Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
Mentoring Congress
Mentoring Congress
Mentoring Congress
Mentoring Congress
Mentoring Congress
Mentoring Congress
Mentoring Congress
Mentoring Congress
Mentoring Congress
Mentoring Congress
Mentoring Congress
Mentoring Congress
Mentoring Congress
Mentoring Congress
Mentoring Congress
Mentoring Congress
Mentoring Congress
Mentoring Congress
Mentoring Congress
Mentoring Congress
Mentoring Congress
Mentoring Congress
Mentoring Congress
Mentoring Congress
Mentoring Congress
Mentoring Congress
Mentoring Congress
Mentoring Congress
Mentoring Congress
Mentoring Congress
Mentoring Congress
Mentoring Congress
Mentoring Congress
Mentoring Congress
Mentoring Congress
Mentoring Congress
Mentoring Congress
Mentoring Congress
Mentoring Congress
Mentoring Congress
Mentoring Congress
Mentoring Congress
Mentoring Congress
Mentoring Congress
Mentoring Congress
Mentoring Congress
Mentoring Congress
Mentoring Congress
Mentoring Congress
Mentoring Congress
Mentoring Congress
Mentoring Congress
Mentoring Congress
Mentoring Congress
Mentoring Congress
Mentoring Congress
Mentoring Congress
Mentoring Congress
Mentoring Congress
Mentoring Congress
Mentoring Congress
Mentoring Congress
Mentoring Congress
Mentoring Congress
Mentoring Congress
Mentoring Congress
Mentoring Congress
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Mentoring Congress

126

Published on

Published in: Career
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
126
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide
  • Favorable evaluation findingsDeclining availability of nonparent adults Growth of advocacy organizationsHeightened volunteerism, service learning
  • I need the words on the bottom to be legible, so I think I need to keep it this big
  • I want the points to enter one at a time but for the bottom two lines (DuBois.., and An effect..) to remain on the slide the whole time.
  • Ignore—thi is just a note to myself .45-.50 child therapy
  • I’m I’m still working on this
  • WHY should we care?
  • Can make it so the bullets on the left appear before the figure on the right?
  • JeanWith social support, interest is maintained and develops into passionWith social support and maintained interest, can lead to skill development, translate into academic and career success
  • JeanWith social support, interest is maintained and develops into passionWith social support and maintained interest, can lead to skill development, translate into academic and career success
  • Can you make it so when I click on the bottom photo the top one appears
  • Comparing youth in different length relationships to control group, that is, youth on the waitlist who never participated in Challenge.
  • Transcript

    • 1. The new science of mentoring Leveraging evidence to improve outcomes Jean Rhodes Frank L. Boyden Professor University of Massachusetts Mentoring Congress 20 March, 2014
    • 2. +  How effective is youth mentoring?  When are programs most beneficial?  How does mentoring promote positive youth development?  What are the implications for policy, practice, and research?
    • 3. First some history….. a little history….
    • 4. +
    • 5. Why Mentoring
    • 6. + Research to practice
    • 7. + What gets measured gets done…
    • 8. +
    • 9. + Research to Practice
    • 10. +
    • 11. +  How effective is youth mentoring?  When are programs most beneficial?  How does mentoring promote positive youth development?  What are the implications for policy, practice, and research?
    • 12. + Evaluation
    • 13. + Meta-analysis Mentored vs. control 0.20 = “small” effect, 0.50 “= medium” effect, 0.80 = “large” effect.
    • 14. + Recent Meta-Analysis of Youth Mentoring  Encompassed 73 independent evaluations (1999-2010).  The overall effect size was .21*, collapsing across studies and outcomes  The average follow-up effect size across the studies was .17. DuBois, Portillo, Rhodes, Silverthorn, & Valentine (in press). Psychological Science in the Public Interest.
    • 15. +Comparison of mean post-tx effects with school and community interventions with children/teens Moderator Mentor Meta-analysis Other Meta-analyses Attitudinal/Motivational 0.19 0.23- 0.25 Social/Relational 0.17 0.15-0.26 Psychological/Emotional 0.15 0.10-.0.24 Conduct Problem 0.21 .02-0.41 Academic/School Attitudes Grades Achievment tests 0.21 0.19 0.24 0.18 0.11-0.27 0.14 0.22 0.11-0.24 Physical Health 0.06 0.08-0.41
    • 16. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 #ofSamples Effect on Youth Negative Effect Small Effect Small to Medium Effect Medium to Large Effect Large Effect
    • 17. + -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 SizeofEffectonYouthOutcomes Empirically- Based Practices Theory-Based Practices Small Effect Medium Effect Effect sizes
    • 18. + Study level variables (moderators) associated with different effects Youth, Mentor, Program Characteristics Effect Size Problem Behavior Involvement Yes: .29 No: .20 Youth Gender >50% Male: .25 <50% Male: .18 Individual/Environmental Risk Low/High: .33 High/Low: .31 Mentors trained Below avg: .19 Above avg: .24 Mentor role function: Advocacy Yes: .26 No: .20 Matching based on shared interests Yes: .44!!! No: .21
    • 19. +  How effective is youth mentoring?  When are programs most beneficial?  How does mentoring promote positive youth development?  What are the implications for policy, practice, and research?
    • 20. + Stronger effects when…  Youth with  With moderate personal/environmental risk  Who are male  satisfactory, but not strong baseline relationships.
    • 21. + Effects of Mentoring on Youth with Different Relational Profiles BASELINE Relationships Poor Relationships Satisfactory but not Strong Strong Relationships Overall Academics .00 .21*** .05 Prosocial .04 .19* .04 Effort .05 .18* .00 Self-Esteem -.04 .07 -.01 (Schwartz, Rhodes, & Chan (2010). Developmental Psychology
    • 22. + Stronger effects when…  Mentors who  Fit of background/ training with program goals  Play an active, advocacy role  Are sensitive to socioeconomic & cultural influences  Have higher self-efficacy  Hold positive attitudes toward youth
    • 23. + Measuring mentors’ attitudes  The scale asked mentors to rate how many “kids in your community” could be characterized by indicators of youth development:  work hard at school  respect adults  are trouble-makers  are fun to be around  expect things to be handed to them  try to do their best  are interested in learning Grossman et al., 2007
    • 24. + Mentor attitudes and youth outcomes  Mentees who were paired with high school mentors with positive attitudes about youth were more emotionally engaged with mentor than those paired with more negative mentors  Those who were paired with mentors with negative attitudes about youth were less emotionally engaged with and showed some negative outcomes. Karcher, Rhodes, Herrera, & Davidson (2010). Applied Developmental Science
    • 25. + Stronger effects when…  Relationships characterized by  consistency  closeness  structure  appropriate meeting times  duration
    • 26. + Does meeting time matter?…
    • 27. Mentoring by Meeting Time Afterschool/Lunch After School During School Interaction Effect Academic Achievement .19* -.09 -.33* Math .18 -.42** -.60** Science .14 -.19 -.36* Social Studies .11 -.16 -.29 Reading .27* -.02 -.32 Language .21* -.05 -.33* Unexcused Absences -.35 -.08 .21 Grades -.20 -.15 -.51 Scholastic Efficacy .12 .13 .03 *Note ES= Effect Size Schwartz, S., Rhodes, J. & Herrera, C. (2012). Children and Youth Services
    • 28. 19% 36% 45% < 6 mos. 6-11 mos. The role of duration Grossman & Rhodes (2002). American Journal of Community Psychology
    • 29. -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 Attendance Abstinence < 6 months 6-12 months
    • 30. + Re-matching?
    • 31. + Test of Time 2: Results  Only youth in matches lasting 24 wks or more benefited academically  All mentored youth were less likely to skip school, regardless of match length  After controlling for selection bias:  Positive academic impacts observed only for youth with intact matches  No academic impact for youth with early terminations  Negative academic impacts for rematched youth  Grossman, Chan, Schwartz, & Rhodes (2013). American Journal of Community Psychology.
    • 32. + What about gender?  Across two data sets, only a few differences-  In Ed Study—boys in same gender matches showed lower rates of truancy  In BBBSA study-youth in cross-gender matches met more frequently and for a longer duration  Kanchewa, S. & Rhodes, J. (2014). Applied Developmental Science
    • 33. + Stronger effects when…  Programs characterized by  careful recruitment  training  monitoring  multi-modal  matching on interest
    • 34. +  How effective is youth mentoring?  When are programs most beneficial?  How does mentoring promote positive youth development?  What are the implications for policy, practice, and research?
    • 35. + Youth Positive outcomes
    • 36. To developmental processes… Mentor, parent, teac her, peer relationships Youth Positive outcomes
    • 37. Mentor Relationship Interpersonal history, social competencies, relationship duration, developmental stage, family and community context moderatorsmoderators Positive Outcomes e.g., reduced health risk, better psych. outcomes Cognitive development Identity development Social-emotional development Parental/peer relationships mediator Mutuality Trust Empathy Pathways of mentor influence
    • 38. Pathways of mentor influence Child Development, (2002), 1662-1671 Quality of Parental relationship Skipping School Grades Self-worth School value Scholastic Competence .26 .08 -.28 .25 .26 .25 .18.19 .09 .29 .11 .22 Mentoring
    • 39. Pathways of mentor influence Rhodes, Reddy, & Grossman (2005) Applied Development Science Quality of Parental relationship Substance Use Self-worth -.46 .18 .10 .14 .23 Mentoring Quality of Peer relationships -.04 -.08
    • 40. Pathways of mentor influence Chan,Rhodes, Schwartz, & Lowe (2013). Journal of School Psychology Quality of Teacher relationship School Behavior Grades Self-worth Academic Attitudes .78 -.28 .53 .32 .25 .18 .27 .09 .27Quality of Mentoring Quality of Parent Relationship .13
    • 41. +  How effective is youth mentoring?  When are programs most beneficial?  How does mentoring promote positive youth development?  What are the implications for policy, practice, and research?
    • 42. + Retention of Effects “
    • 43. + A New Model of Mentoring Natural Mentoring Formal Mentoring Youth Initiated Mentoring
    • 44. When we choose a goal and invest ourselves in it to the limits of concentration, w hatever we do will be enjoyable. And once we have tasted this joy, we will redouble our efforts to taste it again. This is the way the self grows.” ― Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi , Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience
    • 45. + Nature of sparks  Latent class analyses -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 Low Spark Moderate Spark High Spark Joy & Energy Lose track of time Purpose & focus Skills for career Get along Improve surroundings Encourage learning Ben-Eliyahu, A., Rhodes, J. E., & Scales, P. (in press). Applied Developmental Science.
    • 46. + Relationships Supporting Spark 1 2 3 4 Encourages Funding Transportation Teacher/Coach 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 Encourages Funding Transportation Mentor
    • 47. + National Guard Youth ChalleNGe Program  Intensive intervention program targeting youth ages 16-18 who dropped out of or were expelled from high school
    • 48. +Methods Residential Phase (5 months) Post- Residential Phase (1 year) Study Follow-Up (Post-Intervention) Baseline Survey 9-Month Survey 21-Month Survey 38-Month Survey Interview
    • 49. + Mentoring Relationships and Outcomes Youth Outcomes at 38 Months by Match Length Premature Termination (N = 153) Through Full Program (1.5 yrs) (N = 138) Beyond Program (3 yrs) (N = 359) GED/HS Diploma - ✔ ✔ College Credit - ✔ ✔ Months Employed - - ✔ Months Idle - ✔ ✔ Earnings - - ✔ Convicted - - ✔ Marijuana Use - - - Binge Drinking - - - M
    • 50. + Recommendations  Promote  evidence-based practice  include rigorous evaluation  measured replication and dissemination  Reward sustainability and quality over growth  Consider alternative strategies  Youth-initiated  Intentional mentoring
    • 51. + Action steps Develop and improve training and support around relationships Improve mentor retention Export to other youth-serving settings
    • 52. + Recommendations  Promote  evidence-based practice  include rigorous evaluation  measured replication and dissemination  Reward sustainability and quality over growth
    • 53. + Action steps Develop and improve training and support around relationships Improve mentor retention Export to other youth-serving settings
    • 54. http://www.umbmentoring.org
    • 55. http://chronicle.umbmentoring.org
    • 56. http://shortcourse.umbmentoring.org
    • 57. http://mentoringcentral.net
    • 58. Research Product Development. Distribution • MENTOR/NMP Implementation • Youth Serving Organizations
    • 59. + Align Research and Practice
    • 60. + Credits MENTOR Big Brothers Big Sisters of America WT Grant Foundation Edna McConnell Clark Foundatin NICHD, iRT
    • 61. + Thank you  MentorProgramma Friesland  Evan Cutler, Center for Evidence-Based Mentoring

    ×