Youth mentoring and the well-being of young people:

Evidence from an Irish mixed-methods evaluation

Dr Bernadine BradyChild & Family Research CentreNUI, GalwayIrelandBernadine.brady@nuigalway.ie

ISCI ConferenceUniversity of York July 2011

Overview

1. Study context and methodology2. RCT findings3. Qualitative data findings4. Implementation findings5. Integrated summary of findings6. Conclusion

1. Study Context and Methodology

•BBBS - Long-established, highly structured youth mentoring programme

•1-1 matches, meet weekly for min 1 year•Aims to foster positive youth development•Established in Ireland in 2002 by Foróige•Funding from philanthropy for RCT study

Theoretical basis of mentoring

•Social support •Resilience•Social capital•Theories of mentoring process – e.g.

Rhodes (2005)

Research Questions

•Do young people with a mentor have better outcomes in the areas of emotional well-being, perceived support, education and risk behaviour than young people without a mentor?

•How does mentoring work? How does it achieve its outcomes?

•Is BBBS a good programme, is it implemented as planned?

Methodology• Theory- driven mixed methods embedded

design1. Randomised controlled trial: • 164 young people, 84 intervention, 80 control• 10-14 years• Surveys completed at 4 time points (Nov. 2007-Nov.

2009)• 82% response rate for young people at Wave 42. Qualitative strand: 9 case studies of mentoring

relationships – interviewed young person, parent, mentor, caseworker at 2 time points

3. Implementation study: Interviews, programme data

Mentor Relationship

Mutuality Trust Empathy

Cognitive Development

Interpersonal History, Social Competencies, Relationship Duration, Developmental Stage, Family and Community Context

Moderators

Mediator

Parental/Peer Relationships

Social –Emotional Development

Identity Development

Positive Outcomes

Reduced Risk

Better Psychological Outcomes

How does it work: Rhodes Model 2005

Profile of study youth

•Mostly Irish born, live in west of Ireland•Average age of 12•Almost 50:50 male and female•Half do not live with both parents•No significant differences between control

and intervention at baseline•72 of 84 intervention group matched

2. RCT Findings

•14 youth scales / measures•3 types of analysis:

comparing mean scorescohen’s d (effect sizes)regression analysis

•Compared intervention and control groups

•Compared matched and non-matched

Strongest Evidence of Impact

•Children’s Hope Scale – sense of hope for the future

•Support from ‘other adults’

•Total social support – parents, friends, siblings, other adults combined

Children’s Hope Scale

Other Adult Support

Total Social Support

Some Evidence of Impact

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

No Evidence of Impact

•Scholastic efficacy – sense that they can do well at school

•Misconduct scale •Parent support

Effect Sizes

3. Implementation Data Findings

•Very strong implementation of the programme

• Just 57% matched for 12 months or more during the study

•75% of matches still going at end of study•35% of matches were ‘ideal type’ - matched

for 12 months and met for min. of 4 hours per month

• ‘Dosage’ of mentoring declined as the study went on - highest just before wave 3

Matches meeting programme criteria

Total mentoring hours in the study

Do matches meet less as the match progresses?

Further analyses show …

Young people who meet the programmecriteria have significantly higher scores on 4measures

Young people who rate their matches highlyhave significantly higher scores on 2 measures

The intervention appears to work well for young

people not living with both parents

4. Qualitative data findings• Young people very positive about programme• Various types of support provided • Most evidence of impact on emotional well-being

& behaviour• 2 relationships appeared ‘transformative’• Endings could be hurtful for yp • Moderated by closeness & duration of the

relationship, programme practices, approach of the mentor, community context, match ending

• Highlighted range of needs among young people – outcomes will vary according to their needs

5. Integrating the findings:Emotional well-being•Evidence that young people with a mentor

more hopeful over 2 year period•Qualitative data showed great enjoyment

of the match, having fun•Calmer, more confident, more in control

of behaviour•Suggests that mentoring can improve

emotional well-being among young people

Perceived social support

•Mentored young people perceive a higher availability of support from others

•Qualitative data showed how this occurred – mentors provided practical, emotional, esteem, advice support

•Had knock-on effects for parental and peer relationships

•Support more seamlessly transmitted in closer relationships

Education•Quantitative findings less strong in relation to

education, some change in school liking•Qual data showed some yp doing fine at school

so unlikely to have a large impact on them, more impact evident where needs were greater

•Appears that impact in relation to education was mediated by improvements in well-being

• Impact most likely to occur in close or ‘transformative’ relationships relationships

Other findings

•Qual data showed better relationships with peers and parents but his was not significant in quan data

•No evidence of impact on misconduct in qual or quan data – probably because levels were low at baseline

6. Conclusions

•Mentoring is an effective intervention, particularly in the areas of emotional well-being and social support

•Underlines the need for good quality matches, that last for a min of 12 months, meet frequently and are supported by good programme practices

•Youth centred intervention – primary emphasis should be well-being and support rather than ‘harder’ indicators