1. The new science of mentoring
Leveraging evidence to improve outcomes
Jean Rhodes
Frank L. Boyden Professor
University of Massachusetts
Mentoring Congress
20 March, 2014

2. +
 How effective is youth mentoring?
 When are programs most beneficial?
 How does mentoring promote positive youth development?
 What are the implications for policy, practice, and research?

3. First some history…..
a little history….

4. +

5. Why Mentoring

7. +
Research to practice

8. + What gets measured gets done…

9. +

10. +
Research to Practice

11. +

12. +
 How effective is youth mentoring?
 When are programs most beneficial?
 How does mentoring promote positive youth development?
 What are the implications for policy, practice, and research?

13. +
Evaluation

14. +
Meta-analysis
Mentored
vs. control
0.20 = “small” effect,
0.50 “= medium” effect,
0.80 = “large” effect.

15. +
Recent Meta-Analysis of Youth
Mentoring
 Encompassed 73 independent evaluations (1999-2010).
 The overall effect size was .21*, collapsing across studies and
outcomes
 The average follow-up effect size across the studies was .17.
DuBois, Portillo, Rhodes, Silverthorn, & Valentine (in press). Psychological
Science in the Public Interest.

16. +Comparison of mean post-tx effects
with school and community
interventions with children/teens
Moderator Mentor Meta-analysis Other Meta-analyses
Attitudinal/Motivational 0.19 0.23- 0.25
Social/Relational 0.17 0.15-0.26
Psychological/Emotional 0.15 0.10-.0.24
Conduct Problem 0.21 .02-0.41
Academic/School
Attitudes
Grades
Achievment tests
0.21
0.19
0.24
0.18
0.11-0.27
0.14
0.22
0.11-0.24
Physical Health 0.06 0.08-0.41

17. 0
5
10
15
20
25
30
#ofSamples
Effect on Youth
Negative Effect
Small Effect
Small to Medium Effect
Medium to Large Effect
Large Effect

18. +
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Number of Practices
SizeofEffectonYouthOutcomes
Empirically-
Based
Practices
Theory-Based
Practices
Small
Effect
Medium
Effect
Effect sizes

19. + Study level variables (moderators)
associated with different effects
Youth, Mentor, Program
Characteristics
Effect Size
Problem Behavior Involvement Yes: .29
No: .20
Youth Gender >50% Male: .25
<50% Male: .18
Individual/Environmental Risk Low/High: .33
High/Low: .31
Mentors trained Below avg: .19
Above avg: .24
Mentor role function: Advocacy Yes: .26
No: .20
Matching based on shared interests Yes: .44!!!
No: .21

20. +
 How effective is youth mentoring?
 When are programs most beneficial?
 How does mentoring promote positive youth development?
 What are the implications for policy, practice, and research?

21. + Stronger effects when…
 Youth with
 With moderate personal/environmental risk
 Who are male
 satisfactory, but not strong baseline relationships.

22. +
Effects of Mentoring on Youth with
Different Relational Profiles
BASELINE
Relationships
Poor Relationships Satisfactory but
not Strong
Strong
Relationships
Overall
Academics
.00 .21*** .05
Prosocial .04 .19* .04
Effort .05 .18* .00
Self-Esteem -.04 .07 -.01
(Schwartz, Rhodes, & Chan (2010). Developmental Psychology

23. + Stronger effects when…
 Mentors who
 Fit of background/ training with program goals
 Play an active, advocacy role
 Are sensitive to socioeconomic & cultural influences
 Have higher self-efficacy
 Hold positive attitudes toward youth

24. +
Measuring mentors’
attitudes
 The scale asked mentors to rate how
many “kids in your community” could
be characterized by indicators of
youth development:
 work hard at school
 respect adults
 are trouble-makers
 are fun to be around
 expect things to be handed to them
 try to do their best
 are interested in learning
Grossman et al., 2007

25. +
Mentor attitudes and
youth outcomes
 Mentees who were paired with high
school mentors with positive
attitudes about youth were more
emotionally engaged with mentor than
those paired with more negative mentors
 Those who were paired with mentors
with negative attitudes about
youth were less emotionally engaged
with and showed some negative
outcomes.
Karcher, Rhodes, Herrera, &
Davidson (2010). Applied
Developmental Science

27. + Stronger effects when…
 Relationships characterized by
 consistency
 closeness
 structure
 appropriate meeting times
 duration

28. + Does meeting time matter?…

29. Mentoring by Meeting Time
Afterschool/Lunch After School During
School
Interaction
Effect
Academic Achievement .19* -.09 -.33*
Math .18 -.42** -.60**
Science .14 -.19 -.36*
Social Studies .11 -.16 -.29
Reading .27* -.02 -.32
Language .21* -.05 -.33*
Unexcused Absences -.35 -.08 .21
Grades -.20 -.15 -.51
Scholastic Efficacy .12 .13 .03
*Note ES= Effect Size
Schwartz, S., Rhodes, J. & Herrera, C. (2012). Children and Youth Services

31. 19%
36%
45% < 6 mos.
6-11 mos.
The role of duration
Grossman & Rhodes (2002). American Journal of Community Psychology

32. -5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
Attendance Abstinence
< 6 months 6-12 months

33. +
Re-matching?

34. + Test of Time 2: Results
 Only youth in matches lasting 24 wks
or more benefited academically
 All mentored youth were less likely to
skip school, regardless of match
length
 After controlling for selection bias:
 Positive academic impacts
observed only for youth with intact
matches
 No academic impact for youth
with early terminations
 Negative academic impacts for
rematched youth
 Grossman, Chan, Schwartz, & Rhodes
(2013). American Journal of Community
Psychology.

35. +
What about gender?
 Across two data sets, only a few differences-
 In Ed Study—boys in same gender matches showed lower rates of
truancy
 In BBBSA study-youth in cross-gender matches met more
frequently and for a longer duration
 Kanchewa, S. & Rhodes, J. (2014). Applied Developmental Science

36. + Stronger effects when…
 Programs characterized by
 careful recruitment
 training
 monitoring
 multi-modal
 matching on interest

37. +
 How effective is youth mentoring?
 When are programs most beneficial?
 How does mentoring promote positive youth
development?
 What are the implications for policy, practice, and research?

38. +
Youth
Positive outcomes

39. To developmental processes…
Mentor, parent, teac
her, peer
relationships
Youth
Positive outcomes

40. Mentor
Relationship
Interpersonal history, social competencies, relationship
duration, developmental stage, family and community context
moderatorsmoderators
Positive
Outcomes
e.g., reduced
health risk,
better psych.
outcomes
Cognitive
development
Identity
development
Social-emotional
development
Parental/peer
relationships
mediator
Mutuality
Trust
Empathy
Pathways of mentor
influence

41. Pathways of mentor influence
Child Development, (2002), 1662-1671
Quality of
Parental
relationship
Skipping School
Grades
Self-worth
School value
Scholastic
Competence
.26 .08
-.28
.25
.26
.25
.18.19
.09
.29
.11
.22
Mentoring

42. Pathways of mentor influence
Rhodes, Reddy, & Grossman (2005) Applied Development Science
Quality of
Parental
relationship
Substance Use
Self-worth
-.46
.18
.10 .14
.23
Mentoring
Quality of
Peer
relationships
-.04
-.08

43. Pathways of mentor influence
Chan,Rhodes, Schwartz, & Lowe (2013). Journal of School Psychology
Quality of
Teacher
relationship
School
Behavior
Grades
Self-worth
Academic
Attitudes
.78
-.28
.53
.32
.25
.18
.27
.09
.27Quality
of Mentoring
Quality of
Parent
Relationship
.13

44. +
 How effective is youth mentoring?
 When are programs most beneficial?
 How does mentoring promote positive youth development?
 What are the implications for policy, practice, and
research?

45. +
Retention of Effects
“

46. +
A New Model of Mentoring
Natural
Mentoring
Formal
Mentoring
Youth Initiated
Mentoring

47. When we
choose a goal
and invest
ourselves in it to
the limits of
concentration, w
hatever we do
will be
enjoyable. And
once we have
tasted this
joy, we will
redouble our
efforts to taste it
again.
This is the way
the self grows.”
― Mihaly
Csikszentmihalyi
, Flow: The
Psychology of
Optimal
Experience

48. +
Nature of sparks
 Latent class analyses
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
Low Spark Moderate Spark High Spark
Joy & Energy
Lose track of time
Purpose & focus
Skills for career
Get along
Improve surroundings
Encourage learning
Ben-Eliyahu, A., Rhodes, J. E., &
Scales, P. (in press). Applied
Developmental Science.

49. +
Relationships Supporting Spark
1
2
3
4
Encourages Funding Transportation
Teacher/Coach
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
Encourages Funding Transportation
Mentor

50. +
National Guard Youth ChalleNGe
Program
 Intensive intervention program targeting youth ages 16-18
who dropped out of or were expelled from high school

51. +Methods
Residential
Phase
(5 months)
Post-
Residential
Phase
(1 year)
Study Follow-Up
(Post-Intervention)
Baseline
Survey
9-Month
Survey
21-Month
Survey
38-Month
Survey Interview

52. +
Mentoring Relationships and
Outcomes
Youth Outcomes at 38 Months by Match Length
Premature
Termination
(N = 153)
Through Full
Program (1.5 yrs)
(N = 138)
Beyond Program
(3 yrs)
(N = 359)
GED/HS Diploma - ✔ ✔
College Credit - ✔ ✔
Months Employed - - ✔
Months Idle - ✔ ✔
Earnings - - ✔
Convicted - - ✔
Marijuana Use - - -
Binge Drinking - - -
M

54. +
Recommendations
 Promote
 evidence-based practice
 include rigorous evaluation
 measured replication and dissemination
 Reward sustainability and quality over growth
 Consider alternative strategies
 Youth-initiated
 Intentional mentoring

55. +
Action steps
Develop and improve training and support around
relationships
Improve mentor retention
Export to other youth-serving settings

56. +
Recommendations
 Promote
 evidence-based practice
 include rigorous evaluation
 measured replication and dissemination
 Reward sustainability and quality over growth

57. +
Action steps
Develop and improve training and support around
relationships
Improve mentor retention
Export to other youth-serving settings

60. http://www.umbmentoring.org

61. http://chronicle.umbmentoring.org

62. http://shortcourse.umbmentoring.org

63. http://mentoringcentral.net

64. Research
Product
Development.
Distribution
• MENTOR/NMP
Implementation
• Youth Serving
Organizations

65. +
Align Research and
Practice

66. +
Credits
MENTOR
Big Brothers Big Sisters of America
WT Grant Foundation
Edna McConnell Clark Foundatin
NICHD, iRT

67. +
Thank you
 MentorProgramma Friesland
 Evan Cutler, Center for Evidence-Based Mentoring