Mentoring for Youth Involved in Problem Behaviors

1. Mentoring for Youth Involved in Problem Behaviors Thomas Keller, Ph.D. Reclaiming Futures Web Presentation September 18, 2008

2. 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

3. 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).

4. 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)

5. 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)

6. 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)

7. 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)

8. 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.)

9. 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

10. Meta-analysis From: DuBois, et al., 2002

11. Meta-analysis (DuBois et al.)

14. 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).

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

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

17. 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)

18. 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

19. 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

20. 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

21. 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

22. 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

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

24. 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

25. 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.

26. 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)

27. 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

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

29. 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

30. Systemic model (Keller, 2005b)

31. 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

32. 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)

33. 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

34. Relationship dimensions (Keller, 2005a)

35. 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

36. Mentoring relationships • Hierarchical aims of mentors (Hamilton & Hamilton, 1992) Level-1: developing a relationship Level-2: introducing opportunities Level-3: developing character Level-4: developing competence • Results: Levels 3 & 4 had longer and more successful relationships • Conclusion: Emphasis on constructive activities is means to develop relationship

37. Mentor role (Pryce & Keller)

38. 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

39. 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

40. Why become a mentor? • 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

41. Why become a mentor? • 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

42. 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

43. 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

44. 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

45. Systemic model (Keller, 2005b)

46. How can programs promote success? • Program design issues • Goals • Structure • Setting • Policies and procedures • Management and staffing • Resources • Program implementation issues

47. Developmental stages(Keller, 2005a) Contemplation Initiation Growth & Maintenance Decline & Dissolution Redefinition

48. Relationship development (Keller, 2005a)

49. Information and resources: Websites National Mentoring Center at NWREL http://www.nwrel.org/mentoring/about.html MENTOR/National Mentoring Partnership http://www.mentoring.org/ Public/Private Ventures http://www.ppv.org/ppv/youth/youth.asp Training/Technical Assistance for Mentoring System Involved Youth http://www.mentoringsiyouth.org/ The Friends for Youth Mentoring Institute www.mentoringinstitute.org PSU Summer Institute on Youth Mentoring http://www.youthmentoring.ssw.pdx.edu/ Peer Resources—Mentoring section http://www.mentors.ca/mentor.html Across Ages Program http://www.temple.edu/cil/Acrossageshome.htm

50. 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.