JHTC Program Mentor-Mentee Analysis

This report explores mentor-mentee feedback data from JMentors over the past period from 2024 to today. The analysis aims to identify key insights about the program’s effectiveness, communication dynamics, and participant experiences based on midterm and end of the year survey responses.

We analyze responses from both mentors and mentees across several dimensions including: - Experience ratings - Program impact - Relationship quality - Willingness to recommend the program

Dataset Overview

The dataset includes survey responses from mentors and mentees who answered a common set of questions.

Here is a quick summary of the columns:

  • On a scale of 1–10, how would you rate your experience as a mentee in this program?
  • Would you recommend the program to a colleague or a friend? (1–10)
  • How often did y (1–5, 3 being the right amount)ou meet?
  • Was meeting as often as you did enough time to help you achieve the mentorship prograt amount)
  • Describe your relationship with your mentor/mentee (1–5)
  • Did you feel comfortable sharing information and/or experiences with your mentor/mentee? (1–5)
  • Was the mentorship program a valuable experience? (1–5)
  • On a scale of 1–10, how would you rate the program’s impact on your personal, professional, or leadeship skills? s + No Votes

Preprocess

Means to numeric questions

Averages deviation mentor mentee

We can see a general alignment between mentors and mentees response means. There is a slight difference when we look at “program impact”, where the mentees felt like the program had more impact than the mentors. There is also a slight imbalance between the mentees and mentors in response to the question “rate your experience”, where the mentors’ mean was higher than the mentees’

In the end of the same year, there seem to be more alignment than there was in the midterm survey. The only outlier is the “program’s impact” which similarly to the midterm survey, was higher for mentees compared to mentors.

Midterm 2025 shows a general alignment between mentors’ and mentees’ means, without any outliers that should be addressed.

Analysis of Questions

The bar plot shows the means comparison for each of the questions. This plot reinforces the conclusion that the “program’s impact” had the highest variation out of all the questions. Being the highest for the mentees at the end of 2024 and the lowest for mentors in the middle of 2024. In 2025, the differences balance out and the responses align more with each other

We can see that the responses for both midterm and end of the year in 2024 are similar within most questions besides the “program’s impact” which had the highest deviation, however, this deviation is not extremely significant.

Means are balanced beteeen mentors and mentees, mentees’ ranking is usually higher than mentors’

Merge mentor & mentee for comparison

Visualizations- histogram of distributions

Experience rating

Most mentees and all mentors rated the program 8–10.

Future recommendation

The Majority would recommend the program.

Serving as a mentor

All mentors would serve again. Some mentees would, or possibly would, while about half wouldn’t.

Articles helpful

Most participants found the articles helpful.

Meeting frequency

Mixed opinions between mentors and mentees. Most responses fell between “every other week” and “once a month.”

Did you meet enough?

Responses ranged from 2 to 5, with 3 most common, which is the right amount of time.

Describe the relationship-

Most reported having a good or great relationship.

Comfortable sharing information-

Participants generally felt comfortable sharing.

Valuable experience-

Mentors mostly rated it 4–5. Mentees gave more varied ratings, with 5 and 3 most common.

Program’s impact-

Mentees tended to rate impact higher (many 10s). Mentors clustered around 9, with some lower scores.

Experience rating-

Most responses are high, with a score of 7-10, with more mentors voting 10.

Future recommendation-

Responses vary between 8-10, with the majority voting 10.

Serving as a mentor-

All mentors would serve as mentors again. Some mentees would and others might.

Articles were helpful-

All mentors said that the articles were helpful. More mentees said they weren’t than those who said they were.

Meeting frequency-

Most responded they met once a week, and once a month was the second most popular response.

Did you meet enough?-

All mentors voted 3/5, while mentees generally agreed somewhere between 3-4/5

Describe the relationship-

All reported having a good or great relationship.

Comfortable sharing information-

Participants generally felt comfortable sharing.

Valuable experience-

5 was the most common response, mentors ranged at 3,4 as well, while mentees voted mostly 4-5.

Program’s impact-

Mentors tended to rate impact higher (many 10s). Mentees were distributed from 7-10.

Experience rating-

Mentees’ ratings clustered around 9, with several 8s and 10s. Mentors also favored 9 but showed greater variation, ranging from 5 to 10.

Future recommendation-

Most responses were a 10, clustered around 8-10.

Serving as a mentor-

All mentors would serve as mentors again; most mentees responded ‘possibly’.

Articles helpful-

All mentors and most mentees said the articles were helpful.

Meeting frequency-

Even distribution between mentors and mentees, most met every other week.

Did you meet enough?-

The most common response was 3 out of 5, suggesting ideal satisfaction with meeting frequency.

Describe relationship-

Most reported having a good or great relationship.

Comfortable sharing information-

Participants generally felt comfortable sharing.

Valuable experience-

Most common rating was 5. Mentors gave a broader range (3–5), while mentees mostly rated 4 or 5.

Program’s impact-

Ratings were widely distributed. Most mentees rated the impact between 7 and 9, while mentors ranged from 4 to 9.

Visualizations- bars to compare mentor mentee

Mentors-Mentees Responses to specific questions

The plots below show the mentor-mentee relationship in their responses. The X axis reprensents mentor response, while the Y axis represents mentee response. The straight line indiciate perfect correlati9on while deviations from the line show mismatch between the asnwers. Every point represents a specific pair of a mentor and mentee.

Scatter of midterm survey, 2024

Scatter of end of program survey, 2024

Scatter of midterm survey, 2025

Pie plot for distributions

Distribution of repsponses

The pie plots shows the distribution of responses out of those who voted. It is important to highlight that a large precentage of participants haven’t responded to the survey, therefore the data represented in the pie plots is not a representation of all the participants of the mentorship program.

Response Participation

Pie charts show response distributions across scoring bands (0–3, 4–7, 8–10), including “No Vote” entries.

This gives us a sense of how engaged participants were, highlighting the need for better participation numbers for better conclusion-making.

Midterm 2024

End of Program 2024

Midterm 2025

Conclusion

Due to the large precentage of non voters, and the small number of responses, it is hard to make conclusions about the program as a whole. From the data we can conclude that most of the participants, mentors and mentees are satisfied from the program and its aspects. However, less participants ranked the impact of the program as high, which is an are we can dive deeper to try and understand the reasoning to.

Recommendations

Encourage and mendate responses to the surveys, from both mentors and mentees. Seek reasoning on how to increase the program’s impact.