Mentoring teenagers
in an uncertain world
Big Brothers Big Sisters International
Jean Rhodes
Professor
University of Massachusetts, Boston, USA
April 16, 2007
Overview
Overview
research and scholarship
Recommendations for practice and research
Recent Scholarship

Authored Books
• Stand By Me: The Risks and Rewards of Mentoring Today’s
Youth (Rhodes, 2002)
• Other People’s Kids (Scales, 2003)
• Mentoring for Social Inclusion (Colley, 2003)

Edited Volumes
• A Critical View of Youth Mentoring (Rhodes, 2002)
• Handbook of Youth Mentoring (DuBois & Karcher, 2005)

Special Journal Issues
• American Journal of Community Psychology (2002), Journal of
Primary Prevention (2005), Journal of Community Psychology
(2006), Journal of Vocational Behavior (in progress)

Comprehensive Reviews
• Hall, 2003; Hansen, 2007; Jekielek, 2002; Brady, 2007;
Roberts et al., 2004; Buote, 2007;Liabo et al., 2005
Comprehensive Reviews

Comprehensive reviews





Moves readers beyond piecemeal
Identifies gaps
Programs vary on many dimensions
Contain flawed studies
Research different conclusions
So….

“Robust research does indicate benefits
from mentoring for some young people, for
some programmes, in some circumstances,
in relation to some outcomes.”
• Roberts et al.,(2004) British Medical Journal
Program Evaluations
Mentoring highly variable
 Sample sizes/significance
 Other problems

Self-reports (homegrown)
 Absence of control or comparisons
 Single time point (or compressed)
 Communication gaps

Making (a little) a Difference

“After 18 months, Little
Brothers and Sisters were:


QuickTime™ and a
TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.





47% less likely to begin
using illegal drugs
27% less likely to begin
using alcohol
51% less likely to skip
school
37% less likely to skip a
class
more confident of their
performance in schoolwork
one-third less likely to hit
someone
getting along better with
their families”
•
www.bbbsa.org
Evaluation of BBBSA
Average pre-post and post-program difference effect size
estimates were small (.02 and .05 respectively).
Behavior
“Net
Impact”
Control
Mean
Treatment
Mean
Skip class
51%
1.39
.68
Skip day
47%
.90
.47
Initiate Drug
Use
45.8%
11.47%
6.2%
Initiate Alcohol
Use
27.4%
26.72%
19.39%
On second glance
0.8
1.6
1.4
0.7
1.2
0.6
0.5
Tx Alcohol
Use
Cc Alcohol
Use
1
0.8
0.6
0.3
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.1
0
0
Time 1
Tx Drug Use
Cc Drug Use
0.4
Time 1
Time 2
3.5
Time 2
1.8
1.6
3
1.4
2.5
1.2
2
Tx Hitting
Cc Hitting
1.5
1
Tx Skipping Class
Cc Skipping Class
0.8
0.6
1
0.4
0.5
0.2
0
0
Time 1
Time 2
Time 1
Time 2
Meta-analysis

DuBois et al., 2002


55 program evaluations
Effect sizes Small (.10-.23), med(.24-.36), large (.37 higher)
• Overall .14

Eby, in progress

40 youth mentoring, 53 adult, 23 college
• Youth: .03-.14
• Academic: .11-.36
• Workplace: .03-.19
30
25
# of Samples
20
Negative Effect
Small Effect
15
Small to Medium Effect
Medium to Large Effect
Large Effect
10
5
0
Effect on Youth
Size of Effect on Youth Outcomes

Effect sizes increase with greater use of theory- and
empirically-based practices
0.5
Medium
Effect
0.4
0.3
0.2
EmpiricallyBased
Practices
Small
Effect
0.1
Theory-Based
Practices
0
-0.1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Stronger effects
Youth
with
moderate
Mentors
environmental risk
with
skills
for working with youth
prior
experience in helping roles or occupations
sensitivity
sense
to socioeconomic & cultural influences
of efficacy for mentoring young people
Stronger effects
Relationships
consistency
closeness
structure

duration
characterized by
The role of duration
19%
< 6 mos.
6-11 mos.
> 11 mos.
45%
36%
Grossman & Rhodes (2001). American Journal of Community Psychology
Length of Relationship
1
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
Competence
< 6 months
Attendance
Prosocial Beh.
6-12 months
Abstinence
12+ months
Stronger effects
Programs
ongoing
characterized by
training and monitoring
Structured
activities
expectations
parental
for frequent contact
involvement
Pathways of mentor influence
Scholastic
Competence
.26
.25
.08
Grades
.29
Mentoring
.22
Quality of
Parental
relationship
.25
.26
.19
Self-worth
Skipping School
.09
.11
-.28
School value
(Regression coefficients
from LISREL analysis)
Child Development, (2000), 1662-1671
.18
Pathways of mentor influence
Mentoring
.23
Quality of
Parental
relationship
-.46
.18
Self-worth
-.08
-.04
.10
.14
Substance Use
Quality of
Peer
relationships
(Regression coefficients
from LISREL analysis)
Rhodes, Reddy, & Grossman (2004) Applied Development Science
Promising Developments





Expansion of infastructure
Attention to quality/duration
Exemplary programs and models
Growing interest among scholars/practitioners
Attention to evaluation

Several large-scale random assignment of mentoring
are currently underway
• School-based evaluations (P/PV, Abt, Karcher)
• Youth ChalleNGe (MDRC) DeWit et al. (BBBSC), Friends of
the Children, Experience Corps
Implications for Practice





Improve mentor training and match support
Improve mentor retention
Promote measured replication and dissemination
Reward sustainability and quality over growth
Export mentoring into youth-serving settings
Implications for Research

Conduct evaluations to test and compare practices





Understand “added-value” of integration with other services
Understand the role of gender, age, ethnicity, special
needs, risk status
Conduct cost-benefit analyses of various levels of service
Leverage and extend ongoing evaluations
Understand new types of programs (groups, school)

And for whom they are best suited
Achieve a better alignment of
research and practice
Practice
Research