IYI Mentoring Best Practices 2013 PDF

YOUTH MENTORING
Best Practices, Quality Standards, and Evidence-Based Model Programs
ABOUT IYI The Indiana Youth Institute (IYI) promotes the healthy development of Indiana children and youth by serving the people, institutions and communities that impact their well-being. IYI is a statewide 501(c)(3) nonprofit that provides capacity-building programs and resources for the states youth workers and nonprofit youth-serving organizations, including schools. We are also an outspoken advocate for healthy youth development in Indiana. For more information, please visit www.iyi.org.
2013 The Indiana Youth Institute
CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................................... i INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................................... 1 Types of Mentoring Programs............................................................................................................................................ 1 Background Information ...................................................................................................................................................... 2 Approach/Goals of Mentoring Programs ............................................................................................................. 2 Factors Leading to Youth Outcomes ...................................................................................................................... 2 Evidence of Effectiveness ..................................................................................................................................................... 3 BEST PRACTICES .................................................................................................................................................... 3 Terms and Concepts ............................................................................................................................................................... 3 General Best Practices ........................................................................................................................................................... 5 School-Based Programs ........................................................................................................................................................ 8 Outcome-Specific Best Practices ..................................................................................................................................... 10 Prevention....................................................................................................................................................................... 10 Social and Emotional Development...................................................................................................................... 11 Academic Achievement ............................................................................................................................................. 11 STANDARDS & GUIDELINES ............................................................................................................................ 12 National ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 12 Indiana ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 13 EVIDENCE-BASED MODEL PROGRAMS ........................................................................................................ 13 Terms and Concepts ............................................................................................................................................................. 13 Selection Criteria ................................................................................................................................................................... 14 Programs ................................................................................................................................................................................... 14 Big Brothers Big Sisters of America ..................................................................................................................... 14 Across Ages..................................................................................................................................................................... 15 Early Risers Skills for Success Program .......................................................................................................... 16 APPENDIX .............................................................................................................................................................. 16 General Resources................................................................................................................................................................. 16 Evidence-Based Program Databases, Standards, and Resources ...................................................................... 17 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................................................... 18
The Indiana Youth Institute 2013
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
outh1 mentoring can be defined as a sustained relationship between a young person and an adult in which the adult provides the young person with support, guidance, and assistance.2 Recent years have seen an increase in the number of youth mentoring programs that attempt to meet the developmental needs of young people. This recent increase in quantity and funding has brought increased scrutiny on the quality and effectiveness of formal mentoring programs.3 The following executive summary provides an overview of the Indiana Youth Institute report Youth Mentoring: Best Practices, Quality Standards, and Evidence-Based Model Programs, available at www.iyi.org. Readers interested in learning more about the methodology, concepts, and information discussed in this summary can access the full report online at www.iyi.org. If this summary is included as part of the full digital report, readers can click the underlined words and phrases to go to corresponding areas in the full report.
Introduction
There are several types of mentoring programs. In formal mentoring programs, youth are typically matched using a formal process, mentors and youth interact in a one-on-one setting, the mentor is an adult volunteer, and mentor pairs are free to spend time in a variety of activities.4 Formal mentoring can have many possible structures, including one-to-one mentoring, group mentoring, team mentoring, peer mentoring, or e-mentoring.5 Mentors can either be paid or be volunteers, and mentoring typically takes place in a community-based organization or at the mentees school.6 Mentoring typically uses one of two approaches:7 Developmental (psychosocial) mentoring focuses directly on building a quality mentor-mentee relationship, which leads to the mentees development and the accomplishment of developmental outcomes; Instrumental mentoring focuses directly on assisting the mentee in accomplishing certain skills or goals, resulting in the mentees personal development
The main factor in a quality mentoring relationship is the close, strong bond between mentor and mentee.8 The development of this bond is determined by the ability of the mentor, the amount of contact between mentor and mentee, the relationships duration, other factors in the mentees life, and any limitations.9
In this report, the terms young people and youth are used interchangeably to refer to children and adolescents of school age, from ages 5-18. 2 The concept and definition of youth mentoring has been extensively debated and criticized. See Hall (2003). 3 MacRae, P., Garringer, M., Karcher, M., & Keller, T. (2007). Using mentoring research findings to build effective programs. Folsom, CA: National Mentoring Center. Retrieved from http://www.mentoringpittsburgh.org/_media/documents/using_research_book.pdf 4 MENTOR. (2006). Mentoring in America 2005: A snapshot of the current state of mentoring. Alexandria, VA: MENTOR/National Mentoring Partnership. Retrieved from http://www.mentoring.org/downloads/mentoring_523.pdf 5 Center for Substance Abuse Prevention [CSAP]. (2000). Mentoring initiatives: An overview of mentoring. Rockville, Md.: Center for Substance Abuse Prevention, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved from http://www.nationalfamilies.org/parents/mentor.pdf 6 Ibid. 7 Karcher, M. J., Kuperminc, G. P., Portwood, S. G., Sipe, C. L., & Taylor, A. S. (2006). Mentoring programs: A framework to inform program development, research, and evaluation. Journal of Community Psychology, 34 (6), 709-725. doi: 10.1002/jcop.20125 8 Rhodes, J. E., & DuBois, D.L. (2006). Understanding and facilitating the youth mentoring movement. Social Policy Report, 20, (III). Retrieved from http://srcd.org/sites/default/files/documents/20-3_youth_mentoring.pdf 9 Ibid.
1
Youth Mentoring: Best Practices, Quality Standards, and Evidence-Based Model Programs
The Indiana Youth Institute 2013 A growing body of research has shown that mentoring can be effective; that a meaningful relationship with an adult is an important factor in a childs healthy development,10 and that well-executed mentoring programs can have a positive influence on at least some young people across social, emotional, and academic domains especially at-risk youth.11 The benefits that youth gain from mentoring programs overall are on average modest relative to the benefits gained from other types of youth interventions, but occur across a variety of areas.12 Studies have shown that poorly administered mentoring programs which allow mentoring relationships to terminate after a short period of time can have negative effects, particularly for at-risk youth.13
Best Practices
Best practices are those practices that have been shown to produce superior results; selected by a systematic process; and judged as exemplary, good, or successfully demonstrated.14 A practice or program can be supported by varying levels of anecdotal and/or scientific support. Programs and practices that are well-supported through scientific theory and testing are called evidence-based programs and practices. For community-based mentoring programs and mentoring programs generally: Carefully screen both potential mentors and mentees. Match mentors and mentees primarily on the basis of shared interests. Use structured activities, developmental or instrumental approaches, and make activities fun and challenging. Provide mentors and mentees with orientation, training, and support for the duration of the match. Provide closure for the match. Use sound management practices. Have well-developed personnel qualifications, job descriptions, eligibility requirements, and professional development opportunities for staff. Conduct ongoing evaluation of youth outcomes. Use sound financial practices to ensure the sustainability of the program and the match. Involve parents in their childs success through multiple means.
Reports of the effectiveness of school-based mentoring programs have been mixed.15 These programs should:
Rhodes, J. E., Spencer, R., Keller, T. E., Liang, B., & Noam, G. (2006). A model for the influence of mentoring relationships on youth development. Journal of Community Psychology, 34 (6), 691-707. doi: 10.1002/jcop.20124 11 DuBois, D. L., Portillo, N., Rhodes, J. E., Silverthorn, N., & Valentine, J. C. (2011). How effective are mentoring programs for youth? A systematic assessment of the evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 12 (2), 57-91. doi: 10.1177/1529100611414806; Hall, J. C. (2003). Mentoring and young people: A literature review. York: The SCRE Centre, University of Glasgow. Retrieved from https://dspace.gla.ac.uk/bitstream/1905/66/1/114.pdf; Hansen, K. (2007). One-to-one mentoring: Literature review. Philadelphia: Big Brothers Big Sisters of America. Retrieved from http://oregonmentors.org/files/library/BBBS%201-to-1%20Mentoring%20Literature%20Review%20_Mar%202007_.pdf; Rhodes, J.E. (2008). Improving youth mentoring interventions through research-based practices. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41 (1-2), 35-42. doi: 10.1007/s10464-007-9153-9; Tierney, J. P., Grossman, J. B., & Resch, N. L. (1995). Making a difference: An impact study of big brothers big sisters. Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private Ventures. Retrieved from http://www.issuelab.org/click/download2/making_a_difference_an_impact_study_of_big_brothersbig_sisters_re_issue_of_1995_stu dy/publicprivate_ventures_104.pdf 12 DuBois et al., 2011 13 Grossman, J. B., & Rhodes, J. E. (2002). The test of time: Predictors and effects of duration in youth mentoring relationships. American Journal of Community Psychology, 30 (2), 199-219. doi: 10.1023/A:1014680827552 14 American Productivity and Quality Center (APQC). (2008). Glossary of benchmarking terms. Houston, TX: APQC. Retrieved from http://www.apqc.org 15 Grossman, J. B., Chan, C. S., Schwartz, S. E. O., & Rhodes, J. R. (2012). The test of time in school-based mentoring: The role of relationship duration and re-matching on academic outcomes. American Journal of Community Psychology, 49 (1-2), 43-54. doi:
10
ii
The Indiana Youth Institute 2013 Start early in the school year Last for at least one school year Build programs into feeder schools to provide youth with consistency Explore ways to bridge summer break Take the summer break into account when measuring impact Train younger mentors16 Find youth that have moderately close relationships with adults prior to the match,17 that are more sensitive to rejection,18 and that do not have very high levels of stress19 Meet after school or during lunch, rather than during the school day20 Find mentors that have previous mentoring experience,21 or explore ways to train them before the match Do not focus heavily on school work22 Allow for flexibility in meeting times23
There are also several ways in which OST youth programs can best produce positive behaviors or outcomes in areas such as the prevention of unhealthy physical behavior, substance use and abuse, and juvenile violence and delinquency; social and emotional development; and academic achievement.
Standards & Guidelines

Several standards and guidelines have been developed for youth mentoring programs at a national and state level, including: National Youth Mentoring Standards National Mentoring Partnership Elements of Effective Practice, 3rd Edition The Handbook of Youth Mentoring The Blackwell Handbook of Mentoring: A Multiple Perspectives Approach Indiana Youth Mentoring Standards Indiana Standards for Quality Youth Mentoring Indiana Mentoring Partnership
10.1007/s10464-011-9435-0; Herrera, C., Grossman, J. B., Kauh, T. J., Feldman, A. F., & McMaken, J. (2007). Making a difference in schools: The Big Brothers Big Sisters school-based mentoring impact study. Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private Ventures. Retrieved from http://www.issuelab.org/resource/making_a_difference_in_schools_the_big_brothers_big_sisters_school_based_mentoring_impact_ study; Herrera, C., Grossman, J. B., Kauh, T. J., & McMaken, J. (2011). Mentoring in schools: An impact study of Big Brothers Big Sisters school-based mentoring. Child Development, 82 (1), 346-361. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01559.x; Wheeler, Keller, & DuBois, 2010; Wood, S., & Mayo-Wilson, E. (2012). School-based mentoring for adolescents: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Research on Social Work Practice, 22 (3), 257-269. doi: 10.1177/1049731511430836; Schwartz, S. E. O., Rhodes, J. R., & Herrera, C. (2012). The influence of meeting time on academic outcomes in school-based mentoring. Child and Youth Services Review, 34 (12), 2319-2326. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2012.08.012 16 Herrera et al., 2007 17 Schwartz et al., 2011 18 Grossman et al., 2012 19 Ibid. 20 Schwartz et al., 2012 21 Grossman et el., 2012 22 Ibid. 23 Ibid.
iii
Evidence-Based Model Programs

Evidence-based programs are supported as effective by scientific methods. The scientific support of a program is primarily based on the strength of the systematic evaluations that measure its effect on youth outcomes. The criteria for identifying exactly what counts as evidence-based vary among researchers, agencies, and evidence-based program databases.24 Model programs are evidence-based programs that have been proven to be effective and that can be replicated completely or in part at a new site. The programs presented here are meant to represent, based on the findings of this report, the three mentoring programs that have undergone the most rigorous evaluation and yield significant positive effects on academic achievement, prevention of problem behaviors, and positive youth development: Big Brothers Big Sisters of America Across Ages Early Risers Skills for Success Program
Terzian, M., Moore, K. A., Williams-Taylor, L., & Nguyen, H. (2009). Online resources for identifying evidence-based out-of-school time programs: A users guide. Washington, DC: Child Trends. Retrieved from http://www.childtrends.org/Files/Child_Trends2009_07_26_RB_OnlineEBP.pdf
24
iv
INTRODUCTION
outhi mentoring can be defined as a sustained relationship between a young person and an adult in which the adult provides the young person with support, guidance, and assistance.ii 1
Recent years have seen an increase in the number of youth mentoring programs that attempt to meet the developmental needs of young people in the United States. In 2005, more than three million young people were involved in formal, one-to-one mentoring relationships in the U.S., a 19% increase from 2002.2 According to the Indiana Mentoring Partnership (IMP), 208 mentoring programs were operating throughout 70 counties in Indiana as of August 2012.3 A 2012 survey conducted by the Indiana Mentoring Partnership found that 41 responding organizations connected more than 2,411 mentors with an estimated 5,556 Hoosier children and youth.4 Federal funding for such programs has also increased. According to a recent study, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention awarded $60 million in funding to national organizations (e.g. Big Brothers Big Sisters of America [BBBSA]) in 2011, in addition to $40 million for locally-based mentoring programs.5 This recent increase in quantity and funding has brought increased attention to the quality and effectiveness of formal mentoring programs.6 This report will first present current research on the categories of youth mentoring programs, their impact, and factors that determine their effectiveness. It will then outline current research-based best practices and resources. Finally, it will give examples of model mentoring programs that are promising or proven to be effective in yielding positive outcomes for youth. This report is intended as a non-exhaustive review of the available research literature on youth mentoring for the purpose of aiding youth work practitioners and capacity-building agents in Indiana.
Types of Mentoring Programs

The mentoring of young people takes place in a variety of ways and settings. Informal mentors are adults such as teachers, coaches, and family friends, who guide youth in the context of everyday life (MENTOR, 2006). According to a survey by MENTOR, the majority of mentors (71 percent) interact with youth in relationships of this type.7 Formal mentors are matched and work with youth specifically within the context of organizations or structured programs. Common features of programs of this type include: mentors and youth are paired through a formal mechanism; mentors and youth interact with each other in person and on a one-on-one basis; the mentor is an adult volunteer; and mentors and youth are largely free to spend time together in a range of different activities and settings (p. 649).8 This report will provide best practices for formal mentoring programs, which come in various types: Group mentoring involves one or more adults mentoring a group of two or more young people (p. 5).9 Team mentoring involves two or more adults mentoring one young person; each mentor provides individual time with each youth as well as participating in a group activity such as tutoring or job readiness. Another team approach allows youth access to any of several adult mentors, depending on the special expertise needed or on mentor schedule and availability (p. 5).10 One-to-one mentoring involves one adult mentoring one young person. The one-to-one contact of this type of mentoring can be achieved either through an individual-to-individual relationship or through a team approach (p. 5).11
In this report, the terms young people and youth are used interchangeably to refer to chi ldren and adolescents of school age, from ages 5-18. ii The concept and definition of youth mentoring has been extensively debated and criticized. See Hall, 2003.
i
The Indiana Youth Institute 2013 Other types of mentoring include e-mentoring, in which mentoring takes place online, and peer mentoring, in which other students/youth serve as mentors.12 Paid mentoring provides hourly monetary compensation for adult mentors. Volunteer mentoring provides no monetary compensation for mentors.
Formal mentoring programs commonly take place in one of two settings: in the community of the mentee or at the mentees school.13 Community-based mentoring provides opportunities for mentoring activities to occur in a wide variety of locations (e.g., a community-based nonprofit organization, or a park). An increasingly popular type of site-based program is school-based mentoring, where mentoring activities take place at a mentees school either during school hours or after.14 Each type of program has its own advantages and disadvantages; specific elements of community and school-based programs that contribute to program effectiveness will be discussed later in this report.
Background Information
Approach/Goals of Mentoring Programs Mentoring programs promote a variety of intended youth outcomes and goals, which can be categorized primarily as either developmental or instrumental.15 According to a framework developed by Karcher et al., developmental mentoring (or psychosocial mentoring) places the focus on establishing a certain quality of relationship that leads to a youths social, academic, cognitive, and emotional development.16 By establishing a close, trusting relationship through interaction in recreational activities or conversations, the mentor aims to increase a young persons self-esteem and connectedness and so facilitate gains in other developmental outcomes (such as academic achievement). The aim of instrumental mentoring is for the mentee to achieve specific goals or learn new skills directly.17 The focus of the mentors encouragement is placed on the mentee achieving a specific developmental outcome (e.g. educational or employment attainment), which then leads to social/psychological/emotional development and further achievement. While the instrumental approach may seem to be more adult-driven, both approaches can center on the needs or interests of the mentee.18 Factors Leading to Youth Outcomes Researchers have pointed to many different factors that may influence the quality of a relationship and the resultant outcomes for at-risk youth. According to Rhodes and DuBois, the primary determinate of a good mentoring relationship is closeness the strong bond between mentor and mentee.19 Without a strong connection that is characterized by mutuality, trust, and empathy, a relationship cannot be expected to yield beneficial effects for the mentee (p. 255).20 Rhodes and DuBois state that the closeness of a mentoring relationship is determined by six factors:21 Mentor characteristics a mentors skills or attributes, such as previous experience in a helping role and the ability to model positive behaviors. Consistency the regularity of mentor-mentee contact. Duration the length of the relationship. Contextual variables a youths other relationships, health, and academic achievement. Limitations a lack of compatibility in the personality or interests of the youth and mentor; insufficient skills or abilities on the part of the mentor; an irregular or infrequent pattern of contact; brief or less than expected duration; the absence of a close, emotional bond; mentor behaviors that do reect sensitivity to the full range of the youths developmental needs; and weak or missing linkages to the youths social network (p. 4-5).
The Indiana Youth Institute 2013 According to Dubois et al., many factors influence the quality of a mentoring relationship and its effect on youth, including: a youths interpersonal history, social competence, and developmental stage; duration of the mentoring relationship; program practices that are involved in establishing and supporting the mentoring relationship (for those that are developed through programs) and its duration; and the youths family and surrounding community context (p. 61).22
Evidence of Effectiveness
A growing body of research has shown that a meaningful relationship with an adult is an important factor in a childs healthy development23 and that well-executed mentoring programs can have a positive influence on at least some young people across social, emotional, and academic domains.24 These benefits include increases or improvements in academic performance, attitudes towards school, parental and peer relationships, and high school graduation rate along with decreases in alcohol and drug use, hitting, skipping school, and dropping out of high school.25 Numerous evaluations of programs and reviews or meta-analyses of those evaluations have shown that while the true extent of the positive outcomes from mentoring programs is not yet fully clear, mentoring shows promise in promoting positive outcomes for young people, particularly those at risk for negative behaviors.26 The most comprehensive analysis to date of the effectiveness of youth mentoring programs by DuBois et al. analyzed 73 independent evaluations of mentoring programs for young people over a period from 19992010.27 The findings of this study support the effectiveness of mentoring for improving outcomes across behavioral, social, emotional, and academic domains of young peoples development (p. 57).28 However, the reports authors also indicated that significant positive outcomes for youth in mentoring programs are not universal, and that the benefits that youth gain from mentoring programs are on average modest relative to the benefits gained from other types of youth interventions.29 However, these benefits occur across a variety of areas of youth development. While the average overall effect of youth mentoring programs has been confirmed as modest in several studies,30 this may be due to the fact that results of lower-quality programs offset the significant positive effects of some programs,31 resulting in a lower average impact. Dubois et al. suggested that the use of best practices and guidelines could be an important contributor to program effectiveness.32 This study also showed that lower-quality mentoring relationships led to less favorable outcomes than high-quality ones.33 In fact, poorly administered mentoring programs that allow mentoring relationships to terminate after a short period of time can have negative effects relative to control groups, particularly for at-risk youth.34 Taken together, the facts above stress the importance of using evidence-based best practices in mentoring programs to achieve significant positive outcomes for youth. The following section presents such practices in detail.
BEST PRACTICES
Terms and Concepts
his section will describe how best practice concepts are often used and how they will be used in this report. In the context of youth work and research, the term practice can refer to one of two basic concepts: a specific type of program (e. g. a mentoring program) or a single process performed within a program (such as match youth with appropriate mentors). In essence, a program can be thought of as a
The Indiana Youth Institute 2013 set of processes that operate on a framework or model and are performed in sequence to achieve outcomes. However, in this report, the term practice will refer to specific processes performed within mentoring programs. The term best practices is often used as a general term to describe practices a) that have support for their superior effectiveness in yielding a desired outcome and which b) can be used as a benchmark or standard. Other terms often used to describe such practices include proven practices, promising practices, effective practices, good practices, and evidence-based practices. The nonstandardized use of these terms, coupled with the multiple meanings of practice, can make the definition of best practices confusing. Some of these terms refer to the means by which a practice is supported. One way a practice can be supported as effective is nonscientifically, through anecdotal means. Practices are supported in this way, for example, by the organization that uses these practices receiving recognition and awards from other organizations or individuals. Or, the practice receives support through profiling in nonscientific (non peerreviewed) journals. A practice can also be supported scientifically, through the careful, systemic analysis of programs and program evaluations. The terms evidence-based practices and research-based practices refer to practices supported in this way. To determine effective practices scientifically, evaluators may highlight certain processes or factors of a program in an evaluation study that account for the programs effectiveness, such as a specific mentor-mentee matching procedure. Or, through literature reviews, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses, researchers may examine multiple program evaluations and identify specific processes that are effective across programs. Evidence- or research-based programsiii are those programs that have, overall, been shown through program evaluation to be effective in producing positive youth outcomes. Other terms refer to the level of support that a practice receives. Practices can have varying levels of nonscientific or scientific support. A certain method can have a strong anecdotal history of support from a professional community or have little to no endorsement. Similarly, a program practice can be supported by a large number of rigorous program evaluation studies, literature reviews, and meta-analyses published in peer-reviewed journals or lack any history of evaluation and testing. Practices that lack support are unsubstantiated, while those that have some anecdotal or scientific support are commonly termed promising, emerging, or field-suggested practices. Practices that have a strong anecdotal or scientific basis for their effectiveness are often called best, effective, or exemplary practices. A basic framework outlining different types of practices and common terms for each type is presented in figure 1, below. In this report, best practices will be defined as those practices that have been shown to produce superior results; selected by a systematic process; and judged as exemplary, good, or successfully demonstrated.35 Using this definition, a best practice could refer to either anecdotally or scientifically supported practices that have been selected systematically and demonstrated to be effective. The following section provides an overview of mentoring practices that have been presented in the research literature as effective in achieving positive academic, social, psychological/emotional, and physical outcomes for youth. As all of the practices detailed below have been identified as effective in a systemic manner and through research reports, studies, literature reviews, meta-analyses, and systematic reviews published in scientific journals or by research organizations, they can be termed research-based best practices. For more information on best management or governance practices of nonprofit, youth-serving organizations, please see the report Nonprofit Management: Best Practices, available at www.iyi.org.
iii
Specific criteria for and examples of evidence-based programs are provided in the final section of the report.

Figure 1: Evidentiary Support for Practices Level of Support Low Term Unsubstantiated Anecdotal Support No awards, nominations, or publication in nonscientific journals Scientific Support No studies of high quality published in scientific journals Identified by a single highquality study or literature review and published in scientific journal or by research organization Identified by multiple highquality studies, metaanalyses, literature reviews or systemic reviews, and published in scientific journals or by research organizations
Medium
Promising Emerging Field-Suggested Effective Exemplary Best
Few nominations or awards, publication in nonscientific journals
High
Numerous national- or state-level nominations and awards received, publication in nonscientific journals
General Best Practices

The practices discussed in this section focus primarily on community-based mentoring (CBM) programs for youth, but should also be considered general best practices of mentoring programs. Carefully screen both potential mentors and mentees Potential mentors should be carefully recruited and screened using established standards and procedures.36 A review by DuBois pointed to the greater effectiveness of programs that recruited mentors based on their fit with program goals.37 For example, they suggested using teachers as mentors for helping youth reach academic goals and business professionals for workforce preparation. Regardless of their backgrounds, mentors must be dependable, committed to the relationship, and willing to contact their mentees frequently.38 The recruitment process should include background checks, in-person interviews, and written statements of the mentors role, responsibilities, and commitment.39 A meta-analysis by DuBois et al. suggested that mentoring programs are more effective when targeting youth who experience either environmental (e. g. low family socioeconomic status, lack of parental support) or individual (problem behaviors such as academic failure) risk factors but not both.40 DuBois and colleagues conclude that more optimal conditions may entail directing programs toward youth who present mentors with more intermediate levels of challengeiv (p. 76-77).41 Youth facing more serious environmental or individual problems may need to be referred to other, more intensive therapeutic or educational services.42 Potential mentors and mentees should also be informed of realistic goals for a mentoring relationship during this process, as unrealistic or unmet expectations for the outcomes of a mentoring relationship can negatively affect or even disband a match.43 While volunteer mentors are not typically trained social workers or child care professionals, they still can provide care, guidance, and support.
The appropriate amount of challenge a mentee should provide for an effective mentoring relationship is not fully defined or agreed upon. For a study exploring the relationship between youth relationship profiles and mentoring outcomes see Schwartz, Rhodes, Chan, Herrera (2011) at: http://www.rhodeslab.org/files/RelationshipProfiles.pdf
iv
The Indiana Youth Institute 2013 Match mentors and mentees primarily on the basis of shared interests Mentors and youth should be matched based on at least one criterion.44 Matching mentors and mentees on the basis of shared interests is a primary factor in high-quality, long-term relationships.45 According to Dubois et al., although matching ethnic-minority youth with same-race mentors where possible is a common goal in mentoring programs, research has failed to reveal a consistent pattern of differences favoring these types of relationships (p. 77).46 Another review found that cross-race matching seemed to produce quality relationships at the same rate as same-race matching.47 Similarly, although programs often match youth with mentors of the same gender, research has not shown same-gender matches to be any more effective than cross-gender matches at enhancing relationship closeness and supportiveness or to have a substantial effect on youth outcomes.48 In summary, matching mentors and youth based on similarity of interests and goals is more closely related to significant positive youth outcomes than matching based on demographic characteristics.49 Use structured activities, developmental or instrumental approaches, and make activities fun and challenging Research points to the benefits of both developmental and instrumental approaches to youth mentoring.50 A programs approach and the content of activities or services provided should be tailored to the individual differences (e.g. gender, ethnicity, age) of youth.51 The primary focus of a developmental relationship, especially in its beginning stages, should be on building a close relationship charac terized by closeness.52 The meta-analysis by DuBois and colleagues cautioned against mentors becoming overly directive or task focused, but found stronger effects for programs that provided a more intentional role for mentors by acting as a mentees advocate or helping a mentee gain access to important information (p. 78).53 Regardless of approach, participation in structured activities has been found to be closely related to program effectiveness,54 and relationships that focus on building trust, friendship, and respect are more effective than those that attempt to impose a mentors values on a mentee.55 Some principles for structuring activities include: Make activities fun as well as educational. Focus on activities that promote mutual exchange, rather than on instruction for the mentee. Plan activities that offer challenges. Provide support and encouragement, but do not solve problems for the mentee (p. 172).56
Provide mentors and mentees with orientation, training, and support for the duration of the match A mentoring program should provide training to mentors both pre- and post-match.57 Research suggests that pre-match training should involve a formal orientation session that explains the program, describes roles and responsibilities, and provides recommendations for dealing with difficult situations.58 Training may also include instruction for building relationships with youth and information regarding the challenges of working with specific youth populations.59 Mentors should be reminded to hold realistic expectations for the relationship and its outcomes. According to Hansen: Successful mentors expect the beginning of a mentoring relationship will be one directional, with the mentor needing to take the lead. Successful mentors are realistic about possible slow response from the mentee in the first year, about changes that will result from the match and consider even slow progress in the format of the relationship an accomplishment. On the other hand, mentors who begin their relationships expecting to transform their mentee are typically disappointed (p. 13).60 Programs often provide training and support to mentors prior to the mentoring relationship, but fail to support the mentors and mentees sufficiently as the relationship progresses.61 Quality programs should
The Indiana Youth Institute 2013 conduct systematic monitoring and supervision of the match in addition to providing ongoing training and support for mentors.62 This includes establishing clear expectations for the frequency and duration of mentor-mentee contact and monitoring that contact as the relationship progresses.63 As was referenced earlier, consistent and frequent interaction between a mentor and youth is foundational to positive development, and ending a match before its intended termination date can have harmful effects on youth.64 One review states that mentors and mentees should meet for at least one to two hours every week over one school year, with at least 10 hours of contact per month.65 Other studies show the greatest benefits for youth in relationships that last for at least one full calendar year.66 Ongoing support for mentors can take the form of check-in phone calls between staff and mentors, mentor support groups, and other means. Provide closure for the match The program should establish a method or process for ending relationships in a way that does not harm the mentor or mentees perception of the relationship, through graduation nights, final closure meetings, and by helping the mentee find other support services.67 This is particularly important for the mentee; a match ending without sufficient closure to the youth may undermine benefits gained from the program, leading to feelings of rejection.68 Use sound management practices Mentoring programs should make sure to follow several management principles: A program should have a management team and a budget or financial plan.69 A program should clearly define its parameters (e.g., target population, mentor characteristics, program goals and outcomes).70 A program should have a well-defined mission and established operating procedures.v 71 Well-managed programs include an advisory group and systems for resource development, staff development, program monitoring, mentoring advocacy, and outreach/marketing.72
Have well-developed personnel qualifications, job descriptions, eligibility requirements, and professional development opportunities for staff Challenges for youth services generally include the hiring and retaining skilled staff members. The staffing requirements and qualifications of a mentoring program should be based on: the organization's statement of purpose and goals, the needs of mentors and participants, community resources, [and] staff and other volunteers' skill level (p. 2).73 A review of staff qualifications for the Big Brothers Big Sisters program indicated that a commonly stated requirement of mentoring program staff is a bachelors degree in a human services field (e. g. education, psychology, counseling, social work, administration, liberal arts).74 All staff and volunteer positions should have written job descriptions and eligibility requirements.75 High rates of staff turnover can lead to costs in the form of hiring replacements, along with disruptions in an organizations morale and ability to provide services.76 Reasons for staff burnout and turnover include: individual factors (previous work experience, self-perceived competence or efficacy); professional perceptions (job satisfaction, organizational or professional commitment); and organizational factors (reasonable workload, support from supervisors and co-workers, higher salary, and perceptions of a fair, supportive organizational climate) (p. 7).77 To prevent staff burnout or turnover, programs should implement policies, training, and professional development opportunities designed to address these issues.78
v
See Appendix, Resources: National Mentoring Center for an example policy manual and other useful resources.
The Indiana Youth Institute 2013 Conduct ongoing evaluation of youth outcomes A quality mentoring program should conduct ongoing program evaluation to measure program processes and outcomes.79 This information can be used to refine program practices and demonstrate results to funders. A number of organizations offer self-evaluation tools, provide technical assistance for conducting evaluations, and/or conduct outside evaluations. For example, MENTOR/The National Mentoring Partnership and the National Mentoring Center both provide resources for self-evaluation, and research organizations like Public/Private Ventures (P/PV) conduct evaluations on established mentoring programs (e.g. Big Brothers Big Sisters of America). Use sound financial practices to ensure the sustainability of the program and the match In order to provide quality services and prevent relationships from being terminated prematurely, programs should be able to obtain and maintain stable, reliable funding.80 A program should use generally accepted accounting practices, have risk management and confidentiality policies, and have adequate financial and in-kind resources.81 Involve parents in their childs success through multiple means Mentoring programs should reach out to and involve parents or guardians of program youth.82 In a study by DuBois et al., parental involvement in a mentoring program was a significant moderator of positive program effects.83 According to the Mentoring Resource Center, programs can and should reach out to parents by:84 conducting orientation sessions, following up after orientation sessions and providing print materials, providing a program handbook to parents, giving parents a prominent role in finalizing the match, checking in frequently, communicating in a variety of ways (i.e. newsletter, phone call, email), providing access to other support services in the community (i.e. adult education classes, career services, or counseling), hosting group outings and family events, providing recognition to parents, and enlisting parents as volunteers (as mentors or in evaluation, marketing, recruitment, or resource development).
School-Based Programs
The practices outlined in this section are presented to complement the general best practices described above. School-based mentoring (SBM) programs are the fastest growing type of mentoring program and currently serve hundreds of thousands of youth in the U.S.85 SBM has many supposed advantages over CBM, including: a broader and more diverse pool of volunteers, a more targeted ability to identify low-income students that need specific, school-based support,86 and increased supervision.87 The primary disadvantages of SBM as compared to CBM are school-related time constraints and a lower intensity of mentoring relationship,88 and this lower meeting duration and frequency can have a negative impact on a match relationship relative to community-based mentoring relationships.89 Recent studies and reviews have found mixed overall results on the effectiveness of SBM, with significant variability across youth circumstances and program practices.90 Herrera et al. measured the effects of school-based mentoring programs from 10 Big Brothers Big Sisters agencies on 1,139 students in grades four through nine over one year.91 They found benefits related to academic outcomes for youth, but little to
The Indiana Youth Institute 2013 no benefit in improving out-of-school behavior. A 2011 re-analysis of that studys data found academic outcomes (such as a youths overall academic performance and perception of his or her own academic ability) of similar size to those reported in a similar study of BBBS community-based mentoring program.92 However, academic outcomes were not sustained into a second year, and youth that received mentoring showed no improvement in classroom effort, general self-worth, relationships, and problem behavior. A systematic review by Wood and Mayo-Wilson examined studies of school-based mentoring programs for adolescents conducted from 1980 to 2011, including the above 2007 BBBS study.93 This review found no significant overall effects of SBM on academic achievement, school attendance, behavior problems (drug use, delinquent behavior, school misconduct), and self-esteem (including general psychological well-being and feelings of success in school). Although the authors stated that further research may improve SBM effectiveness, they cautioned that unless school-based mentoring can demonstrate positive effects, it represents poor value for money no matter its cost (p. 266).94 Given the mixed overall effectiveness of SBM, several reports have attempted to identify best practices and analyze cost-effectiveness in order to make recommendations regarding the value of this form of mentoring.95 Herrera et al. made several recommendations: Start matches as early in the school year as possible; Ensure that volunteers provide at least one school year of mentoring; Build programs (or relationships with established programs) in feeder schools to sustain matches and provide youth with consistency through school transitions; Select supportive schools for program involvement and continually foster these partnerships; Explore ways to bridge the summer gap; Develop indices of match length that reflect the summer break and, in this way, are more sensitive predictors of impacts; and Explore more ways to provide volunteers (particularly young volunteers) with the support and ongoing training they need to create high-quality, effective mentoring relationships (p. 5).96
In one of three analyses of the national evaluation studies of BBBS school-based mentoring,97 Schwartz et al. examined the effects of mentoring on youth who had different levels of quality relationships (or relational profiles) and found that youth who benefited most had moderately close relationships with adults and peers prior to mentoring, rather than exceptionally strong or weak relationships.98 These students experienced significant improvements in academic performance and positive social behavior relative to both youth of the same profile who were not mentored and mentored youth with other relational profiles. Schwartz et al. found that effects on academic outcomes for academically at-risk youth seem to be much stronger when matches meet after school or during lunch, rather than during the school day as a pullout program.99 Grossman et al. focused on the duration of matches and found that:100 The impact of mentoring was significantly enhanced by matches lasting at least 12 weeks. Youth in relationships that were intact at the end of the year showed significant academic improvement, while mentoring had no impact on matches that ended earlier. Youth who were rematched after being in a match that ended early had worse outcomes than youth who had not been mentored at all. In matches less likely to end early, mentors possessed previous mentoring experience and youth were more sensitive to rejection. In matches more likely to end early, youth were matched with college students, youth had high levels of life stress, mentor pairs focused more heavily on school work, and mentor pairs always
The Indiana Youth Institute 2013 met at the same time and location (lacking the flexibility necessary for successful mentoring relationships).
Outcome-Specific Best Practices

Prevention Physical and reproductive health A small number of studies have shown the positive effect of formal mentoring programs on outcomes for youth related to physical and reproductive health, such as the prevention or reduction of obesity, unhealthy BMI, and repeat pregnancies.101 A study of the Challenge! health promotion/obesity prevention program found that it was effective at reducing unhealthy snacking choices, reducing the level of obesity, preventing an increase in BMI, and increasing the level of physical activity in a group of low-income, minority adolescents.102 It was a multi-year, 12-session formal mentoring intervention delivered in a one-to-one format, with matches engaging in healthy eating, goal-setting, and physical activity. Mentors were trained in motivational interviewing techniques and given ongoing, weekly support. Studies have shown that mentoring programs focused on pregnancy prevention that recruit older women as mentors may have a positive effect on this and other health-related outcomes for female youth, but only for those in high-quality relationships.103 One study highlighted the most important processes of femalefemale, one-to-one mentoring relationships as: (a) engaged and authentic emotional support; (b) the development of new skills and condence through collaborations; and, (c) experiences of companionship that provided relief from daily stresses (p. 109).104 Substance use and abuse Research has identified many factors that are associated with a higher risk of youth substance use or abuse,105 often highlighting negative individual, family, parent, and peer influences such as poor parenting practices, family conflict, parental modeling of drug use or abuse, academic failure, low commitment to school, association with drug-using peers, pro-drug attitudes of peers,106 and low perceptions of selfworth.107 Research provides promising evidence that mentoring can have modest effects on the prevention of youth substance use,108 but more research is required to show the effectiveness of mentoring as an intervention or treatment strategy for delinquent juveniles.109 Best practices and the pathways by which prevention occurs are less clear. A model proposed by Rhodes et al. tested for the direct influence of a BBBS mentoring program on youth substance use rates, as well as for the programs indirect influence on substance use through its effects on individual, peer, and family risk and protective factors.110 The authors found that mentoring that occurred for longer than 12 months directly reduced the frequency of substance use and led to significant changes in how adolescents perceived their parental relationships. This change in perception was related to improvements in peer relationships and higher levels of youth self-worth, and that improvements in self-worth reduced the frequency of adolescents alcohol use. Juvenile violence and delinquency Research is promising but not conclusive regarding the positive effects and the value of mentoring as a strategy for preventing initial juvenile violence, delinquency, and recidivism.111 Sullivan and Joliffe examined the effectiveness of mentoring as a delinquency prevention and intervention strategy by comparing two recent systematic reviews.112 The first review by Tolan et al. found moderate positive effects overall for mentoring programs on the prevention of delinquency, aggression, drug use, and aggression, with programs showing the strongest and most reliable results for delinquency and aggression.113 A second review by Joliffe and Farrington studied the impact of mentoring on the prevention Youth Mentoring: Best Practices, Quality Standards, and Evidence-Based Model Programs
10
The Indiana Youth Institute 2013 of reoffending and found that mentoring interventions conducted as a supplement to other reentry services led to a decrease in offending at a small to moderate level (4-10%) compared to other individually-based interventions.114 Sullivan and Joliffe further concluded that mentoring has proven to not be harmful to youth, though effective practices are less clear: The quality of the mentoring relationship is important to enhancing prevention outcomes. Joliffe and Farrington found that matches were more successful in preventing reoffending when given greater duration of contact per meeting and a higher frequency of meetings (once or more per week).115 Whether mentoring is more effective as a stand-alone prevention strategy or as one included with other interventions (employment, behavioral treatment, counseling, and/or tutoring) is not yet clear, and requires further research.116 Further research also is required to identify at which stage of the juvenile delinquency spectrum mentoring is most effective.117 The costs and benefits of mentoring focused on delinquency/recidivism prevention should be considered prior to implementation.118 Mentoring has in some cases proven to be costineffective,119 while a cost-benefit analysis by Washington State Institute for Public Policy calculated that mentoring programs for juvenile delinquents in Washington were cost-effective to the tune of $5,073.120
Social and Emotional Development Mentoring programs are well suited to provide support for the positive social, emotional, and psychological development of youth,121 and have been shown to be a promising approach to promoting these outcomes.122 Recent research regarding the developmental needs of young people states that the presence of certain developmental assets in a young persons life helps promote their positive develo pment, and that of these assets, the presence of caring, capable, and committed adults is the most important (p. 4).123 According to Rhodes, Spencer, Keller, Liang, and Noam, mentoring relationships contribute to the social and emotional development of youth by providing (1) opportunities for fun and escape from daily stresses, (2) corrective emotional experiences that may generalize to and improve youths other social relationships, and (3) assistance with emotion regulation (p. 692).124 To promote positive social and emotional development: Mentors should be sensitive, responsive, and consistent in providing emotional support for youth in order to provide a sense of stability and to encourage youth to seek emotional support during stressful periods.125 In order to help develop mentees emotional regulation, mentors should:126 o Have an awareness of their emotions and the emotions of the mentee; o Validate and verbally label the childs feelings, view the childs negative emotions as an opportunity for intimacy or learning, and engage in limit setting, problem solving, and discussions of goals and strategies for dealing with situations that lead to negative emotions (p. 694); and o Openly display positive emotionsparticularly under difficult circumstancesactively model the process of using positive emotions constructively (p. 694).
Academic Achievement Another common area of interest is the effect that mentoring has on a young persons academic achievement. Mentoring research shows that a mentoring relationship can have a positive, if modest, effect on academic achievement and other academic outcomes for youth,127 such as dropout and truancy
11
The Indiana Youth Institute 2013 prevention.128 School-based mentoring was intended as an approach focused particularly on improving youth academic outcomes; however, studies and reviews have returned mixed results. Research has shown that the ways in which youth benefit academically from mentoring are complex.129 A study of the BBBS community-based program found that mentoring had directly improved parental relationships, reduced the number of unexcused absences, and improved how competent youth see themselves as academically, while the value a youth placed on school, general perceived self-worth, and grades improved as a result of enhanced parental relationships.130 Recent analyses of the BBBS mentoring program also suggest specific practices of school-based programs that may be linked to improved academic outcomes.
STANDARDS & GUIDELINES
everal resources have been created to provide mentoring practitioners with comprehensive, in-depth, evidence-based standards for effective programming. This section provides an overview of several current models. Each model provides specific practices, policies, or examples for adoption and adaptation.
National
National Mentoring Partnership Elements of Effective Practice, 3rd Edition www.mentoring.org Developed by MENTOR/The National Mentoring Partnership, this often-cited manual offers a wealth of evidence-based program practices. This publication provides up-to-date, evidence-based standards for stand-alone mentoring programs or mentoring as a feature of a larger program. Part I details standards for program recruitment, screening, training, matching, monitoring and support, and closure, along with practical guidance and benchmarks on how to meet these standards. Part II provides standards and advice on program design/planning, program management, and program evaluation. Elements of Effective Practice for Mentoring, 3rd Edition Checklist for Mentoring Programs
The Handbook of Youth Mentoring http://mentoringhandbook.com/ This manual provides a comprehensive, research-based overview of the concept of youth mentoring relationships and the role they play in development, the effectiveness of different program types in multiple contexts, policy implications, and more. *Available for checkout in the Indiana Youth Institutes Virginia Beal Ball Library. Go to http://www.iyi.org/library for more information. The Blackwell Handbook of Mentoring: A Multiple Perspectives Approach This book provides a heavily research-based overview of effective mentoring practice. *Available for checkout in the Indiana Youth Institutes Virginia Beal Ball Library. Go to http://www.iyi.org/library for more information.
12
Indiana
Indiana Standards for Quality Youth Mentoring The Indiana Standards for Quality Youth Mentoring provide effective, research-based benchmarks for youth mentoring programs in Indiana. For more information, visit the website of the Indiana Mentoring Partnership, listed below. Indiana Mentoring Partnership www.abetterhour.org The Indiana Mentoring Partnership (IMP) is a program of the Indiana Youth Institute that promotes and supports quality mentoring to foster youth development and academic success. In addition to increasing public awareness of the benefits of mentoring and facilitating community partnerships to support mentors and their organizations, the IMP also provides technical assistance and training on mentoring-related best practices. The Tools and Resources available on the IMPs website offer a variety of sources and practical tools for designing, developing, implementing and evaluating an effective mentoring program.
EVIDENCE-BASED MODEL PROGRAMS

Terms and Concepts
his section provides descriptions of three evidence-based model mentoring programs. Evidence-based programs are supported as effective by scientific methods. The criteria for identifying exactly what counts as evidence-based, as well as the terms used to identify different levels of evidence-based programs, varies among researchers, agencies, and evidence-based program databases.131 The strength of the scientific support of an evidence-based program is primarily based on the systematic evaluations that measure its effect on youth outcomes. Experimental design is commonly considered the form of evaluation that yields the strongest support for a programs effectiveness.132 In studies with this design, individuals are randomly assigned either to a group receiving the intervention or a group that is not; a comparison of the two groups can be made to determine what effect the program had on youth in the intervention group, if any.133 Studies with quasi-experimental design are also recommended by some researchers to be included in the definition of evidence-based.134 In studies with this design, individuals are selected into a treatment or control group on some other basis besides randomization, allowing for the possibility of other factors than the program to affect youth outcomes.135 Many literature reviews and meta-analyses include both experimental and quasi-experimental studies. In addition to an experimental design, the scientific community commonly identifies several other criteria that program evaluation studies must meet to provide the best evidence of the effectiveness of a youth program. More information on evidence-based programs, criteria, and concepts is located in the Appendix. Generally, the stronger the research design of a programs evaluation and the more independent
13
The Indiana Youth Institute 2013 replications of positive evaluation results that it receives, the stronger the scientific evidence base is for the effectiveness of that program. Organizations that classify and rate evidence-based youth programs often use different rating and classification systems to do so. Programs that are the best supported and highest rated in any rating system are typically called exemplary, proven or effective programs while programs that have less support are often called promising, or emerging programs. Model programs are evidence-based programs that have been proven to be effective and that can be replicated completely or in part at a new site. Some characteristics of model programs include:136

Clearly written, standardized materials Formal training for staff Technical assistance to help with implementation problems A theory-driven approach Limited complexity Methods to ensure quality implementation
Implementing a proven, model program has benefits, including:137

Less risk of failure No need to conduct an expensive outcome evaluation to document effectiveness Larger expected reduction in violence, drug use or delinquency than other programs Proven effectiveness when implemented with fidelity Greater return on time and money invested
Selection Criteria
To identify model programs for this report, federal and national databases were searched for effective mentoring programs. Databases of evaluated programs vary widely in a number of aspects, including inclusion/exclusion criteria and classification systems, due to the lack of a common definition of evidencebased.vi The main criteria for the inclusion of a program in this report were its presence and rating as detailed on evidence-based program databases according to a 2010 report by Child Trends.138 This study analyzed the presence of 184 youth mentoring programs across 15 evidence-based program databases. The programs presented here a) provide youth mentoring exclusively or as a part of a wider program, b) are present on multiple evidence-based program databases, and c) have at least one highest rating. These programs are meant to represent, based on the findings of this report, the three mentoring programs that have undergone the most rigorous evaluation and yield significant positive effects on academic achievement, prevention of problem behaviors, and positive youth development.
Programs
Big Brothers Big Sisters of America Program Summary: Big Brothers Big Sisters of America (BBBSA) has been providing adult support and friendship to youth for nearly a century. A report in 1991 demonstrates that through BBBSAs network of
For an excellent overview of databases of evidence-based mentoring programs, see Child Trends 2009 report Online Resources for Identifying Evidence-Based, Out-of-School Time Programs: A Users Guide (Terzian et al., 2009).
vi
14
The Indiana Youth Institute 2013 nearly 500 agencies across the country, more than 70,000 youth and adults were supervised in one-to-one relationships.139 Ages Served: 6-18140 Outcome Categories:141 Drugs Education Social functioning Violence Outcome Areas:142 Initiation of drug use Aggressive behavior School competence and achievement Family relationships Registries: 8143 Ratings: Blueprints: Model SAMHSA NREPP: Model EPIS Center: Evidence-based PPN: Evidence-based CEBP/SPTW: Evidence-based CT/LINKS: Effectiveness chart B (evidence-based) Find Youth Info: Level 1 OJJDP: Exemplary CTC: Evidence-based More Information: Big Brothers Big Sisters Across Ages Program Summary: Across Ages is a school- and community-based substance abuse prevention program for youth ages 9 to 13. The unique feature of Across Ages is the pairing of older adult mentors (55 years and older) with young adolescents, specifically those making the transition to middle school. The overall goal of the program is to increase protective factors for high-risk students to prevent, reduce, or delay the use of alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs and the problems associated with substance use.144 Ages Served: 9 to 13145 Outcome Categories:146 Alcohol Education Family/relationships Tobacco Outcome Areas:147 Reactions to situations involving drug use Attitudes toward school, future, and elders School attendance Knowledge about and attitudes toward older adults Registries: 3148 Ratings: SAMHSA NREPP: Model
15
The Indiana Youth Institute 2013 OJJDP: Promising Find Youth Info: Level 3 More Information: Across Ages or Harvard Family Research Project Early Risers Skills for Success Program Program Summary: Early Risers Skills for Success is a multicomponent, developmentally focused, competency-enhancement program that targets 6- to 12-year-old elementary school students who are at high risk for early development of conduct problems, including substance use. Early Risers is based on the premise that early, comprehensive, and sustained intervention is necessary to target multiple risk and protective factors. The program uses integrated child-, school-, and family-focused interventions to move high-risk children onto a more adaptive developmental pathway.149 Ages Served: 6-12150 Outcome Categories:151 Education Family/relationships Social functioning Violence Outcome Areas:152 Academic competence and achievement (performance and behaviors) Behavioral self-regulation Social competence Parental investment in the child Effective discipline Registries: 5153 Ratings: Find Youth Info: Level 1 OJJDP: Exemplary NIDA: Evidence-based CTC: Evidence-based SAMHSA NREPP: Model More Information: Child Trends or SAMHSA NREPP
APPENDIX
General Resources
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention www.cdc.gov Strategies to Prevent Youth Violence: Mentoring (1999) Evaluation Management Training http://emt.org/default.htm Mentoring Publications Friends for Youth Mentoring Institute http://www.friendsforyouth.org/MentoringInstitute.html Elements of Safe & Effective Mentoring Organizations
16
The Indiana Youth Institute 2013 Webinars A free series of instructional webinars related to mentoring issues and best practices
Indiana Mentoring Partnership www.abetterhour.org Indiana Standards for Quality Youth Mentoring Jean E. Rhodes, Ph. D. www.rhodeslab.org MENTOR/National Mentoring Partnership www.mentoring.org Start A Program Program Resources News & Research Volunteer Referral System A free tool for prospective mentors to search for mentoring opportunities National Mentoring Center http://educationnorthwest.org/nmc National Mentoring Center Resources
Evidence-Based Program Databases, Standards, and Resources

Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence http://www.colorado.edu/cspv/ Blueprints for Violence Prevention Matrix of Evidence-Based Programs Child Trends http://www.childtrends.org/ What is Evidence-Based Practice? A 10-Step Guide to Adopting and Sustaining Evidence-Based Practices in Out-of-School Time Programs Implementing Evidence-Based Practices: Six Drivers of Success Seven Activities for Enhancing the Replicability of Evidence-Based Practices The Childrens Trust http://www.thechildrenstrust.org/ Best Practices and Evidence-Based Programs Provides a list of evidence-based programs and a selection of evidence-based program databases Collaborative Community Health Research Centre Research Review of Best Practices for Provision of Youth Services See section I. 5., Determining Program Effectiveness Evidence-Based Associates http://www.evidencebasedassociates.com/ Research Review: Evidence-Based Programs and Practices: What Does It All Mean? (2007)
17
The Indiana Youth Institute 2013 Indiana Department of Corrections http://www.in.gov/idoc/ Appendix 7. Evidence-based programs (Best Practices) Information Society for Prevention Research http://www.preventionresearch.org/ Standards of Evidence for Efficacy, Effectiveness and Dissemination Trials
REFERENCES
Jekielek, S. M., Moore, K.A., & Hair, E.C. (2002a) Mentoring: A promising strategy for youth development. Washington, DC: Child Trends. Retrieved from http://www.childtrends.org/Files/Child_Trends-2002_02_01_RB_Mentoring.pdf 2 MENTOR. (2006). Mentoring in America 2005: A snapshot of the current state of mentoring. Alexandria, VA: MENTOR/National Mentoring Partnership. Retrieved from http://www.mentoring.org/downloads/mentoring_523.pdf 3 The Indiana Mentoring Partnership [IMP]. (2012). Census of youth mentoring. [Data]. Indiana Youth Institute, Indianapolis, IN. 4 IMP, 2012 5 DuBois, D. L., Portillo, N., Rhodes, J. E., Silverthorn, N., & Valentine, J. C. (2011). How effective are mentoring programs for youth? A systematic assessment of the evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 12 (2), 5791. doi: 10.1177/1529100611414806 6 MacRae, P., Garringer, M., Karcher, M., & Keller, T. (2007). Using mentoring research findings to build effective programs. Folsom, CA: National Mentoring Center. Retrieved from http://www.mentoringpittsburgh.org/_media/documents/using_research_book.pdf 7 MENTOR, 2006 8 DuBois, D.L., & Rhodes, J. E. (2006) Introduction to the special issue: Bridging science with practice. Journal of Community Psychology, 34 (6), 647-655. doi: 10.1002/jcop.20121 9 Center for Substance Abuse Prevention [CSAP]. (2000). Mentoring initiatives: An overview of mentoring . Rockville, Md.: Center for Substance Abuse Prevention, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved from http://www.nationalfamilies.org/parents/mentor.pdf 10 CSAP, 2000 11 Ibid. 12 Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). (2012). Model programs guide: Mentoring. Retrieved from http://www.ojjdp.gov/mpg/progTypesMentoring.aspx 13 CSAP, 2000 14 Komosa-Hawkins, K. (2010). Best practices in school-based mentoring programs for adolescents. Child & Youth Services, 31 (3-4), 121-137. doi: 10.1080/0145935X.2009.524477 15 Karcher, M. J., Kuperminc, G. P., Portwood, S. G., Sipe, C. L., & Taylor, A. S. (2006). Mentoring programs: A framework to inform program development, research, and evaluation. Journal of Community Psychology, 34 (6), 709-725. doi: 10.1002/jcop.20125 16 Karcher et al., 2006 17 Ibid. 18 Ibid. 19 Rhodes, J. E., & DuBois, D.L. (2006). Understanding and facilitating the youth mentoring movement. Social Policy Report, 20, (III). Retrieved from http://srcd.org/sites/default/files/documents/20-3_youth_mentoring.pdf 20 Rhodes, J. E., & DuBois, D. L. (2008). Mentoring relationships and programs for youth. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17 (4), 254-158. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8721.2008.00585.x 21 Rhodes & DuBois, 2006 22 Dubois et al., 2011 23 Rhodes, J. E., Spencer, R., Keller, T. E., Liang, B., & Noam, G. (2006). A model for the influence of mentoring relationships on youth development. Journal of Community Psychology, 34 (6), 691-707. doi: 10.1002/jcop.20124 24 DuBois et al., 2011; Hansen, K. (2007). One-to-one mentoring: Literature review. Philadelphia: Big Brothers Big Sisters of America. Retrieved from http://oregonmentors.org/files/library/BBBS%201-to1
18
1%20Mentoring%20Literature%20Review%20_Mar%202007_.pdf; Rhodes, J.E. (2008). Improving youth mentoring interventions through research-based practices. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41 (1-2), 35-42. doi: 10.1007/s10464-007-9153-9 25 Hansen, 2007 26 DuBois et al., 2011; Hall, J. C. (2003). Mentoring and young people: A literature review. York: The SCRE Centre, University of Glasgow. Retrieved from https://dspace.gla.ac.uk/bitstream/1905/66/1/114.pdf; Hansen, 2007; Rhodes, 2008; Tierney, J. P., Grossman, J. B., & Resch, N. L. (1995). Making a difference: An impact study of big brothers big sisters. Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private Ventures. Retrieved from http://www.issuelab.org/click/download2/making_a_difference_an_impact_study_of_big_brothersbig_sisters_re_issu e_of_1995_study/publicprivate_ventures_104.pdf 27 DuBois et al., 2011 28 Ibid. 29 Ibid. 30 Rhodes & DuBois, 2008 31 DuBois et al., 2011; Rhodes & DuBois, 2008 32 Dubois et al., 2011 33 Ibid. 34 Grossman, J. B., & Rhodes, J. E. (2002). The test of time: Predictors and effects of duration in youth mentoring relationships. American Journal of Community Psychology , 30 (2), 199-219. doi: 10.1023/A:1014680827552 35 American Productivity and Quality Center (APQC). (2008). Glossary of benchmarking terms. Houston, TX: APQC. Retrieved from http://www.apqc.org 36 Center for Prevention Research and Development. (2009). Background research: Mentoring programs . Champaign, IL: Center for Prevention Research and Development, Institute of Government and Public Affairs, University of Illinois. Retrieved from http://www.cprd.illinois.edu/files/ResearchBrief_Mentoring_2009.pdf 37 DuBois et al., 2011 38 Jekielek, S.M., Moore, K. A., & Hair, E. C. (2002b). Mentoring programs and youth development: A synthesis. Washington, D.C.: Child Trends. Retrieved from http://www.childtrends.org/what_works/clarkwww/mentor/mentorrpt.pdf 39 CPRD, 2009 40 DuBois et al., 2011 41 Ibid. 42 CPRD, 2009; DuBois et al., 2011 43 Spencer, R. (2007). Its not what I expected: A qualitative study of youth mentoring relationship failures. Journal of Adolescent Research, 22 (4), 331-354. doi: 10.1177/0743558407301915 44 CPRD, 2009 45 DuBois et al., 2011; Jekielek et al., 2002b 46 Dubois et al., 2011 47 Jekielek et al., 2002b 48 DuBois et al., 2011; Jekielek et al., 2002b; Miller, A. (2011). Best practices for formal youth mentoring. In Allen, T. D. & Eby, L. T. (Eds.), The Blackwell Handbook of Youth Mentoring: A Multiple Perspectives Approach (pp. 307-324). WileyBlackwell. 49 DuBois et al., 2011 50 DuBois, D. L., Holloway, B. E., Valentine, J. C., & Cooper, H. (2002). Effectiveness of mentoring programs for youth: A meta-analytic review. American Journal of Community Psychology, 30 (2), 157-197. doi: 10.1023/A:1014628810714 51 CPRD, 2009 52 Rhodes & DuBois, 2008 53 DuBois et al., 2011 54 DuBois et al., 2002 55 CPRD, 2009 56 Thornton, T. N., Craft, C. A., Dahlberg, L. L., Lynch, B. S., & Baer, K. (2000). Best practices of youth violence prevention: A sourcebook for community action. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/chapter2b-a.pdf 57 Jekielek et al., 2002b 58 CPRD, 2009
19
Hansen, 2007 Ibid. 61 DuBois, 2002 62 CPRD, 2009; DuBois et al., 2011; Jekielek et al., 2002b 63 CPRD, 2009; DuBois et al., 2011 64 Jekielek et al., 2002b 65 CPRD, 2009 66 Grossman & Rhodes, 2002 67 MENTOR/The National Mentoring Partnership. (2009). Elements of effective practice for mentoring, 3 rd Edition. Alexandria, VA: MENTOR/National Mentoring Partnership. Retrieved from http://www.mentoring.org/downloads/mentoring_1222.pdf; Miller, 2011 68 Miller, 2011 69 CPRD, 2009; MENTOR/The National Mentoring Partnership, 2009 70 MENTOR/The National Mentoring Partnership, 2009 71 Ibid. 72 Ibid. 73 National Mentoring Working Group [NMWG]. (1991). Elements of effective mentoring practices ([ADP] 01-1081). California: Resource Center, State of California, Alcohol and Drug Programs. Retrieved from http://www.adp.cahwnet.gov/rc/pdf/1081.pdf 74 Keller, T. E. (2007). Program staff in youth mentoring programs: Qualifications, training, and retention. Alexandria, VA: MENTOR/National Mentoring Partnership. Retrieved from http://www.mentoring.org/downloads/mentoring_384.pdf 75 NMWG, 1991 76 Keller, 2007 77 Ibid. 78 Ibid. 79 MENTOR/The National Mentoring Partnership, 2009 80 Grossman & Rhodes, 2002 81 NMWG, 1991 82 Jekielek et al., 2002b; CPRD, 2009 83 DuBois et al., 2002 84 Mentoring Resource Center. (2005). Involving parents in mentoring programs. Folsom, CA: U. S. Department of Education Mentoring Resource Center. Retrieved from http://educationnorthwest.org/webfm_send/249 85 Herrera, C., Grossman, J. B., Kauh, T. J., Feldman, A. F., & McMaken, J. (2007). Making a difference in schools: The Big Brothers Big Sisters school-based mentoring impact study. Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private Ventures. Retrieved from http://www.issuelab.org/resource/making_a_difference_in_schools_the_big_brothers_big_sisters_school_based_ment oring_impact_study 86 Herrera et al. 2007 87 Wheeler, M. E., Keller, T. E., & DuBois, D. L. (2010). Review of three recent randomized trials of school-based mentoring: Making sense of mixed findings. Social Policy Report, 24 (3), 1-21. Ann Arbor, MI: Society for Research in Child Development. Retrieved from http://masscampuscompact.org/resources/wpcontent/uploads/2011/11/Social-Policy-Report-Review-of-Three-Recent-Randomized-Trials-of-School-BasedMentoring.pdf 88 Komosha-Hawkins, 2010 89 Herrera et al., 2007; Komosha-Hawkins, 2010 90 Grossman, J. B., Chan, C. S., Schwartz, S. E. O., & Rhodes, J. R. (2012). The test of time in school-based mentoring: The role of relationship duration and re-matching on academic outcomes. American Journal of Community Psychology, 49 (1-2), 43-54. doi: 10.1007/s10464-011-9435-0; Herrera et al., 2007; Herrera, C., Grossman, J. B., Kauh, T. J., & McMaken, J. (2011). Mentoring in schools: An impact study of Big Brothers Big Sisters school-based mentoring. Child Development, 82 (1), 346-361. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01559.x; Wheeler, Keller, & DuBois, 2010; Wood, S., & Mayo-Wilson, E. (2012). School-based mentoring for adolescents: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Research on Social Work Practice, 22 (3), 257-269. doi: 10.1177/1049731511430836; Schwartz, S. E. O., Rhodes, J. R., & Herrera, C. (2012). The influence of meeting time on academic outcomes in school-based mentoring. Child and Youth Services Review, 34 (12), 2319-2326. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2012.08.012
59 60
20
Herrera et al., 2007 Herrera et al., 2011 93 Wood & Mayo-Wilson, 2012 94 Ibid. 95 Grossman et al., 2012; Herrera et al., 2007; Schwartz, S. E. O., Rhodes, J. E., Chan, C. S., & Herrera, C. (2011). The impact of school-based mentoring on youths with different relational profiles. Developmental Psychology, 47 (2), 450462. doi: 10.1037/a0021379; Schwartz et al., 2012 96 Herrera et al., 2007 97 Herrera et al., 2007; Herrera et al., 2011 98 Schwartz et al., 2011 99 Schwartz et al., 2012 100 Grossman et al., 2012 101 DuBois et al., 2011 102 Black, M. M., Hager, E. R., Le, K., Anliker, J., Arteaga , S. S., DiClemente, C., Wang, Y. (2010). Challenge! Health promotion/obesity prevention mentorship model among urban, black adolescents. Pediactrics, 126 (2), 280-289. doi: 10.1542/peds.2009-1832 103 de Blank, G. (2009). Effects of quality and quantity of the mentoring relationship on outcomes for at-risk early adolescent girls (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia 104 Spencer, R., & Liang, B. (2009). She gives me a break from the world: Formal youth mentoring relationships between adolescent girls and adult women. Journal of Primary Prevention, 30 (2), 109-130. doi: 10.1007/s10935-0090172-1 105 Beyers, J. M., Toumbourou, J. W., Catalano, R. F., Arthur, M. W., & Hawkins, J. D. (2004). A cross-national comparison of risk and protective factors for adolescent substance use: the United States and Australia. Journal of Adolescent Health, 35 (1), 3-16. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15193569; Hawkins, J. D., Catalano, R. F., & Miller, J. Y. (1992). Risk and protective factors for alcohol and other drug problems in adolescence and early adulthood: Implications for substance abuse prevention. Psychological Bulletin, 112 (1), 64-105. doi: 10.1037/00332909.112.1.64 106 Hawkins et al., 1992 107 Rhodes, J. E., Reddy, R., & Grossman, J. B. (2005). The protective influence of mentoring on adolescents substance use: Direct and indirect pathways. Applied Developmental Science, 9 (1), 31-47. Retrieved from http://www.rhodeslab.org/files/substanceuse.pdf 108 Thomas R. E., Lorenzetti D., & Spragins W. (2011). Mentoring adolescents to prevent drug and alcohol use. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, November 9 (11). doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007381.pub2 109 Springer, D. W. (2012). Substance abuse treatment for juvenile delinquents: Promising and not-so-promising practices in the US. Perspectivas Sociales. Retrieved from http://perspectivassociales.org.mx/ojs/index.php/pers/article/view/82 110 Rhodes et al., 2005 111 DuBois et al., 2011; Sullivan, C. J., & Jolliffe, D. (2012). Peer influence, mentoring, and the prevention of crime. In Welsh, B. C. & Farrington, D. P. (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Crime Prevention, 207-225. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.; Wilczynski, A., Culvenor, C., Cunneen, C., Schwartzkoff, J., & Reed-Gilbert, K. (2003). Early intervention youth mentoring programmes: An overview of mentoring programmes for young people at risk of offending . Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia. Retrieved from http://www.crimeprevention.gov.au/Publications/EarlyIntervention/Documents/Youth_Mentoring_Programmes.pdf 112 Sullivan & Joliffe, 2012 113 Tolan, P., Henry, D., Schoeny, M., & Bass, A. (2008). Mentoring interventions to affect juvenile delinquency and associated problems. Oslo: Campbell Collaboration. doi: 10.4073/csr.2008.16 114 Jolliffe, D., & Farington, D.P. (2008). A rapid evidence assessment of the impact of mentoring on re-offending: A summary. Cambridge University, UK: Home Ofce Online Report 11/07. Retrieved from http://www.crimereduction.gov.uk/workingoffenders/workingoffenders069.htm, as cited in Sullivan & Joliffe, 2012 115 Ibid. 116 Sullivan & Joliffe, 2012 117 Ibid. 118 Ibid.
91 92
21
St. James-Roberts, I., Greenlaw, G., Simon, A., & Hurry, J. (2005). National evaluation of youth justice board mentoring schemes 2001 to 2004. London, UK: Youth Justice Board for England and Wales. Retrieved from http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/7757/ 120 Aos, S., Lieb, R., Mayfield, J., Miller, M., & Pennucci, A. (2004). Benefits and costs of prevention and early intervention programs for youth. Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy. Retrieved from: http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/rptfiles/04-07-3901.pdf 121 National Mentoring Center. (2007). Putting youth development principles to work in mentoring programs. Folsom, CA: U. S. Department of Education Mentoring Resource Center. Retrieved from http://educationnorthwest.org/webfm_send/285 122 DuBois et al., 2011; Komosa-Hawkins, K. (2012). The impact of school-based mentoring on adolescents social emotional health. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 20 (3), 393-408. doi: 10.1080/13611267.2012.701965 123 Lerner, R. M., Brittian, A. S., & Fay, K. E. (2007). Mentoring: A key resource for promoting positive youth development. Alexandria, VA: MENTOR/National Mentoring Partnership. Retrieved from http://www.mentoring.org/downloads/mentoring_382.pdf 124 Rhodes et al., 2006 125 Ibid. 126 Ibid. 127 DuBois, 2011 128 Hansen, 2007 129 Rhodes, J. E., Grossman, J. B., & Resch, N. L. (2003). Agents of change: Pathways through which mentoring relationships influence adolescents' academic adjustment. Child Development, 71 (6), 1662-1671. doi: 10.1111/14678624.00256 130 Rhodes et al., 2003 131 Terzian, M., Moore, K. A., Williams-Taylor, L., & Nguyen, H. (2009). Online resources for identifying evidence-based out-of-school time programs: A users guide. Washington, DC: Child Trends. Retrieved from http://www.childtrends.org/Files/Child_Trends-2009_07_26_RB_OnlineEBP.pdf 132 Moore, K. A. (2008). Quasi-experimental evaluations: Part 6 in a series on practical evaluation methods (2008-04). Washington, D. C.: Child Trends. Retrieved from http://www.childtrends.org/Files/Child_Trends2008_01_16_Evaluation6.pdf 133 Moore, 2008 134 Terzian et al., 2009 135 Moore, 2008 136 Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence [CSPV]. Effective programs. Retrieved from http://www.colorado.edu/cspv/effectiveprograms.html 137 Ibid. 138 Child Trends. (2010). Lifecourse interventions that work: A matrix of evidence-based programs compiled from various registries. Washington, DC: Child Trends. Retrieved from http://www.childtrends.org/Files/Child_TrendsLifecourse_Interventions.pdf 139 Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence. (2006). Blueprints for violence prevention model programs: Big Brothers Big Sisters of America. Retrieved from http://www.colorado.edu/cspv/blueprints/modelprograms/BBBS.html 140 Ibid. 141 Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). (2011). Intervention summary: Big brothers big sisters mentoring program. SAMHSAs National Registry of Evidence -based Programs and Practices. Retrieved from http://www.nrepp.samhsa.gov/ViewIntervention.aspx?id=227 142 Ibid. 143 Child Trends, 2010 144 Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). (2008). Intervention summary: Across ages. SAMHSAs National Registry of Evidence-based Programs and Practices. Retrieved from http://www.nrepp.samhsa.gov/ViewIntervention.aspx?id=138 145 Ibid. 146 Ibid. 147 Ibid.
119
22
Child Trends, 2010 Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). (2007). Intervention summary: Early risers skills for success. SAMHSAs National Registry of Evidence-based Programs and Practices. Retrieved from http://www.nrepp.samhsa.gov/ViewIntervention.aspx?id=137 150 Ibid. 151 Ibid. 152 Ibid. 153 Child Trends, 2010
148 149
23
603 East Washington Street, Suite 800 Indianapolis, IN 46204-2692 (800) 343-7060 iyi@iyi.org www.iyi.org

IYI Mentoring Best Practices 2013 PDF

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

IYI Mentoring Best Practices 2013 PDF

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

YOUTH MENTORING

Best Practices, Quality Standards, and Evidence-Based Model Programs

2013 The Indiana Youth Institute

The Indiana Youth Institute 2013

Standards & Guidelines

The Indiana Youth Institute 2013

Evidence-Based Model Programs

The Indiana Youth Institute 2013

Types of Mentoring Programs

The Indiana Youth Institute 2013

Promising Emerging Field-Suggested Effective Exemplary Best

Few nominations or awards, publication in nonscientific journals

General Best Practices

Outcome-Specific Best Practices

STANDARDS & GUIDELINES

The Indiana Youth Institute 2013

EVIDENCE-BASED MODEL PROGRAMS

Implementing a proven, model program has benefits, including:137

Evidence-Based Program Databases, Standards, and Resources

The Indiana Youth Institute 2013

The Indiana Youth Institute 2013

The Indiana Youth Institute 2013

The Indiana Youth Institute 2013

The Indiana Youth Institute 2013

S-ar putea să vă placă și