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?