Running Head: ASSESSMENT OF MENTORING PROGRAM

Assessment of Mentoring Program

Mary Glass
Wayne State University

ASSESSMENT OF MENTORING PROGRAM

Assessment of Mentoring Program

Our society no longer just recognizes the traditional family of mom, dad and children.
Families are now identified in many forms. Some families are led by single parents and/or
grandparents, same sex parents, and a man and woman blending their children from previous
relationships. With family dynamics changing, children are less likely to be nurtured by both
parents. Our society needs an effective way to assist adolescents learn basic same gender skills
that are being raised in a homes without that opportunity.
Statement of the Problem
Children need an opportunity to grow with guidance. There is added stress in the many
different family types. A single parent family is difficult to maintain especially if you do not
have a support system through friends and family. A blended family often has to deal with
conflict as the separate families are put together. During those stressful times, it would be
helpful for an adolescent to have someone to talk to and participate in activities with.
I have adolescent family members who are part of these emerging family types. I have
witnessed them struggle with behavioral problems and mental illnesses, which would classify
them as at-risk youth. The family members who are being nurtured by their biological parents
seem to handle problems better and are more successful than the family members who are not
being raised by both biological parents. Since the differences are so obvious to me, I wondered
if a mentoring program could help those family members who are not being raised by both
biological parents to lead more productive lives.
In addition to social problems during adolescence, children nurtured in single-parent or
blended family homes can endure difficulties as adults. When these at-risk youth reach
adulthood, they tend to have unreasonably high occurrences of divorce, unemployment, physical

ASSESSMENT OF MENTORING PROGRAM

and psychiatric problems, substance abuse, demands on the welfare system, and further criminal
activity (Patterson, DeBaryshe, & Ramsey, 1989). My relatives that were considered at-risk
youth have issues with many of the problems previously listed. If my at-risk family members
were part of a mentoring group, they may not be dealing with the current problems they have and
not be a financial and social burden on society. At-risk youth that receive no assistance before
they reach adulthood can cause an increase cost in health care, welfare, and legal costs for the
general public, however; a well-organized mentoring program is approximately $1000 a year per
child and is believed to reduce or prevent the need to social services in the future (Grossman &
Garry, 1997).
Research Design
The researchers conducted a quasi-experimental study. The designs could be describes as
non-equivalent comparison group or wait list comparison group. All of the participants were
selected from at risk youth on an existing comprehensive mentor programs current waiting list
and encouraged to participate in a research study. The groups were formed when a youth was
matched with a mentor based on gender, ethnicity, age, geographical location, and common
interest. Both the youth and the adult mentor were asked to complete these preferences prior to
placement. After a youth was placed in the intervention group, a youth with similar attributes
was placed in the non-intervention group. The participants and their mothers submitted a consent
form.
The internal validity of the experiment was met in many areas. The history of the study
may have affected the results because many of the at-risk youth were participating in more than
one assistance program. Most were not involved in another mentoring program, however; they
were still seeking help with their problems from various places. Eighty-seven percent of non-

ASSESSMENT OF MENTORING PROGRAM

intervention group members were receiving additional services while only 70% of the
intervention groups were (Keating, Tomishima, Foster, & Alessandri, 2002). The passage of time
should not affect the outcome of the study because it was conducted in 15 months to provide
enough time for the at risk youth to be placed with a mentor for 6 months while the other at risk
youth waited 6 months. The testing was given by trained college students. The tests were
measuring internalizing and externalizing behavior so the participants, their mother and teacher
had no way of studying for them. One problem could be that all of the participants knew they
were part of a mentoring program and a research study which could have influenced their
responses on the assessments. To maintain validity through instrumentation, a variety of pre-test
and post-test were given to at risk youth, the parent, and the teacher to measure the results.
Statistical regression should not affect the results because all the youth were at risk for similar
outcomes. There could have been selection biases because the study did not have random
assignments or sampling. The organization followed the program guidelines to maximize success
for the youth and to minimize bias in the nonintervention or intervention group. The criteria of
causality was met in two out of the three areas because the youth were recommend for the
mentoring program before they were mentored, the variables of having a mentor versus not
having a mentor are associated with each other, and it may have been more beneficial to have a
third groups that were added to the experiment but not part of the mentoring program at all to
determine if the program caused the results.
Sampling
The participants in the study were chosen from a group of at-risk youth that were already
part of a mentoring program. The youth were labeled at-risk and recommended to the program
by a local professional. The intervention conducted in the article I choose consisted of a group of

ASSESSMENT OF MENTORING PROGRAM

34 youth that were mentored for six months and a group of 34 youth that was not mentored for
six months (Keating,et al., 2002). The participants were 65% male and 35% female ages 10-17
years old (Keating, et al., 2002). Thirty-seven percent were identified as Latino, 32% as
Caucasian, 24% as African American, 3% as Asian, 3% as other, and 1 person as American
Indian (Keating, et al., 2002).
Measurement
The study consisted of an independent and dependent variable. Participation
(intervention) in a mentoring program versus being on a waiting list (nonintervention) for a
mentoring group was the independent variable. The dependent variables were internalizing and
externalizing behaviors reported by teachers and mothers, self-report of delinquent behaviors,
self-concept, hopelessness, and reports of available social supports.
All participants were given a pre-intervention interview at the beginning of the study and
a post-intervention interview at the end of the study. The interviews were given by trained
undergraduate or graduate students from a local university. The pre interview material was filled
out by the mother, teacher and youth within two weeks of being placed in a group. Child
Behavior Checklist (CBLC), a Demographic Questionnaire, and the Eyberg Child Behavior
Inventory were completed by the mother. The teachers completed the teacher section of the
CBCL. Hopelessness Scale for Children, the Piers Harris Self-Concept Scale, and the Self
Report Delinquency Scale were completed by the youth. The post interview materials were
similar. The youth completed the Hopelessness Scale for Children, the Piers Harris SelfConcept Scale, and the Self Report Delinquency Scale again. The youth also completed Social
Support Questionnaire-Self Report. Mother and teachers completed the CBCL again.

ASSESSMENT OF MENTORING PROGRAM

Pre interview and post interview materials were deemed reliable and valid by program
coordinator based on researched information. The CBCL is used to measure internalizing and
externalizing behaviors. The subscale score were used to compare a youths behavior at pre
intervention and post intervention. The CBCLs test-retest reliability for total behavior problems
was .93 (Keating,et al., 2002). The Piers-Harris Childrens Self Concept Scale is a self-report
questionaire created to evaluate how youth, ages 8-18 years old feel about themselves. The testretest reliability is .73 over 6-week and 3 month period (Keating,et al., 2002). The Hopelessness
Scale for Children consist of true or false statements to measure if the a youth projects his/her
future negatively or positively. Over 6 weeks, the test-retest correlation was .52 (Keating,et al.,
2002). The Self Report Delinquency Scale for the National Youth Survey asks the youth to
disclose general delinquent behavior that they had participated in. According to the National
Youth Survey data the scale was reliable and valid. Social Support Questionaire- Self Report
requests the youth list people who the child would go to for support in a various situations and
the level of satisfaction of the care from that particular person. Results were calculated using the
average number of supportive people for each item and the average level of satisfaction with
their support. The Demographic Questionnaire was produced for the study to gather information
about family structure, parental education and occupation, and any other services youth or family
members are utilizing. The Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory was given to the mothers for post
ad hoc analyses. Reliability and validity information for the inventory were not provided in the
article.
Altermative measurement strategies were not likely to impact the findings. The study
utilized several different measures. The measures were given by trained college students.

ASSESSMENT OF MENTORING PROGRAM

Teachers of the youth were requested to complete a measure to provide a different viewpoint
than the parent.
Data Collection
The data collection was almost flawless. The interviews for the youth and their mother
were conducted by trained local college students. All of the pretest forms were completed within
two weeks of being placed in a group and posttest were completed after the at risk youth had six
month of mentoring or was on the waiting list for six months. The youths teacher was contacted
to fill out the Child Behavior Checklist. Five teachers did not complete the preintervention
checklist and eight teachers did not complete the postintervention checklist.
Mentors were required to record the number of hours spend with the youth and what
activities that were done. Programs administrators verified the information with the youth at a
monthly meeting and also assured that none of the pairs disconnected. After it was concluded
that all the pair stay together and the time spent was verified, the data was used.
Data collection may have been perfect if an incentive was provided for the teacher. It
may have encouraged all of them to return the form. The youth was given a $5 McDonalds gift
certificate and the parent was given two free movie passes for their participation.
Ethics and Cultural Considerations
This experiment could be effective with the at risk youth in my area. Since the youth
were matched up with someone of the same gender , ethnicity, geographical location, and
common interest the adult was likely to be sensitive to cultural considerations. A similar match
up could be done in my regional area.
The mentors were adults who were screened to determined commitment to the program.
They are required to attend seminars and are provided with training about appropriate behavior

ASSESSMENT OF MENTORING PROGRAM

when being around at risk youth. Mentor attended sessions to learn about child development, the
warning sign of child abuse, common problems for at risk youth, and effective ways to interact
with the youth they are paired with.
All of the participants joined in monthly group meetings that focused on teaching the
youth about child abuse prevention, drug and alcohol abuse, nutrition, and cross cultural
awareness among many other topics. To determine if there were any gender differences in the
measurement results ANOVAs were performed. No substantial differences were found.
Differences were found when ANOVAs were applied to ethnicity in the experiment. They
discovered that African Americans did not have as much improvement as a non African
American when they both received mentoring. The non African Americans mother pre test
result placed their youth in the clinical range and the African Americans mother pretest results
placed their youth in an even more severe clinical range. After mentoring, non African
American mothers reported an improvement in their youths behavior, whereas the African
American mother results showed a small decrease in behavior.
Results and Implications
The results from the study confirmed that a mentoring program may increase the opportunity for
an at risk youth to lead a productive life. While reviewing the data, noteworthy differences were
not found among the groups on the variables of age, gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic status,
participation in other groups, and geographical location. The only variance found while
analyzing the dependent variables at pre intervention was the self-reporting delinquency. The
intervention group participants reported considerably less delinquent act than the nonintervention group participants. The analysis also revealed that the mothers and teachers

ASSESSMENT OF MENTORING PROGRAM

responses placed the youth in the clinical range and the youth stated they were less troubled than
the normal range in self-esteem, hopelessness, and delinquent behavior.
The post intervention results concurred that the youth that received six months of mentoring
improved in 4 out of the 7 measures. The teachers and mothers concluded that internalizing and
externalizing behaviors had decreased at home and in school whereas the non-intervention
participants teacher and mothers did not report an improvement. The degree of differences in
the variables on hopelessness, self-reported delinquency, and self-esteem were not significant
when comparing the pre intervention assessment with the post intervention assessment.
The participants in this study were at-risk youth for a delinquent or mental ill life. This
extensive mentor program provides them with a kind adult that seems to make an improvement
in their lives. A less intensive program may little or no difference in the life of an at risk youth.
This study does display that a mentor can help a youth that has not gotten into significant trouble
yet, but it did not show that a mentoring program would work on youth that have already
committed crimes. As stated before a large amount of the youth were involved in other
programs, however; the intervention group still showed a significant improvement compare to
the non-intervention group.
This study did conclude that an extensive mentoring program could improve the life of an
at risk youth. If my family members and other youth similar to them were able to participate in a
mentor program before they began their life on battling mental illness and crime, their outcome
may not have been the same. Overall, I think every youth, including those being nurtured by both
biological parents could benefit from a mentor program.

ASSESSMENT OF MENTORING PROGRAM

10

ReferencesGrossman, J., & Garry, E. M. (1997). Mentoring: A Proven Delinquency Prevention Strategy.
Washington DC: US Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention.
Keating, L. M., Tomishima, M. A., Foster, S., & Alessandri, M. (2002). The Effects of a
Mentoring Program on At-Risk Youth. Adolescence, Vol.37 No. 148, 717-734.
Patterson, G., DeBaryshe, B. D., & Ramsey, E. (1989). The Developmental Perspective on
Antisocial Behavior. American Psychologist, 329-335.