1. Youth mentoring and the well-being of young people: Evidence from an Irish mixed- methods evaluation Dr Bernadine Brady Child & Family Research Centre NUI, Galway Ireland Bernadine.brady@nuigalway.ie ISCI Conference University of York July 2011

2. Overview 1.Study context and methodology 2.RCT findings 3.Qualitative data findings 4.Implementation findings 5.Integrated summary of findings 6.Conclusion

3. 1. Study Context and Methodology BBBS - Long-established, highly structured youth mentoring programme 1-1 matches, meet weekly for min 1 year Aims to foster positive youth development Established in Ireland in 2002 by Foróige Funding from philanthropy for RCT study

4. Theoretical basis of mentoring Social support Resilience Social capital Theories of mentoring process – e.g. Rhodes (2005)

5. Research Questions Do young people with a mentor have better outcomes in the areas of emotional well-being, perceived support, education and risk behaviour than young people without a mentor? How does mentoring work? How does it achieve its outcomes? Is BBBS a good programme, is it implemented as planned?

6. Methodology Theory- driven mixed methods embedded design 1. Randomised controlled trial: 164 young people, 84 intervention, 80 control 10-14 years Surveys completed at 4 time points (Nov. 2007-Nov. 2009) 82% response rate for young people at Wave 4 2. Qualitative strand: 9 case studies of mentoring relationships – interviewed young person, parent, mentor, caseworker at 2 time points 3. Implementation study: Interviews, programme data

7. Mentor Relationship Mutuality Trust Empathy Cognitive Development Interpersonal History, Social Competencies, Relationship Duration, Developmental Stage, Family and Community Context Moderators Mediator Parental/Peer Relationships Social – Emotional Development Identity Development Positive Outcomes Reduced Risk Better Psychologic al Outcomes How does it work: Rhodes Model 2005

8. Profile of study youth Mostly Irish born, live in west of Ireland Average age of 12 Almost 50:50 male and female Half do not live with both parents No significant differences between control and intervention at baseline 72 of 84 intervention group matched

9. 2. RCT Findings 14 youth scales / measures 3 types of analysis: comparing mean scores cohen’s d (effect sizes) regression analysis Compared intervention and control groups Compared matched and non-matched

10. Strongest Evidence of Impact Children’s Hope Scale – sense of hope for the future Support from ‘other adults’ Total social support – parents, friends, siblings, other adults combined

11. Children’s Hope Scale

12. Other Adult Support

13. Total Social Support

14. Some Evidence of Impact Sense of acceptance by peers Plans to finish school and go to college How much they like school Less likely to use alcohol Less likely to use drugs Trust in their parents Support from friends Support from siblings

15. No Evidence of Impact Scholastic efficacy – sense that they can do well at school Misconduct scale Parent support

16. Effect Sizes

17. 3. Implementation Data Findings Very strong implementation of the programme Just 57% matched for 12 months or more during the study 75% of matches still going at end of study 35% of matches were ‘ideal type’ - matched for 12 months and met for min. of 4 hours per month ‘Dosage’ of mentoring declined as the study went on - highest just before wave 3

18. Matches meeting programme criteria

19. Total mentoring hours in the study

20. Do matches meet less as the match progresses?

21. Further analyses show … Young people who meet the programme criteria have significantly higher scores on 4 measures Young people who rate their matches highly have significantly higher scores on 2 measures The intervention appears to work well for young people not living with both parents

22. 4. Qualitative data findings Young people very positive about programme Various types of support provided Most evidence of impact on emotional well-being & behaviour 2 relationships appeared ‘transformative’ Endings could be hurtful for yp Moderated by closeness & duration of the relationship, programme practices, approach of the mentor, community context, match ending Highlighted range of needs among young people – outcomes will vary according to their needs

23. 5. Integrating the findings: Emotional well-being Evidence that young people with a mentor more hopeful over 2 year period Qualitative data showed great enjoyment of the match, having fun Calmer, more confident, more in control of behaviour Suggests that mentoring can improve emotional well-being among young people

24. Perceived social support Mentored young people perceive a higher availability of support from others Qualitative data showed how this occurred – mentors provided practical, emotional, esteem, advice support Had knock-on effects for parental and peer relationships Support more seamlessly transmitted in closer relationships

25. Education Quantitative findings less strong in relation to education, some change in school liking Qual data showed some yp doing fine at school so unlikely to have a large impact on them, more impact evident where needs were greater Appears that impact in relation to education was mediated by improvements in well-being Impact most likely to occur in close or ‘transformative’ relationships relationships

26. Other findings Qual data showed better relationships with peers and parents but his was not significant in quan data No evidence of impact on misconduct in qual or quan data – probably because levels were low at baseline

27. 6. Conclusions Mentoring is an effective intervention, particularly in the areas of emotional well-being and social support Underlines the need for good quality matches, that last for a min of 12 months, meet frequently and are supported by good programme practices Youth centred intervention – primary emphasis should be well-being and support rather than ‘harder’ indicators