Working for youth justice and safety OJJDP Mentoring Enhancement Demonstration Program Can mentors who take on more of an advocacy and teaching role in the mentoring relationship improve outcomes for youth? National Mentoring Summit January 31, 2013 Presenters • • • • OJJDP: Jennifer Tyson Evaluator: Dr. Roger Jarjoura (PI) Consultant/advisor: Dr. David DuBois Programmatic Team Representatives: Bob Goetsch, Elizabeth Senger, Katy Ayers, DeeAnn Arroyo, Jennifer Becker, Kathleen Riggs, Elizabeth Grenat, Mary P. Fox, AJ Johnson Mentoring Enhancement Demo - Overview Program Model: Collaborations of mentoring program sites to implement advocacy or teaching functions into mentors’ roles through three strategies: – Matching youth and mentors based on needs, skills, experiences, and interests (revised) – Initial and ongoing training – Ongoing mentor support. Research Base: DuBois, D.L., Portillo, N., Rhodes, J.E., Silverthorn, N., and Valentine, J.C. 2011. “How Effective Are Mentoring Programs for Youth? A Systematic Assessment of the Evidence.” Psychological Science in the Public Interest 12(2)57–91. Background: Strategic Enhancement to Mentoring Programs (SEMP) Evaluation: Process and Outcome Evaluation using Random Assignment Rationale for Study Meta-analysis of most recent generation of mentoring program evaluations (1999-2010; DuBois et al., 2011) – Significantly greater effectiveness when mentors supported by programs in assuming teaching and advocacy roles – Not typical of most programs (e.g., advocacy role supported in ~16% of programs) – Evidence suggested that effective support of teaching/advocacy role requires more artful and nuanced approach than simply having mentors become “technicians” who engage in tightly prescribed activities – Findings are correlational and preliminary – Next essential step is to conduct experimentally controlled test of whether program effects increase when support for teaching/advocacy is introduced Programmatic Grants Teaching and advocacy roles or functions are defined as those in which the mentor : – offers active guidance to the youth [teaching] – seeks to facilitate the youth’s relationships with peers and/or other supportive adults and to support the youth’s engagement with appropriate activities and resources [advocacy]. 10 Grantees – – – – – – Collaborations: 3-4 implementation sites each Qualified, pre-existing mentoring programs Up to $1.2 million over three years 75-100 youth per implementation site Volunteer mentors One-on-one or group mentoring Assumption of Mentoring Enhancement Demonstration Program (MEDP) Underlying theory: When mentors incorporate advocacy and/or teaching into their role, there are better outcomes for mentees Evaluation Conducted by American Institutes for Research (AIR) Experienced evaluation team Rigorous study of diverse group of practitioner sites Close working relationship with OJJDP program managers 5 year timeline for evaluation of 3-year grants Currently in year 2—enrolling subjects into study with data collection at baseline and 12 months after relationship begins Process Evaluation Questions – What are the enhancements and how do they differ from business as usual? – What is the exposure of participants to the enhancements? – To what extent do mentors incorporate teaching and advocacy into their role? – To what extent are the enhancements implemented with fidelity to their own models? – What factors affect the implementation of enhancements in programs ? – What resources are needed for the enhancements ? Outcome Evaluation Do the program enhancements improve youth outcomes and reduce risk for future delinquency? Youth Arrest (–) Antisocial Behavior (–) Social Competence (+) Gang Involvement (–) Substance Use (–) School Attendance (+) GED/HS Completion (+) Academic Performance (+) Emotional Well-Being (+) Perceptions of Social Support (+) Evaluation Design Randomized controlled trial – Random assignment to test whether the enhanced mentoring model has a causal effect on youth outcomes • In most cases, once a mentor-mentee match has been made, the youth is randomly assigned to one group or the other – Treatment group compared to the control group (businessas-usual) to show whether intervention leads to expected outcomes Evaluation Expectations - Develop strong collaborative culture between evaluation team and grantees Work with grantees to build on their existing data management system and data collection instruments Support grantees in evaluation capacity through trainings and technical assistance (e.g., on-site, webinars) Monitor progress and communicate status on a timely basis Programmatic Implementation Sites Colorado: Aurora Comprehensive Community Mental Health Center; Aurora Mental Health Center’s Aurora Youth Options; Denver Urban Scholars; Goodwill Industries of Denver Texas: Big Brothers Big Sisters of El Paso; Big Brothers Big Sisters of Las Cruces; Big Brothers Big Sisters of Lubbock Florida: Big Brothers Big Sisters of Greater Miami, Inc.; Big Brothers Big Sisters of Broward County; Big Brothers and Big Sisters of Palm Beach and Martin Counties Michigan: Big Brothers Big Sisters of Metropolitan Detroit; Big Brothers Big Sisters of Michigan Capital Region Indiana: Big Brothers Big Sisters of Northeast Indiana; Big Brothers Big Sisters of Greater Lafayette; Big Brothers Big Sisters of South Central Indiana Programmatic Implementation Sites (Continued) Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware: Big Brothers Big Sisters of Southeastern PA; Big Brothers Big Sisters of Delaware; Big Brothers Big Sisters of Burlington; Big Brothers Big Sisters of Camden & Gloucester Counties California: City of Richmond; East Bay Asian Youth Center; Bay Area Community Resources; Oakland Police Activities League; Richmond Police Activities League; Be A Mentor (BAM) Louisiana: Face to Face Enrichment Center; Baton Rouge AIDS Society; New Life Community Center Arizona: Pima Prevention Partnership; Big Brothers Big Sisters of Tucson; Yavapai Big Brothers Big Sisters; Big Brothers Big Sisters of Northeastern Arizona Utah: Utah State University; Utah County 4-H; Iron County 4-H; Brigham Young University Implementation Questions and Discussion: – What does it mean for a mentor to take on an advocacy and teaching role? – How has that role been defined and operationalized? – How has the collaborative structure had a unique influence in operationalizing the advocacy and teaching roles and finalizing implementation plans?