mentoring for youth involved in problem behaviors

Mentoring for Youth Involved in Problem Behaviors

Thomas Keller, Ph.D.

Reclaiming Futures Web PresentationSeptember 18, 2008

Outline What is mentoring? What evidence exists for the effects of

mentoring? What makes mentoring relationships

successful? Why do people become mentors? How does mentoring influence youth

behavior and development? How can programs promote effective

mentoring? Questions/resources

What is mentoring?

Widely used, inclusive definition:

Youth mentoring is characterized by a personal relationship in which a caring individual provides consistent companionship, support, and guidance aimed at developing the competence and character of a child or adolescent (MENTOR, 2003).

What is informal, natural mentoring?

Mentoring relationship that forms between a youth and an older, more experienced member of his or her existing social network. Most common natural mentors reported by youth:

Relatives Professionals (teacher, counselor, minister, social

worker) Others (coach, employer, neighbor, friend’s parent)

What is formal, program mentoring?

Mentor introduced into the youth’s life through an intervention program. Extensive typology

Purpose Rehabilitation (treatment, reform, re-entry) Prevention (substance use, mental health, risky behaviors) Positive development (talents, skills, morals, motivation) Education/training (academics, apprenticeship, workforce)

Population Youth demographics (age, gender, SES, single parent) Youth situation (child welfare, teen parent, incarcerated) Mentor affiliation (occupation, religious or service group)

Typology (continued)

Setting Community-based School-based Site-based (organization, institution)

Format Ratio: 1-to-1, 1-to-more, group Program: stand alone vs. multi-component program

Other Duration/commitment Volunteer vs. paid Age differential (“peer” mentoring)

Historical context Odysseus Family as unit of production Apprenticeship Juvenile justice and probation officers (1890-1900’s) Big Brothers Big Sisters (1903) Cambridge-Somerville Study (1936-1978) Positive Youth Development movement (1990’s) PPV-BBBS Study (1995) JUMP—OJJDP (1996) Rapid expansion/innovation (1995-present)

What is evidence for mentoring? Natural mentoring

Studies of resilience Youth who overcome adversity characterized by

presence of at least one caring, committed adult Studies of social support/positive relationships

Positive relationships with parents, teachers, and other adults correlate with positive development

Methodological issues Observational studies and cause-effect association

Recent findings Controlling for various factors, still difference favoring

youth with support (DuBois & Silverthorn, Keller et. al.)

What is evidence for mentoring?

Program mentoring effects Rigorous evaluation studies (random assignment)

Cambridge-Somerville (McCord) Buddy System (Fo & O’Donnell) PPV BBBS community-based (Grossman & Tierney) Across Ages (LoScuito et al., Aseltine et al.)

Meta-analysis (DuBois, et al., Smith) Statistically combined results across 55 separate

program evaluations

Meta-analysis

From: DuBois, et al., 2002

Meta-analysis (DuBois et al.)

0

0.10.2

0.30.4

0.5

0.60.7

0.80.9

1

Type of Outcome

Siz

e of

Effe

ct

Emotional Well-Being

Problem/High-Risk Behavior

Social Competence

Academic Achievement

Career/Employment

Theory-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

Small Effect

Medium Effect

Empirically-Supported Practices

-0.1

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Number of Practices

Siz

e o

f E

ffec

t o

n

Small Effect

Medium Effect

Meta-analysis: Program practices

In most case, results in expected direction, even if not large.

No reason to believe negative effect, maybe just not benefits expected.

Program and methodological issues. Code

No difference (red) Some benefit, not statistically significant (black) Strong evidence of benefit (green)

Note: Developed collaboratively with David L. DuBois, PhD (University of Illinois—Chicago) and Julia Pryce, Ph.D (Loyola University).

Meta-analysis: Program design

Community-based setting for program Combining mentoring with other programs Structured activities for matches in program Focus on youth from low SES background Mentors with background in helping role or

profession Mentor compensation Parent support/involvement in program Mutual support groups for mentors


Meta-analysis: Program procedure

Screening process for mentors Prematch training for mentors Mentor-youth matching

By gender By race By interests

Program expectations Frequency of contact Length of relationship

Monitoring of program implementation Supervision of mentors Ongoing training


Meta-Analysis: Program population

Effect sizes greater for programs that targeted youth with environmental risk factors (prevention)

Minimal effects for programs that targeted youth already identified for problems (rehabilitation)

Cambridge-Somerville Study (McCord)

Intervention Boys from high crime neighborhood assigned case

manager who was to build a relationship and coordinate range of social services.

Results Intervention group fared worse in both short and long term,

with more convictions, deaths, and mental health diagnoses.

Issues and interpretations Can’t isolate effect of mentoring Subsequent analyses focus on negative effects of summer

camps and “deviancy training.” Seventy years ago

Buddy System (Fo & Donnell)

Intervention 10-17 year olds referred for behavior and academic

problems had trained non-professionals for mentors using behavior change strategies

Results Previous offenders had lower recidivism rate Previous non-offenders more likely to be arrested

Issues and interpretations Greater results seen when mentors applied social and

material contingencies Peer network in program may have been reason for mixed

results

Across Ages (LoScuito et al.)

Intervention Mentoring with older adults (55+) Positive Youth Development Curriculum (life skills) Community Service projects Parent workshops

Study Randomized control design (control, components, components +

mentoring) Middle school students (N=562)

Results Mentoring condition better than control on all measures and

better than other components alone on most. Better attitudes toward school, future, elders. Better ATOD refusal skills and less frequent substance use. Fewer absences. *“Exceptional” mentors achieved greater effects vs. other

mentors

Across Ages replication (Aseltine et al.)

Intervention PYDC curriculum Mentoring Community Service

Study Randomized control design (same) Middle school students (N=358)

Results Mentoring (but not curriculum) condition better than

controls Greater self-control, cooperation, helping Greater family and school bonding Fewer absences Less alcohol use and fewer problem behaviors

PPV BBBS Community-based study(Grossman & Tierney)

Randomized control study of BBBS program in 8 sites around country

Sample of 10-16 year olds (N=959) Waitlist control design, baseline and 18 month

follow-up interviews Headline results for whole sample

46% reduction in likelihood of initiating drug use (11.5%) 27% reduction in likelihood of initiating alcohol use (27%) 1/3 reduction in likelihood of hitting someone (M=2.7) 1/3 reduction likelihood of skipping school (M=1.4) Improved academic competence and grades Improved relationships with parents and peers

PopulationOutcome

Overall Boys Girls Minority Boys

Minority Girls

White Boys

White Girls

Initiate Drug Use X X X X

Initiate Alcohol Use X X

Hit OthersX X (x) X

Self-Reported Grades

X X X

Skip a Day of School X X X X

Social Acceptance X

Parental Relationship X X X

SUMMARY OF IMPACT FINDINGS BY SUBGROUP

Presented by Jean B. Grossman, Summer Institute on Youth Mentoring, 2008

Additional research using PPV data (Grossman & Rhodes)

Test of time—length of relationships Effects

Longer relationships (12+mos) associated with reductions in drug, alcohol use, skipping school

Increases in alcohol use for shorter matches (< 6 mos) Factors associated with duration

Shorter matches for older youth Shorter matches for youth referred for specific issues

Direct and indirect effects on alcohol and drug use (Rhodes et al.)

Hypothesized model Mentoring would reduce alcohol and drug use by

improving parent relationship, influencing choice of positive vs negative peers, enhancing self-concept

Study Examined direct and indirect correlational pathways

Results Mentoring had direct effect on reducing alcohol use (no

intervening variables played a role) Mentoring effect on reducing drug use attributed to

improved parent relationship as an intermediate step in process.

Juvenile offenders (Blechman et al.)

Juvenile offenders in three categories Juvenile diversion only Diversion plus skills training Diversion plus mentoring

Non-random assignment, propensity score analysis Results

Reduced recidivism for skills training (37% rearrest) compared to mentoring (51% rearrest) and diversion only (46% rearrest)

Skills training cost effective (saved $33,600/ 100 youth)

What makes mentoring relationships successful? Relationships are complex and multi-faceted Formal mentoring is a systemic intervention Mentoring is a special role Importance of mentor approach

Parallel processing(Van Lieshout, et al., 1999)

Domain Person Interaction Support

Cognitive Thinking Communicating and interpreting

Advising

Emotional Feeling Expressing affect Comforting

Behavioral Acting Regulating behavior

Monitoring

Intentional Pursuing goals

Supporting or blocking

Advocating

Qualities of relationships

Temporal Social interaction over time

Interdependent Mutual influence

Meaning Mental representations

Continuity Past experiences influence subsequent interactions

Discontinuity Dynamic and multi-determined

Systemic model (Keller, 2005b)

Child

Mentor

Parent Worker

Program/Agency

Systemic model Conceptual points

Wholeness and order Parts are interconnected and interdependent

Hierarchical structure Composed of sub-systems with boundaries

Practical points Intervention goes beyond mentor-child relationship Caseworker, parent, teacher contribute to success or

failure of relationship Mentoring effects can be indirect, through multiple

pathways of influence

Systemic model

Analytical uses Direct (M C) Reciprocal (M C) Transitive (W M, M C) Parallel (W M, W C, M C) Circular (C W, W M, M C)

Mentoring relationships

What distinguishes relationships? (Laursen & Bukowski, 1997)

Permanence Voluntary, kinship, committed

Social power Resources, experience/knowledge, rank

Gender Male-male, female-female, cross-gender

Relationship dimensions (Keller, 2005a)

Permanent

(obligation)

Voluntary

(mutual)

Unequal social power

(vertical)

Parent Mentor

Equal social power

(horizontal)

Cousin Friend

Research on mentor role Mentoring style (Morrow & Styles, 1995)

Prescriptive mentoring A Transformation goals early, often, consistent Authority and control of decision making Rigid and frustrated

Prescriptive Mentoring B Wanted reciprocal partnership Unrealistic expectations for youth to initiate activities Wounded and discouraged

Developmental mentoring Relationship-building goals (throughout) and

transformation goals (emerging later) Youth-centered, reading youth’s cues Flexible, adaptable and persistent

Mentoring relationships

Hierarchical aims of mentors (Hamilton & Hamilton, 1992)

Level-1: developing a relationshipLevel-2: introducing opportunitiesLevel-3: developing characterLevel-4: developing competence

Results: Levels 3 & 4 had longer and more successful relationships

Conclusion: Emphasis on constructive activities is means to develop relationship

Mentor role (Pryce & Keller)

-2

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

Sta

nd

ard

ized

sco

res

Security (p=.02)

Closeness (p=.01)

Wish closer (p=.65)

Pos. feeling (p=.03)

Relationship (p=.02)

Mentoring relationship profiles (Langhout et al.)

Three relationship dimensions defined Support—emotional support, satisfaction Structure—discuss goals, problem-solving Activity—engaged in variety of activities

Four profiles with different results Balanced, moderate combination—5 positive outcomes Hi activity, low structure, med. support—3 pos. outcomes Hi support, med. structure, low activity—2 pos. outcomes Hi support, med. structure, med. activity—1 pos. outcome

Why become a mentor?

Erikson’s theory of Generativity (McAdams, et al., 1998)

Definition Commitment to improving society and providing for the

survival and well-being of future generations Reasons

Desire to feel needed and capable of helping Desire to leave a lasting legacy Cultural demands of adulthood, expectations of

responsibility for transmitting social customs and knowledge


Four motives for community service (Batson, 2002)

Egoism increasing one’s own welfare

Altruism increasing the welfare of specific individuals

Collectivism increasing the welfare of a group

Principlism upholding a moral principle, such as justice


Reasons for volunteering in community (Clary et al., 1998)

Values—act on humanitarian and prosocial values

Career—explore career options and gain experience

Understanding—learn more about self and others

Enhancement—increase own self-esteem, feel needed/important

Protective—distract from own problems by helping others

Social—meet the expectations of others

Community concern—express interest and involvement in a community

How does mentoring influence youth?

Social support against stress (Sandler, et al., 1989)

Prevent or minimize stress Reducing effect of stress on intervening variables (self-

esteem, security, attributions) Strengthening or maintaining intervening variables

Protective processes (Rutter, 1990)

Reduce the impact of risk Reduce negative chain reactions Establish and maintain self-esteem and self-efficacy Open up opportunities

How does mentoring influence youth? Significant unrelated adults (Darling, et al., 1994):

Feedback incorporated into self-concept Reference for beliefs/expectations Role modeling behaviors Instruction for developing skills and abilities

Mentors (Rhodes, 2005):

Enhancing social skills and emotional well-being Improving cognitive skills through dialogue and listening Fostering identity development by serving as a role model

and advocate

Influence of relationship (Keller, 2007)

Protecting from psychosocial risk Security Stress & coping Positive relationships Mentor: Dependable relationship

Enhancing personal competence Motivation and self-efficacy Developing skills, knowledge, values Mentor: Guided instruction and joint activity

Promoting social integration Network that reinforces norms and values Building and using social capital (education, employment) Mentor: Making connections

Systemic model (Keller, 2005b)

Child

Mentor

Parent Worker

Program/Agency

How can programs promote success? Program design issues

Goals Structure Setting Policies and procedures Management and staffing Resources

Program implementation issues

Developmental stages(Keller, 2005a)

Contemplation

Initiation

Growth & Maintenance

Decline & Dissolution

Redefinition

Stage Conceptual features Program practices

ContemplationAnticipating and preparing for relationship

Recruiting, screening, training

InitiationBeginning relationship and becoming acquainted

Matching, making introductions

Growth and maintenance

Meeting regularly and establishing patterns of interaction

Supervising and supporting, ongoing training

Decline and dissolution

Addressing challenges to relationship or ending relationship

Supervising and supporting, facilitating closure

RedefinitionNegotiating terms of future contact or rejuvenating relationship

Facilitating closure, rematching

Relationship development (Keller, 2005a)

Information and resources: Websites

National Mentoring Center at NWRELhttp://www.nwrel.org/mentoring/about.htmlMENTOR/National Mentoring Partnership

http://www.mentoring.org/Public/Private Ventures

http://www.ppv.org/ppv/youth/youth.aspTraining/Technical Assistance for Mentoring System Involved Youth

http://www.mentoringsiyouth.org/The Friends for Youth Mentoring Institute

www.mentoringinstitute.orgPSU Summer Institute on Youth Mentoringhttp://www.youthmentoring.ssw.pdx.edu/

Peer Resources—Mentoring sectionhttp://www.mentors.ca/mentor.html

Across Ages Programhttp://www.temple.edu/cil/Acrossageshome.htm

Information and resources: Publications DuBois, D. L., & Karcher, M. J. (Eds.).

(2005b). Handbook of Youth Mentoring. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Rhodes, J. E. (2002). Stand by me: The risks and rewards of mentoring today's youth. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Taylor, A. S., & Bressler, J. (2000). Mentoring across generations: Partnerships for positive youth development. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

Final thoughts

Human beings of all ages are happiest and able to deploy their talents to best advantage when they are confident that, standing behind them, there are one or more trusted persons who will come to their aid should difficulties arise. John Bowlby

ReferencesAseltine, R. J., Dupre, M., & Lamlein, P. (2000). Mentoring as a drug prevention strategy: An evaluation of Across Ages. Adolescent & Family Health, 1(1), 11-20.Batson, C. D., Ahmad, N., & Tsang, J.-A. (2002). Four motives for community involvement. Journal of Social Issues, 58(3), 429-445.Blechman, E. A., Maurice, A., Buecker, B., & Helberg, C. (2000). Can mentoring or skill training reduce recidivism? Observational study with propensity analysis. Prevention Science, 1(3), 139-155.Clary, E. G., Snyder, M., Ridge, R. D., Copeland, J., Stukas, A. A., Haugen, J., & Miene, P. (1998). Understanding and assessing the motivation of volunteers: A functional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6), 1516-1530.Darling, N., Hamilton, S. F., & Niego, S. (1994). Adolescents' relations with adults outside the family. In R. Montemayor & G. R. Adams & T. P. Gullotta (Eds.), Personal relationships during adolescence (Vol. 6, pp. 216-235). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.DuBois, D. L., Holloway, B. E., Valentine, J. C., & Cooper, H. (2002). Effectiveness of mentoring programs for youth: A meta-analytic review. American Journal of Community Psychology, 30(2), 157-197.DuBois, D. L., & Silverthorn, N. (2005). Natural mentoring relationships and adolescent health: Evidence from a national survey. American Journal of Public Health, 95(3), 518-524.Fo, W. S., & O'Donnell, C. R. (1975). The buddy system: Effect of community intervention on delinquent offenses. Behavior Therapy, 6(4), 522-524.Grossman, J. B., & Rhodes, J. E. (2002). The test of time: Predictors and effects of duration in youth mentoring relationships. American Journal of Community Psychology, 30(2), 199-219.Grossman, J. B., & Tierney, J. P. (1998). Does mentoring work? An impact study of the Big Brothers Big Sisters program. Evaluation Review, 22(3), 403-426.Hamilton, S. F., & Hamilton, M. A. (1992). Mentoring programs: Promise and paradox. Phi Delta Kappan, 73(7), 546-550.Keller, T. E. (2005a). The stages and development of mentoring relationships. In D. L. DuBois & M. J. Karcher (Eds.), Handbook of Youth Mentoring (pp. 82-99). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Keller, T. E. (2005b). A systemic model of the youth mentoring intervention. Journal of Primary Prevention, 26(2), 169-188.Keller, T. E. (2007). Theoretical approaches and methodological issues involving youth mentoring relationships. In T. D. Allen & L. T. Eby (Eds.), Blackwell Handbook of Mentoring: A Multiple Perspectives Approach (pp. 23-47). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

ReferencesLanghout, R. D., Rhodes, J. E., & Osborne, L. N. (2004). An exploratory study of youth mentoring in an urban context: Adolescents' perceptions of relationship styles. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 33(4), 293-306.Laursen, B., & Bukowski, W. M. (1997). A developmental guide to the organization of close relationships. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 21(4), 747-770.LoSciuto, L., Rajala, A. K., Townsend, T. N., & Taylor, A. S. (1996). An outcome evaluation of Across Ages: An intergenerational mentoring approach to drug prevention. Journal of Adolescent Research, 11(1), 116-129.McAdams, D. P., Hart, H. M. H., & Maruna, S. (1998). The anatomy of generativity. In D. P. McAdams & E. de St. Aubin (Eds.), Generativity and Adult Development: How and Why We Care for the Next Generation (pp. 7-43). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.McCord, J. (1992). The Cambridge-Somerville Study: A pioneering longitudinal-experimental study of delinquency prevention. In J. McCord & R. E. Tremblay (Eds.), Preventing antisocial behavior: Interventions from birth through adolescence (Vol. 196-208). New York: Guildford Press.Morrow, K. V., & Styles, M. B. (1995). Building relationships with youth in program settings. Philadelphia: Public/Private Ventures.Pryce, J. M., & Keller, T. E. (under review). Making the match:An investigation of intergenerational relationships formed in school-based youth mentoring programs.Rhodes, J. E. (2005). A model of youth mentoring. In D. L. DuBois & M. Karcher (Eds.), Handbook of Youth Mentoring (pp. 30-43). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Rhodes, J. E., Grossman, J. B., & Reddy, R. (2005). The protective influence of mentoring on adolescents' substance use: Direct and indirect pathways. Applied Developmental Science, 9(1), 31-47.Rutter, M. (1990). Psychosocial resilience and protective mechanisms. In J. Rolf & A. S. Masten & D. Cicchetti & K. H. Nuechterlein & S. Weintraub (Eds.), Risk and protective factors in the development of psychopathology. New York: Cambridge University Press.Sandler, I. N., Miller, P., Short, J., & Wolchik, S. A. (1989). Social support as a protective factor for children in stress. In D. Belle (Ed.), Children's social networks and social support (pp. 277-307). New York: John Wiley & Sons.van Lieshout, C. F. M., Cillessen, A. H. N., & Haselager, G. J. T. (1999). Interpersonal support and individual development. In W. A. Collins & B. Laursen (Eds.), Relationships as Developmental Contexts (Vol. 30, pp. 37-60). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

mentoring for youth involved in problem behaviors

Documents