Mentoring teenagers in an uncertain world

Big Brothers Big Sisters International

Jean RhodesProfessorUniversity of Massachusetts, Boston, USAApril 16, 2007

Overview

Overview research and scholarshipRecommendations for practice and research

Recent Scholarship

Authored Books• Stand By Me: The Risks and Rewards of Mentoring Today’s Youth

(Rhodes, 2002)• Other People’s Kids (Scales, 2003)• Mentoring for Social Inclusion (Colley, 2003)

Edited Volumes• A Critical View of Youth Mentoring (Rhodes, 2002)• Handbook of Youth Mentoring (DuBois & Karcher, 2005)

Special Journal Issues• American Journal of Community Psychology (2002), Journal of

Primary Prevention (2005), Journal of Community Psychology (2006), Journal of Vocational Behavior (in progress)

Comprehensive Reviews• Hall, 2003; Hansen, 2007; Jekielek, 2002; Brady, 2007; Roberts et

al., 2004; Buote, 2007;Liabo et al., 2005

Comprehensive Reviews

Comprehensive reviews Moves readers beyond piecemeal Identifies gaps Programs vary on many dimensions Contain flawed studies Research different conclusions

So….

“Robust research does indicate benefits from mentoring for some young people, for some programmes, in some circumstances, in relation to some outcomes.”

• Roberts et al.,(2004) British Medical Journal

Program Evaluations

Mentoring highly variable Sample sizes/significance Other problems

Self-reports (homegrown)Absence of control or comparisonsSingle time point (or compressed)Communication gaps

Making (a little) a Difference

“After 18 months, Little Brothers and Sisters were: 47% less likely to begin using

illegal drugs 27% less likely to begin using

alcohol 51% less likely to skip school 37% less likely to skip a class more confident of their

performance in schoolwork one-third less likely to hit

someone getting along better with their

families”• www.bbbsa.org

QuickTime™ and aTIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

Evaluation of BBBSA

Average pre-post and post-program difference effect size estimates were small (.02 and .05 respectively).

Behavior “Net Impact”

Control Mean

Treatment Mean

Skip class 51% 1.39 .68

Skip day 47% .90 .47

Initiate Drug Use

45.8% 11.47% 6.2%

Initiate Alcohol Use

27.4% 26.72% 19.39%

On second glance

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

Time 1 Time 2

Tx AlcoholUseCc AlcoholUse

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

Time 1 Time 2

Tx Drug UseCc Drug Use

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

Time 1 Time 2

Tx HittingCc Hitting

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

Time 1 Time 2

Tx Skipping ClassCc Skipping Class

Meta-analysis

DuBois et al., 2002 55 program evaluations Effect sizes Small (.10-.23), med(.24-.36), large (.37 higher)

• Overall .14

Eby, in progress 40 youth mentoring, 53 adult, 23 college

• Youth: .03-.14• Academic: .11-.36• Workplace: .03-.19

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Effect on Youth

# o

f S

am

ple

s

Negative Effect

Small Effect

Small to Medium Effect

Medium to Large Effect

Large Effect

Effect sizes increase with greater use of theory- and empirically-based practices

-0.1

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Number of Practices

Siz

e o

f E

ffec

t o

n Y

ou

th O

utc

om

es

Empirically-BasedPractices

Theory-BasedPractices

Small Effect

Medium Effect

Stronger effectsYouth with

moderate environmental risk

Mentors with

skills for working with youth

prior experience in helping roles or occupations

sensitivity to socioeconomic & cultural influences

sense of efficacy for mentoring young people

Stronger effectsRelationships characterized by

consistency

closeness

structure

duration

19%

36%

45% < 6 mos.6-11 mos.> 11 mos.

The role of duration

Grossman & Rhodes (2001). American Journal of Community Psychology

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

Competence Attendance Prosocial Beh. Abstinence

< 6 months 6-12 months 12+ months

Length of Relationship

Stronger effectsPrograms characterized by

ongoing training and monitoring

Structured activities

expectations for frequent contact

parental involvement

Pathways of mentor influence

(Regression coefficients from LISREL analysis)

Child Development, (2000), 1662-1671

Quality ofParental

relationship

Skipping School

Grades

Self-worth

School value

Scholastic Competence

.26 .08

-.28

.25

.26

.25

.18.19

.09

.29

.11

.22Mentoring

Pathways of mentor influence

(Regression coefficients from LISREL analysis)

Rhodes, Reddy, & Grossman (2004) Applied Development Science

Quality ofParental

relationship

Substance Use

Self-worth

-.46.18

.10 .14

.23Mentoring

Quality ofPeer

relationships

-.04

-.08

Promising Developments Expansion of infastructure Attention to quality/duration Exemplary programs and models Growing interest among scholars/practitioners Attention to evaluation

Several large-scale random assignment of mentoring are currently underway

• School-based evaluations (P/PV, Abt, Karcher)• Youth ChalleNGe (MDRC) DeWit et al. (BBBSC),

Friends of the Children, Experience Corps

Implications for Practice

Improve mentor training and match support Improve mentor retention Promote measured replication and dissemination Reward sustainability and quality over growth Export mentoring into youth-serving settings

Implications for Research Conduct evaluations to test and compare practices

Understand “added-value” of integration with other services Understand the role of gender, age, ethnicity, special

needs, risk status Conduct cost-benefit analyses of various levels of service Leverage and extend ongoing evaluations Understand new types of programs (groups, school)

And for whom they are best suited

Achieve a better alignment of research and practice

Practice

Research