1. Research and Evaluation Data: A Chat with the Mentoring Research Experts 2011 National Conference Dallas, Texas June 14 - 16

2. Panelists David DuBois, Ph.D., Professor, Institute for Health Research and Policy, University of Illinois at Chicago Timothy Cavell, Ph.D., Professor and Director of Clinical Training, Department of Psychology, University of Arkansas Michael Karcher, Ph.D., Professor of Education and Human Development, University of Texas, San Antonio.

3. Findings of Recent Meta-Analysis (DuBois, Portillo, Rhodes, Silverthorn, & Valentine, in press)—Not for external distribution or citation at this point without permission Analyzed results from 73 evaluations conducted 1999-2010 The “Good News” oPositive program impacts on youth in multiple domains: behavioral, social, emotional, and academic (including school attendance, grades, academic achievement test scores) oIndividual programs often have made in-roads in two or more outcome domains (e.g., social and academic) oTwo-dimensional benefits – preventing declines in youth outcomes that might otherwise occur and promoting improvements oBenefits generalize across key dimensions such as age of youth, format (1- to-1 vs. group), and age of mentor (older peers vs. adults) oMagnitude of effects generally within range of those found for related types of child and youth interventions David DuBois 2011 National Conference Dallas, Texas

4. Type of outcomeCurrentOther meta-analyses Attitudinal/Motivational0.190.23 r, 0.25 b Social/Relational0.170.15 a, 0.17 i, 0.24 r, 0.29 b, 0.39 g Psychological/Emotional0.150.10 a, 0.17 p, 0.19 d, 0.24 r, 0.37 b Conduct problems0.210.02 j, 0.07 k, 0.14 h, 0.15 s, 0.21 a, 0.21 e, 0.22 r, 0.30 b, 0.30 c, 0.41 l Academic/School0.210.11 a, 0.23 n, 0.27 r School attendance0.190.14 b Grades0.240.22 b Achievement test scores0.180.11 a, 0.20 b, 0.24 f, 0.30 c Physical health0.060.08 m, 0.17 t, 0.29 q, 0.41 o Comparison of Mean Post-Treatment Effect Sizes for Mentoring Programs in the Current Meta-Analysis to Effect Sizes Reported in Other Meta-Analyses of School- and Community-Based Interventions for Children and Adolescents

5. The “Challenging News” oNo evidence of improved effectiveness over prior generation of programs oToo few studies to evaluate impacts on several key outcomes (e.g., school drop-out, juvenile offending) oSame largely true for longer-term, “follow-up” effects The “Informative News” oSeveral program practices associated with greater effectiveness, including: Targeting “at risk” youth (exception: populations high on both individual and environmental risk) Utilizing mentors with educational/occupational backgrounds that are a good fit with program goals Matching youth and mentors based on similarity of interests Supporting mentors in adopting teaching and advocacy roles David DuBois 2011 National Conference Dallas, Texas

6. Bottom-Line Assessment oValue in continued investment in youth mentoring as an intervention strategy within the policy arena oStrongest argument can be made for utilization of mentoring when interest is in promoting outcomes across multiple areas of a young person’s development oPolicy recommendations to maximize ROI 1) Ensure adherence to core practices (e.g., mentor screening and training) essential to program quality 2) Facilitate research-informed development of program innovations 3) Foster stronger practitioner-researcher collaboration in design, implementation, evaluation, and ongoing refinement of programs David DuBois 2011 National Conference Dallas, Texas

7. Michael Karcher TEAM Framework: Understanding Relationship Activities Suggests why we should train mentors to consider: Focus: How relational vs. directive are the mentoring interactions (activities, discussions)? Authorship—How collaborative the conversation or activity decision is? Who authors their story? Purpose: Do interactions serve serious, future- oriented, adult or playful, youth-oriented goals? From Karcher, M.J. & Nakkula, M.J (2010). Youth mentoring with a balanced focus, a shared purpose, and collaborative interactions. In “Play, talk, learn: Promising Practices in Youth Mentoring,” Jossey-Bass.

8. Michael Karcher TEAM Framework: Understanding Relationship Activities What should Baloo and Bagheera do to get Mowgli where he needs to be? Arrival in the Man Village (Success: mentor-mentee relationship quality) Baloo-type ( Relational Conversations Bagheera (goal-directed conversations) casual conversation talk about family talk about friends listening & learning talk about school discuss attendance discuss behavior talk about the future Copyright 2009 Michael J Karcher (Note: Baloo, Bagheera, and Mowgli are trademarked by the Walt Disney Corporation) Karcher, M. J., Herrera, C., & Hansen, K., (2010).“I dunno, what do you wanna do?”: Testing a framework to guide mentor training and activity selection. New Directions in Youth Development, 126.

9. Michael Karcher

11. What do we know about bullying Prevalence – 30-40% of youth involved in bullying – Peaks in middle school – # of victims drops, but they are more visible Bullying can be physical, verbal, or relational Victims = unpopular and friendless children Timothy Cavell

12. Peers Seldom Intervene

13. Anti-bullying Interventions School-wide programs can reduce overall # of children being bullied But success requires whole school buy-in and effects tend to fade with time We need programs for chronically bullied children Timothy Cavell

14. School-Based Mentoring: An Indirect Way to Help Why indirect help? Many bullied children… – Reluctant to ask for help or resist help – Doubt whether adults can or will help – Believe adult help will make things worse Timothy Cavell

15. Lunch Buddy Mentoring: One type of SBM Mentors visit twice/week for 30 minutes during lunch period College student mentors who sit with mentee and peers

16. Recent Pilot Study Method – Lunch Buddy children (n = 12) – 2 matched control groups Same Controls (n = 12) – same school Different Controls (n = 12) – different school Results – LB children significantly less bullied after 1 semester (peer reports) – Significantly less than Different Controls (but not Same Controls) – Parents & teachers: high satisfaction with LB mentoring – No evidence of harm to bullied children (child, parent, teacher ratings) Elledge, Cavell, Ogle, & Newgent (2010). Journal of Primary Prevention, 31, 171-187. Timothy Cavell

17. What One Lunch Buddy Mentor Said:  There were kids who would ask why I sat with him.  I’d say he was my friend and it was pretty cool to sit with him.  They looked shocked, but then they began to sit next to us on every visit.  It was amazing how their little attitudes towards my mentee changed by me saying I was his friend and I like sitting with him. Timothy Cavell

18. Questions for Panelists 1.Why is fidelity to a program model so important? 2.Why is our Outcome Evaluation System critical in communicating effectiveness? 3.What are some simple things agencies can do with their AIM data to help improve practice and demonstrate value to stakeholders? 4.What do you feel is the most important change mentoring programs can make to their CBM programs to improve youth impact?