Presentation on theme: "Mentoring for Youth Involved in Problem Behaviors Thomas Keller, Ph.D. Reclaiming Futures Web Presentation September 18, 2008."— Presentation transcript:
Mentoring for Youth Involved in Problem Behaviors Thomas Keller, Ph.D. Reclaiming Futures Web Presentation September 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, friends parent)
What is formal, program mentoring? Mentor introduced into the youths 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 (1890-1900s) Big Brothers Big Sisters (1903) Cambridge-Somerville Study (1936-1978) Positive Youth Development movement (1990s) PPV-BBBS Study (1995) JUMPOJJDP (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 & ODonnell) 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: 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 IllinoisChicago) 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 IllinoisChicago) 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 IllinoisChicago) 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 Cant 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
Presented by Jean B. Grossman, Summer Institute on Youth Mentoring, 2008
Additional research using PPV data (Grossman & Rhodes) Test of timelength 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) DomainPersonInteractionSupport CognitiveThinkingCommunicating and interpreting Advising EmotionalFeelingExpressing affectComforting BehavioralActingRegulating behavior Monitoring IntentionalPursuing 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 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) CousinFriend
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 youths cues Flexible, adaptable and persistent
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
Mentoring relationship profiles (Langhout et al.) Three relationship dimensions defined Supportemotional support, satisfaction Structurediscuss goals, problem-solving Activityengaged in variety of activities Four profiles with different results Balanced, moderate combination5 positive outcomes Hi activity, low structure, med. support3 pos. outcomes Hi support, med. structure, low activity2 pos. outcomes Hi support, med. structure, med. activity1 pos. outcome
Why become a mentor? Eriksons 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 ones 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) Valuesact on humanitarian and prosocial values Careerexplore career options and gain experience Understandinglearn more about self and others Enhancementincrease own self-esteem, feel needed/important Protectivedistract from own problems by helping others Socialmeet the expectations of others Community concernexpress 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
StageConceptual featuresProgram practices Contemplation Anticipating and preparing for relationship Recruiting, screening, training Initiation Beginning 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 Redefinition Negotiating terms of future contact or rejuvenating relationship Facilitating closure, rematching Relationship development (Keller, 2005a)
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 ResourcesMentoring section http://www.mentors.ca/mentor.html Across Ages Program http://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
References Aseltine, 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.
References Langhout, 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.
Your consent to our cookies if you continue to use this website.