2), 289-304.

170
Kay, F. M., Hagan, J., & Parker, P. (2009). Principals in practice: The importance of mentorship
in the early stages of career development. Law & Policy, 31(1), 69-110.
Keister, L. A. (2000). Race and wealth inequality: The impact of racial differences in asset
ownership on the distribution of household wealth. Social Science Research, 29(4), 477-
502.
Keller, T. E., & Pryce, J. M. (2010). Mutual but unequal: Mentoring as a hybrid of familiar
relationship roles. New Directions for Youth Development, 2010(126), 33-50.
Kezar, A. (2011). Understanding and facilitating organizational change in the 21st century:
Recent research and conceptualizations. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, 155(4).
John Wiley & Sons.
Killewald, A. (2013). Return to being black, living in the red: A race gap in wealth that goes
beyond social origins. Demography, 50(4), 1177-1195.
Knight, C. (2015). Trauma-informed social work practice: Practice considerations and
challenges. Clinical Social Work Journal, 43(1), 25-37.
Ko, S. J., Ford, J. D., Kassam-Adams, N., Berkowitz, S. J., Wilson, C., Wong, M., ... & Layne,
C. M. (2008). Creating trauma-informed systems: Child welfare, education, first
responders, health care, juvenile justice. Professional Psychology: Research and
Practice, 39(4), 396.
Kotter, J.P. (2007). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review.
https://wdhb.org.nz/contented/clientfiles/whanganui-districthealth-
board/files/rttc_leading-change-by-j-kotter-harvard-business-review.pdf
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into
Practice, 41(4), 212-218.

171
Kuebler, M., & Rugh, J. S. (2013). New evidence on racial and ethnic disparities in
homeownership in the United States from 2001 to 2010. Social Science Research, 42(5),
1357–1374.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American
Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465-491.
Ladson-Billings, G. (2014). Culturally relevant pedagogy 2.0: Aka the remix. Harvard
Educational Review, 84(1), 74-84.
Langley, G. J., Moen, R. D., Nolan, K. M., Nolan, T. W., Norman, C. L., & Provost, L. P.
(2009). The improvement guide: A practical approach to enhancing organizational
performance. John Wiley & Sons.
Leatutufu, S. (2019, December). Diverse Pathways. Presentation shared at the My Brother’s and
Sister’s Keeper Summit, San Francisco, CA.
Lucey, T. A., & White, E. S. (2017). Mentorship in higher education: Compassionate approaches
supporting culturally responsive pedagogy. Multicultural Education, 24(2), 11-17.
Malmgren, R. D., Ottino, J. M., & Amaral, L. A. N. (2010). The role of mentorship in protégé
performance. Nature, 465(7298), 622-626.
Malloy, C. (2011). Moving beyond data: Practitioner-led inquiry fosters change. Phi Delta
Kappa International, 6(4), 1-20.
Martin, S. M., & Sifers, S. K. (2012). An evaluation of factors leading to mentor satisfaction
with the mentoring relationship. Children and Youth Services Review, 34(5), 940-945.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Thousand Oak,
CA: Sage Publications.

172
Matthews, P., & Besemer, K. (2015). Social networks, social capital and poverty: Panacea or
placebo?. Journal of Poverty and Social Justice, 23(3), 189-201.
Mayer, R. E. (2011). How learning works: Three principles from the learning sciences. Applying
the Science of Learning. Boston, MA: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.
McKenzie-Mohr, S., Coates, J., & McLeod, H. (2012). Responding to the needs of youth who
are homeless: Calling for politicized trauma-informed intervention. Children and Youth
Services Review, 34(1), 136-143.
Medina, M. S., Castleberry, A. N., & Persky, A. M. (2017). Strategies for improving learner
metacognition in health professional education. American Journal of Pharmaceutical
Education, 81(4).
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation. (4
th
ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Meschede, T., Taylor, J., Mann, A., & Shapiro, T. M. (2017). Family achievements?: How a
college degree accumulates wealth for Whites and not For Blacks. Federal Reserve Bank
of St. Louis Review.
Miller, R. K., & McNamee, S. J. (1998). The inheritance of wealth in America. In Inheritance
and Wealth in America (pp. 1-22). Springer, Boston, MA.
Moore, P. J., & Toliver, S. D. (2010). Intraracial dynamics of Black professors’ and Black
students’ communication in traditionally White colleges and universities. Journal of
Black Studies, 40(5), 932-945.
Munson, M. R., Smalling, S. E., Spencer, R., Scott Jr, L. D., & Tracy, E. M. (2010). A steady
presence in the midst of change: Non-kin natural mentors in the lives of older youth
exiting foster care. Children and Youth Services Review, 32(4), 527-535.

173
O'Connell, H. A. (2012). The impact of slavery on racial inequality in poverty in the
contemporary US South. Social Forces, 90(3), 713-734.
Office of the Mayor San Francisco. (2020, March 16). San Francisco issues new public health
order requiring residents stay at home except for essential needs [Press release].
https://sfmayor.org/article/san-francisco-issues-new-public-health-order-requiring-
residents-stay-home-except-essential
Oliver, M. L., & Shapiro, T. M.(1995). Black wealth/White wealth: A new perspective on racial
inequality. New York, NY: Routledge.
O’Neill, J., & Sugden, S. (1992). The varieties of intrinsic value. The Monist., 75(2), 119–137.
Palmer, R., & Gasman, M. (2008). It takes a village to raise a child: The role of social capital in
promoting academic success for African American men at a Black college. Journal of
College Student Development, 49(1), 52-70.
Pfund, C., House, S. C., Asquith, P., Fleming, M. F., Buhr, K. A., Burnham, E. L., ... & Shapiro,
E. D. (2014). Training mentors of clinical and translational research scholars: a
randomized controlled trial. Academic Medicine: Journal of the Association of American
Medical Colleges, 89(5), 774.
Pennanen, M., Bristol, L., Wilkinson, J., & Heikkinen, H. L. T. (2016). What is "good"
mentoring? Understanding mentoring practices of teacher induction through case studies
of Finland and Australia. Pedagogy, Culture and Society, 24(1), 27-53.
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in
learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 667.

174
Raposa, E. B., Rhodes, J. E., & Herrera, C. (2016). The impact of youth risk on mentoring
relationship quality: Do mentor characteristics matter? American Journal of Community
Psychology, 57(3-4), 320-329.
Reddick, R. J., Griffin, K. A., Cherwitz, R. A., Cerda-Prazak, A., & Bunch, N. (2012). What you
get when you give: How graduate students benefit from serving as mentors. Journal of
Faculty Development, 26(1), 37-49.
Reddick, R. J. (2011). Intersecting identities: Mentoring contributions and challenges for Black
faculty mentoring Black undergraduates. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in
Learning, 19(3), 319-346.
Reid, C. & Berquist, E. (2018). HOPE SF mid-course evaluation: Household income and wages.
HOPE SF.
Rhee, N. (2013). Race and retirement insecurity in the United States. Washington, DC: National
Institute on Retirement Security.
Rhodes, J., Liang, B., & Spencer, R. (2009). First do no harm: Ethical principles for youth
mentoring relationships. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 40(5), 452.
Rhodes, J. E., & DuBois, D. L. (2008). Mentoring relationships and programs for youth. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 17(4), 254-258.
Riebschleger, J., Day, A., & Damashek, A. (2015). Foster care youth share stories of trauma
before, during, and after placement: Youth voices for building trauma-informed systems
of care. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 24(4), 339-360.
Robinson, D. M., & Reio Jr., T. G. (2012). Benefits of mentoring African-American
men. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 27(4), 406-421.

175
San Francisco Human Services Agency. (2017). HOPE SF area median income report. San
Francisco Human Services Agency.
Sánchez, B., Hurd, N. M., Neblett, E. W., & Vaclavik, D. (2018). Mentoring for Black male
youth: A systematic review of the research. Adolescent Research Review, 3(3), 259-278.
Scandura, T. A. (1992). Mentorship and career mobility: An empirical investigation. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 13(2), 169-174.
Schwandt, D., & Marquardt, M. (1999). Steps and strategies for bringing organizational learning
to your organization. Organizational Learning from World Class Theories to Global Best
Practices. New York, NY: St. Lucie Press, 227-249.
Schwartz, S. E., Kanchewa, S. S., Rhodes, J. E., Cutler, E., & Cunningham, J. L. (2016). “I didn't
know you could just ask:” Empowering underrepresented college-bound students to
recruit academic and career mentors. Children and Youth Services Review, 64, 51-59.
Shahidul, S. M., Karim, A. H. M. Z., & Mustari, S. (2015). Social capital and educational
aspiration of students: Does family social capital affect more compared to school social
capital? International Education Studies, 8(12), 255-260.
Shapiro, T. M., & Kenty-Drane, J. L. (2005). The racial wealth gap. African Americans in the US
Economy, 175-177.
Shapiro, T. M., Meschede, T., & Osoro, S. (2013). The roots of the widening racial wealth gap:
Explaining the black-white economic divide. Research and Policy Brief, 1-8.
Shapiro, T. M. (2017). Toxic inequality: How America's wealth gap destroys mobility, deepens
the racial divide, and threatens our future. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Shute, V.J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 153-
189.

176
Simon, M. K., & Goes, J. (2013). Assumptions, limitations, delimitations, and scope of the
study. http://www.dissertationrecipes.com.
Simpkins, S. D., Fredricks, J. A., & Eccles, J. S. (2012). Charting the Eccles' expectancy-value
model from mothers' beliefs in childhood to youths' activities in
adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 48(4), 1019-1032.
Singh, A. (2013). A study of role of McKinsey's 7S framework in achieving organizational
excellence. Organization Development Journal, 31(3), 39–50.
Spencer, R. (2007). It's not what I expected: A qualitative study of youth mentoring relationship
failures. Journal of Adolescent Research, 22(4), 331-354.
Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (1997). A social capital framework for understanding the socialization of
racial minority children and youths. Harvard Educational Review, 67, 1-40.
Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (2004). Social capital among working-class minority students. School
Connections: US Mexican Youth, Peers, and School Achievement, 18-38.
Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (2011). Social capital among working-class minority students. School
Connections: US Mexican Youth, Peers, and School Achievement, 18-38.
Stephan, J. L. (2013). Social capital and the college enrollment process: How can a school
program make a difference?. Teachers College Record, 115(4), 1-39.
Straus, S. E., Johnson, M. O., Marquez, C., & Feldman, M. D. (2013). Characteristics of
successful and failed mentoring relationships: A qualitative study across two academic
health centers. Academic Medicine: Journal of the Association of American Medical
Colleges, 88(1), 82.
Taga, A. A. (2014). Social capital and poverty alleviation: Some qualitative evidences from
Lahore district. Academic Research International, 5(2), 345.

177
Taylor, P., Kochhar, R., Fry, R., Velasco, G., & Motel, S. (2011). Wealth gaps rise to record
highs between Whites, Blacks and Hispanics. 26, Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.
Tippett, R., Jones-DeWeever, A., Rockeymoore, M., Hamilton, D., & Darity Jr, W. (2014).
Beyond broke: Why closing the racial wealth gap is a priority for national economic
security. Center for Global Policy Solutions.
Topping, K., Buchs, C., Duran, D., & Van Keer, H. (2017). Effective peer learning: From
principles to practical implementation. Taylor & Francis.
Tuck, E., & Yang, K. W. (2014). R-words: Refusing research. Humanizing Research:
Decolonizing Qualitative Inquiry with Youth and Communities, 223-248.
United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (2018). Labor Force
Characteristics by Race and Ethnicity 2017. https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/race-and-
ethnicity/2017/home.htm#:~:text=The%20employment%E2%80%93population%20ratio
%20was,and%2062.7%20percent%20for%20Hispanics.
United States Census Bureau. (2018). Income by age, 2018 Community Participant Survey 1-
year Estimates. https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-kits/2019/acs-1year.html.
University of Southern California Rossier School of Education. (n.d.). About.
https://rossier.usc.edu/about/.
van Ginkel, G., Verloop, N., & Denessen, E. (2016). Why mentor? Linking mentor teachers’
motivations to their mentoring conceptions. Teachers and Teaching, 22(1), 101-116.
Waterman Jr, R. H., Peters, T. J., & Phillips, J. R. (1980). Structure is not organization. Business
Horizons, 23(3), 14-26.
West, S. D., Day, A. G., Somers, C. L., & Baroni, B. A. (2014). Student perspectives on how
trauma experiences manifest in the classroom: Engaging court-involved youth in the

178
development of a trauma-informed teaching curriculum. Children and Youth Services
Review, 38, 58-65.
Wigfield, A. (1994). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation: A developmental
perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 6(1), 49-78.
Wilkins, E. J., Whiting, J. B., Watson, M. F., Russon, J. M., & Moncrief, A. M. (2013). Residual
effects of slavery: What clinicians need to know. Contemporary Family Therapy, 35(1),
14-28.
Williams, A. P. (2015). Lending discrimination, the foreclosure crisis and the perpetuation of
racial and ethnic disparities in homeownership in the US. William & Mary Business Law
Review, 6(2), 601-661.
Yeung, W. J., & Conley, D. (2008). Black–white achievement gap and family wealth. Child
Development, 79(2), 303-324.
Yosso, T. J. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community
cultural wealth. Race, Ethnicity and Education, 8(1), 69-91.
Zanskas, S. A., Lustig, D. C., & Ishitani, T. T. (2011). Perceived barriers to employment success:
Are there differences between European American and African American VR
consumers? Rehabilitation Research, Policy, and Education, 25(3), 127-134.

179
Appendix A: Document Analysis Protocol

The following documents will be analyzed for this study:
1. Recruitment and Match Process
a. How were Social Impact Agents and youth paired?
b. What are the criteria for an SIA-youth match?
2. Training Material
a. What information is presented in the orientation?
b. What training topics are included in the materials?
c. How is training evaluated, if at all?
3. Feedback Mechanisms
a. Is there a mechanism in place for Pay it Forward staff and SIAs to exchange
feedback?
b. How is feedback documented?
c. How is follow up to feedback conducted?

180
Appendix B: Survey Protocol
I am Saidah Leatutufu and serve as the Director of Economic Advancement for HOPE SF. You
are invited to complete the following brief survey as part of my doctoral study on providing
education- and employment-oriented support to opportunity youth of color living in HOPE SF.
Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey. The survey should take approximately 8-
minutes to complete. The purpose of this study is to explore your current experiences as a Social
Impact Agent and to support your capacity as a Social Impact Agent to help youth identify their
education and employment goals and provide youth access to resources that help them achieve
their education and employment goals.

Responses to this survey are kept completely anonymous. Your identified information will not
be available to anyone, including me. However, I am seeking volunteers to be interviewed as a
part of the study. Due to my position at HOPE SF, all interviews will be conducted by a doctoral
student peer so that you can share your experiences as honestly as possible. If you would like to
volunteer, please insert your email at the end of the survey. Your identity will remain completely
confidential from me.

Question Open
or
Closed
Level of
Measurement
Response Options Research
Question
Concept
Being
Measured
Section 1: Social Impact Agents’ Experience
Prior to Pay it
Forward, have
you served in a
Mentor
capacity?

Closed Nominal Yes/No RQ1 Background
If yes, how many
years of
experience do
you have as a
mentor?

Open Ratio Number of years RQ1 Background
Prior to
participating in
Pay it Forward,
how often did
you connect with
your mentee(s)
per month?

Open Ratio Daily; Weekly;
Once per month;
More than one time
per month; Other
RQ1 Background
Please describe
why you chose
to serve as a
Open Open-ended RQ1 Motivation
factors –
Intrinsic,

181
Question Open
or
Closed
Level of
Measurement
Response Options Research
Question
Concept
Being
Measured
Social Impact
Agent.

attainment,
and utility
values
On average, how
many hour(s) per
month do you
currently spend
with your
mentee while
participating in
Pay it Forward?

Closed Interval Less than 1 hour; 1
hour to 2 hours;
more than 2 hours
RQ1 Procedural
Knowledge
Section 2: Social Impact Agents’ (Mentor) Skills
Please rate how skilled you feel you are in each of the following areas: Think about your
general skill level in each of the areas related to serving as a mentor. Please only choose 'not
applicable' (NA) when a skill cannot be applied to your mentee.

Active listening Closed Ordinal Not skilled at all
(1); Somewhat
skilled; Skilled;
extremely Skilled;
N/A
RQ1 Self-efficacy
Establishing a
relationship
based on trust
Closed Ordinal Not skilled at all
(1); Somewhat
skilled; Skilled;
extremely Skilled;
N/A
RQ1 Self-efficacy
Identifying and
accommodating
different
communication
styles
Closed Ordinal Not skilled at all
(1); Somewhat
skilled; Skilled;
extremely Skilled;
N/A
RQ1 Self-efficacy
Building the
mentees’ social
networks
Closed Ordinal Not skilled at all
(1); Somewhat
skilled; Skilled;
extremely Skilled;
N/A
RQ1 Self-efficacy
Building the
mentees’
professional
networks
Closed Ordinal Not skilled at all
(1); Somewhat
skilled; Skilled;
extremely Skilled;
N/A
RQ1 Self-efficacy

182
Question Open
or
Closed
Level of
Measurement
Response Options Research
Question
Concept
Being
Measured
Working with
mentees to set
education goals
Closed Ordinal Not skilled at all
(1); Somewhat
skilled; Skilled;
extremely Skilled;
N/A
RQ1 Self-efficacy
Working with
mentees to set
employment
goals
Closed Ordinal Not skilled at all
(1); Somewhat
skilled; Skilled;
extremely Skilled;
N/A
RQ1 Self-efficacy
Motivating your
mentee
Closed Ordinal Not skilled at all
(1); Somewhat
skilled; Skilled;
extremely Skilled;
N/A
RQ1 Self-efficacy
Acknowledging
your mentees’
existing success
Closed Ordinal Not skilled at all
(1); Somewhat
skilled; Skilled;
extremely Skilled;
N/A
RQ1 Self-efficacy
Helping your
mentee acquire
resources (e.g.
grants,
internships,
letters of
recommendation
, employment,
etc.)
Closed Ordinal Not skilled at all
(1); Somewhat
skilled; Skilled;
extremely Skilled;
N/A
RQ1 Self-efficacy
Section 3: Social Impact Agents’ Practices
The next section asks about your practices and confidence while serving as a Social Impact
Agent in Pay if Forward. Please only choose 'not applicable' (NA) when an item cannot be
applied to your mentee.
I work to reduce
the biases and
prejudices I may
bring to the
mentor/mentee
relationship
Closed Ordinal Strongly Disagree;
Disagree; Agree;
Strongly Agree
RQ1 Metacognitive
Knowledge;
I am confident in
my ability to
work with a
Closed Ordinal Strongly Disagree;
Disagree; Agree;
RQ1 Motivation-
Intrinsic and
Attainment

183
Question Open
or
Closed
Level of
Measurement
Response Options Research
Question
Concept
Being
Measured
mentee whose
cultural
background may
be different from
my own
Strongly Agree;
NA
Value, Self-
efficacy
I am confident in
my ability to
work with a
mentee whose
age is different
from my own
Closed Ordinal Strongly Disagree;
Disagree; Agree;
Strongly Agree;
NA
RQ1 Motivation-
Intrinsic and
Attainment
Value, Self-
efficacy
I am confident in
my ability to
work with a
mentee whose
economic status
may be different
from my own
Closed Ordinal Strongly Disagree;
Disagree; Agree;
Strongly Agree;
NA
RQ1 Motivation-
Intrinsic and
Attainment
Value, Self-
efficacy
I believe
introducing my
mentee to my
professional
network will
help them
achieve their
career goals
Closed Ordinal Strongly Disagree;
Disagree; Agree;
Strongly Agree;
NA
RQ1 Intrinsic and
Attainment
Value
I am learning
more about
myself while
serving as an
SIA.
Closed Ordinal Strongly Disagree;
Disagree; Agree;
Strongly Agree;
NA
RQ1 Motivation-
Attainment
Metacognitive
Knowledge
I believe Serving
as an SIA
provides me with
valuable
experience
related to
achieving my
professional
goals.
Closed Ordinal Strongly Disagree;
Disagree; Agree;
Strongly Agree;
NA
RQ1 Motivation-
Utility Value
Section 4: Implementation and Organizational Support

184
Question Open
or
Closed
Level of
Measurement
Response Options Research
Question
Concept
Being
Measured
I feel confident
that I am making
a positive impact
on my mentee’s
life
Closed Ordinal Strongly Disagree;
Disagree; Agree;
Strongly Agree;
NA
RQ2 Self-efficacy
Overall, the
relationship with
my mentee is
going well.

Closed Ordinal Strongly Disagree;
Disagree; Agree;
Strongly Agree;
NA
RQ1 Self-efficacy
The goal of Pay
it Forward was
clearly
communicated
during the
orientation and
the mentor-youth
matching period.
Closed Ordinal Strongly Disagree;
Disagree; Agree;
Strongly Agree;
NA
RQ2 Organization
Factors
The Pay it
Forward
trainings are
effectively
presented.
Closed Ordinal Strongly Disagree;
Disagree; Agree;
Strongly Agree;
NA
RQ2 Organization
Factors
The resources
the Pay it
Forward team
provides are
helpful to
serving as a
Social Impact
Agent
Closed Ordinal Strongly Disagree;
Disagree; Agree;
Strongly Agree;
NA
RQ2 Organization
Factors
The HOPE SF
team is open to
feedback for
improving Pay it
Forward
Closed Ordinal Strongly Disagree;
Disagree; Agree;
Strongly Agree;
NA
RQ2 Organization
Factors
Overall, how
would you rate
the support from
the HOPE SF
team?

Closed Ordinal Not at all good; not
very good; good;
very good
RQ2 Organization
– cultural
settings and
models

185
Question Open
or
Closed
Level of
Measurement
Response Options Research
Question
Concept
Being
Measured
Overall, please
describe your
experience
participating in
Pay it Forward.

Open Open-ended RQ1/RQ
2
Knowledge,
motivation,
and
organizational
factors
Section 5: Demographics
The gender with
which you
identify:

Closed Female
Male
Nonbinary
Transgender
Female
Transgender Male
Decline to State

What is your
age? (optional)

open Ratio open
What is the
highest advanced
degree(s) do you
hold, if any?
Closed Ordinal Bachelors
Masters
Doctorate
Professional Degree
I do not hold an
advance degree
Other (please
specify)

What is your
GROSS annual
income?

Closed Interval Less than $80,000
$80,000 to $99,999
$100,000 to
$150,000
$150,001 to
$200,000
More than
$200,000
Decline to State

We would like to conduct interviews to gain more details about your experience as a Social
Impact Agent. If you are willing to participate in a 40-minute interview in support of this study,
please complete the link below. As a reminder, the survey responses are completely anonymous
and a third-party, a non-HOPE SF representative, will conduct the interviews.

186
Appendix C: Interview Protocol
Thank you for participating in our discussion today about Pay it Forward. The purpose of this
study is to explore your current experiences as a Social Impact Agent and to support your
capacity as a Social Impact Agent to help youth identify their education and employment goals
and provide youth access to resources that help them achieve their education and employment
goals.
I am sitting in for Saidah given your existing relationship with her. Everything that you say
during this interview will be kept confidential – responses to this data collection will be used
only for research purposes. Your name and any other identifying information will not appear on
any transcript, observation notes, report, or other publication that I provide to Saidah. Responses
will be used for research and educational purposes only. The reports prepared for this study will
summarize the information gathered from the people we interview, and responses will never be
associated with a specific individual.
The interview will take approximately 40-minutes. With your permission I will record the
interview for note-taking accuracy. The recording will be heard only by me, and all identifying
information will be removed from the audio before it is stored. If you do not want your face or
name recorded you may turn of your video and change your screen name for the purposes of this
interview.
Your participation in this interview is completely voluntary and you do not have to answer any
questions you do not want to, and we can stop the interview at any point. Do I have your
permission to record this interview? With your permission, I will start the recording now.
Hit Record Button!
(Note to interviewer: You may skip any questions that do not apply to the participants’
experiences based on the phase of program implementation.)
1. Describe your personal experience with having a mentor and how that shaped the person
you are today, if at all. (RQ1, motivation, CRP)
2. Why did you choose to serve as a Social Impact Agent in Pay it Forward? (RQ 1,
motivation)
a. Probe: What do you value most about being an SIA?
3. What comes to your mind when you think about supporting transitional aged youth of
color? (RQ1, CRP, knowledge and motivation)
a. Probe: How have you adapted to this role?

187
4. What general ideas do you keep in mind when engaging with your mentee? (RQ 1,
procedural and metacognitive)
a. Probe: Why is that important to you?
5. Describe how you’ve communicated with your mentee in light of COVID-19?
a. Probe: How has physical distancing impacted relationship building with your
mentee, if at all?
6. How have you gone about developing trust with your mentee? (RQ1 procedural and
metacognitive)
a. Probe: What are some characteristics that let you know trust is being built?
7. How do you ensure respect is maintained between you and your mentee?
a. Probe: What are some characteristics that let you know the relationship fosters
respect for both parties?
8. During your one-on-one sessions, what is one goal you hope to accomplish with them, if
any? (RQ 1, procedural knowledge)
a. Probe: How do you know if that goal was achieved?
9. Describe a time you offered advice to your mentee.

a. Probe: How would you say that advice was received?
b. Probe: How do you ensure the advice you offer is in line with what the mentee
wants?
10. What do you do after your session with your mentee?
a. Probe: How to you reflect on your interaction, if at all?
11. How would you know the relationship between you and your mentee is successful? (RQ
1, procedural, conceptual, metacognitive)

188
a. Probe: Would you say your relationship has been successful thus far?
b. Probe: What would you improve?
12. Describe your overall experience with your mentee while participating in Pay it Forward.
(RQ1, CRP)
a. Probe: What do you value most about the relationship?
13. Describe any lessons you’ve learned while working with transitional aged youth of color.
(RQ1, metacognition, CRP)
a. Probe: How does that affect you as a Social Impact Agent?
b. Probe: How have you dealt with overcoming challenges, if any? (RQ1)
14. What can HOPE SF (the Mayor’s Office) do to enhance your experience in Pay it
Forward? (RQ 2, knowledge, motivation, organization)
a. Probe: What is going well?
b. Probe: What challenges have you encountered, if any?
c. Probe: What would you change?
15. If you could change anything about PIF, what would that be? (RQ1/RQ2, knowledge,
motivation, and organization)
a. Probe: Tell me more about that?
16. What is one piece of advice you would offer future SIAs, so they are successful?
17. Is there anything else you would like to share?
Those are all of my questions, so I am going to stop the recording now. STOP
RECORDING. I want to thank you for your time and participation in this interview.
As you recall, the recording will be transcribed, and I will remove any identifying
information before sending Saidah the transcript for analysis.
If you are interested in the findings of the research, please let me know and I’d be happy to
anonymously pass that information to Saidah.

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Line staff and their influence on youth in expanded learning programs: an evaluation model

PDF

Implementing problem-based learning to develop student supply chain skills

PDF

Increasing strategic investments of philanthropic funding in nonprofit organizations

PDF

Overcoming the cultural teaching gap: an evaluative study of urban teachers’ implementation of culturally relevant instruction

PDF

Relocated professional fundraisers in Hawaii: the impact of cultural sensitivity and cultural awareness on fundraising performance

PDF

Big-four consulting firm female senior manager engagement, retention and productivity in pursuit of the partner level

PDF

Advancing collaboration between Joint Terrorism Task Forces and fusion centers

PDF

Effective practices for managing staff performance in higher education: an exploratory study

PDF

Strengths-based pedagogy for culturally marginalized groups

PDF

Social work faculty practices in writing instruction: an exploratory study

PDF

The underrepresentation of African Americans in information technology: an examination of social capital and its impact on African Americans’ career success

PDF

Relationship between employee disengagement and employee performance among facilities employees in higher education: an evaluation study

PDF

Increasing collaborative practices in the military: an improvement study

PDF

Sustained mentoring of early childhood education teachers: an innovation study

PDF

(Re)Imagining STEM instruction: an examination of culturally relevant andragogical practices to eradicate STEM inequities among racially minoritized students in community colleges

PDF

Cultural proficiency to provide equity for African American and other students of color: an evaluation study

PDF

The knowledge, motivation, and organization influences affecting the frequency of empathetic teaching practice used in the classroom: an evaluation study

PDF

Examining a lack of mentorship in the large state militia: an innovation study

PDF

Institutional advancement in higher education: managing gift officer performance and turnover

PDF

Creating a safety culture to decrease vehicle accidents with Sales Service Representatives

Asset Metadata

Creator Leatutufu, Saidah Marilyn Tinei (author)

Core Title The rich auntie effect: increasing socioeconomic advancement for opportunity youth of color

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Publication Date 04/16/2021

Defense Date 03/30/2021

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag cultural relevance,mentorship,OAI-PMH Harvest,opportunity youth,social capital,Wealth

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Seli, Helena (committee chair), Berger, Joshua (committee member), Datta, Monique (committee member)

Creator Email leatutuf@usc.edu,saidahleatutufu@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-444890

Unique identifier UC11667458

Identifier etd-LeatutufuS-9478.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-444890 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-LeatutufuS-9478.pdf

Dmrecord 444890

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Leatutufu, Saidah Marilyn Tinei

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA