Ready, Set, Go?: Examining Organizational Readiness for Change in an Intervention with Youth Mentoring Programs

Background & Purpose: When organizational readiness for change is high, efforts to implement change are more likely to be successful.  Focusing on healthcare delivery, Weiner (2009) theorizes that organizational readiness for change requires a shared sense of commitment to change and a strong sense of change efficacy amongst staff.  The current study seeks to apply Weiner’s theory of organizational readiness for change to an intervention in the youth mentoring field.  The National Quality Mentoring System (QMS) is an initiative designed to offer state Mentoring Partnerships (MPs), intermediary organizations supporting the field, a systematic approach to help mentoring programs implement more evidence-based practices using a quality rating and improvement system model, with the ultimate goal of improving outcomes for youth.  The current study analyzes qualitative interviews with a subsample of programs participating in an ongoing, mixed-method, randomized controlled study of QMS effectiveness. This study examines retrospective descriptions of organizational readiness for change, including commitment to change and change efficacy.

Methods: Participants were staff representing 20 treatment condition programs implementing QMS (n= 34) and 8 state MPs (n= 10) leading the implementation efforts.  Participating agencies were selected to reflect the diversity of the youth mentoring field with regard to size, organizational structure, program model, and setting.  In-depth, semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted at least 15 months after QMS implementation began in the program.  Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and then coded thematically.  Analysis examined factors associated with organizational readiness for change. 

Results: Mentoring Partnership staff were committed to leading QMS implementation efforts as a means of adding value to the local mentoring field, helping programs demonstrate quality, and contributing to their own sustainability by carving out a new niche that would be valued by funders.  Most MPs went through long processes to learn about QMS before pursuing implementation, which facilitated board, leadership and provider council support.  Efficacy was negatively affected when MPs were not able to raise sufficient funds or had limited staff capacity, which led to two states ending QMS implementation.   

Most mentoring programs were committed to improving program quality through evidence-based practices, demonstrating program effectiveness and increasing sustainability.  Programs were also motivated to have a “stamp of approval” from their MP.  However, some programs expressed QMS being mandated by a funder, which limited staff commitment.  Most programs had sufficient board, leadership and staff support although many also acknowledged having unclear expectations about workload and timeline going into the process, which led to over-estimating change readiness.  High change efficacy was associated with a program’s culture of learning and “good timing” in regards to program initiatives.  

Conclusions & Implications: In accordance with Weiner’s theory of organizational readiness for change, a shared sense of commitment to change and a strong sense of change efficacy were associated with MP’s and mentoring programs’ readiness to implement QMS.  Understanding factors contributing to readiness for change can help identify MPs and programs that are ready to implement QMS and allocate resources appropriately.  Future research should examine connections between organizational readiness for change and implementation effectiveness.