Developing a Research Agenda Big Brothers Big Sisters of
Download
Report
Transcript Developing a Research Agenda Big Brothers Big Sisters of
Mentoring teenagers
in an uncertain world
Big Brothers Big Sisters International
Jean Rhodes
Professor
University of Massachusetts, Boston, USA
April 16, 2007
Overview
Overview
research and scholarship
Recommendations 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 comparisons
Single time point (or compressed)
Communication gaps
Making (a little) a Difference
“After 18 months, Little
Brothers and Sisters were:
QuickTime™ and a
TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor
are needed t o see t his pict ure.
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
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
0.8
1.6
1.4
0.7
1.2
0.6
0.5
Tx Alcohol
Use
Cc Alcohol
Use
1
0.8
0.6
0.3
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.1
0
0
Time 1
Tx Drug Use
Cc Drug Use
0.4
Time 1
Time 2
3.5
Time 2
1.8
1.6
3
1.4
2.5
1.2
2
Tx Hitting
Cc Hitti ng
1.5
1
Tx Ski ppi ng Class
Cc Skipping Class
0.8
0.6
1
0.4
0.5
0.2
0
0
Time 1
Time 2
Time 1
Time 2
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
30
25
# of Samples
20
Negative Effect
Small Effect
15
Small to Medium Effect
Medium to Large Effect
Large Effect
10
5
0
Effect on Youth
Size of Effect on Youth Outcomes
Effect sizes increase with greater use of theory- and
empirically-based practices
0.5
Medium
Effect
0.4
0.3
0.2
EmpiricallyBased
Practices
Small
Effect
0.1
Theory-Based
Practices
0
-0.1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Stronger effects
Youth
with
moderate
Mentors
environmental risk
with
skills
for working with youth
prior
experience in helping roles or occupations
sensitivity
sense
to socioeconomic & cultural influences
of efficacy for mentoring young people
Stronger effects
Relationships
consistency
closeness
structure
duration
characterized by
The role of duration
19%
< 6 mos.
6-11 mos.
> 11 mos.
45%
36%
Grossman & Rhodes (2001). American Journal of Community Psychology
Length of Relationship
1
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
Competence
< 6 months
Attendance
Prosocial Beh.
6-12 months
Abstinence
12+ months
Stronger effects
Programs
ongoing
characterized by
training and monitoring
Structured
activities
expectations
parental
for frequent contact
involvement
Pathways of mentor influence
Scholastic
Competence
.26
.25
.08
Grades
.29
Mentoring
.22
Quality of
Parental
relationship
.25
.26
.19
Self-worth
Skipping School
.09
.11
-.28
School value
(Regression coefficients
from LISREL analysis)
Child Development, (2000), 1662-1671
.18
Pathways of mentor influence
Mentoring
.23
Quality of
Parental
relationship
-.46
.18
Self-worth
-.08
-.04
.10
.14
Substance Use
Quality of
Peer
relationships
(Regression coefficients
from LISREL analysis)
Rhodes, Reddy, & Grossman (2004) Applied Development Science
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