Transcript Monthly Webinar Title

Effectiveness of Mentoring Programs
for Youth:
Current Status and Future Prospects
Invited Presentation for the Big Brothers Big
Sisters -- Large Agency Alliance 2012 Conference,
San Diego, CA
February 2012
What Did We Learn From an Earlier
Meta-Analysis of Programs Evaluated
Through 1998
 Mentoring programs can
promote gains in emotional,
behavioral, social, and
academic outcomes of
participating youth
 Average youth experienced
only “modest” or small benefits”
American Journal of Community
Psychology, Vol. 30, No. 2, April 2002
 Effects were “enhanced
significantly” when more
recommended “best practices”
were utilized
What Did We Learn from a MetaAnalysis of Last ~Decade of Studies:
1999-2010?
Psychological Science in the Public Interest,12,
57-91
Good News
Mentoring programs have
continued to benefit youth
in many areas
Programs often have
positive impacts in two or
more outcome domains
Effects of mentoring
generally in line with other
youth interventions
Mentoring works at both
preventing declines in youth
outcomes and promoting
improvements
Mentoring effects across
program locations, models,
populations, etc.  broad
and flexible strategy
Bad News New News
No evidence of
improved effectiveness
over prior generation of
programs
Too few studies to
evaluate impacts on
several key outcomes
(e.g., school drop-out,
juvenile offending)
Same largely true for
longer-term, “follow-up”
effects
Stronger effects when
programs:
Target “at risk” youth
(exception:
populations high on
both individual and
environmental risk)
Match youth and
mentors based on
similarity of interests
Utilize mentors with
educational/occupatio
nal backgrounds that
are a good fit with
program goals
Support mentors in
adopting teaching
and/or advocacy roles
Promotion
Prevention
?
?
6
Where Does the Field Go From
Here?
7
• High-fidelity implementation of evidencebased practices (EBP)
– For BBBS =
• Support for “Fidelity to Model” (i.e., SDM / Standards)
• Broadening of core model to more fully encompass
EBP (e.g., pre-match training, more frequent support
contacts post one year, more systematic monitoring of
mentoring relationship quality)
• Use SOR/YOS for local benchmarking and tracking of
progress in mentoring quality/youth impacts at national
level
8
• Bold innovation directed toward long-term,
transformative impacts on young people
– For BBBS =
• Nationally-directed pursuit of enhancements that
“stretch” program models
• Align with research and organization’s strategic
direction
• Pilot, refine, rigorously evaluate, and, if found to be
effective, go to scale
9
• Examples in Progress
– School-Based: ESBM
– Community-Based: Youth-Centered Match
Support Study (Step-It-Up-2-Thrive Model)
10
Youth-Centered Match Support
Study
• Collaborative partnership
—BBBSA
• National office
• 11 BBBSA affiliates
– Thrive Foundation for Youth
—Universities
• University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC)
(DuBois)
• Portland State University (PSU) (Keller)
11
• Funding
—OJJDP Mentoring Research Best Practices
Grant
—Supplemental funding to BBBSA from Thrive
Foundation to support program
implementation
12
• Overarching strategy
– Introduce practices based on Step-It-Up-2-Thrive
model (Thrive) as more intentional approach for
achieving positive youth outcomes
– Anchored in latest findings from mentoring and
positive youth development literatures
– Experimentally test whether matches randomly
assigned to receive “Thrive” supports have better
outcomes than those receiving standard CBM
• Mentoring relationship (e.g., 1-year retention)
• Youth (e.g., reduced involvement in problem behavior)
13
14
Opportunities Moving Forward
• Researchers: Long-term follow-up studies of
mentored/non-mentored youth into adulthood
(e.g., PPV CBM study sample)
• Programs: Use internally-generated data (e.g.,
SOR/YOS) to identify “hot spots” of
effectiveness where innovative practices may be
occurring
• Research-Practice Partnerships: Collaborations
that encompass all stages of the
innovation/research process (e.g., new
approaches for mentor recruitment)
15
Questions, Comments,
Reflections?
16
Evidence-based Practice
Effect Size Guidelines
18