Site-based Mentoring

What is site-based mentoring? One-on-one meetings between mentor and youth School Community center College or university

Mentor-youth matching Effects of site-based mentoring: relatively modest (ES = .13 to .21) Evidence-based practices to amplify effects Mentor selection, training Mentor-youth matching practices Bridging to new social capital

Picking the right mentors and youth

Which Relationships End Early? Mentor characteristics Lower incomes, less stable employment, student mentors, history of family illness or violence Grossman et al., 2012; DuBois et al., 2002; Grossman & Rhodes, 2002; Herrera et al., 2008; Lymburner, 2006

Which Relationships End Early? Mentor characteristics Lower incomes, less stable housing and employment, student mentors, history of family illness or violence Youth characteristics Female youth, more life stress, more behavioral difficulties DeWit et al., 2016; Grossman et al., 2012; Grossman & Rhodes, 2002; Raposa, Rhodes, & Herrera, 2016

Which Relationships End Early? Program characteristics Less than weekly contact between mentors and mentees Core focus on academics without flexibility DeWit et al., 2016; Grossman et al., 2012

Youth Stress and Mentoring Parental incarceration Death of family/friend Break-up Parent lost job Absent parent Shorter mentoring relationships School-based mentoring program Big Brothers Big Sisters Higher levels of youth exposure to environmental stress predicted a shorter overall match length (b = -3.77, SE = 1.88, p < .05).

Which Mentors Fit Best? BOTTOM LINE: Mentors with higher self-efficacy or greater previous involvement with youth in their communities can buffer the negative impact of youth stress on mentoring relationships.

Understanding early closure

Early Match Closure in School-based mentoring Many relationships in U.S. school-based programs are relatively short (average = 5 months) As many as half of all these relationships terminate early No evidence to show that re-matching is effective, might actually be detrimental We sought to take a look at this question quantitatively, using a large data-set from BBBS school-based mentoring programs Why SBM? List reasons Notes: Grossman et al found that youth who were re-matched after an early terminating relationship were significantly more likely than controls to perform poorly in school. Burton et al., in prep; Grossman, Chan, Schwartz, and Rhodes, 2012; Herrera et al., 2007

“Why did your match end?” # of Mentors % of Early Closures It no longer fit my schedule. 28 35% My Little moved to another school. 18 22% Not enough interest on my Little’s part. 12 15% I moved. 8 10% My Little’s family was not supportive. 4 5% My Little’s schedule changed.

Predictors of Early Closure Reasons “It no longer fit into my schedule” Lower program quality One “logistical” reason that didn’t fit the pattern b = -1.33, SE = .49, p < .01, OR=.27

Predictors of Early Closure Reasons “Not enough interest on my Little’s part” Felt BBBS did not do a good job matching them Poorer ratings of Little’s disposition Lower relationship quality and more youth unhappiness Little in middle school (versus elementary) b = -1.44, SE = .73, p < .05, OR = .24; b = -1.39, SE = .68, p < .05, OR = .25; b = -1.20, SE = .52, p < .05, OR = .30; b = -.79, SE = .43, p = .06, OR = .45; b = 1.23, SE = .64, p = .055, OR = 3.43

Predictors of Early Closure Reasons “My Little moved to another school” Poorer teacher-rated youth academic performance and task orientation b = -.97, SE = .40, p < .05, OR = .38; b = -.78, SE = .35, p < .05, OR = .46

Implications Issues at school, within youth’s family, can contribute to early termination Quantitative replication of a group of reasons why relationships end, from the mentor’s perspective, including some logistical and some more related to mentor/youth dissatisfaction. Logistical issues can be easy to write-off as “unavoidable.” But we can still identify risk factors that can help us provide certain matches with extra support (e.g., youth struggling at school)

Implications Issues at school, within youth’s family, can contribute to early termination Mentors might choose to “hide” dissatisfaction or unmet expectations with logistical excuses Mentors who quit for “logistical” reasons like a change in schedule might actually be covering up disappointment or unmet expectations. Training, support for these mentors. More qualitative work that digs deeper into these reasons.

Implications Issues at school, within youth’s family, can contribute to early termination Mentors might choose to “hide” dissatisfaction or unmet expectations with logistical excuses Relationship difficulties often co-occur with perceptions of little youth interest Need to dig deeper in youth’s perceptions, interview mentor and youth at the same time to figure out why a mentee might seem to have little interest Jazz example?

Making the right matches

Current Matching practices Practitioner intuition Expedience/convenience Demographic characteristics (e.g., gender, race)

Matching practices Practitioner intuition Expedience/convenience Demographic characteristics (e.g., gender, race) Evidence-based matching practices

Why a Research Study? Lots of theories, but no data Sometimes findings are counter-intuitive Need random assignment to make sure there’s not some other systematic reason accounting for match quality Most programs now use common sense or guess at what works to make matches Mention the finding that previous formal mentoring experience actually led to MORE youth dissatisfaction in some cases—that’s why we need to research it

Mentor-youth matching study 1,200 mentor-youth pairs Peraj Mexico and College Mentors for Kids (USA)

Mentor-youth matching study 1,200 mentor-youth pairs Peraj Mexico and College Mentors for Kids (USA) Baseline assessment of key characteristics Random assignment for one year of mentoring Empirical derivation of best practice for matching mentors to youth