Mentoring for Youth Involved in Problem Behaviors
description
Transcript of 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
Note: Developed collaboratively with David L. DuBois, PhD (University of Illinois—Chicago) and Julia Pryce, Ph.D (Loyola University).
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).
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
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
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
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.