Successfully reported this slideshow.
Your SlideShare is downloading. ×

Cropping the Big Picture: What the New Meta-Analysis Means for Your Mentoring Program

Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad

Check these out next

1 of 16 Ad

More Related Content

Similar to Cropping the Big Picture: What the New Meta-Analysis Means for Your Mentoring Program (20)

More from Mentoring Partnership of Minnesota (20)

Advertisement

Recently uploaded (20)

Cropping the Big Picture: What the New Meta-Analysis Means for Your Mentoring Program

  1. 1. Cropping the Big Picture Determining What the New Meta-Analysis Means for Your Mentoring Program Collaboration of Education Northwest/National Mentoring Center, Friends for Youth, Mentoring Partnership of Minnesota, and Oregon Mentors January 2012
  2. 2. Research Practice Innovation Michael Garringer Resource Advisor & Forums 2012 Collaborative Mentoring Administrator Webinar Series Education Northwest Date: Third Thursday of every month. Celeste Janssen Program Director Time: 10-11:15am Pacific/11am- Oregon Mentors 12:15pm Mountain/12-1:15 pm Central/1-2:15pm Eastern Sarah Kremer Program Director Cost: Free Friends for Youth’s Mentoring Institute April Riordan Director of Training & Partnerships Mentoring Partnership of Minnesota 1
  3. 3. Participate in Today’s Webinar • All attendees muted for best sound • Type questions and comments in the question box • “Raise your hand” to ask question live during webinar 2
  4. 4. Good to Know… All attendees will receive an email after the webinar that will include:  Link to presentation slides  Link to an online recording of webinar  Resources  Contact information Please help us by taking the time to complete a short 5-question survey as you exit the webinar. 3
  5. 5. Panelists David DuBois, PhD Tom Keller, PhD 4
  6. 6. What We Learned in 2002  Average youth in a program experience only a “modest or small benefit”  Effects are “enhanced significantly” when American Journal of Community more best-practices Psychology, Vol. 30, No. 2, April 2002 are utilized 5
  7. 7. What Do We Know Now? Psychological Science in the Public Interest,12, 57-91 6
  8. 8. When and How Are Mentoring Relationships for Youth Beneficial? 7
  9. 9. What Factors Influence Mentoring Program Effectiveness? 8
  10. 10. Good News Bad News New News Mentoring works in many No evidence of Targeting “at risk” areas improved effectiveness youth (exception: over prior generation of populations high on programs both individual and Programs often have environmental risk) positive impacts in two or more outcome domains Too few studies to Matching youth and evaluate impacts on mentors based on Effect of mentoring is right several key outcomes similarity of interests in line with other youth (e.g., school drop- interventions out, juvenile offending) Utilizing mentors with educational/occupatio Mentoring works at both Same largely true for nal backgrounds that preventing declines in youth longer-term, “follow-up” effects are a good fit with program goals outcomes and promoting improvements Supporting mentors in adopting teaching and Mentoring is a broad and advocacy roles flexible strategy 9
  11. 11. Next Webinar February 16 - Tips for Mentoring High-Risk Youth Featuring Dr. Roger Jarjoura, Assistant Professor in the School of Public and Environmental Affairs - IUPUI. Dr. Jarjoura is the founder of AIM, a mentoring program for incarcerated youth making the transition from corrections to community. 10
  12. 12. Before we go… All attendees will receive an email after the webinar that will include:  Link to presentation slides  Link to an online recording of webinar  Resources  Contact information Please help us by taking the time to complete a short 5-question survey as you exit the webinar. 11
  13. 13. Thank you! Collaboration of Education Northwest/National Mentoring Center, Friends for Youth, Mentoring Partnership of Minnesota, and Oregon Mentors Michael Garringer, michael.garringer@educationnorthwest.org Celeste Janssen, celeste@oregonmentors.org Sarah Kremer, sarah@friendsforyouth.org April Riordan, april@mpmn.org
  14. 14. Comparison of Mean Post-Treatment Effect Sizes for Mentoring Programs in the Current Meta-Analysis to Effect Sizes Reported in Other Meta-Analyses of School- and Community-Based Interventions for Children and Adolescents Type of outcome Current Other meta-analyses Attitudinal/Motivational 0.19 0.23r, 0.25b Social/Relational 0.17 0.15a, 0.17i, 0.24r, 0.29b, 0.39g Psychological/Emotional 0.15 0.10a, 0.17p, 0.19d, 0.24r, 0.37b Conduct problems 0.21 0.02j, 0.07k, 0.14h, 0.15s, 0.21a, 0.21e, 0.22r, 0.30b, 0.30c, 0.41l Academic/School 0.21 0.11a, 0.23n, 0.27r School attendance 0.19 0.14b Grades 0.24 0.22b Achievement test scores 0.18 0.11a, 0.20b, 0.24f, 0.30c Physical health 0.06 0.08m, 0.17t, 0.29q, 0.41o
  15. 15. Evidence-based Practice 14
  16. 16. Effect Size Guidelines 15

×