1. When our intention is to help, but we unintentionally harm the youth in our programs Michael Karcher, Asst. Professor UT San Antonio CIS Evaluation Team 2002-03

2. Why it is important to measure what we are doing and how it affects the kids in CIS programs Sometimes we mean well, but our interventions are overtaken by the forces of peer pressure--and we harm Sometimes we mean well, but our interventions are overtaken by the forces of peer pressure--and we harm CIS provides many services, some of which may be more helpful than others CIS provides many services, some of which may be more helpful than others Knowing how “what goes on” relates to “how kids change” helps improve programs Knowing how “what goes on” relates to “how kids change” helps improve programs

3. “When Interventions Harm” Dishion, McCord, Poulin, 1999 American Psychologist. Followed up kids 30 years after receiving multiple services. Followed up kids 30 years after receiving multiple services. Behaviorally at-risk kids who were put into groups and settings with similar kids got much worse down the road. Behaviorally at-risk kids who were put into groups and settings with similar kids got much worse down the road.

4. The long term result of the interventions: Initially, youth appeared to be better behaved and report better self-concepts and school attitudes. Initially, youth appeared to be better behaved and report better self-concepts and school attitudes. But, teachers rating them 1 and 3 years later said they misbehaved far more than other kids who were similarly “at-risk” at the start of the program. But, teachers rating them 1 and 3 years later said they misbehaved far more than other kids who were similarly “at-risk” at the start of the program. 30 years later, more of these youth had died, been incarcerated, had drug & mental probs. 30 years later, more of these youth had died, been incarcerated, had drug & mental probs.

5. WHY? The “delinquent” kids reinforced each others’ rebellious behaviors by laughing, agreeing, and encouraging rule- breaking behaviors. The “delinquent” kids reinforced each others’ rebellious behaviors by laughing, agreeing, and encouraging rule- breaking behaviors. They call this “Deviancy Training” They call this “Deviancy Training”

6. Youth most susceptible to “deviancy training”: Older youth Older youth Those already more engaged in rule- breaking behaviors and attitudes. Those already more engaged in rule- breaking behaviors and attitudes. Behaviorally deviant kids who interact in contexts with many other deviant kids. Behaviorally deviant kids who interact in contexts with many other deviant kids.

7. Maybe those kids were born bad. Really, how bad is the problem? Lipsey found that 30% of interventions for adolescent problem behaviors resulted in the kids getting worse. Peer reinforcement occurred at 9 times the rate as adult reinforcement-- especially with skilled counselors.

8. Mentoring: Similar problem Mentors who serve as mentors for the purpose of “self-enhancement” (to feel good about themselves) get frustrated. Mentors who serve as mentors for the purpose of “self-enhancement” (to feel good about themselves) get frustrated. As many as half of mentor-mentee matches terminate in the first 6 months. As many as half of mentor-mentee matches terminate in the first 6 months. Positive effects tend to occur only after 6 months; negative effects (lowered self- esteem) occur when matches end in the first 6 months. Positive effects tend to occur only after 6 months; negative effects (lowered self- esteem) occur when matches end in the first 6 months.

9. Whose relationships fail? Grossman & Rhodes, 2002 Am. Journal of Community Psychology Older adolescents Older adolescents Those with histories of abuse--physical or emotional. Those with histories of abuse--physical or emotional. Minority boys most likely (and White girls the least likely) to end early. Minority boys most likely (and White girls the least likely) to end early. Matches in which kids and mentors did not share any interests Matches in which kids and mentors did not share any interests Those whose mentors were ages 26-30 and married (65% more likely than single mentors) Those whose mentors were ages 26-30 and married (65% more likely than single mentors)

10. What relationships succeed? Dubois, Neville, Parra, & Pugh-Lilly, 2002 Am. Journal of Community Psychology Matches in which mentees come to see their mentors as significant adults Matches in which mentees come to see their mentors as significant adults Matches with well trained and regularly supervised mentors. Matches with well trained and regularly supervised mentors. Matches that talk about social issues in the mentees’ lives. Matches that talk about social issues in the mentees’ lives. Those that engaged in athletic/sport activities Those that engaged in athletic/sport activities

11. Questions we can answer with your help: What kinds of mentor expectations lead mentors to quit or show up irregularly? What kinds of mentor expectations lead mentors to quit or show up irregularly? What kinds of mentor-mentee activities and interactions generate the best results? What kinds of mentor-mentee activities and interactions generate the best results? What kinds of mentors do youth come to see as significant adults in their lives? What kinds of mentors do youth come to see as significant adults in their lives?

12. mkarcher@utsa.edu mkarcher@utsa.edu Michael J. Karcher, Ed.D., Ph.D. College of Education and Human Development University of Texas at San Antonio 501 West Durango Blvd., Suite 4.314 (210) 458-2671; 458-2605 (fax) mkarcher@utsa.edu mkarcher@utsa.edu