The document summarizes the key findings from a new meta-analysis on youth mentoring programs and a webinar discussing its implications. The meta-analysis found that mentoring has modest positive effects on youth outcomes, especially when targeting at-risk youth and matching mentors and youth based on shared interests. The webinar highlighted that mentoring works best when mentors adopt teaching and advocacy roles and receive support to work with high-risk youth.

1. Cropping the Big Picture
Determining What the New Meta-Analysis
Means for Your Mentoring Program
Collaboration of Education Northwest/National
Mentoring Center, Friends for Youth, Mentoring
Partnership of Minnesota, and Oregon Mentors
January 2012

2. Research Practice Innovation
Michael Garringer
Resource Advisor & Forums
2012 Collaborative Mentoring Administrator
Webinar Series Education Northwest
Date: Third Thursday of every month. Celeste Janssen
Program Director
Time: 10-11:15am Pacific/11am- Oregon Mentors
12:15pm Mountain/12-1:15 pm
Central/1-2:15pm Eastern
Sarah Kremer
Program Director
Cost: Free Friends for Youth’s Mentoring
Institute
April Riordan
Director of Training & Partnerships
Mentoring Partnership of
Minnesota
1

3. Participate in Today’s Webinar
• All attendees muted for best
sound
• Type questions and
comments in the question
box
• “Raise your hand” to ask
question live during webinar
2

4. Good to Know…
All attendees will receive an email after the webinar
that will include:
 Link to presentation slides
 Link to an online recording of webinar
 Resources
 Contact information
Please help us by taking the time to complete a
short 5-question survey as you exit the webinar.
3

5. Panelists
David DuBois, PhD Tom Keller, PhD
4

6. What We Learned in 2002
 Average youth in a
program experience
only a “modest or small
benefit”
 Effects are “enhanced
significantly” when
American Journal of Community more best-practices
Psychology, Vol. 30, No. 2, April 2002 are utilized
5

7. What Do We Know Now?
Psychological Science in the Public
Interest,12, 57-91
6

8. When and How Are
Mentoring Relationships
for Youth Beneficial?
7

9. What Factors Influence Mentoring
Program Effectiveness?
8

10. Good News Bad News New News
Mentoring works in many No evidence of Targeting “at risk”
areas improved effectiveness youth (exception:
over prior generation of populations high on
programs both individual and
Programs often have environmental risk)
positive impacts in two or
more outcome domains Too few studies to Matching youth and
evaluate impacts on mentors based on
Effect of mentoring is right several key outcomes similarity of interests
in line with other youth (e.g., school drop-
interventions out, juvenile offending)
Utilizing mentors with
educational/occupatio
Mentoring works at both Same largely true for nal backgrounds that
preventing declines in youth longer-term, “follow-up”
effects
are a good fit with
program goals
outcomes and promoting
improvements
Supporting mentors in
adopting teaching and
Mentoring is a broad and advocacy roles
flexible strategy
9

11. Next Webinar
February 16 - Tips for Mentoring High-Risk
Youth
Featuring Dr. Roger Jarjoura, Assistant
Professor in the School of Public and
Environmental Affairs - IUPUI. Dr. Jarjoura
is the founder of AIM, a mentoring program
for incarcerated youth making the
transition from corrections to community.
10

12. Before we go…
All attendees will receive an
email after the webinar that will
include:
 Link to presentation slides
 Link to an online recording of
webinar
 Resources
 Contact information
Please help us by taking the time
to complete a short 5-question
survey as you exit the webinar.
11

13. Thank you!
Collaboration of Education Northwest/National
Mentoring Center, Friends for Youth, Mentoring
Partnership of Minnesota, and Oregon Mentors
Michael Garringer, michael.garringer@educationnorthwest.org
Celeste Janssen, celeste@oregonmentors.org
Sarah Kremer, sarah@friendsforyouth.org
April Riordan, april@mpmn.org

14. Comparison of Mean Post-Treatment Effect Sizes for Mentoring Programs in the Current
Meta-Analysis to Effect Sizes Reported in Other Meta-Analyses of School- and
Community-Based Interventions for Children and Adolescents
Type of outcome Current Other meta-analyses
Attitudinal/Motivational 0.19 0.23r, 0.25b
Social/Relational 0.17 0.15a, 0.17i, 0.24r, 0.29b, 0.39g
Psychological/Emotional 0.15 0.10a, 0.17p, 0.19d, 0.24r, 0.37b
Conduct problems 0.21 0.02j, 0.07k, 0.14h, 0.15s, 0.21a, 0.21e, 0.22r, 0.30b, 0.30c, 0.41l
Academic/School 0.21 0.11a, 0.23n, 0.27r
School attendance 0.19 0.14b
Grades 0.24 0.22b
Achievement test scores 0.18 0.11a, 0.20b, 0.24f, 0.30c
Physical health 0.06 0.08m, 0.17t, 0.29q, 0.41o

15. Evidence-based Practice
14

16. Effect Size Guidelines
15