The author(s) shown below used Federal funding provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice to prepare the following resource: 

Document Title: GROUP MENTORING FOR RESILIENCE: 

INCREASING POSITIVE DEVELOPMENT AND 

REDUCING INVOLVEMENT IN THE JUVENILE 

JUSTICE SYSTEM 

Author(s): Gabriel P. Kuperminc; Wing Yi Chan; 

Katherine E. Hale 

Document Number: 252131 

Date Received: 

Award Number: 

September 2018 

2013-JU-FX-0006

This resource has not been published by the U.S. Department of 

Justice. This resource is being made publically available through the 

Office of Justice Programs’ National Criminal Justice Reference 

Service. 

Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and 

do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. 

Department of Justice. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

GROUP MENTORING FOR RESILIENCE: INCREASING POSITIVE DEVELOPMENT 

AND REDUCING INVOLVEMENT IN THE JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM 

Final Technical Report 

The U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

OJJDP FY 13 Mentoring Best Practices Research: Category 2: New Mentoring Research and 

Evaluations 

Gabriel P. Kuperminc, Ph.D., Principal Investigator 

Georgia State University 

Wing Yi Chan, Ph.D., Co-Principal Investigator 

Rand Corporation 

Katherine Erickson Hale, Research Coordinator 

Georgia State University 

July 2018 

This project was supported by Grant # 2013-JU-FX-0006 awarded by the Office of Juvenile 

Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. 

The opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication are 

those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of the Department of Justice. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2

Acknowledgements 

We acknowledge and express our appreciation for the diligent efforts and substantive 

contributions of the research team and other colleagues who contributed to this study: 

Georgia State University 

Claudia Delbasso 

Loren Faust 

Hannah Joseph 

Nadim Khatib 

Scot Seitz 

Christyl Wilson 

San Francisco Unified School District 

Vida Sanford 

Erin Farrell 

Wesley West 

Kim Coates 

Kim Levine 

Jan Link 

James DeLara 

ETR Associates 

Elizabeth McDade Montez 

Meghan Sarkisian 

We also wish to acknowledge the support and guidance offered by the program officials at 

OJJDP, including Jennifer Tyson, Kristen Kracke, Barbara Tatem Kelly, and Keith Towery. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

	 	

	 	

	 	

	 	

	 	

	 	

	 	

	 	 	 	

	 	

	 	

	 	 	 	

	 	

	 	

	 	

	 	

	 	

	 	

	 	

	 	

	 	

	 	

	 	

	 	

	 	

	 	 	 	

	 	

	 	

	 	

3

1 Table of Contents 

1. ABSTRACT..............................................................................................................................................................6

2 BACKGROUND	AND	REVIEW	OF	LITERATURE...................................................................................7

2.1 Research on	Efficacy	of	Group	Mentoring ....................................................................................8

2.2 The	Development	of a	School-Based Group	Mentoring	Program..................................10

3 RESEARCH	QUESTIONS	AND	OBJECTIVES .........................................................................................11

4 OPERATIONS	MANUAL.................................................................................................................................12

5 PROGRAM	EVALUATION	STUDY	METHODS	AND	ANALYTICAL	TECHNIQUES................15

5.1 Study	Design Overview.......................................................................................................................15

5.2 Program	Implementation..................................................................................................................16

5.3 Measures	and	Data	Collection.........................................................................................................17

5.4 Sample.........................................................................................................................................................19

5.5 Propensity	Scores	and	Sample	Characteristics.......................................................................20

6 FINDINGS.............................................................................................................................................................24

6.1 Does	participation increase	resilience	and	reduce	risk	factors	for	juvenile	justice

system	involvement - reduced	truancy,	disciplinary	problems	and	improved	academic

performance?..........................................................................................................................................................24

6.2 What	is	the	role	of	group	social	processes	(cohesion,	mutual help,	connection	with

mentor)	in	contributing	to outcomes	for	Project	Arrive	participants?......................................28

6.3 What	program,	mentor,	and	mentee	characteristics	contribute	to	positive	group

processes? ................................................................................................................................................................31

6.4 What	critical	program	practices	(e.g.,	structured	activities,	student

choice/influence	on	group	activities)	increase	the	likelihood of	positive	outcomes	for	the

group	and	its members?	How	do	structural,	mentor,	and	mentee	characteristics	influence

implementation	and	fidelity?..........................................................................................................................33

7 CONCLUSION,	DISCUSSION, &	IMPLICATIONS .................................................................................36

8 REFERENCES .....................................................................................................................................................40

9 APPENDICES	(RESEARCH	PROTOCOLS,	SURVEYS)........................................................................44

Appendix A...............................................................................................................................................................45

Variable	list	for	Student	Surveys...................................................................................................................45

Appendix B...............................................................................................................................................................50

Program	Participant	Survey:	Beginning	of Year....................................................................................50

Appendix C...............................................................................................................................................................58

Appendix D..............................................................................................................................................................59

Program	Participant	Survey:	End	of	Year.................................................................................................59

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
	 	

	 	 	 	

	 	

	 	

	 	

	 	

	 	

	 	

	 	

	 	

	 	

	 	

	 	

	 	

	 	

	 	

	 	

	 	

4

Appendix E...............................................................................................................................................................67

Comparison Group	Survey:	Beginning	of Year.......................................................................................67

Appendix F...............................................................................................................................................................75

Comparison Group	Survey:	End	of	Year ....................................................................................................75

Appendix G...............................................................................................................................................................82

Group	Mentor	End of	Year	Survey................................................................................................................82

Appendix H..............................................................................................................................................................86

Mentee	Focus	Group	Protocol........................................................................................................................86

Appendix I................................................................................................................................................................88

Mentor	Focus Group	Protocol ........................................................................................................................88

Appendix	J. ...............................................................................................................................................................90

Internal	Resilience	Assets	Infographic.......................................................................................................90

Appendix K...............................................................................................................................................................91

External	Resilience	Assets	Infographic......................................................................................................91

Appendix L...............................................................................................................................................................92

Group	Processes	Infographic..........................................................................................................................92

Appendix M..............................................................................................................................................................93

Academic	Outcomes	Infographic ..................................................................................................................93

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
	 	 	 	

	 	

	 	 	 	

	 	

	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	

	 	

	 	

	 	

	 	

	 	

5

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 2.2.1 Screen	shot	from	Welcome	page	of	web-based	operations	manual...........12

Figure 2.2.2 Screen	shot	from	Research	page.......................................................................................13

Figure 2.2.3 Screen	shot	from	Group Stages page..............................................................................13

Figure 2.2.4 Screen	shot	from	Activities	page ......................................................................................14

Figure 5.5.1 Standardized	Mean	Differences for	Weighted and	Unweighted	Data.......22

Figure 5.5.2 Standardized	Mean	Differences for	Weighted and	Unweighted	Data.......24

Figure 6.1.1.................................................................................................................................................................28

LIST OF TABLES 

Table	2.2.a	Objectives ..........................................................................................................................................11

Table	6.2.a		Means, Standard	Deviations,	Retest	Correlations,	and Intraclass

correlations	for	mentee	ratings	of	relationship	with	mentors	and	of	group	process.29

Table	6.2.d	Youth	reports	of Relationship	Quality	with	Mentors	and	Overall	Group

Table	5.5.a		Baseline	characteristics	of	Project	Arrive	and	Comparison	students	in

unweighted and	weighted	samples.............................................................................................................21

Table	5.5.b		Baseline	characteristics of	program	and	comparison	students	in

unweighted and	weighted	samples.............................................................................................................23

Table	6.1.a		Adjusted	means	at	post-test	and program effects	for	external	resources

and	internal	assets.................................................................................................................................................25

Table	6.1.b		Adjusted	means	and	program effects	for	instructional	time,	grade	point

average,	and progress	toward	graduation	at	the	end	of	9th	grade	and 10th	grade.....26

Table	6.1.c		Incidence	and	relative	risk	of	juvenile	offenses on	record	with	the

Juvenile Probation	Department	for	Project	Arrive	and Comparison	Students...............27

Table	6.2.b		Youth	reports of	Relationship Quality	with	Mentors	and	Overall	Group

Climate	predicting	change	in	external	resilience	assets. ..............................................................29

Table	6.2.c		Youth	reports of	Relationship	Quality	with	Mentors	and	Overall	Group

Climate	predicting	change	in	internal	resilience	assets................................................................30

Climate	predicting	change	in	academic	outcomes	at	the	end of	9th	and	10th	grades.

............................................................................................................................................................................................30

Table	6.3.a		Descriptive	statistics	for	group and	mentor	characteristics...........................32

Table	6.3.b		Multilevel	regression	of	relationship	quality	with	mentors	and overall

group	climate on	group	size,	gender	composition, ethnic	diversity, and	mentor

experience	(N	= 114;	K =	32)...........................................................................................................................32

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6

1. ABSTRACT 

This “Mentoring Best Practices” project investigated the effectiveness of group mentoring as an 

intervention strategy for improving developmental outcomes among youth at risk for juvenile 

justice system involvement and produced an operations manual that can facilitate effective 

replication of the Project Arrive model. The evaluation data revealed positive effects of 

participation for several resilience assets and reducing academic risk factors. Findings also 

pointed to the role of positive relationships with mentors and group climate in contributing to 

these outcomes. Researchers found that smaller group sizes were related to development of 

relationships with mentors and group climate, but other group characteristics such as gender and 

ethnic diversity of mentees was less important. Mentors and mentees reported several critical 

program practices including rituals and routines, relationally focused sessions, co-mentors, and a 

flexible curriculum. The findings indicate that Project Arrive is an auspicious approach to 

building resilience and reducing risk for young people vulnerable to school dropout and juvenile 

justice involvement. Building on these findings, future research should continue studying the 

potential of group mentoring programs, both in school and community settings. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7

2 BACKGROUND AND REVIEW OF LITERATURE 

Although the rate of juvenile arrests has declined in recent years, juvenile delinquency continues 

to be a serious concern nationwide. In 2010, juveniles accounted for 14% of all of the country’s 

violent crime arrests and 22% of all property crime arrests (Sickmund & Puzzanchera, 2014). 

There are several individual and social factors related to youth involvement in the juvenile 

justice system. This project focused on two late onset (ages 12-14) factors in the school domain: 

academic failure and truancy (Shader, 2004). According to OJJDP, truancy is one of the early 

warning signs that youths are potentially “headed for delinquent activity, social isolation, or 

educational failure” (OJJDP Programs Guide). Attendance patterns are a clear early indicator of 

dropping out of high school (Bridgeland et al. 2006), and high school dropouts are three and a 

half times more likely to be arrested than high school graduates (Bridgeland et al. 2001). 

Academic failure and truancy are two risk factors used in San Francisco Unified School 

District’s (SFUSD) Early Warning Indicators System (EWI). Developed in conjunction with the 

John W. Gardner Center for Youth and Their Communities at Stanford University, the EWI 

identifies students who are at high risk of dropping out of school. The indicators are applied to 

students transitioning from the 8th to 9th grade, when youth experience major changes in school 

structure and in adult and peer relationships, which are often associated with declines in selfconfidence and academic engagement (Herrera et al, 2011). 

There is clear evidence that the EWI effectively identifies youth who are at-risk for school 

dropout and associated problems including juvenile offending. In an analysis of two cohorts of 

first-time high school freshmen, SFUSD found that of students who had both risk factors (GPA 

below 2.0, attendance rate below 87.5%), only 14.8% graduated high school, compared to 84.4% 

for those students with zero risk factors and 42.6% for those with only one risk factor. Of note is 

that of all the SFUSD 9th graders with risk factors, 52.5% were African American and 39% were 

Latino (John C. Gardner Center for Youth and their Communities, 2011), even though these two 

groups represent only 11% and 23% of SFUSD students, respectively (SFUSD, 2012). 

Project Arrive is a group mentoring initiative from SFUSD’s Mentoring for Success program 

designed to address the needs of youth at-risk of dropping out of school. Inspired by promising 

research, SFUSD began in 2010-2011 to implement Project Arrive for an EWI-selected 

population at four public high schools to increase the resilience, GPAs, and attendance—thereby 

decreasing their chances of dropping out of high school and committing a crime. The district 

found that unlike in the field of 1:1 mentoring, there were no manuals for implementing group 

mentoring programs, no curriculum, and no support to help facilitate and nurture group 

processes. Information on other group mentoring programs was varied and rarely school-based. 

Project Arrive met all of its objectives in the first two years of implementation, including high 

proportions of students reducing their unexcused absences from school (28%) and students 

improving their school grades (48%). After the first 2 years of EWI implementation, SFUSD saw 

modest but statistically significant improvements in school attendance among identified 9th 

grade students, a period of time in which truancy is expected to increase for this group. Some of 

this success can surely be attributed to Project Arrive, which served nearly 1 in 5 of 9th grade 

students identified by EWI. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8

However, despite its early successes, the need remained for more robust and evidence-based 

approaches to guide the further development of Project Arrive and fill in the gaps in group 

mentoring research. The current grant sought to meet these needs 1) by providing rigorous 

empirical evidence of the effectiveness of group mentoring, and 2) generating clear practical 

guidance based in empirical and experience-based best practices for practitioners seeking to 

implement group mentoring programs. 

2.1 Research on Efficacy of Group Mentoring 

It is well-established that one-to-one mentoring increases positive outcomes for vulnerable 

youth. Recent meta-analyses (DuBois et al., 2011; Tolan et al., 2008) found consistent evidence 

that mentoring is effective for reducing delinquency (e.g., arrests, self-reported involvement) and 

key associated outcomes (e.g., aggression, drug use, academic failure). Both studies also noted 

that existing research provides insufficient detail about the specific defining features of 

mentoring and key implementation characteristics. With particular relevance to the current 

project, DuBois et al. (2011) noted that evaluations of mentoring programs have not consistently 

collected data on whether they reduce juvenile offending. 

Recent research has called into question the notion of “school dropout,” pointing to the high rates 

of adverse childhood experience and disconnection often experienced by youth who leave school 

prior to graduation. Findings from a mixed-method national study conducted by the Center for 

Promise (2015) suggest that expanding the network of supports available to youth in schools and 

communities, including teachers, health care professionals, and peers, may be the most powerful 

approach for helping young people reach their academic potential. These findings are consistent 

with models of resilience that emphasize the importance of strengthening individuals’ external 

assets (e.g., supportive relationships) and internal assets (e.g., self-efficacy) as primary means of 

helping youth overcome significant adversity in their lives (Zimmerman et al., 2013). Because of 

its focus on building positive relationships among peers and between youth and adults, group 

mentoring may be particularly valuable for such youth (Kuperminc, 2016; Kuperminc & 

Thomason, 2013). 

Group mentoring can offer a platform to increase positive social networks and promote a sense 

of agency by providing a supportive setting for young people to develop under the guidance of 

adults as well as cultivate meaningful peer relationships (Kuperminc, 2016). Group mentors 

foster and mediate positive peer interactions as well as model communication and healthy social 

behaviors (e.g. understanding another’s perspective, negotiating) (Karcher, Kuperminc, 

Portwood, Sipe, & Taylor, 2006). Several recent studies have shown that group mentoring is 

associated with a range of positive outcomes for children and adolescents across age, socioeconomic status, academic performance, ethnicity, and gender (Boddy, 2009; G. Kuperminc, 

2016; Washington, Barnes, & Watts, 2014). DuBois and colleagues' (2011) meta-analysis of 

youth mentoring programs found similar effect sizes for group as compared to 1-to-1 mentoring, 

and there is emerging evidence that group mentoring may be more effective in some contexts. 

For example, Plourde and colleagues' (2017) systematic review of mentoring programs for 

adolescent girls found that the group mentoring framework was more effective than 1-to-1 

mentoring for improving reproductive health knowledge, academic achievement, and social 

networks and decreasing risky sexual behaviors and exposure to violence. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9

Some of the strongest evidence for the effectiveness of group mentoring can be found in rigorous 

experimental and quasi-experimental studies of youth facing significant risks to their 

development. In one small, randomized trial, Jent and Niec (2009) found that group mentoring in 

a community-based mental health services clinic helped children (8 to 12 years of age) reduce 

their internalizing and externalizing behavior problems, and increase social problem-solving 

skills relative to controls. Geenan, Powers, & Phillips' (2015) experimental study of high-school 

aged youth in foster care who were experiencing mental health challenges found improvements 

in mental health, hope, self-determination, self-efficacy, planning for the transition to adulthood, 

and post-secondary participation for group mentored youth relative to controls. Two large 

randomized studies of youth involved in the justice system found reductions in recidivism and 

number of arrests for group mentored youth (Lynch, Astone, Collasos, Lipman, & Esthappan, 

2018; Seroczynski, Evans, Jobst, Horvath, & Carozza, 2016). 

Although there is a growing body of research demonstrating that group mentoring has positive 

effects on youth, little is known about how these outcomes come about. Washington and 

colleagues (2014) postulate that group mentoring works based on Bandura’s social learning 

theory (1977), the idea that learning happens in a social context and can occur through 

observation and imitation; however, this conceptualization does not take into account the group 

processes that occur in a group mentoring setting. Other researchers have found that intervening 

mechanisms in group mentoring center around these group processes and social skills building 

(House, Kuperminc, & Lapidus, 2005; Jent & Niec, 2009). In one study, House and colleagues 

found that group members cultivated close relationships within the group and used one another 

as reciprocal sources of support. 

Kuperminc and Thomason (2013) argue that group mentoring has the potential for contributing 

to positive youth development: “The potential mechanisms of change operate via the (vertical) 

relationship between mentors and mentees (as in traditional one-to-one mentoring) as well as 

through (horizontal) processes of group cohesion and mutual help.” Youth participants can 

observe how adult mentors model prosocial skills, such as cooperation and listening to other 

perspectives. The group setting also offers a safe environment in which to practice social skills 

and receive constructive feedback from peers (Karcher, Kuperminc, Portwood, Taylor, & Sipe, 

2006). Thus, in addition to the connections forged between mentors and mentees that are the 

central feature of the traditional 1:1 mentoring approach, peer group cohesion and mutual 

support are social processes unique to group mentoring (Kuperminc & Thomason, 2013). 

Kuperminc and Thomason reviewed evaluations of 10 formal group mentoring programs, most 

of which targeted youth at risk for school difficulties or behavioral problems. Results from the 4 

studies with rigorous experimental or quasi-experimental designs showed gains in academic and 

behavioral functioning among program participants relative to controls – factors strongly related 

to truancy and risk for juvenile justice system involvement. Despite these promising findings, 

Kuperminc and Thomason found that most of the research relied on small samples with limited 

statistical power, failed to account statistically for the group structure (which violate the 

assumption of independence of observations), and offered little insight into the mechanisms 

through which group mentoring can be effective. Regarding the latter, whereas the strongest 

effects were for programs that featured a high degree of structure, research has not considered 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10

the tension between structuring group activities through formal curricula vs. allowing space for 

youth directed activities and discussion (Jent & Niec, 2009). These findings raise the following 

research questions: 

1. Does participation increase resilience and reduce risk factors for juvenile justice system 

involvement - reduced truancy, disciplinary problems and improved academic 

performance? 

2. What is the role of group social processes (cohesion, mutual help, connection with 

mentor) in contributing to outcomes for group mentoring participants? 

3. What program, mentor, and mentee characteristics contribute to positive group 

processes? 

4. What critical program practices (e.g., structured activities, student choice/influence on 

group activities) increase the likelihood of positive outcomes for the group and its 

members? 

5. How do structural, mentor, and mentee characteristics influence implementation and 

fidelity? 

2.2 The Development of a School-Based Group Mentoring Program 

Mentoring for Success 

Mentoring for Success (MFS) is San Francisco Unified School District's school based mentoring 

program that matches K-12 students with highly qualified and committed mentors who 

collaborate with students to increase school success, improve attendance, and develop selfconfidence. Since 2007, MFS has grown from serving youth at 7 middle schools to the current 

roster of 50 schools supporting MFS program implementation that serves over 700 SFUSD 

students. MFS has put equity at the forefront by supporting individualized relationships with 

students who would benefit most by having a mentor. 

Together, MFS "matches" spend about an hour a week engaging in dynamic activities at school 

throughout the year. MFS mentors focus on developing student protective factors that build 

resilience. They help their mentees establish lasting skills for academic and social/emotional 

success, improved attendance, and positive engagement in the community. MFS offers two 

program options: MFS One-to-One and Project Arrive Group Mentoring. 

Development of Project Arrive 

Project Arrive (PA), is an initiative of SFUSD designed to address the needs of youth at-risk of 

dropping out of school. PA, uses the EWI system to identify participants. In September 2011, 

100 ninth graders were selected by school staff using 8th grade EWI data and the district’s 

Transitions Program, which provides support services to vulnerable students transitioning to the 

next level of schooling (e.g., middle to high school). Of the 100 students selected, 77 volunteered 

to participate and were matched in mentoring groups led by 21 school-based mentors at the 

beginning of October. Of the 77 youth, 68 (88%) completed the program. Of those, 32% were 

African American and 35%were Latino—the same populations that disproportionately have the 

highest percentage of the two risk factors, and the highest rates of truancy and high school dropout rates in the district. Project Arrive met all of its objectives in the first two years of 

implementation, including high proportions of students reducing their unexcused absences from 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

11

3 

school (28%) and students improving their school grades (48%). After just 2 years of 

implementation, SFUSD saw modest but statistically significant improvements in school 

attendance among identified 9th grade students, a period of time in which truancy is expected to 

increase for this group. 

After eight years, Project Arrive continues to utilize group mentoring to support students through 

developing meaningful relationships with mentors and peers, providing access to resources 

within their schools and communities, and developing academic and life skills to improve 

success. As a seminal school-based group mentoring program, Project Arrive is also helping 

researchers better understand how group mentoring works as well as establish a base of best 

practices. 

Project Arrive mentoring groups typically consist of 6 to 8 students, who meet weekly during 

school hours with 2 co-mentors for 50-minute sessions over a full academic year. Mentors are 

school staff (counselors, advisors, principles, other staff) or community partners (employees of 

local non-profits). A full-time program coordinator conducts a four-hour training for volunteer 

mentors prior to the start of the academic year, assists mentors with recruiting and enrolling 

students into the program, meets monthly with mentoring teams at each school, provides ongoing 

match and logistical support, and serves as a liaison between each school and the district’s 

student support programs office. The curriculum and match support draw from Tuckman’s 

(2010) model of group development, including stages of Forming, Storming, Norming, 

Performing, and Adjourning that have been widely used to guide the implementation of small 

group interventions in a variety of contexts, including education (Bonebright, 2010). Mentors are 

provided a binder containing program procedures, contact information, and curricular materials, 

and are able to access a website with a menu of activities that are keyed to the group stages and 

address common adolescent issues (e.g., identity development, resisting problem behavior, 

resolving conflict, building study skills). Mentors are encouraged to select relevant activities or 

to work with their mentees to develop their own activities and discuss topics in line with overall 

program goals. This “curriculum with creativity,” thus, encourages mentor and mentee autonomy 

within an overall framework of building a sense of connectedness to school and to the group, and 

fostering positive social and academic development. 

RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND OBJECTIVES 

Overarching goals were to investigate the effectiveness of group mentoring as an intervention 

strategy for improving developmental outcomes among youth at risk for juvenile justice system 

involvement and to produce an operations manual that can facilitate effective replication of the 

Project Arrive model. To monitor progress toward these goals, researchers reported the 

performance metrics required in the DCTAT system and in bi-annual progress reports required in 

OJJDP’s Grants Management System, including participant characteristics, information about 

service delivery, and project outcomes. Table 3a details specific measurable objectives and 

performance measures for this project. 

Table 2.2.a Objectives

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

12

4 

Objective Performance 

Measures 

Description Deliverables 

To support research 

that will further 

what is understood 

about evidencebased and effective 

practice in a group 

mentoring program 

that serves youth at 

risk for school drop 

out and delinquency 

Percentage of 

research related 

deliverables 

(reports, etc.) 

completed. 

The number of 

published and 

development 

products and 

publications based 

upon grant funded 

research or 

evaluation students 

or training curricula 

developed during 

the reporting period. 

Agency records are 

preferred data 

source. 

Overview 

documents 

Interim reports 

Percentage of 

deliverables that 

meet OJJDP’s 

expectations for 

depth, breadth, 

scope and quality of 

study, and 

pertinence. 

Progress reports 

submitted every 6 

months 

Group Mentoring 

Operations 

Manual 

Technical journal 

articles 

Final report 

The remainder of the report summarizes the two overarching goals: development of a 

comprehensive operations manual and program evaluation. 

OPERATIONS MANUAL 

The operations manual was initially intended to be a traditional printed manual; however, 

researchers and program coordinators realized that a web-based manual would provide a more 

convenient, interactive, and modern approach. Thus, the operations manual took shape as the 

following website: http://sites.gsu.edu/project-arrive/ (see Figure 4.1). This medium provided an 

opportunity for real time interaction with program coordinators, schools, mentors, and mentees 

and their parents through which information and resources could be tested and feedback 

incorporated immediately. Utilizing data analytic software, researchers have learned that the 

website is also being used by others interested in group mentoring with 400-1,300 unique visitors 

from several countries per month. 

Figure 2.2.1 Screen shot from Welcome page of web-based operations manual

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 	 	 	

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 	 	 	 	

13

The overall structure of the website contains all of the major sections of a comprehensive 

operations manual based on Michael Garringer and colleagues’ (2015) Elements of Effective 

Practice for Mentoring including information on recruitment, screening, training, matching and 

initiating, monitoring and support, and closure. It also presents over 50 group mentoring 

activities, external mentoring resources, and research highlights including meaningful data on 

participant outcomes, best practices for group mentoring, and troubleshooting issues in the group 

mentoring setting (see Figure 4.2). 

Figure 2.2.2 Screen shot from Research page

Utilizing Tuckman’s (2010) stages of small group development, the website presents a 

framework for developing group mentoring curricula relevant to developing group cohesion and 

productivity. For each of the five stages (forming, storming, norming, performing, adjourning), 

the manual provides information regarding what to expect from mentors and mentees, signs that 

the group is moving to the next stage, and appropriate activities designed to help groups move 

through the stages (see figures 4.3 and 4.4). 

Figure 2.2.3 Screen shot from Group Stages page

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
	 	 	 	 	 	

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

14

Figure 2.2.4 Screen shot from Activities page

Although the web-based operations manual has many benefits, some challenges arose through its 

development. Specifically, researchers and program coordinators wanted to ensure that the 

manual was useful to multiple audiences, including mentors, mentees, parents, and schools, in 

addition to other organizations looking to develop a group mentoring program. It proved difficult 

to address the different needs of these multiple audiences. Site developers endeavored to clearly 

label pages for specific audiences (see main toolbar in Figure 4.1); however, some users may 

find different sections of the site more or less relevant to their needs. Despite these difficulties, 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

15

5 

multiple users have identified the utility and convenience of the site. Readers are invited to visit 

the website at http://sites.gsu.edu/project-arrive/. 

PROGRAM EVALUATION STUDY METHODS AND ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUES 

The program evaluation component of this project aimed to answer five main research questions 

regarding program effectiveness, underlying change processes, and best practices. 

Research question one addressed whether participation in group mentoring increased resilience 

and reduced risk factors for juvenile justice system involvement, with a focus on reduced truancy 

and disciplinary problems and improved academic performance. The focus was primarily on the 

individual level, specifically, the extent to which program participation contributed to increases 

in (a) short-term outcomes (internal and external resilience factors) and (b) intermediate 

outcomes (reductions in truancy, improved academic performance, and reduced juvenile 

offending). Furthermore, analyses examined whether improvements in short-term outcomes 

mediated the relation between program participation and intermediate outcomes. 

Research question two addressed the role of group social processes (cohesion, mutual help, and 

connection with mentor) in contributing to both short-term and intermediate outcomes for group 

mentoring participants. Theory regarding whether these processes should be considered at the 

level of individual perception or as group-level processes remains underdeveloped (Kuperminc 

& Thomason, 2013); however, based on past research using measures similar to those proposed 

for this study (Kuperminc, 2012), we expected to find low ICC’s for perceptions of 

connectedness with mentor (ICC = .03), suggesting greater variability between individuals than 

within groups in these perceptions. In contrast, we expected to find higher ICC’s for perceptions 

of group cohesion and mutual help (ICC = .10). We used the partially clustered multilevel model 

to examine the role of group social processes as individual or group-level covariates as suggested 

by the ICC estimates. 

Research question three focused on identifying programmatic, mentor, and mentee 

characteristics that contributed to positive group social processes. For these analyses, we focused 

on the data from mentors and youth demographics. After estimating initial models, subsequent 

models examined mentor, mentee, and program characteristics as predictors of change from midyear to post-test in group social processes. 

Research questions four and five focused on program practices and factors that influence 

implementation. For these analyses we focused primarily on qualitative data from focus groups, 

and mentor logs/meeting notes. We also sought external input from the advisory board on 

interpretation of qualitative and quantitative findings and translation of findings into practice. 

5.1 Study Design Overview 

To develop an operations manual and conduct effectiveness studies, Georgia State University 

researchers established a partnership with program administrators from SFUSD. A quasiexperimental project design was developed to compare Project Arrive program participants with 

demographically similar comparison students to examine several outcomes including 

development of resilience assets, academic achievement and school attendance, juvenile justice 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

16

encounters, and long-term duration of outcomes. Data collection was completed utilizing a 

sophisticated a web-based system for administering and collecting pre- and post-test surveys of 

participating youth and post-test mentor surveys. 

The first year of the project was devoted to developing a draft interactive, web-based Operations 

Manual, utilizing experience to date in implementing Project Arrive, and establishing research 

protocols. Recruitment and data collection for the effectiveness study began in the fall of year 

one and continued through the spring of year three. Development of the Operations Manual 

occurred concurrently with the effectiveness study, through an iterative process starting in year 

one and involving input and feedback from mentors and mentees and external input from an 

expert advisory committee. Given that extensive implementation materials for the program 

already had been developed for this established program, the development of the Operations 

Manual was a process of systematic refinement rather than basic curriculum and program 

development. The final months of year three were devoted to analyzing and disseminating study 

findings, and to refining the Operations Manual. Data from focus groups with mentors and 

mentees, monthly logs and mentee self-reports were used to guide revisions to the Manual, and 

input from the advisory committee was obtained through teleconferences with an advisory board 

composed of expert researchers and practitioners in the field. The final Operations Manual was 

developed with an eye toward replication of the Project Arrive model in other school-based 

settings. 

5.2 Program Implementation 

All students in program schools identified via EWI were invited to participate in mentoring 

groups. Those who agreed to participate, obtained parental informed consent and provided 

informed assent, were enrolled in the study. Using similar procedures, researchers invited EWI 

identified students at other district high schools, to enroll as comparison students, paying 

particular attention to ensuring that comparisons shared a similar demographic and risk profile 

with the intervention group. As described in the findings section, we used statistical matching 

procedures, propensity scores, to reduce selection bias and ensure comparability of the 

intervention and comparison groups. 

Prior to beginning the study, approval was obtained from the Georgia State University 

Institutional Review Board (IRB) and the SFUSD Research, Planning, and Accountability 

Department. All project staff and research collaborators completed research ethics training and 

certification (CITI Certification). 

To ensure adherence to program goals, the program coordinator conducted a 4-hour new mentor 

training in the fall of each academic year. Experienced mentors either attended the training or 

met individually with the program coordinator before initiating their groups. End of year surveys 

from 40 mentors representing 30 groups indicated that 40% of mentors attended the training (in 

addition, 25% who were experienced mentors reported previously attending the training); the 

remainder had individual or small-group meetings with the coordinator. In addition, the program 

coordinator held monthly meetings with each school-based team of mentors, and communicated 

regularly via email and phone for ‘match support’ troubleshooting, and providing resources. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

17

Mentoring groups met 25-30 times throughout the year with few cancellations (76.9% of groups 

had 2 or fewer cancellations). The researchers were not able to obtain complete attendance 

records; however, attendance within groups was somewhat variable, with only 66.7% of mentors 

reporting having full attendance in their groups more for more than half the sessions. Consistent 

with the flexible curriculum, most mentors (n = 35; 87.5%) reported using the curriculum, and 

71% reported using it for at least half of their group sessions. The most common activities 

employed in group sessions included ice breakers (100%), academic check-ins (97.5%), games 

(97.5%), closing reflections (97.5%) and field trips (92.5%). The most frequent topics (addressed 

in half or more of the sessions) included academic achievement (92.5%), goal setting (85%), 

peer relationships (80%), transition to high school (70%), and family relationships (65%). Nearly 

all mentors (97.5%) reported that mentees helped decide group activities, with most (57.5%) 

reporting that decisions were shared evenly between mentors and mentees. Mentors reported 

high levels of cohesion among the members of their groups, M = 3.92, SD = 1.02 (1-5 scale). 

5.3 Measures and Data Collection 

Researchers collected data from school administrative records for intervention and comparison 

youth at 5 occasions, including end of year records for the year prior to program implementation, 

and end of (fall and spring) semester records for 2 subsequent years including the year of 

participation and a follow-up year. We also collected data on rates of juvenile offending and reoffending in the intervention and comparison groups from the local juvenile probation 

department. Intervention and Comparison students completed pre- and post-test surveys in fall 

and spring of their 9th grade year. Intervention students also completed a brief mid-year survey 

(Dec.) regarding perceptions of group social processes. These items were also added to the posttest for intervention students. Mentors were asked to provide ongoing data through monthly logs 

documenting attendance and group activities. They also completed a brief end of year survey 

reporting on their perceptions of group social processes and satisfaction with the program. 

Researchers also gathered qualitative data to assess implementation issues (feasibility, usability, 

acceptability, and satisfaction) via focus groups with randomly selected groups of mentors and 

mentees. We conducted focus groups in Years 1-3 (i.e., mentors in the year prior to recruitment 

of cohort 1, and mentors and mentees of cohorts 1 and 2). Researchers conducted the mentor and 

mentee focus groups during participants’ lunch periods and provided a free lunch as incentive. 

Focus groups generally followed a semi-structured interview guide that included open-ended 

questions such as “Tell us about your group” and “What challenges do you face?” All focus 

groups were recorded and transcribed. We coded the transcribed data using qualitative analysis 

software, and developed an inductive codebook based on the themes that emerged from the data. 

Combined with survey data from mentee and mentor reports of group social processes, the focus 

group data provided critical information needed to update and refine the Operations Manual. 

Researchers supplemented the existing student pre- and post-test surveys with widely used selfreport measures that have strong evidence of reliability and validity. To maximize comparability 

to district-wide data on risk and resilience factors, researchers used items from the California 

Healthy Kids Survey (Hanson & Kim, 2007) and the Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention’s Youth Risk Behavior Survey (Eaton et al., 2008). We also used validated scales 

from other sources. Student and mentor measures of group social processes (mentor-mentee 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

18

connectedness, group cohesion, mutual support) were adapted from measures developed for the 

PI’s previous work that had adequate reliability and showed significant associations with shortterm outcomes similar to those examined in this study (Kuperminc, 2012). 

Mentor surveys assessed demographic characteristics and professional training, perceptions of 

training and support received, group processes, and program structure. These data were 

supplemented with information culled from mentor support meetings and focus groups. Mentors 

divulged information about participant attendance, topics/activities, and notes on impressions of 

challenges and successes in their mentoring sessions. Administrative data on academic 

performance, attendance/truancy, and disciplinary sanctions were collected from district records, 

and (aggregate) data on juvenile offending/reoffending were collected from juvenile justice 

records. 

The current report focuses primarily on (1) data from student surveys, which provide 

demographic information, self-reports on internal and external resilience assets, and experiences 

in the Project Arrive mentoring groups, and (2) data from administrative records, which provide 

a roster of Project Arrive and Comparison students along with academic outcomes (i.e., 

attendance and achievement). These primary measures are described below (a summary of 

student survey measures and copies of survey instruments can be found in the appendices). 

Resilience Assets. Program participants and comparisons completed surveys assessing their 

perceptions of internal and external resilience assets based on the Resilience Youth Development 

Module of the California Healthy Kids Survey- a self-report measure assessing student health 

strengths and risks (Benard, 2004). Internal consistency estimates for these measures were 

similar at baseline and post-test, thus, for brevity, we report only the post-test estimates. 

Participants completed seven scales assessing external resilience assets, all rated on a scale 

ranging from 1 = “strongly disagree” to 4 = “strongly agree.” School Belonging (α = .78) 

included five items assessing students’ sense of connection to their school, safety, and happiness 

at school. School Support (α = .93) was assessed with six items examining whether participants 

felt they had a teacher or other adult at school who was supportive of their efforts, believed in 

them and cared about them. School Meaningful Participation (α = .90) included three items 

about participants’ level of interest and participation in activities at school. Peer caring 

relationships (α = .90) included three items describing whether participants felt they had a caring 

friendship with someone who helped them during hard times. Two items about Prosocial Peers 

(α = .82) described whether participants had friends that do what is right and perform well in 

school. Home support (α = .86) included six items assessing the extent to which participants felt 

there was a parent or adult who cared about, encouraged, and believed in them. Home 

meaningful participation (α =.85) included two items assessing the extent to which participants 

felt they did things at home that make a difference and help make decisions in their families. 

Participants completed 4 scales assessing internal resilience assets on a scale from 1 = “not at all 

true” to 4 = “very much true.” Self-efficacy (α = .75) included 4 survey items about confidence in 

abilities to work with different people, to work out problems, and to complete tasks. Empathy (α

= .84) included three items examining participants’ attempts to understand others’ perspectives 

and whether they feel bad when others’ feelings are hurt. Problem solving (α = .74) included two 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

19

items about participants’ problem-solving techniques of writing about or talking through their 

problems. Self-awareness (α = .86) included three items describing participants’ awareness of 

purpose in life, their moods, feelings and behavior. 

Quality of Mentor Relationship. Project Arrive participants completed four items, e.g., “My 

mentor(s) care about me.” Mentees rate statements about how they feel about their mentor/group 

leader on a scale from (1) Not at all true to (4) Very much true. This measure has previously 

been used to assess mentor-mentee relationships (Kuperminc, 2012) and demonstrates adequate 

reliability in this study (α=.85). 

Group Climate. Project Arrive participants completed 11items describing perceptions of how 

supportive their mentor group feels overall. These items were used in previous youth mentoring 

research (Brezina, Kuperminc, & Tekin, 2016; Kuperminc, 2012; Kuperminc & Lesesne, 2009). 

Items assess mentee feelings of connectedness and belonging (e.g. “Kids in this group care about 

each other”), mutual help (e.g. “How much did the group help you to deal with everyday 

problems?”), and engagement (e.g. “When you are with your group, how much do you enjoy the 

activities you participate in?”). This measure of overall group climate demonstrates adequate 

reliability in this study (α=.90). 

Academic records. The school district provided all academic records for program participants 

and comparisons. The academic records included credits earned, attendance, and GPA. Credits 

earned for each grade (i.e., 9th and 10th grades) was calculated by averaging the total number of 

credits earned during the fall and spring semesters of the academic year. In order to receive 

academic credit for a course, students must have obtained a grade of “D” or better. Most courses 

are worth 5 credits. To be considered on track toward graduation, students are expected to earn 

50 or more credits by the end of 9th grade and 110 or more credits by the end of 10th grade. 

Attendance was measured by the percentage of instructional time attended, taking into account 

the proportion of unexcused absences during the school year to the total number of days enrolled. 

Students who are present for less than 87.5% of instructional time are considered truant by the 

school district. Grade point average (GPA) was calculated by averaging students’ fall and spring 

semester grades in 8th, 9th, and 10th grades respectively. 

Additional Measures. Additional measures, including a dummy code signifying Project Arrive 

vs. Comparison participation, a group identifier for Project Arrive participants, demographic 

characteristics (e.g., sex, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, family composition), and 

characteristics of schools, were drawn from student surveys, student academic records, and 

publicly available data from the school district. 

5.4 Sample 

In addition to the planned quantitative sample of program participants and comparisons with 

informed consent that participated in all aspects of the study, we were able to draw a second 

sample that included academic records spanning grades 8 through 10 of all EWI-identified 

students in SFUSD. The former, which will be described in this report as the “Survey Sample,” 

(N = 185) included survey data described above and enables in-depth examination of short-term 

(e.g., resilience assets) and intermediate (e.g., academic) outcomes as well as examination of 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

20

mentoring processes. The latter, which will be described as the “Academic Records Sample,” (N 

= 1,219), affords greater statistical power for examination of academic outcomes related to 

participation in Project Arrive. 

Survey Sample: Participants included 9th grade students identified via EWI as being at risk for 

high school dropout. Participating schools served predominantly low-income (72% - 79% qualify 

for free/reduced-price lunch), African American (14%-21%), and Latino (19%- 62%) students. 

Participants in the survey sample included 114 9th grade students attending one of five high 

schools in a large urban school district in the Western United States that offered group 

mentoring, and 71 9th grade students attending one of 3 high schools in the same district that did 

not offer the program. The overall sample was 53.0% male and had a median age of 14.0 years 

(ranging from 12.8 to 15.9 years). The majority of the sample identified as Hispanic or Latino 

(61.6%); other race/ethnic groups represented in the sample included Asian/Pacific Islander 

(15.1%), Black or African American (10.3%), White (non-Hispanic; 4.3%), and mixed-race 

(8.6%). More than three quarters (75.1%) reported eligibility for free-reduced price lunches at 

school and 38.4% reported living in a 2-parent family. Rates of attrition in the survey sample 

were similar for program (21.1%) and comparison students (15.5%), X2 (1) = 0.88, ns. T-tests 

and chi-square analyses revealed no differences in baseline measures of study outcomes, or in 

demographic characteristics, although participants who completed post-tests were slightly older 

(14.11 years, SD = .72) than those who did not complete post-tests, t = 1.83, p = .07. With regard 

to risk variables, participants who completed post-tests had higher 8th grade attendance (94.04% 

of instructional time, SD = 5.86) than those who did not (91.26% of instructional time, SD = 

7.92), t = 2.08, p = .04. 

Academic Sample: The academic sample (N = 1,219) consisted of all students attending 

comprehensive high schools in the district that met EWI criteria for eligibility to participate in 

Project Arrive, including the 5 schools that offered Project Arrive and 13 schools that did not 

offer the program. All data were deidentified except for an identifier marking whether the 

student participated in Project Arrive (Note that we also obtained the same academic records, 

with identifiers, for students in the Survey Sample). This sample included 239 Project Arrive 

participants and 980 Comparisons. The largest race/ethnic group was Hispanic or Latino 

(43.4%); other race/ethnic groups represented in the sample included Asian/Pacific Islander 

(20.7%), Black or African American (19.4%), White (non-Hispanic; 6.9%), and mixed-race or 

other ethnicity (5.9%). Given that 9th grade was the index year for drawing this sample, data 

were available for all 1,219 participants at 9th grade, for 1,199 (98.36%) at 8th grade, and for 

1,148 (94.18%) at 10th grade. 

5.5 Propensity Scores and Sample Characteristics 

In order to reduce potential effects of selection bias on estimates of the effects of program 

participation, we used inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW), which uses a 

propensity score to create sample weights such that treatment assignment is independent of 

measured baseline covariates (Austin & Stuart, 2015). Propensity scores were estimated 

separately for the Survey and Academic Records samples. 

Survey Sample. The propensity score was estimated using a logistic regression model in which 

treatment assignment (Project Arrive vs. Comparison) was regressed on the 13 covariates listed 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

		

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

 

 

 

 

21

in Table 5.5.1. Stabilized weights were computed in order to reduce the influence of individuals 

assigned very large or very small weights using the following formula, where “w” denotes the 

stabilized weight, “z” denotes treatment assignment, and “e” denotes the propensity score: 

w = [Z*Pr(Z=1)/e] + [(1−Z)*Pr(Z=0)/(1−e)] 

Diagnostic procedures described by Austin and Stuart (2015) were used to assess whether, in the 

sample weighted by the inverse probability of treatment (using the stabilized weights), Project 

Arrive and Comparison students had similar distributions of the covariates listed in Table 5.5a, 

all of which are plausible predictors of key outcomes. The stabilized weight had a mean of 0.99 

with a standard deviation of .40 and ranged between 0.47 and 2.62. Standardized mean 

differences for the unweighted and weighted samples were calculated to compare the means and 

prevalences of the continuous and categorical covariates, and the higher order moments and 

interactions of continuous covariates. Stuart, Lee, and Leacy (2013) offer that standardized mean 

differences of 10% or 25% represent reasonable cut-offs for acceptable standardized biases; 

larger standardized biases indicate that groups are too different from one another for reliable 

comparison. We used these cutoffs to evaluate bias estimates as “excellent” (≤ 10%) and 

“acceptable” (≤ 25%). 

In the unweighted sample only 2 of the 13 covariates had standardized mean differences below 

10% and ranged between 3.80% and 91.31% (average 41.60%). In the weighted sample, 12 of 

the 13 covariates had mean differences below 10% and ranged between 1.20 and 14.10% 

(average 4.65%, See Figure 5.5.1). Kolmogorov-Smirnoff tests assessing differences in the 

distributions of the 3 continuous variables were small and non-significant in both the unweighted 

(ranging between 0.79 and 1.04) and weighted (ranging between 0.67 and 1.01) samples. Further 

examination of higher order moments and interactions among the continuous covariates showed 

substantial improvements in the weighted compared to the unweighted sample, with standardized 

mean differences for the squares of the continuous variables averaging 25.71% (ranging between 

19.21% and 30.74%) in the unweighted sample and 6.59% (ranging between 5.05% and 7.74%) 

in the weighted sample. Similarly, standardized mean differences for the interactions averaged 

16.50% (ranging between 14.62% and 18.49%) in the unweighted sample and 6.15% (ranging 

between 0.49% and 11.81%) in the weighted sample. In sum, applying the propensity score 

weight appears to reduce bias in all of the observed covariates to within acceptable limits, with 

16 of 18 standardized differences between Project Arrive and Comparison students falling below 

10% and the remainder falling below 25% (see Figure 5.5.1). 

Table 5.5.a

Baseline characteristics of Project Arrive and	Comparison students in unweighted	and	

weighted samples.

Project Arrive Comparison (N=71) Standardized Mean 

(N=114) Mean (SD) or % Difference (d 

Mean (SD) or % *100%) 

Unweighted Sample 

Age (years) 14.13 (0.74) 13.95 (0.64) 26.65% 

Black/African American 13% 06% 90.78% 

Hispanic/Latin@ 59% 66% 31.76% 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 	 	 	 	 	

 

 

 

	 	

	 	

22

k

)

t

pi

c

8

)

8

a

e

h

n

aa

ni

e

s

p

m

ear

a

c

e

a

g

sp

im

gp

s s

r

o

bl

m

(

a

p

*

su 8

e

c

k

s

y

n

t t

fe

hi

r

(

m

i

(

i i

e	

i

r

s

t t

w

ag

x

-

se

in

lo

ew

sin

Asian/Pacific Islander 13% 18% 38.62% 

Mixed Race 11% 06% 66.74% 

Sex (female) 55% 34% 91.31% 

Lives with Two Parents 46% 58% 49.17% 

Free/Reduced Lunch 83% 85% 8.89% 

Instructional Time % (Grade 8) 93.21 (5.12) 94.66 (4.24) 30.82% 

Grade Point Average (Grade 8) 2.15 (0.67) 2.02 (0.66) 20.03% 

Instructional Time * GPA 0.31 (3.81) 1.03 (3.95) 18.49% 

Any suspensions (Grade 8) 09% 09% 3.80% 

Attends high school w/high % EWI 

Students (Grade 9) 53% 65% 51.11% 

Weighted Sample 

Age (years) 14.02 (0.74) 13.98 (0.64) 7.10% 

Black/African American 11% 10% 4.33% 

Hispanic/Latin@ 61% 60% 5.87% 

Asian/Pacific Islander 16% 15% 9.36% 

Mixed Race 09% 09% 1.25% 

Sex (female) 48% 48% 0.80% 

Lives with Two Parents 50% 49% 1.20% 

Free/Reduced Lunch 83% 83% 2.85% 

Instructional Time % (Grade 8) 93.81 (4.91) 94.15 (4.03) 7.73% 

Grade Point Average (Grade 8) 2.11 (0.69) 2.10 (0.63) 2.47% 

Instructional Time * GPA 0.58 (3.84) 0.83 (3.48) 7.00% 

Any suspensions (Grade 8) 09% 10% 14.10% 

Attends high school w/high % EWI 

Students (Grade 9) 57% 57% 2.45% 

Note: EWI = Early Warning Indicators (risk for school dropout); schools with high % of EWI identified 

students defined as above median for participating schools. 

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

ale)

ac

two p

unweighted weighted

Figure 5.5.1 Standardized Mean Differences for Weighted and Unweighted Data

Academic Records Sample. Similar procedures were used to estimate a propensity score for the 

academic records sample: treatment assignment (mentoring program vs. comparison) was 

regressed on the 7 covariates listed in Table 5.5b. In the unweighted sample only 3 of the 7 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

		

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

23

covariates had standardized mean differences below 10% and ranged between 0.52% and 

33.86% (average 16.86%). In the weighted sample, all of the 7 covariates had mean differences 

below 10% and ranged between 0 and 6.37% (average 2.29%). In sum, applying the propensity 

score weight appears to reduce bias in all of the observed covariates to within acceptable limits, 

with all standardized differences between program participants and comparisons falling below 

10% (see Figure 5.5.2). 

Table 5.5.b

Baseline characteristics of program and comparison students in unweighted and weighted

samples.

Project Arrive Comparison Standardized Mean 

(N=240) (N=983) Difference (d 

Mean (SD) or % Mean (SD) or % *100%) 

Unweighted Sample 

Black/African American 23% 18% 30.80% 

Sex (female) 43% 37% 25.09% 

Unexcused Absences (Grade 8) 4.46 (8.14) 5.39 (13.65) 8.28% 

Excused Absences (Grade 8) 3.65 (4.90) 4.30 (7.20) 10.55% 

Instructional Time (Grade 8) 90.91 (10.92) 91.86 (10.36) 8.93% 

Credits Earned (Grade 8) 26.59 (5.81) 26.56 (5.64) 0.52% 

Attends high school w/high % EWI 

students (Grade 9) 65% 57% 33.86% 

Weighted Sample 

Black/African American 20% 19% 6.37% 

Sex (female) 38% 38% 0% 

Unexcused Absences (Grade 8) 5.37 (11.66) 5.22 (12.80) 1.23% 

Excused Absences (Grade 8) 4.05 (5.26) 4.17 (6.96) 1.95% 

Instructional Time % (Grade 8) 91.65 (9.28) 91.76 (10.26) 1.12% 

Credits Earned (Grade 8) 26.48 (5.71) 26.55 (5.66) 1.23% 

Attends high school w/high % EWI 

students (Grade 9) 59% 58% 4.12% 

Note: EWI = Early Warning Indicators (risk for school dropout); schools with high % of EWI identified 

students defined as above median for participating schools. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
	 	 	 	 	 	

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 	

	 	 	

	 	 	

	 	 	

	 	

24

urtsin

un

6 

100.00%

80.00%

60.00%

0.00%

20.00%

40.00%

ewi risk (school)

black

sex (female)

excused abs (gr. 8)

ctional time (gr. 8)

excused abs (gr. 8)

credits (gr. 8)

Unweighted Weighted

Figure 5.5.2 Standardized Mean Differences for Weighted and Unweighted Data

Partially Clustered Design for Treatment vs. Comparison Analysis. In order to account for 

the clustering of program participants in small groups alongside a comparison group that is not 

clustered, we used a partially nested multi-level model (Sterba, 2017) to separate within and 

between group variance in the data for program participants. This enabled us to examine the 

extent to which group membership is linked to changes in internal and external resilience assets 

(i.e., by estimating the intraclass correlation [ICC] for each outcome), and also to derive 

estimates of program effects without violating assumptions of independence of observations. 

Sterba (2017) recommends the use of partially nested models for designs such as the current 

study, even when ICC = 0. 

Missing Data. Missing data due to non-response were imputed using Mplus Version 7.1 via 

multiple imputation using 20 datasets for the Survey Sample and 10 datasets for the Academic 

Records sample. 

FINDINGS 

6.1 Does participation increase resilience and reduce risk factors for juvenile justice 

system involvement - reduced truancy, disciplinary problems and improved academic 

performance? 

Primary Analysis. Sterba’s (2017) partially clustered model for assessing intervention effects 

was used to assess effects of Project Arrive participation on improvements in resilience assets by 

program exit. This model was also used to assess academic outcomes at the end of 9th and 10th 

grades. These models accounted for selection bias via weighting on the propensity score; models 

also adjusted for any pre-test differences in the dependent variables that were not fully balanced 

using propensity score weights. To examine program-related associations with juvenile justice 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

		

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

25

system involvement, we calculated relative risk ratios; It should be noted that these analyses 

were limited to simple descriptive statistics because we were able to obtain only aggregate data 

on the rates of justice system involvement in the Project Arrive and Comparison groups for 

students’ 8th, 9th, and 10th grade years. 

Resilience Assets. Results of analysis of Internal and External resilience assets are shown in 

Table 6.1a. 

Table 6.1.a

Adjusted means at post-test	and program effects for external resources and internal assets.

Comparison Project Arrive 

Mean (SD) Mean (SD) ICC t d 

External Resources 

School Support 2.85 (0.75) 3.27 (0.37) 0.08 3.31*** 0.56 

School Belonging 3.14 (0.62) 3.53 (0.77) @0.00 3.55*** 0.64 

School Meaningful 

Participation 

2.09 (0.79) 2.61 (0.87) 0.03 3.66*** 0.66 

Peer Caring Relationships 2.85 (0.76) 3.23 (0.77) @0.00 2.97*** 0.50 

Prosocial Peers 2.73 (0.62) 3.06 (0.74) @0.00 3.09*** 0.52 

Home Support 3.18 (0.52) 3.22 (0.61) 0.10 0.18 0.03 

Home Meaningful 

Participation 

2.61 (0.84) 2.91 (0.94) @0.00 2.25* 0.35 

Internal Assets 

Self-Efficacy 3.08 (0.46) 3.13 (0.58) 0.02 0.54 0.10 

Empathy 3.13 (0.61) 3.13 (0.70) 0.08 0.03 0.00 

Problem Solving 2.38 (0.70) 2.84 (0.77) @0.00 3.87*** 0.66 

Self-Awareness 3.36 (0.07) 3.24 (0.07) @0.00 -1.19 -0.20 

Note: Baseline characteristics for Project Arrive (PA) and comparison samples balanced using inverse 

probability of treatment weighting (IPTW). Estimates adjusted for pre-test scores on each dependent 

variable. Due to near-zero between group variance in the treatment group, the intraclass correlation 

coefficient (ICC) was fixed at 0 for some variables (indicated with “@”) in order for models to converge. 

Standard deviations calculated for PA as the sum of between and within group variance; standardized 

effect sizes (Cohen’s d) calculated using comparison group standard deviations. * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p 

< .001 

External Assets. There were significant differences at post-test, all favoring Project 

Arrive participants, on 6 of the 7 external resilience assets See Table #). Standardized effect sizes 

for the differences that reached significance ranged from d =.35 to d =.66. Participants reported 

more positive perceptions of assets in the contexts of school (i.e., school belonging, school 

support, and meaningful participation at school), peers (i.e., caring relationships and association 

with prosocial peers), and home (meaningful participation at home). The only exception was that 

Project Arrive participants and comparisons did not differ in their perceptions of support at 

home. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

		

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

26

Internal Assets. With regard to internal assets, a significant difference was found only for 

problem solving skills, with an effect size of d = .66. Differences were not significant for selfefficacy, empathy, or self-awareness. 

Academic Outcomes. Results of analysis of Internal and External resilience assets are shown in 

Table 6.1b. 

Table 6.1.b

Adjusted means and program effects for	instructional time, grade point average, and progress

toward graduation at	the end of 9th grade and 10th grade

Comparison 

Mean (SD) 

Program 

Mean (SD) ICC t d 

9th Grade 

Instructional Time 

Grade Point Average 

87.92 (10.23) 

1.86 (0.84) 

89.24 (8.74) 

1.89 (0.87) 

0.15 

0.24 

2.10* 

0.28 

0.13 

0.03 

Credits Earned 

10th Grade 

48.04 (17.91) 53.50(19.23) 0.25 2.80** 0.31 

Instructional Time 

Grade Point Average 

81.09 (18.17) 

1.90 (0.94) 

82.88 (17.15) 

1.97 (0.97) 

0.19 

0.18 

1.03 

0.71 

0.10 

0.07 

Credits Earned 49.70 (21.54) 56.12 (20.64) 0.14 3.23*** 0.30 

Note: Baseline characteristics for program and comparison samples balanced using inverse probability of 

treatment weighting (IPTW). Estimates adjusted for pre-test scores on each dependent variable. Standard 

deviations calculated for program sample as the sum of between and within group variance; standardized 

effect sizes (Cohen’s D) calculated using comparison group standard deviations. 

* p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001 

Credits Earned. Project Arrive participants earned significantly more credits relative to 

comparisons by the end of 9th grade, d = .31, and by the end of 10th grade, d = .30. Of note, by 

the end of 10th grade 60% of Project Arrive participants were on-track toward graduation, in 

contrast to only 49% of comparisons. 

Instructional Time. By the end of 9th grade, Project Arrive students received more 

instructional time than comparisons, d = .13. However, despite a similar difference in the means 

for Project Arrive vs. comparisons, the difference in instructional time did not reach significance 

by the end of 10th grade. The 10th grade null finding appears to reflect an increase in the variance 

for instructional time in the comparison group; although similar proportions of comparison 

(43.3%) and Project Arrive (42.8%) students fell below the district’s cutoff for truancy 87.5%, a 

larger proportion of comparison students (12.2%) received very low – less than 50% -

instructional time than did Project Arrive students (7.1%), X2 (1) = 4.82, p = .03. 

Grade Point Average. Differences in GPA between program students and comparison 

students did not reach significance by the end of either 9th grade or 10th grade. Average GPA for 

both groups was below 2.0 throughout the study period. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

		

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	

 

 

 

 

 

 

27

Juvenile Justice System Contact. Through an agreement with the San Francisco Juvenile 

Probation and School Departments, we were able to obtain aggregate records of the number of 

records of juvenile offences during the 3-year period from 8th through 10th grade for Project 

Arrive and Comparison students. Analysis was limited to simple comparisons of rates for the two 

groups. Overall, 13% of Project Arrive students and 10% of comparisons had a juvenile justice 

record at any time during that period. In order to examine risk of juvenile justice involvement, 

we calculated relative risk ratios, defined as the ratio of the probability of having a juvenile 

justice record during a specified period in the Project Arrive group to the probability of having a 

juvenile justice record during the same period in the comparison group. A value of 1.0 indicates 

that there is no difference in the probability of a juvenile justice contact; a value < 1.0 means that 

there is a lower likelihood of a juvenile contact in the Project Arrive group; and a value >1.0 

means that there is a higher likelihood of a juvenile contact in the Project Arrive group. 

Table 6.1c displays the proportion of Project Arrive and Comparison students that had juvenile 

justice records, as well as the relative risk of a juvenile offense and Figure 6.1.1 displays the 

relative risk data. As expected, the relative risk indices indicate that Project Arrive students had 

32% higher relative risk of ever having a juvenile offense during the 3-year period from 8th 

through 10th grades. Relative risk was also higher for the 8th grade and 10th grade years. In 

contrast, the risk of a juvenile offense was about the same for Project Arrive and Comparison 

students for 9th grade year, the year in which Project Arrive students were participating in the 

program. Thus, although these risk ratios did not reach statistical significance, there is some 

indication that Project Arrive may have contributed to short term reduction in risk for juvenile 

justice involvement. 

Table 6.1.c

Incidence and relative risk of juvenile offenses on record with the Juvenile Probation

Department for	Project Arrive and Comparison Students.

Project

Arrive 

(n = 241) 

Comparison

(n = 976) 

Relative 

Risk 95% CI z p 

Any Year (Ever) 13.28% 10.04% 1.32 0.91-1.92 1.47 0.14 

8th Grade 3.73% 2.87% 1.30 0.62-2.72 0.71 0.48 

9th Grade 2.90% 3.07% 0.94 0.42-2.13 0.14 0.89 

10th Grade 5.39% 4.20% 1.28 0.70-2.35 0.79 0.43 

Note: Relative risk (RR) is the ratio of the probability of having a juvenile record or offense for Project 

Arrive participants vs. Comparison students. A RR of 1.0 indicates that the two groups have equal 

likelihood of a juvenile record or offense; a RR >1 indicates that Project Arrive participants have greater 

likelihood of a juvenile record or offense; and a RR < 1 indicates that Comparison students had a greater 

likelihood of a juvenile record or offense. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

28

Relative Risk: Juvenile Offenses

Project	Arrive	(n=241)	vs.	Comparison	(n	=	976)

1.40

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

Any Year 8th Grade Year 9th Grade Year 10th Grade Year

Figure 6.1.1

SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH QUESTION #1. 

Research question #1 focused on overall effects of participation in Project Arrive on 

increasing resilience assets and reducing key academic risk factors for Juvenile Justice 

Involvement (i.e., academic achievement and truancy). Key findings were the following: 

(1) Strong effects favoring Project Arrive on 6 of 7 external resilience assets (school support, 

school belonging, meaningful participation at school, caring relationships with peers, 

engagement with prosocial peers, and meaningful participation at home). 

(2) A strong effect favoring Project Arrive on problem solving skills. 

(3) Moderate effects favoring Project Arrive on credits earned toward graduation by the end 

of 9th and 10th grades 

(4) A small effect favoring Project Arrive on instructional time by the end of 9th grade. 

(5) An apparent reduction in juvenile justice system involvement for Project Arrive 

participants during the 9th grade year. 

Overall, these findings suggest that Project Arrive is a promising strategy for reducing 

academic risk factors for juvenile justice involvement with some effects that persist a full year 

after program exit. Project Arrive also appears to be a promising strategy for increasing sense 

of belonging and support at school, as well as in peer and home settings, resilience factors that 

have been linked to reduced likelihood of school dropout and academic failure. 

6.2 What is the role of group social processes (cohesion, mutual help, connection with 

mentor) in contributing to outcomes for Project Arrive participants? 

The first step in this analysis was to examine the properties of the mentor relationship and group 

process measures, with a focus on the means at mid-year and post-test, retest (stability) 

correlations, and intraclass correlations (See Table 6.2a). Intraclass correlations ranged from .07 

to .47 at midyear, and from .07 to .17 at post-test. Individual participant ratings on these scales 

indicated little change in the means from mid-year to post-test with the exception of a significant 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

		

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

		

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	

 

 

 

 

 

 

29

increase in perceptions of mutual help (p < .05). Overall, groups reported positive relationships 

with mentors, high levels of cohesive group climate, and low levels of conflict. 

Table 6.2.a

Means, Standard Deviations, Retest Correlations, and Intraclass correlations for	mentee

ratings of relationship with mentors and of group process

Mean (SD) Retest 

Correlation 

Intraclass Correlation (ICC) 

Mid-Year Post-Test R Mid-Year Post-Test 

Relationship Quality with Mentors 

Group Climate (overall) 

Mutual Help+ 

Engagement with Group Activities 

Belonging/Cohesion 

Conflict 

3.53 (0.76) 3.41 (0.71) 

3.11 (0.72) 3.22 (0.89) 

2.90 (0.92) 3.16 (0.89) 

3.24 (0.75) 3.28 (0.83) 

3.17 (0.81) 3.28 (0.74) 

1.76 (1.09) 1.89 (1.21) 

.23 

.31 

.15 

.36 

.27 

.42 

.07 .17 

.34 .10 

.47 .13 

.10 .07 

.27 .10 

.28 .08 

Note: Overall group climate includes all items from mutual help, engagement, and belonging/cohesion 

subscales; conflict item is not included in total score. All measures on a 1-4 scale. +Significant increase 

from mid-year to post-test, t(1 df) = 2.16, p = .03 . 

Multiple regression analysis accounting for clustering of participants in mentoring groups was 

used to examine associations of Mentor relationship quality and group climate with external and 

internal resilience assets. These models included controls for baseline scores on each dependent 

variable. 

Table 6.2b shows results of the regression analyses for external resilience assets. The quality of 

relationship with mentors was associated with increases in students’ perceived support at school 

and perceived support from peers. Positive perceptions of group climate were associated with 

increases in school support, meaningful participation at school and meaningful participation at 

home. 

Table 6.2.b

Youth reports of Relationship Quality	with Mentors and Overall Group Climate predicting	

change in external resilience assets.

School School Support School Meaningful 

Belonging Participation 

Rel. Quality with Mentors .26 (.22) .44 (.14) .11 (.13) 

Group Climate (overall) .31 (.22) .36 (.17) .26 (.13) 

Peer Support Prosocial Peers Home Support Home Meaningful

Participation 

Rel. Quality with Mentors .23 (.10) .06 (.14) .15 (.09) .22 (.18) 

Group Climate (overall) .26 (.18) .29 (.17) .14 (.14) .23 (.12) 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

		

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

30

Note: Regression models account for clustering in groups. Mid-year and post-test measures of 

relationship quality with mentors and group climate were averaged to create scores used in analysis. 

Unstandardized estimates for regression of external resilience assets (post-test) on relationship quality 

with mentors and overall group climate estimated in separate models that controlled for pre-test 

measures of resilience assets. Estimates that reached significance (p ≤ .05) are bolded. 

Table 6.2c shows results of the regression analyses for internal resilience assets. The quality of 

relationship with mentors was unrelated to internal resilience assets. Positive perceptions of 

group climate were associated with increases in self efficacy and self-awareness. 

Table 6.2.c

Youth reports of Relationship Quality	with Mentors and Overall Group Climate predicting	

change in internal resilience assets.

Self-Efficacy Empathy Problem Solving Self Awareness 

Rel. Quality with Mentors .22 (.14) .15 (.15) .11 (.09) .22 (.13) 

Group Climate (overall) .37 (.14) .31 (.19) .16 (.17) .52 (.15) 

Note: Regression models account for clustering in groups. Mid-year and post-test measures of 

relationship quality with mentors and group climate were averaged to create scores used in analysis. 

Unstandardized estimates for regression of internal resilience assets (post-test) on relationship quality 

with mentors and overall group climate estimated in separate models that controlled for pre-test 

measures of resilience assets. Estimates that reached significance (p ≤ .05) are bolded. 

Multiple regression analysis accounting for clustering of participants in mentoring groups was 

used to examine associations of mentor relationship quality and group climate with academic 

outcomes. These models included controls for baseline scores on each dependent variable. 

Table 6.2d shows results of the regression analyses for academic outcomes. The quality of 

relationship with mentors was associated with increases in students’ grades at the end of 9th and 

10th grades and with increases in credits earned at the end of 9th and 10th grades. Positive 

perceptions of group climate were associated with increases in school grades at the end of 10th 

grade. 

Table 6.2.d

Youth reports of Relationship Quality	with Mentors and Overall Group Climate predicting	

change in academic	outcomes at the end of 9th and 10th grades.

Grade Point Avg. (9) Instructional Time (9) Credits Earned (9) 

Rel. Quality with Mentors 0.34 (0.15) 2.27 (2.13) 4.46 (2.08) 

Group Climate (overall) 0.28 (0.18) -1.02 (2.22) 3.41 (2.17) 

Grade Point Avg. (10) Instructional Time (10) Credits Earned (10) 

Rel. Quality with Mentors 0.53 (0.17) 0.20 (0.14) 4.71 (2.12) 

Group Climate (overall) 0.26 (0.12) 0.13 (0.12) 0.18 (0.12) 

Note: Regression models account for clustering in groups. Mid-year and post-test measures of 

relationship quality with mentors and group climate were averaged to create scores used in analysis. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

31

Unstandardized estimates for regression of outcomes (end of 9th and 10th grades) on relationship quality 

with mentors and overall group climate estimated in separate models that controlled for 8th grade 

academic variables. Estimates that reached significance (p ≤ .05) are bolded. 

SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH QUESTION #2. 

group climate in contributing to outcomes for Project Arrive participants. 

Research Question #2 focused on the role of the quality of the relationship with mentors and 

(1) Positive relationships with mentors at mid-year and post-test assessments. 

Descriptive statistics indicated that participants reported: 

(3) Increases from mid-year to post-test only for the mutual help subscale of group climate. 

(2) A positive overall group climate and low levels of conflict at mid-year and post-test. 

(4) Project Arrive participants with more positive relationships with mentors showed increases in 

Key findings indicated: 

(5) Project Arrive participants who reported a more positive group climate showed increases in 

school support and caring relationships with peers by the end of 9th grade. 

(6) Project Arrive participants with more positive relationships with mentors showed increases in 

meaningful participation at home, self-efficacy, and self-awareness by the end of 9th grade. 

(7) Project Arrive participants who reported a more positive group climate showed increases in 

grades and credits earned by the end of both 9th and 10th grades. 

Relationships with mentors and group climate appear to play important, but distinct, roles in 

grades only at 10th grade. 

resilience assets and reducing academic risks. In contrast, group climate may play a greater role 

youth outcomes. Relationships with mentors may be more important for building external 

home). It is notable that although overall effects (relative to a comparison group) were not found 

in building internal resilience assets, and interestingly, with generalizing to other settings (e.g., 

group climate contributed to explaining variance in these outcomes, suggesting that improved 

for internal resilience assets and grades, variations in relationship quality with mentors and in 

implementation of mentoring groups could result in stronger effects in these areas. 

6.3 What program, mentor, and mentee characteristics contribute to positive group 

processes? 

For this analysis, we focused on three characteristics of mentoring groups group size, gender 

composition, and ethnic diversity, and one mentor characteristic – years of experience. We 

focused on the sample of Project Arrive participants who completed surveys (N = 114, number 

of groups, K = 32). Data on these group and mentor characteristics were drawn from several 

sources. We used a roster of all Project Arrive participants (not only those that completed 

surveys, N = 249) to construct the measures of group size, gender composition, and ethnic 

diversity. As shown in Table 6.3a, groups ranged in size from 2 to 9 members with a mean of 

6.28. given that most groups had two mentors the typical ratio of mentors to mentees was 

between 3:1 and 4:1. There were 10 all-male groups, 10 all-female groups, and 12 mixed-gender 

groups. Ethnic diversity of groups was calculated using the Inverse Simpson Index, which takes 

into account both the number of ethnic groups represented in each mentoring group and how 

evenly distributed the ethnic groups were within each mentoring group. The value of the index 

represents the probability that any two members drawn from the group would represent a 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

		

	 	 	 	

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

		

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

 

 

32

different ethnic group (i.e., 0 = no diversity; 1 = maximum diversity, see 

http://countrysideinfo.co.uk/simpsons.htm). 

Mentor experience was taken from the end of year mentor survey that was completed by 40 

mentors representing 30 different groups. Mentors reported their years of experience working 

with youth on a scale from 1 = less than 1 year to 6 = 16 or more years. When more than one 

mentor from a given group responded to the mentor survey, we averaged this rating. Mentors 

reported having between 1-2 years of experience to more than 16 years of experience, with a 

mean of 3.80, which corresponds to roughly 6-10 years of experience. 

Table 6.3.a

Descriptive statistics for	group and mentor	characteristics.

Mean (sd) Frequency Range (min-max) 

Group Size 6.28 (1.86) 2 – 9 

Gender Composition 

• Male Only 10 

• Female Only 10 

• Mixed Gender 12 

Group Ethnic Diversity 0.63 (0.28) 0 – 1 

Mentor Experience 3.80 (1.22) 2 – 6 

Note: Group diversity calculated using the Inverse Simpson’s diversity index (1 = maximum diversity); 

Mentor experience rated on a scale from 1 = less than 1 year to 6 = 16 or more years. 

Multilevel regression analyses were used to examine the role of group size, gender composition, 

ethnic diversity, and mentor experience in predicting change from mid-year to post-test in 

participant ratings of relationship quality with mentors and group climate. Given the small 

overall sample size and small cluster size, it was necessary to examine each of group and mentor 

characteristics in a separate model. As shown in Table 6.3b, participants in smaller groups rated 

both relationship quality with mentors and overall group climate more positively than those in 

larger groups. There were no significant associations of gender composition, ethnic diversity, or 

mentor experience with relationship quality with mentors and group climate. 

Table 6.3.b

Multilevel regression of relationship quality	with mentors and overall group climate on group

size, gender	composition, ethnic diversity, and mentor	experience (N = 114; K = 32).

Relationship Quality with Mentor Group Climate 

Group Size -0.54 (0.23) -0.62 (0.22) 

Gender 

• Female Only -0.57 (0.43) -0.80 (1.76) 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

33

• Mixed (Male and Female) 0.23 (0.38) -0.05 (0.50) 

• Male Only (Reference Group) n/a n/a 

Group Ethnic Diversity -0.09 (0.35) -0.16 (0.53) 

Mentor Experience 0.01 (0.07) 0.40 (0.93) 

Note: Unstandardized regression coefficients from separate multilevel regression models. Group and 

mentor characteristics measured at level 2. Each model examines post-test scores on the dv controlling 

for mid-year scores. Models that reached significance (p < .05) are bolded. 

SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH QUESTION #3. 

Research Question #3 focused on program, mentor, and mentee characteristics that contribute to 

the quality of the relationship with mentors and group climate. 

(1) Participants in smaller groups reported more positive relationships with mentors and a more 

positive group climate. 

(2) Gender composition, ethnic diversity, and mentor experience working with youth were 

unrelated to perceptions of the quality of the relationship with mentors and group climate. 

The lack of findings for gender composition, ethnic diversity, and mentor experience suggest that 

positive group experiences and relationships can emerge from a wide variety of group 

characteristics. However, it appears to be important to limit the size of groups, even in programs 

that emphasize co-mentoring or mentoring teams. 

6.4 What critical program practices (e.g., structured activities, student choice/influence 

on group activities) increase the likelihood of positive outcomes for the group and its 

members? How do structural, mentor, and mentee characteristics influence 

implementation and fidelity? 

The last two study questions were primarily qualitative and focused on gaining a deeper 

understanding of program practices, and insights from mentor and mentee experiences in the 

program. Project Arrive specifically targets academics and attendance; thus, it was important to 

identify how mentors were addressing academic concerns. Several mentors indicated that 

academic achievement was an important part of their weekly group meetings, and they used 

various tactics to address the academic needs of their mentees including binder check, personal 

accountability, goal setting and group incentives. One mentor described her group’s rituals 

surrounding academics: 

So each week they check in about academics for the last week and make a goal for the 

following week...They pick one class and they brain storm a list of things that they can 

practice to do well. And so, they pick one of those practices in one of those classes at 

least, or they come up with their own and they write it on a piece of paper with the name, 

the date, the class, and the practice. Then each week they check in about whether they 

were able to do that from the last week, and they set a new goal for the following week. 

That’s the second go ‘round and that’s been effective. 

Creating rituals and weekly routines likely fosters a sense of group identity and cohesion that 

supports mentees’ sense of belonging. In addition, setting weekly expectations to which students 

know they will be held accountable may be a motivating factor to improve academic 

performance. One mentee stated, “They give us advice to help us get our grades up.” 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

34

Almost every mentor described the benefits of close adult and peer connections that group 

participation facilitates. One mentor explained how these relationships foster a sense of school 

belonging that mentees had not experienced before: 

I think it’s creating that sense of belonging and relationship when they’re at school. And 

so, when they’re in the group, they’re building that relationship with us. So, I think all of 

us have kids that are in our groups and come talk to us outside of group time, like, “I 

need to talk to you about this thing!” Like, there’s an adult there that they can come to 

that they can bounce off anything from “I’m failing math,” to you know, “My family 

might become homeless,” or like boy trouble or whatever. Also having a sense of 

cohesiveness and connection with other peers, which is obviously very important to them. 

So, I think they get into that sense of like “This is our group.” 

One mentee described the relationship her group has with their mentors, “We trust them. A lot of 

the students come to the mentors.” Another stated, “Well, if you’re having a bad day then you go 

to them.” Mentors and mentees seem to identify the benefits of social relationships, 

connectedness, and group cohesion as a critical driving force in positive outcomes for mentees. 

Mentors and mentees reported valuing open and organic discussion over utilizing the provided 

curriculum. They generally felt that allowing students to talk about whatever was on their minds 

often lead to more meaningful interactions. Open discussions allowed mentees to receive support 

from the group for the issues with which they were struggling. A mentee reported, “Well, we’re 

friends here so, you know, if I’m getting bugged about something, I could ask them for help.” 

Another mentee described the mutual help and support of his group, stating, “Because, here, I 

don’t know...to me, I like the conversations that we have because they help me and give me 

advice” (translated from original Spanish). One school administrator discussed the shift from a 

curriculum focus to a more open dialogue within his group: 

The teacher in me tends to be more biased towards, you know, the curriculum piece- that 

has some writing involved, you can make something, or we’re reading something. But, 

then some of our most powerful groups have been when we’ve left some space for 

students to say what’s on their mind. Because then we build on that, and we push on that, 

and we see, “Oh, there’s an opportunity to teach more about this and to teach more 

about this.” 

Some differences in implementation emerged from the data regarding mentor experience. 

Mentors with a lot experience and training reported feeling more comfortable allowing their 

groups to be discussion-based. The curriculum seemed to be helpful for beginning mentors, but 

one experienced mentor described using the curriculum as a back-up: 

To me the curriculum is there if you’re not getting what you really want. Because, 

usually, if it’s a really innovative group, they’re basically saying, “I want to talk about 

this and that.” The curriculum is there...if you don’t know where to go if you are a group 

leader. Or you don’t know what to do. That’s how I look at it. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

35

Structuring groups with co-mentors also seemed to have a positive influence. Groups with 

mentors holding different specialties (i.e. academic advising, mental health counseling) were 

able to balance academic and socio-developmental needs of the group as well as create buy-in 

from the large school community. One conversation between two co-mentors described this 

dynamic: 

I really like having an [academic] counselor and wellness staff. Like, I think that we 

really complement each other. Like, I think having people that work in different 

departments and have different strengths as mentors is really helpful. Like [Name] can 

go over all of the grade stuff and the credits and blahblahblah; and, I can talk more 

about resources and mental-emotional health support that students might need outside 

the group. And just having, I mean I run a lot of groups, and [Name]’s run some 

groups—so having that combination of skills has been really really helpful. Cause she 

makes sure it’s not just like a process fun group. Cause she’s like “no, we’re keeping it 

on track with the academics”. We just have like different strengths that we put into it, 

which is good.” 

Co-mentors from different departments also helped create awareness of the various resources 

available to students to build school engagement. One mentor mentioned utilizing 

interdisciplinary co-mentor skills, knowledge, and resources: 

I also had other resources too. My co-facilitator, she’s a ASAP, an after school program 

coordinator, so we’ve talked to kids about internships like for summer jobs and 

internships. So we have that conversation too about providing them with connections 

with outside internships and jobs. 

Several mentors reflected on the energy and enthusiasm mentees had for Project Arrive, and this 

energy helped mentors maintain a positive view of their groups, describing their mentees as 

honest, diverse, and receptive. Mentees described their mentors as friendly, helpful, and 

trustworthy. 

Mentors also discussed the challenges regarding structuring groups. Specifically, matching 

students based on schedules and interests was difficult, but adding in social dynamics and 

individual preferences seemed impossible to several of the site coordinators. When matches 

failed, conflicts arose in groups, which resulted in tension and attrition. One mentor/site 

coordinator expressed her frustration about creating compatible groups: 

And the one girl just stopped coming. She said she wanted to get her grade up in that 

class, but I don’t know if that’s why. There were two different segments of the group. I 

think that part of the challenge, and I might have more of this because I do a lot of the 

coordinating of the groups and putting them together and who’s in what group, and it’s 

hard. You know normally when you’re structuring a group, you’re thinking about the 

different, unique personalities and how they might gel together and different group 

readiness factor type stuff. I’m not really able to do that because it starts so early in the 

year. So, it’s just kind of like, “Ok, we’ll just put all these kids in this group. And, it 

happened that in our group there was kind of like two packs of friends that I had no 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

36

awareness of, and we worked through some aspects of it, but there’s been some fall out. 

It’s not the easiest thing to negotiate. 

Another challenge that nearly every mentor reported experiencing was feeling pulled across 

several roles they play in the school. Mentors reported struggling to prioritize Project Arrive in 

the daily stress of their regular job responsibilities. Because mentoring is a volunteer position, 

schools often see it as “extra” and less valued than paid positions. One mentor described his 

effort to reconcile his regular job with his mentoring role: 

I think what doesn’t work so well is that we’re all so busy, and so its expected and can be 

challenging...But, I was thinking about it this morning, and I was like, “Do I want to do 

this next year?” because I am so busy. But, what I get in return and what they get in 

return is more important. They have somewhere that they are able to be free and speak 

about whatever they want. 

Despite mentors’ demanding schedules and other challenges, they expressed a firm commitment 

to their groups. One mentor provided this description of her group’s commitment to one another: 

My group is like a little family. We spend a lot of time together. We joke around. We help 

each other out. You can tell when someone’s having a bad day and we gather around and 

support that person. In the beginning, it took a while to get there. And, that’s why I didn’t 

want to let go. You know, we did all this work and they’re asking to continue. And that’s 

a good feeling. Now, I see them at lunch helping each other out, and kind of building 

their own communities. 

SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH QUESTIONS #4 and #5. 

Research Questions #4 and #5 focused on program practices that influence implementation and 

fidelity. Key themes from focus groups with mentors and mentees include the following: 

(1) Rituals and regular routines related to program and group goals contribute to a sense of group 

identity and cohesion. 

(2) Relationships with mentors and other students are key to forming a sense of belonging to the 

group and to school. An important feature of these relationships is a shared sense of 

ownership and influence in determining group discussions and activities. 

(3) Co-mentoring can have a powerful influence, particularly when mentors bring different and 

complementary skills to their groups. 

(4) A structured curriculum may be most beneficial to relatively inexperienced mentors 

(5) Key challenges to effective implementation include difficulties integrating the program into 

the school schedule, and role conflicts experienced by mentors who must balance their 

positions of authority in the school with the more informal mentoring role. 

CONCLUSION, DISCUSSION, & IMPLICATIONS 

Overall, Project Arrive appears to be a promising strategy for young people at risk for dropping 

out of school. The data revealed positive effects of participation for several resilience assets and 

reducing academic risk factors. Findings also pointed to the role of positive relationships with 

mentors and group climate in contributing to these outcomes. Researchers found that smaller 

group sizes were related to development of relationships with mentors and group climate, but 

other group characteristics such as gender and ethnic diversity of mentees was less important. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

7 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

37

Mentors and mentees reported several critical program practices including rituals and routines, 

relationally focused sessions, co-mentors, and a flexible curriculum. These findings have 

important implications for group mentoring theory and application. 

Project arrive is building external resilience assets, including school support, school belonging, 

school meaningful participation, peer caring relationships, prosocial peers, and home meaningful 

participation, which have been found to be related to school dropout (Benard, 2004). Further, the 

results reveal larger effect sizes (d= .35 - .66) for these outcomes than is typical in mentoring 

literature (Dubois et al., 2011), indicating that group mentoring may be particularly effective at 

promoting resilience for this population. These findings are consistent with previous research on 

group mentoring showing that reports of closeness with mentors and group discussions about 

personal issues were associated with improved relationships with parents, teachers, and peers 

(Herrera, Vang, & Gale, 2002). There is compelling evidence that the complex social structure of 

group mentoring may offer opportunities to develop relationships and a sense of connection with 

peers and adults. Within these relationships, mentees may also begin to develop skills needed to 

maintain relationships. For example, mentors can model effective communication and teamwork 

as well as guide the group as a whole in resolving conflicts that arise. Youth are able to observe 

and practice these interpersonal skills in a safe environment. 

There were significant findings for one internal asset- problem solving. This may be due to 

Project Arrive’s focus on building skills and resources to navigate academic and social 

challenges. Other hypothesized gains in internal assets possibly did not pan out given the 

developmental nature of resilience. Constantine and colleagues (1999) propose that the 

development of internal resilience assets occurs as a result of a transactional process between an 

individual and positive environmental contexts (e.g. family, school, peers, community). As such, 

increases in external assets are thought to lead to increases in internal assets. The measures used 

in this study were taken from the Resilience and Youth Development Module of the California 

Healthy Kids Survey, which utilizes the developmental model of resilience as a theoretical 

framework (Hanson & Kim, 2007). It is possible that Project Arrive may play a role in 

promoting external assets in the short term, which will eventually lead to increases in internal 

assets. More longitudinal research with longer follow-up is needed to know for sure. Future 

projects may also build on these findings by incorporating specific strategies to target internal 

assets. For example, brief interventions to promote mastery motivation, often referred to as a 

“growth mindset” have proven to be effective for youth experiencing academic risk factors and 

could be implemented within the context of mentoring programs (Paunesku et al., 2015). Also, 

interventions to build skills in effective help-seeking and expanding social capital networks can 

be incorporated as a strategy to enhance long-term effects (Schwartz & Rhodes, 2016). 

This study revealed moderate effects favoring Project Arrive on credits earned toward graduation 

by the end of 9th and 10th grades, and a small positive effect of Project Arrive on instructional 

time by the end of 9th grade. Additionally, 60% of participants were on track to graduate 

compared to less than half of the comparison group. Although drastic improvements in academic 

performance were not found, program participation seems to be slowing the rate of academic 

decline that is often seen in the transition to high school. Overall, findings suggest that Project 

Arrive contributes to reducing educational inequalities for youth at risk for dropping out of 

school. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

38

In general, Project Arrive participants had higher risk for juvenile justice system contact than 

comparisons; however, examining the numbers by year revealed an interesting pattern (albeit not 

statistically significant) of lower risk during the year of program participation. This pattern was 

revealed through the use of the concept of relative risk, which is often utilized to measure 

variables with low incidence rates. Unfortunately, researchers did not have individual level data, 

so they could not perform detailed analyses, which may have shed more light on this finding. 

Quality of relationships with mentors and group climate appear to contribute to positive 

outcomes for group-mentored youth. Mentee reports of the quality of relationships with mentors 

were related to increases in school support, caring relationships with peers, grades and credits 

earned with effects lasting one year after program participation in some cases. It seems that 

relationships with mentors may be more important for building external resilience assets and 

reducing academic risks. In contrast, group climate was related to increases in meaningful 

participation at home, self-efficacy, and self-awareness as well as improvements in grades at 10th 

grade. Group climate may play a greater role in building internal resilience assets, and 

interestingly, with generalizing to other settings (e.g., home). Group climate includes feelings of 

connectedness and belonging, mutual help, and engagement. Participants who experience these 

characteristics in one intimate social circle may be better equipped to generalize them to another. 

Notably, whereas overall effects for participation in Project Arrive were not found for internal 

resilience assets and grades, variations in relationship quality with mentors and group climate did 

contribute to explaining variance in these outcomes, suggesting that improved implementation of 

mentoring groups could result in stronger effects in these areas. 

Given the importance of quality of relationship with mentors and group climate, researchers 

examined program, mentee, and mentor characteristics that may influence these variables. There 

were no significant findings related to gender or ethnic make-up of groups, suggesting that 

meaningful relationships and positive group processes can develop within a wide variety of 

group demographics. Participants in smaller groups reported more positive relationships with 

mentors and positive group climate. These findings indicate that it is less important for groups to 

be structured around gender or ethnic make-up and more important for mentor to mentee ratios 

to be limited. Establishing smaller groups may help foster the processes of building interpersonal 

connections and developing meaningful experiences within the group. 

Focus groups with mentors and mentees revealed additional valuable information related to 

program practices that influence implementation and fidelity. Structuring groups with comentors who bring different knowledge and skills to the group helped keep balance between 

academic and socioemotional development goals. Mentors also found it helpful to prioritize 

appropriate matches among mentees and with mentors; however, the logistics of meeting 

everyone’s preferences were difficult. Beginning to form groups as early in the year as possible 

may make achieving these goals more realistic; however, in order to do so, an onsite program 

coordinator is likely needed given the taxed schedules of mentors. To build a sense of group 

belonging and cohesion, groups may benefit from incorporating rituals and weekly routines 

(reading covenant, academic check-ins) into meetings as well as a focus on relational aspects of 

group like trust, mutual help, and support fostered through discussion-based activities. Mentors 

also noted that it was helpful to have buy-in from the larger school community, which supported 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

39

and reinforced mentoring roles. More research is needed to develop effective practices for 

optimizing program structure. 

Group mentoring is a promising approach to reducing risk for school dropout. In particular, 

Project Arrive has many strengths including the infrastructure of a school setting, engaging 

professional mentors with insider access to the school system and human services training, and 

generally enthusiastic and willing school environments. Given these specific features of Project 

Arrive, it is possible that the findings of this study would not generalize to a non-school setting 

or programs that do not recruit mentors with professional backgrounds. Additionally, Project 

Arrive co-mentors collaboratively generated group activities with mentees, which led to some 

deviations from provided curriculum. Mentors seemed careful to follow general principles of the 

program, but a lack of thorough attendance and activity logs made it difficult to evaluate 

program fidelity. There were also difficulties achieving the desired response rate given that the 

project targeted an already disengaged sample of youth (i.e. EWI identified). To supplement 

survey and focus group data, researchers negotiated access to additional data that enabled 

analysis of short-term and intermediate academic outcomes, but more in-depth analyses of 

potential mediators and moderators of those effects were limited.. 

Future research should strive to develop a more structured curriculum that still incorporates 

flexibility for collaboration and relational activities. In addition, more creative and effective 

practices are needed for tracking program fidelity. Building on current findings, Project Arrive 

may begin to incorporate preliminary best practices related to structuring groups and focusing 

curriculum. Specifically, next steps include efforts to target internal resilience assets such as 

implementing activities related to growth mindset and youth initiated mentoring. The program is 

also being expanded to middle schools expanding the need for further research to address 

necessary adaptations to meet the needs of a younger population. 

In conclusion, the findings indicate that Project Arrive is an auspicious approach to building 

resilience and reducing risk for young people vulnerable to school dropout and juvenile justice 

involvement. Building on these findings, future research should continue studying the potential 

of group mentoring programs, both in school and community settings. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

40

8 REFERENCES 

Austin, P. C., & Stuart, E. A. (2015). Moving towards best practice when using inverse 

probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) using the propensity score to estimate causal 

treatment effects in observational studies. Statistics in medicine, 34(28), 3661-3679. 

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological 

review, 84(2), 191. 

Benard, B. (2004). Resiliency: What We Have Learned. WestEd. 

Boddy, J. (2009). Challenging Gender Role Stereotypes and Creating Pathways for Goal 

Achievement: A Study of a Group Mentoring Programme for Women from 

Disadvantaged Communities. Qualitative Social Work, 8(4), 489. 

Bonebright, D. A. (2010). 40 years of storming: a historical review of Tuckman’s model of small 

group development. Human Resource Development International, 13(1), 111–120. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/13678861003589099 

Brezina, T., Kuperminc, G., & Tekin, E. (2016). Future Selves, Motivational Capital, and 

Mentoring Toward College: Assessing the Impact of an Enhanced Mentoring Program 

for At-Risk Youth. National Criminal Justice Reference Service: 

https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=272660 

Bridgeland, J.M., Dilulio, J.J., & Morison, K.B. (2001). Abandoned in the Back Row: New 

Lessons in Education and Delinquency Prevention. Coalition for Juvenile Justice. 

Bridgeland, J.M., Dilulio, J.J., & Morison, K.B. (2006). The Silent Epidemic: Perspectives of 

High School Dropouts. A report by Civic Enterprises in association with Peter D. Hart 

Research Associates for the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. 

Center for Promise. (2015). Don’t quit on me: What young people who left school say about the 

power of relationships. Washington, DC: America’s Promise Alliance. Retrieved from 

http://www.americaspromise.org/report/dont-quit-me 

Constantine, N. A., Benard, B., Diaz, M., Constantine, N. A., & D, P. (1999). Measuring 

protective factors and resilience traits in youth: The healthy kids resilience assessment. 

Paper presented at the Seventh Annual Meeting of the Society for Prevention Research. 

Development Services Group, Inc. (2010). Truancy Prevention. Literature review. Washington, 

D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Retrieved from 

https://www.ojjdp.gov/mpg/litreviews/Truancy_Prevention.pdf 

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, 57-91. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

41

Eaton, D. K., et al. (2008). Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance - United States, 2007. Morbidity 

and Mortality Weekly Report, 57(SS-4), 1-130. 

Garringer, M., Kupersmidt, J., Rhodes, J., Stelter, R., & Tai, T. (2015). Elements of effective 

practice for mentoring. Boston: MENTOR: The National Mentoring Partnership. 

Geenan, S., Powers, L. E., Phillips, L. A., Nelson, M., Blanchette, L., Croskey, A., ... Swank, P. 

(2015). Better Futures: a Randomized Field Test of a Model for Supporting Young 

People in Foster Care with Mental Health Challenges to Participate in Higher Education. 

The Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research, 42, 150–171. https://doi.org/DOI 

10.1007/s11414-014-9451-6 

Hanson, T.L. & Kim, J.O. (2007). Measuring resilience and youth development: The 

psychometric properties of the Healthy Kids Survey. (Issues and Answers Report, REL 

2007-No. 034). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education 

Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional 

Educational Laboratory West. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs. 

Herrera, C., Vang, Z., & Gale, L.Y. (2002). Group mentoring: A study of mentoring in three 

programs. Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private Ventures. 

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, 346-361. 

House, D., Kuperminc, G., & Lapidus, R. (2005). Schoolbased group mentoring: An ecological 

analysis. In Poster presented at the 10th Biennial Meeting of the Society for Community 

Research and Action, Champaign-Urbana, IL. 

Jent, J.F., & Niec, L.N. (2009). Cognitive Behavioral Principles Within Group Mentoring: A 

Randomized Pilot Study. Child & Family Behavior Therapy, 31, 203–219. 

John. W. Gardner Center for Youth and their Communities. Developing Early Warning 

Indicators for the San Francisco Unified School District. Issue Brief. June 2011: 

http://gardnercenter.stanford.edu/resources/publications/JGC_IB_SFUSDEarlyWarningIn 

dicators2011.pdf 

Karcher, M. J., Kuperminc, G. P., Portwood, S. G., Sipe, C. ., & Taylor, A. S. (2006). Mentoring 

programs: A framework to inform program development, research, and evaluation. 

Journal of Community Psychology, 34, 709–725. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.20125 

Kuperminc, G. P. (2012). Going for groups: A practical and theoretical case for group 

mentoring. Presented at the Summer Institute on Youth Mentoring, Center for 

Interdisciplinary Mentoring Research, Portland State University, Portland, OR. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

42

Kuperminc, G. (2016, January). Group Mentoring. Retrieved April 23, 2016, from 

http://www.nationalmentoringresourcecenter.org/index.php/what-works-inmentoring/model-and-population-reviews.html?id=121 

Kuperminc, G. P., & Thomason, J. D. (2013). Group mentoring. In D. L. DuBois & M. J. 

Karcher (Eds.), Handbook of Youth Mentoring (2nd Ed., pp. 273–290). Newbury Park, 

CA: Sage. 

Lynch, M., Astone, N. M., Collasos, J., Lipman, M., & Esthappan, S. (2018). Arches 

Transformative Mentoring Program: An Implementation and Impact Evaluation in New 

York City. New York: Urban Institute. 

Paunesku, D., Walton, G. M., Romero, C., Smith, E. N., Yeager, D. S., & Dweck, C. S. (2015). 

Mind-set interventions are a scalable treatment for academic underachievement. 

Psychological Science, 26(6), 784–793. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615571017 

Plourde, K. F., Ippoliti, N. B., Nanda, G., & McCarraher, D. R. (2017). Review article: 

Mentoring Interventions and the Impact of Protective Assets on the Reproductive Health 

of Adolescent Girls and Young Women. Journal of Adolescent Health, 61, 131–139. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2017.03.002 

San Francisco Unified School District (2012). Facts at a Glance. 

http://www.sfusd.edu/en/assets/sfusd-staff/about-SFUSD/files/sfusd-facts-at-a-glance2012.pdf 

Schwartz, S. E. O., & Rhodes, J. E. (2016). From treatment to empowerment: New approaches to 

youth mentoring. American Journal of Community Psychology, 58(1–2), 150–157. 

https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12070 

Seroczynski, A. D., Evans, W. N., Jobst, A. D., Horvath, L., & Carozza, G. (2016). Reading for 

Life and adolescent re-arrest: Evaluating a unique juvenile diversion program. Journal of 

Policy Analysis and Management, 35(3), 662–682. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.21916 

Shader, M. (2004). “Risk Factors for Delinquency: An Overview.” Office of Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention: 

https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=207540 

Sickmund, M., & Puzzanchera, C. (2014). Juvenile offenders and victims: 2014 national report. 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 

State of California Department of Education. (2009-10). DataQuest. Retrieved 04/18/2012: 

http://data1.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/DropoutReporting/GradeEth.aspx?cDistrictName=San+ 

Francisco+Unified&cCountyCode=38&cDistrictCode=3868478&cSchoolCode=0000000 

&Level=District&TheReport=EthOnly&ProgramName=All&cYear=2009-

10&cAggSum=DTotGrade&cGender=B 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

43

Sterba, S. K. (2017). Partially nested designs in psychotherapy trials: A review of modeling 

developments. Psychotherapy Research, 27(4), 425-436. 

Stuart, E. A., Lee, B. K., & Leacy, F. P. (2013). Prognostic score–based balance measures can be 

a useful diagnostic for propensity score methods in comparative effectiveness 

research. Journal of clinical epidemiology, 66(8), S84-S90. 

Tuckman, B. W., & Jensen, M. A. C. (2010). Stages of Small-Group Development Revisited. 

Group Facilitation: A Research & Applications Journal, 10, 43–48. 

Washington, G., Barnes, D., & Watts, R. J. (2014). Reducing risk for youth violence by 

promoting healthy development with pyramid mentoring: A proposal for a culturally 

centered group mentoring. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 24(6), 

646–657. https://doi.org/10.1080/10911359.2014.922789 

Zimmerman, M. A., Stoddard, S. A., Eisman, A. B., Caldwell, C. H., Aiyer, S. M., & Miller, A. 

(2013). Adolescent resilience: Promotive factors that inform prevention. Child 

Development Perspectives, 7(4), 215–220. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
44

9 APPENDICES (RESEARCH PROTOCOLS, SURVEYS) 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

45

Appendix A. 

Variable list for Student Surveys. 

VAR NAME VARIABLE LABEL VALUES # ITEMS ALPHA CONSTRUCT SOURCE 

HO_Num Student ID 1 N/A 

cohort Cohort 1 (2014-15) 2 (2015-16) 1 to 2 1 N/A 

school School Attended 1 N/A 

partic Project Arrive participant vs 

comparison 1=Project Arrive; 0=Comparison 1 N/A 

ageyears 

Age in years (from post if 

missing pre) N/A socio-demographic 

agemnths Age in months (from post if 

missing pre) N/A socio-demographic 

lowinc Low income (from post if 

missing pre) 1=free/reduced lunch, 0=no free/reduced lunch 1 N/A socio-demographic 

agemo_1 Age in months N/A socio-demographic 

ageyr_1 Age in years N/A socio-demographic 

sex_1 Sex Male (1) Female (2) 1=Male, 2=Female 1 N/A socio-demographic 

hisp_1 Ethnic Hispanic (1) Not Hispanic 

(0) 1=Hispanic, 0=Not Hispanic (any race) 1 N/A socio-demographic 

California Healthy Kids 

Survey 

race_1 Race (regardless of whether 

Hispanic) 

1=Am Ind, 2=Asian, 3=Black/AfrAm, 

4=Hawaiian/PacIsl, 5=White, 6=Mixed 1 N/A socio-demographic 

California Healthy Kids 

Survey 

home_1 Home living situation 

1=both par, 2=one par,3=oth rel, 4=mult fam, 

5=friends home, 6=foster home, 7=hotel/motel, 

9=other 1 N/A socio-demographic 

California Healthy Kids 

Survey 

lowinc_1 Low income (free or reduced 

lunch) 1=free/reduced lunch, 0=no free/reduced lunch 1 N/A socio-demographic 

raceth_1 Race/Ethnicity (combined from 

race_1/hisp_1) 

1=Am Ind, 2=Asian, 3=Black/AfrAm, 

4=Hawaiian/PacIsl, 5=White, 6=Mixed, 

7=Hispanic/Latino 2 N/A socio-demographic 

dstres_1 WAI Distress 1 to 5 12 0.84 

emotional adjustment 

and problem behavior 

Weinberger & Schwartz 

(1990) 

anx_1 WAI Anxiety 1 to 5 3 0.69 

emotional adjustment 

and problem behavior 

Weinberger & Schwartz 

(1990) 

depres_1 WAI Depression 1 to 5 3 0.72 

emotional adjustment 

and problem behavior 

Weinberger & Schwartz 

(1990) 

slfest_1 WAI Self-Esteem 1 to 5 3 0.61 

emotional adjustment 

and problem behavior 

Weinberger & Schwartz 

(1990) 

wellbe_1 WAI Wellbeing 1 to 5 3 0.76 

emotional adjustment 

and problem behavior 

Weinberger & Schwartz 

(1990) 

anxdep_1 WAI Anxiety/Depression 1 to 5 6 0.82 

emotional adjustment 

and problem behavior 

Weinberger & Schwartz 

(1990) 

sewell_1 WAI Self-Esteem/Wellbeing 1 to 5 6 0.71 

emotional adjustment 

and problem behavior 

Weinberger & Schwartz 

(1990) 

dstrsum_1 WAI Distress Total Sum Score 12 to 60 12 0.84 

emotional adjustment 

and problem behavior 

Weinberger & Schwartz 

(1990) 

hidstr_1 WAI High Distress (above cutoff). 0=below cutoff, 1=above cutoff 12 N/A 

emotional adjustment 

and problem behavior 

Weinberger & Schwartz 

(1990) 

slfeff_1 CHKS Self-efficacy 1 to 4 4 0.71 

internal resilience 

assets 

California Healthy Kids 

Survey 

empath_1 CHKS empathy 1 to 4 3 0.82 

internal resilience 

assets 

California Healthy Kids 

Survey 

prbsol_1 CHKS problem solving 1 to 4 2 0.67 

internal resilience 

assets 

California Healthy Kids 

Survey 

slfawr_1 CHKS Self Aware 1 to 4 3 0.70 

internal resilience 

assets 

California Healthy Kids 

Survey 

aggres_1 Aggression Sum (frequency) 0 to 71.5 11 0.88 

emotional adjustment 

and problem behavior 

Orpinas (1998) cf Dahlberg 

et al (2005) 

acasp_1 Acad Aspiration 

1=9-11th gr, 2=Grad HS, 3=Post HS training, 4=Some 

college, 5=Bus Coll/2yr Degree, 6=Grad 4yr Coll, 

7=MA/Teaching Cred, 8=Law Deg, PhD, MD 1 N/A 

internal resilience 

assets Stevens et al (1992) 

acexp_1 Acad Expectation 

1=9-11th gr, 2=Grad HS, 3=Post HS training, 4=Some 

college, 5=Bus Coll/2yr Degree, 6=Grad 4yr Coll, 

7=MA/Teaching Cred, 8=Law Deg, PhD, MD 1 N/A 

internal resilience 

assets Stevens et al (1992) 

ethexp_1 MEIM Exploration 1 to 5 3 0.83 cultural factors Phinney & Ong (2007) 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

46

ethcom_1 MEIM Commitment 1 to 5 3 0.77 cultural factors Phinney & Ong (2007) 

ethtot_1 MEIM Eth ID Total 1 to 5 6 0.88 cultural factors Phinney & Ong (2007) 

ethfr_1 MEIM Friends in Ethnic Group 1 to 5 1 N/A cultural factors Phinney & Ong (2007) 

scholas_1 Scholastic Competence 1 to 4 5 0.69 

internal resilience 

assets Harter (1988) 

schbel_1 CHKS School Belonging 1 to 5 5 0.78 

positive social 

connections 

California Healthy Kids 

Survey 

schbelhml_ 

1 

CHKS Sch Belong (HiMidLow 

Scoring) 1=Low, 2=Mid, 3=High 5 N/A 

positive social 

connections 

California Healthy Kids 

Survey 

cigev_1 YRBS Ever smoked cigarettes 0 to 1 1 N/A 

emotional adjustment 

and problem behavior Youth Risk Behavior Survey 

cig30_1 YRBS Days smoked last 30 days 0 to 30 1 N/A 

emotional adjustment 

and problem behavior Youth Risk Behavior Survey 

cign30_1 YRBS Cigarettes smoked last 30 

days 0 to 20 1 N/A 

emotional adjustment 

and problem behavior Youth Risk Behavior Survey 

alcev_1 YRBS Ever had 1+ drinks alcohol 0 to 1 1 N/A 

emotional adjustment 

and problem behavior Youth Risk Behavior Survey 

alcday_1 YRBS Alcohol days ever 0 to 100 1 N/A 

emotional adjustment 

and problem behavior Youth Risk Behavior Survey 

alc30_1 YRBS Alcohol past 30 days 0 to 30 1 N/A 

emotional adjustment 

and problem behavior Youth Risk Behavior Survey 

bnge30_1 YRBS Days 5+ drinks (past 30) 0 to 20 1 N/A 

emotional adjustment 

and problem behavior Youth Risk Behavior Survey 

marev_1 YRBS Ever used marijuana 0 to 1 1 N/A 

emotional adjustment 

and problem behavior Youth Risk Behavior Survey 

martm_1 YRBS Marijuana # times ever 

used 0 to 100 1 N/A 

emotional adjustment 

and problem behavior Youth Risk Behavior Survey 

mar30_1 YRBS Marijuana # times past 30 

days 0 to 40 1 N/A 

emotional adjustment 

and problem behavior Youth Risk Behavior Survey 

weapn_1 YRBS Weapon at school last 12 

months 0 to 12 1 N/A 

emotional adjustment 

and problem behavior Youth Risk Behavior Survey 

fight_1 YRBS Fight at school last 12 

months 0 to 12 1 N/A 

emotional adjustment 

and problem behavior Youth Risk Behavior Survey 

skip_1 YRBS Skip school last 12 months 0 to 40 1 N/A 

emotional adjustment 

and problem behavior Youth Risk Behavior Survey 

arrest_1 Arrested last 12 months 0 to 5 1 N/A 

emotional adjustment 

and problem behavior 

gang_1 Gang Member 0 to 1 1 N/A 

emotional adjustment 

and problem behavior 

prcare_1 CHKS Peer caring relationships 1 to 4 3 0.91 

positive social 

connections 

California Healthy Kids 

Survey 

socpr_1 CHKS Prosocial peers 1 to 4 2 0.82 

positive social 

connections 

California Healthy Kids 

Survey 

sclsup_1 CHKS School support 1 to 4 6 0.93 

positive social 

connections 

California Healthy Kids 

Survey 

sclpar_1 CHKS School meaningful 

participation 1 to 4 3 0.88 

positive social 

connections 

California Healthy Kids 

Survey 

homsup_1 CHKS Home support 1 to 4 6 0.86 

positive social 

connections 

California Healthy Kids 

Survey 

hompar_1 CHKS Home meaningful 

participation 1 to 4 2 0.83 

positive social 

connections 

California Healthy Kids 

Survey 

sclsuphml_ 

1 

CHKS School Support 

(HiMidLow Scoring) 1=Low, 2=Mid, 3=High 6 N/A 

positive social 

connections 

California Healthy Kids 

Survey 

sclparhml_1 CHKS School Meaningful partic 

(HiMidLow Scoring) 1=Low, 2=Mid, 3=High 3 N/A 

positive social 

connections 

California Healthy Kids 

Survey 

scathl_1 School Athletic Team 0 to 1 1 N/A activity involvement Fredricks & Eccles (2006) 

scclub_1 School Clubs/Student Govt 0 to 1 1 N/A activity involvement Fredricks & Eccles (2006) 

comact_1 Community Activities 0 to 1 1 N/A activity involvement Fredricks & Eccles (2006) 

orgsp_1 Organized sports or rec 

programs 0 to 1 1 N/A activity involvement Fredricks & Eccles (2006) 

volun_1 Volunteer service 0 to 1 1 N/A activity involvement Fredricks & Eccles (2006) 

civrt_1 Civic rights activities 0 to 1 1 N/A activity involvement Fredricks & Eccles (2006) 

hobby_1 Hobbies or other activities 0 to 1 1 N/A activity involvement Fredricks & Eccles (2006) 

fment_1 Ever been in formal mentoring 

program 0 to 1 1 N/A activity involvement Fredricks & Eccles (2006) 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

47

hvment_1 Have current Mentor 0 to 1 1 N/A activity involvement 

acttot_1 Activities total (not incl 

mentoring questions) 0 to 7 7 N/A activity involvement 

hope_1 Hope total score 1 to 6 6 0.90 

internal resilience 

assets Snyder (1997) 

hpagn_1 Hope Agency 1 to 6 3 0.83 

internal resilience 

assets Snyder (1997) 

hppath_1 Hope Pathways 1 to 6 3 0.83 

internal resilience 

assets Snyder (1997) 

qrment_2 Quality of Relationship with 

Mentors 1 to 4 4 0.85 

group social 

process/engagement 

Kuperminc & Cummings 

(2010) 

muthlp_2 Mentoring Group Mutual Help 1 to 4 4 0.84 

group social 

process/engagement 

Kuperminc & Cummings 

(2010) 

greng_2 Mentoring Group Engagement 1 to 4 3 0.77 

group social 

process/engagement Kuperminc (2009) 

grcoh_2 Mentoring Group Cohesion 1 to 4 5 0.78 

group social 

process/engagement 

Kuperminc & Cummings 

(2010) 

grconf_2 Mentoring Group Conflict 1 to 4 1 N/A 

group social 

process/engagement 

Kuperminc & Cummings 

(2010) 

grtot_2 Mentoring Group Total 

(MH,Eng,Coh,-Conf) 1 to 4 13 0.90 

group social 

process/engagement 

Kuperminc & Cummings 

(2010) 

agemo_3 Age in months N/A socio-demographic 

ageyr_3 Age in years N/A socio-demographic 

lowinc_3 Low income (free or reduced 

lunch) 1=free/reduced lunch, 0=no free/reduced lunch 1 N/A socio-demographic 

wellctr_3 Wellness Center Use (# times) 0 to 10 1 N/A Stone et al. (2013) 

qrment_3 Quality of Relationship with 

Mentors 1 to 4 4 0.84 

group social 

process/engagement 

Kuperminc & Cummings 

(2010) 

muthlp_3 Mentoring Group Mutual Help 1 to 4 4 0.90 

group social 

process/engagement 

Kuperminc & Cummings 

(2010) 

greng_3 Mentoring Group Engagement 1 to 4 3 0.80 

group social 

process/engagement Kuperminc (2009) 

grcoh_3 Mentoring Group Cohesion 1 to 4 5 0.76 

group social 

process/engagement 

Kuperminc & Cummings 

(2010) 

grconf_3 Mentoring Group Conflict 1 to 4 1 N/A 

group social 

process/engagement 

Kuperminc & Cummings 

(2010) 

grtot_3 Mentoring Group Total 

(MH,Eng,Coh,-Conf) 1 to 4 13 0.89 

group social 

process/engagement 

Kuperminc & Cummings 

(2010) 

dstres_3 WAI Distress 1 to 5 12 0.86 

emotional adjustment 

and problem behavior 

Weinberger & Schwartz 

(1990) 

anx_3 WAI Anxiety 1 to 5 3 0.70 

emotional adjustment 

and problem behavior 

Weinberger & Schwartz 

(1990) 

depres_3 WAI Depression 1 to 5 3 0.81 

emotional adjustment 

and problem behavior 

Weinberger & Schwartz 

(1990) 

slfest_3 WAI Self-Esteem 1 to 5 3 0.60 

emotional adjustment 

and problem behavior 

Weinberger & Schwartz 

(1990) 

wellbe_3 WAI Wellbeing 1 to 5 3 0.78 

emotional adjustment 

and problem behavior 

Weinberger & Schwartz 

(1990) 

anxdep_3 WAI Anxiety/Depression 1 to 5 6 0.86 

emotional adjustment 

and problem behavior 

Weinberger & Schwartz 

(1990) 

sewell_3 WAI Self-Esteem/Wellbeing 1 to 5 6 0.74 

emotional adjustment 

and problem behavior 

Weinberger & Schwartz 

(1990) 

dstrsum_3 WAI Distress Total Sum Score 12 to 60 12 0.86 

emotional adjustment 

and problem behavior 

Weinberger & Schwartz 

(1990) 

hidstr_3 WAI High Distress (above cutoff). 0=below cutoff, 1=above cutoff 12 N/A 

emotional adjustment 

and problem behavior 

Weinberger & Schwartz 

(1990) 

slfeff_3 CHKS Self-efficacy 1 to 4 4 0.75 

internal resilience 

assets 

California Healthy Kids 

Survey 

empath_3 CHKS empathy 1 to 4 3 0.84 

internal resilience 

assets 

California Healthy Kids 

Survey 

prbsol_3 CHKS problem solving 1 to 4 2 0.74 

internal resilience 

assets 

California Healthy Kids 

Survey 

slfawr_3 CHKS Self Aware 1 to 4 3 0.76 

internal resilience 

assets 

California Healthy Kids 

Survey 

aggres_3 Aggression Sum (frequency) 0 to 71.5 11 0.83 

emotional adjustment 

and problem behavior 

Orpinas (1998) cf Dahlberg 

et al (2005) 

acasp_3 Acad Aspiration 

1=9-11th gr, 2=Grad HS, 3=Post HS training, 4=Some 

college, 5=Bus Coll/2yr Degree, 6=Grad 4yr Coll, 

7=MA/Teaching Cred, 8=Law Deg, PhD, MD 1 N/A 

internal resilience 

assets Stevens et al (1992) 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

48

acexp_3 Acad Expectation 

1=9-11th gr, 2=Grad HS, 3=Post HS training, 4=Some 

college, 5=Bus Coll/2yr Degree, 6=Grad 4yr Coll, 

7=MA/Teaching Cred, 8=Law Deg, PhD, MD 1 N/A 

internal resilience 

assets Stevens et al (1992) 

ethexp_3 MEIM Exploration 1 to 5 3 0.87 cultural factors Phinney & Ong (2007) 

ethcom_3 MEIM Commitment 1 to 5 3 0.83 cultural factors Phinney & Ong (2007) 

ethtot_3 MEIM Eth ID Total 1 to 5 6 0.92 cultural factors Phinney & Ong (2007) 

ethfr_3 MEIM Friends in Ethnic Group 1 to 5 1 N/A cultural factors Phinney & Ong (2007) 

scholas_3 Scholastic Competence 1 to 4 5 0.54 

internal resilience 

assets Harter (1988) 

schbel_3 CHKS School Belonging 1 to 5 5 0.78 

positive social 

connections 

California Healthy Kids 

Survey 

schbelhml_ 

3 

CHKS Sch Belong (HiMidLow 

Scoring) 1=Low, 2=Mid, 3=High 5 N/A 

positive social 

connections 

California Healthy Kids 

Survey 

cigev_3 YRBS Ever smoked cigarettes 0 to 1 1 N/A 

emotional adjustment 

and problem behavior Youth Risk Behavior Survey 

cig30_3 YRBS Days smoked last 30 days 0 to 30 1 N/A 

emotional adjustment 

and problem behavior Youth Risk Behavior Survey 

cign30_3 YRBS Cigarettes smoked last 30 

days 0 to 20 1 N/A 

emotional adjustment 

and problem behavior Youth Risk Behavior Survey 

alcev_3 YRBS Ever had 1+ drinks alcohol 0 to 1 1 N/A 

emotional adjustment 

and problem behavior Youth Risk Behavior Survey 

alcday_3 YRBS Alcohol days ever 0 to 100 1 N/A 

emotional adjustment 

and problem behavior Youth Risk Behavior Survey 

alc30_3 YRBS Alcohol past 30 days 0 to 30 1 N/A 

emotional adjustment 

and problem behavior Youth Risk Behavior Survey 

bnge30_3 YRBS Days 5+ drinks (past 30) 0 to 20 1 N/A 

emotional adjustment 

and problem behavior Youth Risk Behavior Survey 

marev_3 YRBS Ever used marijuana 0 to 1 1 N/A 

emotional adjustment 

and problem behavior Youth Risk Behavior Survey 

martm_3 YRBS Marijuana # times ever 

used 0 to 100 1 N/A 

emotional adjustment 

and problem behavior Youth Risk Behavior Survey 

mar30_3 YRBS Marijuana # times past 30 

days 0 to 40 1 N/A 

emotional adjustment 

and problem behavior Youth Risk Behavior Survey 

weapn_3 YRBS Weapon at school last 12 

months 0 to 12 1 N/A 

emotional adjustment 

and problem behavior Youth Risk Behavior Survey 

fight_3 YRBS Fight at school last 12 

months 0 to 12 1 N/A 

emotional adjustment 

and problem behavior Youth Risk Behavior Survey 

skip_3 YRBS Skip school last 12 months 0 to 40 1 N/A 

emotional adjustment 

and problem behavior Youth Risk Behavior Survey 

arrest_3 Arrested last 12 months 0 to 5 1 N/A 

emotional adjustment 

and problem behavior 

gang_3 Gang Member 0 to 1 1 N/A 

emotional adjustment 

and problem behavior 

prcare_3 CHKS Peer caring relationships 1 to 4 3 0.90 

positive social 

connections 

California Healthy Kids 

Survey 

socpr_3 CHKS Prosocial peers 1 to 4 2 0.82 

positive social 

connections 

California Healthy Kids 

Survey 

sclsup_3 CHKS School support 1 to 4 6 0.93 

positive social 

connections 

California Healthy Kids 

Survey 

sclpar_3 CHKS School meaningful 

participation 1 to 4 3 0.90 

positive social 

connections 

California Healthy Kids 

Survey 

homsup_3 CHKS Home support 1 to 4 6 0.86 

positive social 

connections 

California Healthy Kids 

Survey 

hompar_3 CHKS Home meaningful 

participation 1 to 4 2 0.85 

positive social 

connections 

California Healthy Kids 

Survey 

sclsuphml_ 

3 

CHKS School Support 

(HiMidLow Scoring) 1=Low, 2=Mid, 3=High 6 N/A 

positive social 

connections 

California Healthy Kids 

Survey 

sclparhml_3 CHKS School Meaningful partic 

(HiMidLow Scoring) 1=Low, 2=Mid, 3=High 3 N/A 

positive social 

connections 

California Healthy Kids 

Survey 

scathl_3 School Athletic Team 0 to 1 1 N/A activity involvement Fredricks & Eccles (2006) 

scclub_3 School Clubs/Student Govt 0 to 1 1 N/A activity involvement Fredricks & Eccles (2006) 

comact_3 Community Activities 0 to 1 1 N/A activity involvement Fredricks & Eccles (2006) 

orgsp_3 Organized sports or rec 

programs 0 to 1 1 N/A activity involvement Fredricks & Eccles (2006) 

volun_3 Volunteer service 0 to 1 1 N/A activity involvement Fredricks & Eccles (2006) 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

49

civrt_3 Civic rights activities 0 to 1 1 N/A activity involvement Fredricks & Eccles (2006) 

hobby_3 Hobbies or other activities 0 to 1 1 N/A activity involvement Fredricks & Eccles (2006) 

fment_3 Ever been in formal mentoring 

program 0 to 1 1 N/A activity involvement Fredricks & Eccles (2006) 

hvment_3 Have current Mentor 0 to 1 1 N/A activity involvement 

acttot_3 Activities total (not incl 

mentoring questions) 0 to 7 7 N/A activity involvement 

hope_3 Hope total score 1 to 6 6 0.92 

internal resilience 

assets Snyder (1997) 

hpagn_3 Hope Agency 1 to 6 3 0.86 

internal resilience 

assets Snyder (1997) 

hppath_3 Hope Pathways 1 to 6 3 0.85 

internal resilience 

assets Snyder (1997) 

Note: Number at end of variable name indicates time when data collected (1 = fall survey; 2 = mid-year survey; 3 = spring survey) 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

50

Appendix B 

Program Participant Survey: Beginning of Year 

Supporting Student Success/Fall 

Welcome to the Supporting Student Success Survey! Georgia State University and the San Francisco Unified School 

District are working together to conduct a research study about factors that affect the development of young people 

like you through the 9th grade year. With your help we will be able to create better programs that help students like 

you succeed in the future. 

First, please answer a few questions about yourself. 

1. What year were you born? 

a. 1998 or before c. 2000 

b. 1999 d. 2001 

2. What month were you born? 

a. January g. July 

b. February h. August 

c. March i. September 

d. April j. October 

e. May k. November 

f. June l. December 

3. What is your sex? 

a. Male 

b. Female 

4. Are you of Hispanic or Latino origin? 

a. Yes 

b. No 

5. What is your race? 

a. American Indian or Alaska Native 

b. Asian 

c. Black or African American 

d. Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 

e. White 

f. Mixed (two or more) races 

6. What best describes where you live? A home includes a house, apartment, trailer, or mobile home. 

a. A home with both parents f. Foster home, group care, or waiting 

b. A home with only one parent placement 

c. Other relative’s home g. Hotel or motel 

d. A home with more than one family h. Other living arrangement 

e. Friend’s home 

7. Do you get or are you eligible for a free or reduced-price lunch at your school? 

a. Free lunch 

b. Reduced-price lunch 

c. Neither 

50

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

51

These next questions are about how you feel about yourself. 

For each statement, indicate how true you feel these statements are about you. 

False Somewhat Not Sure Somewhat True 

False True 

1. I usually think of myself as a happy person. 1 2 3 4 5 

2. In reality I don't like myself very much. 1 2 3 4 5 

3. I'm not very sure of myself. 1 2 3 4 5 

4. I'm the kind of person who has a lot of fun. 1 2 3 4 5 

5. I worry too much about things that aren't 1 2 3 4 5 

important. 

6. I often feel sad or unhappy. 1 2 3 4 5 

7. I usually feel I'm the kind of person I want to be. 1 2 3 4 5 

For each statement, indicate how often you experience the following emotions. 

Never Not Often Sometimes Often Almost 

Always 

8. I feel nervous or afraid that things won't work 1 2 3 4 5 

out the way I would like them to. 

9. I feel lonely. 1 2 3 4 5 

10. I get into such a bad mood that I just feel like 1 2 3 4 5 

sitting around and doing nothing. 

11. In recent years, I have felt more nervous or 1 2 3 4 5 

worried about things than I have needed to. 

12. I feel very happy. 1 2 3 4 5 

The next questions are about how you feel about yourself and others. 

For each statement, indicate how true you feel these statements are about you. 

Not at all A little Pretty Very 

true true much true much true 

1. I can work with someone who has different opinions than 1 2 3 4 

mine. 

2. I can work out my problems. 1 2 3 4 

3. I can do most things I try. 1 2 3 4 

4. There are many things I do well. 1 2 3 4 

5. I feel bad when someone gets their feelings hurt. 1 2 3 4 

6. I try to understand what other people go through. 1 2 3 4 

7. I try to understand what other people feel and think. 1 2 3 4 

8. When I need help I find someone to talk with. 1 2 3 4 

9. I try to work out my problems by talking or writing about 1 2 3 4 

them. 

10. There is purpose to my life. 1 2 3 4 

11. I understand my moods and feelings. 1 2 3 4 

12. I understand why I do what I do. 1 2 3 4 

51

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

52

Please indicate how many times you did each of these things in the last 7 days. 

None 1 2-3 4-5 6+ 

Time Times Times Times 

1. I teased students to make them angry. 0 1 2-3 4-5 6+ 

2. I got angry very easily with someone. 0 1 2-3 4-5 6+ 

3. I fought back when someone hit me first. 0 1 2-3 4-5 6+ 

4. I said things about a kid to make other students laugh. 0 1 2-3 4-5 6+ 

5. I encouraged other students to fight. 0 1 2-3 4-5 6+ 

6. I pushed or shoved other kids. 0 1 2-3 4-5 6+ 

7. I was angry most of the day. 0 1 2-3 4-5 6+ 

8. I got into a physical fight because I was angry. 0 1 2-3 4-5 6+ 

9. I slapped or kicked someone. 0 1 2-3 4-5 6+ 

10. I called other students bad names. 0 1 2-3 4-5 6+ 

11. I threatened to hurt or hit someone. 0 1 2-3 4-5 6+ 

The next questions are about your academic future. 

1. If you could do exactly what you wanted, how far would you go in school? 

a. 9th – 11th grade 

b. Graduate high school 

c. Post high school, vocational, or tech training 

d. Some college 

e. Business college, or two-year associates degree 

f. Graduate from a four-year college 

g. Get a Master’s degree or teaching credential 

h. Get a law degree, PhD, or medical doctor’s degree 

2. We can’t always do what we most want to do. How far do you think you will actually go in school? 

a. 9th – 11th grade 

b. Graduate high school 

c. Post high school, vocational, or tech training 

d. Some college 

e. Business college, or two-year associates degree 

f. Graduate from a four-year college 

g. Get a Master’s degree or teaching credential 

h. Get a law degree, PhD, or medical doctor’s degree 

These next questions are about your ethnic group membership. Think about the ethnic group you belong to and 

indicate how much you agree with each statement. 

Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly 

Disagree Agree 

1. I have spent time trying to find out more about 1 2 3 4 5 

my ethnic group, such as history, traditions, and 

customs. 

2. I have a strong sense of belonging to my own 1 2 3 4 5 

ethnic group. 

3. I understand pretty well what my ethnic group 1 2 3 4 5 

membership means to me. 

52

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

53

Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly 

Disagree Agree 

4. I have often done things that will help me 1 2 3 4 5 

understand my ethnic background better. 

5. I have often talked to other people in order to 1 2 3 4 5 

learn more about my ethnic group. 

6. I feel a strong sense of attachment towards my 1 2 3 4 5 

own ethnic group. 

7. Most of my friends belong to my ethnic group. 1 2 3 4 5 

The next questions are about how you think feel about yourself academically. For each statement, indicate how 

true you feel these statements are about you. 

Not true A little true Often true Always 

true 

1. I am good at my schoolwork. 1 2 3 4 

2. I am just as smart as other people my age. 1 2 3 4 

3. I am slow in finishing my schoolwork. 1 2 3 4 

4. I do my class work well. 1 2 3 4 

5. I have trouble figuring out the answers in school. 1 2 3 4 

For these next questions, please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with the following statements 

about your school. 

Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly 

Disagree Agree 

1. I feel close to people at this school. 1 2 3 4 5 

2. I am happy to be at this school. 1 2 3 4 5 

3. I feel like I am part of this school. 1 2 3 4 5 

4. The teachers at this school treat students fairly. 1 2 3 4 5 

5. I feel safe in my school. 1 2 3 4 5 

These next questions ask about cigarette smoking. For each question, please remember to answer honestly. 

1. Have you ever tried cigarette smoking, even one or two puffs? 

a. Yes 

b. No 

If you responded “Yes” to the previous question, please answer the following two questions: 

2. During the past 30 days, on how many days did you smoke cigarettes? 

a. 0 days e. 10 to 19 days 

b. 1 or 2 days f. 20 to 29 days 

c. 3 to 5 days g. All 30 days 

d. 6 to 9 days 

3. During the past 30 days, how many cigarettes did you smoke per day? 

a. I did not smoke cigarettes during d. 2 to 5 cigarettes per day 

the past 30 days e. 6 to 10 cigarettes per day 

b. Less than 1 cigarette per day f. 11 to 20 cigarettes per day 

c. 1 cigarette per day g. More than 20 cigarettes per day 

53

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

54

These next questions ask about drinking alcohol. This includes drinking beer, wine, wine coolers, liquor such as 

rum, gin, vodka, or whiskey. For these questions, drinking alcohol does not include drinking a few sips or wine 

for religious purposes. Please remember to answer honestly. 

4. During your life, on how many days have you had at least one drink of alcohol? 

a. 0 days e. 20 to 39 days 

b. 1 or 2 days f. 40 – 99 days 

c. 3 to 9 days g. 100 or more days 

d. 10 to 19 days 

If you responded “Yes” to the previous question, please answer the following two questions: 

5. During the past 30 days, on how many days did you have at least one drink of alcohol? 

a. 0 days e. 10 to 19 days 

b. 1 or 2 days f. 20 to 29 days 

c. 3 to 5 days g. All 30 days 

d. 6 to 9 days 

6. During the past 30 days, on how many days did you have 5 or more drinks of alcohol in a row, that is, within a 

couple of hours? 

a. 0 days e. 6 to 9 days 

b. 1 day f. 10 to 19 days 

c. 2 days g. 20 or more days 

d. 3 to 5 days 

These next questions ask about marijuana use. Marijuana is also called grass or pot. Please remember to answer 

honestly. 

7. During your life, how many times have you used marijuana? 

a. 0 times e. 20 to 39 times 

b. 1 or 2 times f. 40 to 99 times 

c. 3 to 9 times g. 100 or more times 

d. 10 to 19 times 

If you responded “Yes” to the previous question, please answer the following question: 

8. During the past 30 days, how many times did you use marijuana? 

a. 0 times d. 10 to 19 times 

b. 1 or 2 times e. 20 to 39 times 

c. 3 to 9 times f. 40 or more times 

These next questions ask about some other behaviors. Please remember to answer honestly. 

9. During the past 12 months, on how many days did you carry a weapon such as a gun, knife, or club on school 

property? 

a. 0 times e. 6 or 7 times 

b. 1 time f. 8 or 9 times 

c. 2 or 3 times g. 10 or 11 times 

d. 4 or 5 times h. 12 or more times 

54

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

55

10. During the past 12 months, how many times were you in a physical fight on school property? 

a. 0 times e. 6 or 7 times 

b. 1 time f. 8 or 9 times 

c. 2 or 3 times g. 10 or 11 times 

d. 4 or 5 times h. 12 or more times 

11. During the past 12 months, about how many times did you skip school or cut classes? 

a. 0 times e. Once a week 

b. 1–2 times f. More than once a week 

c. A few times 

d. Once a month 

12. During the past 12 months have you been arrested for a crime, offence, and/or a violation? 

a. Never 

b. Yes, 1-2 times 

c. Yes, 3-4 times 

d. Yes, 5 or more times 

e. I prefer not to answer 

13. Do you consider yourself a member of a gang? 

a. No 

b. Yes 

These next questions are about the people in your life. For each statement, indicate how true you feel these 

statements are about your personally. 

14. During the past 12 months have you been arrested for a crime, offence, and/or a violation? 

a. Never 

b. Yes, 1-2 times 

c. Yes, 3-4 times 

d. Yes, 5 or more times 

e. I prefer not to answer 

15. Do you consider yourself a member of a gang? 

a. No 

b. Yes 

55

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

56

These next questions are about the people in your life. For each statement, indicate how true you feel these 

statements are about your personally. 

Not at all A little Pretty Very 

true true much true much true 

1. I have a friend my own age who really cares about me. 1 2 3 4 

2. I have a friend my own age who talks with me about my 1 2 3 4 

problems. 

3. I have a friend my own age who helps me when I’m having 1 2 3 4 

a hard time. 

4. My friends try to do what is right. 1 2 3 4 

5. My friends do well in school. 1 2 3 4 

6. At my school, there is a teacher or some other adult who 1 2 3 4 

really cares about me. 

7. At my school, there is a teacher or some other adult who 1 2 3 4 

tells me when I do a good job. 

8. At my school, there is a teacher or some other adult who 1 2 3 4 

notices when I’m not there. 

9. At my school, there is a teacher or some other adult who 1 2 3 4 

always wants me to do my best. 

10. At my school, there is a teacher or some other adult who 1 2 3 4 

listens to me when I have something to say. 

11. At my school, there is a teacher or some other adult who 1 2 3 4 

believes that I will be a success. 

12. At school, I do interesting activities. 1 2 3 4 

13. At school, I help decide things like class activities or rules. 1 2 3 4 

14. At school, I do things that make a difference. 1 2 3 4 

15. At home there is a parent or some other adult who 1 2 3 4 

expects me to follow the rules. 

Not at all A little Pretty Very 

true true much true much true 

16. At home there is a parent or some other adult who is 1 2 3 4 

interested in my schoolwork. 

17. At home there is a parent or some other adult who 1 2 3 4 

believes that I will be a success. 

18. At home there is a parent or some other adult who talks 1 2 3 4 

with me about my problems. 

19. At home there is a parent or some other adult who 1 2 3 4 

always wants me to do my best. 

20. At home there is a parent or some other adult who listens 1 2 3 4 

to me when I have something to say. 

21. I do things at home that make a difference. 1 2 3 4 

22. I help make decisions with my family. 1 2 3 4 

These next questions are about activities you do during your free time (at school or in your neighborhood). For 

each activity, indicate whether you have been involved in the past 12 months. 

Yes No 

1. School athletic team Y N 

56

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

57

2. School activities such as clubs or student government Y N 

3. Activities in the community such as scouts, service, hobby, and clubs Y N 

4. Organized sport or recreational programs outside of school Y N 

5. Volunteer service activities Y N 

6. Civic rights activities Y N 

7. Other hobbies or activities Y N 

8. Have you ever been a part of a formal mentoring program? Y N 

9. I have an adult, other than my parents or guardian that I can go to for Y N 

support and guidance. 

The next questions are about how you think about yourself and how you do things in general. For each 

sentence, think about how you are in most situations and indicate which response describes you the best. 

None of A little of Some of A lot of Most of All of the 

the time the time the time the time the time time 

1. I think I am doing pretty well. 1 2 3 4 5 6 

2. I can think of many ways to get the 1 2 3 4 5 6 

things in life that are most important to 

me. 

3. I am doing just as well as other kids my 1 2 3 4 5 6 

age. 

4. When I have a problem, I can come up 1 2 3 4 5 6 

with lots of ways to solve it. 

5. I think the things I have done in the past 1 2 3 4 5 6 

will help me in the future. 

6. Even when others want to quit, I know 1 2 3 4 5 6 

that I can find ways to solve the problem. 

57

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

58

Appendix C 

Program Participant Survey: Mid-year 

Project Arrive Student Survey/Mid-Year 

Welcome to the Project Arrive Student Survey! Georgia State University and the San Francisco Unified School 

District are working together to conduct a research study about Project Arrive. Your information will help us learn 

about how being part of Project Arrive affects your development through your 9th grade year. With your help we 

will be able to make the program even better in the future. 

These next questions are about how you feel about your mentor/group leader. Please rate your level of 

agreement with the following statements: 

Not at all A little Pretty Very much 

true true much true true 

1. I like to meet with my mentor(s). 1 2 3 4 

3. My mentor(s) help me do better in school 

2. My mentor(s) care about me. 1 2 3 4 

1 2 3 4 

4. Time spent with my mentor(s) is worthwhile. 1 2 3 4 

These next questions are about your thoughts and feelings about being a group member. 

Not a A Somewhat Very 

lot little much 

bit 

1. How much did the group help you to deal with everyday problems? 1 2 3 4 

3. How much did the group help you make better decisions? 

2. How much did you help others to deal with everyday problems? 1 2 3 4 

1 2 3 4 

4. How much did you help others make better decisions? 1 2 3 4 

5. When you are with your group, how much do you enjoy the activities 1 2 3 4 

you participate in? 

6. Do you think the activities you do in your group are interesting? 1 2 3 4 

7. How hard do you concentrate on the activities you do in your group? 1 2 3 4 

These next questions are about your thoughts and feelings about the members of your group. 

Not a A Somewhat Very 

lot little much 

bit 

1. Kids in this group care about each other. 1 2 3 4 

1 2 3 4 

1 2 3 4 

2. Kids in this group make each other feel good. 

3. When someone says something in the group, it stays in the group 

(nobody will repeat it outside of the group). 

4. If kids in the group are really mad or upset about something, they can 1 2 3 4 

talk about it in the group. 

5. Kids in this group argue or fight with each other. 1 2 3 4 

6. I feel like I am part of this group. 1 2 3 4 

58

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

59

Appendix D 

Program Participant Survey: End of Year 

Project Arrive Student Survey/Post-Test 

Welcome to the Project Arrive Student Survey! Georgia State University and the San Francisco Unified School 

District are working together to conduct a research study about Project Arrive. Your information will help us learn 

about how being part of Project Arrive affects your development through your 9th grade year. With your help we 

will be able to make the program even better in the future. 

First, please answer a few questions about yourself. 

1. What year were you born? 

a. 1995 or before f. 2000 

b. 1996 g. 2001 

c. 1997 h. 2002 

d. 1998 i. 2003 

e. 1999 j. 2004 

2. What month were you born? 

a. January g. July 

b. February h. August 

c. March i. September 

d. April j. October 

e. May k. November 

f. June l. December 

3. What is your sex? 

a. Male 

b. Female 

4. OTHER THAN going to Project Arrive, during the past school year, how often have you visited your school’s 

Wellness Program for information or services? 

a. Never 

b. One or two times 

c. Three to five times 

d. Six to 10 times 

e. More than 10 times 

These next questions are about how you feel about your mentor/group leader. Please rate your level of 

agreement with the following statements: 

Not at all A little Pretty Very much 

true true much true true 

1. I like to meet with my mentor(s). 1 2 3 4 

2. My mentor(s) care about me. 1 2 3 4 

3. My mentor(s) help me do better in school 1 2 3 4 

4. Time spent with my mentor(s) is worthwhile. 1 2 3 4 

These next questions are about your thoughts and feelings about being a group member. 

59

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

60

Not a A Somewhat Very 

lot little much 

bit 

1. How much did the group help you to deal with everyday problems? 1 2 3 4 

2. How much did you help others to deal with everyday problems? 1 2 3 4 

3. How much did the group help you make better decisions? 1 2 3 4 

1 2 3 4 

1 2 3 4 

4. How much did you help others make better decisions? 

5. When you are with your group, how much do you enjoy the activities 

you participate in? 

talk about it in the group. 

5. Kids in this group argue or fight with each other. 

7. How hard do you concentrate on the activities you do in your group? 

6. Do you think the activities you do in your group are interesting? 1 2 3 4 

1 2 3 4 

These next questions are about your thoughts and feelings about the members of your group. 

Not a A Somewhat Very 

lot little much 

bit 

1. Kids in this group care about each other. 1 2 3 4 

2. Kids in this group make each other feel good. 1 2 3 4 

3. When someone says something in the group, it stays in the group 1 2 3 4 

(nobody will repeat it outside of the group). 

4. If kids in the group are really mad or upset about something, they can 1 2 3 4 

1 2 3 4 

6. I feel like I am part of this group. 1 2 3 4 

These next questions are about how you feel about yourself. For each statement, indicate how true you feel 

these statements are about your personally. 

False Somewhat Not Sure Somewhat True 

False True 

1. I usually think of myself as a happy person. 1 2 3 4 5 

2. In reality I don't like myself very much. 1 2 3 4 5 

3. I'm not very sure of myself. 1 2 3 4 5 

4. I'm the kind of person who has a lot of fun. 1 2 3 4 5 

5. I worry too much about things that aren't 1 2 3 4 5 

important. 

False Somewhat Not Sure Somewhat True 

False True 

6. I often feel sad or unhappy. 1 2 3 4 5 

7. I usually feel I'm the kind of person I want to be. 1 2 3 4 5 

Never Not Often Sometimes Often Almost 

Always 

8. I feel nervous or afraid that things won't work 1 2 3 4 5 

out the way I would like them to. 

9. I feel lonely. 1 2 3 4 5 

10. I get into such a bad mood that I just feel like 1 2 3 4 5 

sitting around and doing nothing. 

60

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

61

11. In recent years, I have felt more nervous or 1 2 3 4 5 

worried about things than I have needed to. 

12. I feel very happy. 1 2 3 4 5 

The next questions are about how you feel about yourself and others. For each statement, indicate how true 

you feel these statements are about your personally. 

Not at all A little Pretty Very 

true true much true much true 

1. I can work with someone who has different opinions than 1 2 3 4 

mine. 

2. I can work out my problems. 1 2 3 4 

3. I can do most things I try. 1 2 3 4 

4. There are many things I do well. 1 2 3 4 

5. I feel bad when someone gets their feelings hurt. 1 2 3 4 

6. I try to understand what other people go through. 1 2 3 4 

7. I try to understand what other people feel and think. 1 2 3 4 

8. When I need help I find someone to talk with. 1 2 3 4 

9. I try to work out my problems by talking or writing about 1 2 3 4 

them. 

10. There is purpose to my life. 1 2 3 4 

11. I understand my moods and feelings. 1 2 3 4 

12. I understand why I do what I do. 1 2 3 4 

Please indicate how many times you did each of these things in the last 7 days. 

None 1 Time 2-3 4-5 6-7 

Times Times Times 

1. I teased students to make them angry. 0 1 2-3 4-5 6-7 

2. I got angry very easily with someone. 0 1 2-3 4-5 6-7 

3. I fought back when someone hit me first. 0 1 2-3 4-5 6-7 

4. I said things about a kid to make other students laugh. 0 1 2-3 4-5 6-7 

5. I encouraged other students to fight. 0 1 2-3 4-5 6-7 

6. I pushed or shoved other kids. 0 1 2-3 4-5 6-7 

7. I was angry most of the day. 0 1 2-3 4-5 6-7 

8. I got into a physical fight because I was angry. 0 1 2-3 4-5 6-7 

9. I slapped or kicked someone. 0 1 2-3 4-5 6-7 

10. I called other students bad names. 0 1 2-3 4-5 6-7 

11. I threatened to hurt or hit someone. 0 1 2-3 4-5 6-7 

The next questions are about your academic future. 

3. If you could do exactly what you wanted, how far would you go in school? 

a. 9th – 11th grade 

b. Graduate high school 

c. Post high school, vocational, or tech training 

d. Some college 

e. Business college, or two-year associates degree 

f. Graduate from a four-year college 

g. Get a Master’s degree or teaching credential 

h. Get a law degree, PhD, or medical doctor’s degree 

4. We can’t always do what we most want to do. How far do you think you will actually go in school? 

61

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

62

a. 9th – 11th grade 

b. Graduate high school 

c. Post high school, vocational, or tech training 

d. Some college 

e. Business college, or two-year associates degree 

f. Graduate from a four-year college 

g. Get a Master’s degree or teaching credential 

h. Get a law degree, PhD, or medical doctor’s degree 

These next questions are about your ethnic group membership. 

Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly 

Disagree Agree 

1. I have spent time trying to find out more about 1 2 3 4 5 

my ethnic group, such as history, traditions, and 

customs. 

2. I have a strong sense of belonging to my own 1 2 3 4 5 

ethnic group. 

3. I understand pretty well what my ethnic group 1 2 3 4 5 

membership means to me. 

4. I have often done things that will help me 1 2 3 4 5 

understand my ethnic background better. 

5. I have often talked to other people in order to 1 2 3 4 5 

learn more about my ethnic group. 

6. I feel a strong sense of attachment towards my 1 2 3 4 5 

own ethnic group. 

7. Most of my friends belong to my ethnic group. 1 2 3 4 5 

The next questions are about how you think feel about yourself academically. For each statement, indicate how 

true you feel these statements are about your personally. 

Not true A little true Often true Always 

true 

1. I am good at my schoolwork. 1 2 3 4 

2. I am just as smart as other people my age. 1 2 3 4 

3. I am slow in finishing my schoolwork. 1 2 3 4 

4. I do my class work well. 1 2 3 4 

5. I have trouble figuring out the answers in school. 1 2 3 4 

For these next questions, please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with the following statements 

about your school. 

Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly 

Disagree Agree 

1. I feel close to people at this school. 1 2 3 4 5 

2. I am happy to be at this school. 1 2 3 4 5 

3. I feel like I am part of this school. 1 2 3 4 5 

4. The teachers at this school treat students fairly. 1 2 3 4 5 

5. I feel safe in my school. 1 2 3 4 5 

These next questions ask about cigarette smoking. For each question, please remember to answer honestly. 

16. Have you ever tried cigarette smoking, even one or two puffs? 

a. Yes 

62

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

63

b. No 

If you responded “Yes” to the previous question, please answer the following two questions: 

17. During the past 30 days, on how many days did you smoke cigarettes? 

a. 0 days e. 10 to 19 days 

b. 1 or 2 days f. 20 to 29 days 

c. 3 to 5 days g. All 30 days 

d. 6 to 9 days 

18. During the past 30 days, how many cigarettes did you smoke per day? 

a. I did not smoke cigarettes during d. 2 to 5 cigarettes per day 

the past 30 days e. 6 to 10 cigarettes per day 

b. Less than 1 cigarette per day f. 11 to 20 cigarettes per day 

c. 1 cigarette per day g. More than 20 cigarettes per day 

These next questions ask about drinking alcohol. This includes drinking beer, wine, wine coolers, liquor such as 

rum, gin, vodka, or whiskey. For these questions, drinking alcohol does not include drinking a few sips or wine 

for religious purposes. Please remember to answer honestly. 

19. During your life, on how many days have you had at least one drink of alcohol? 

a. 0 days e. 20 to 39 days 

b. 1 or 2 days f. 40 – 99 days 

c. 3 to 9 days g. 100 or more days 

d. 10 to 19 days 

If you responded “Yes” to the previous question, please answer the following two questions: 

20. During the past 30 days, on how many days did you have at least one drink of alcohol? 

a. 0 days e. 10 to 19 days 

b. 1 or 2 days f. 20 to 29 days 

c. 3 to 5 days g. All 30 day 

d. 6 to 9 days 

21. During the past 30 days, on how many days did you have 5 or more drinks of alcohol in a row, that is, within a 

couple of hours? 

a. 0 days e. 6 to 9 days 

b. 1 day f. 10 to 19 days 

c. 2 days g. 20 or more days 

d. 3 to 5 days 

These next questions ask about marijuana use. Marijuana is also called grass or pot. Please remember to answer 

honestly. 

22. During your life, how many times have you used marijuana? 

a. 0 times e. 20 to 39 times 

b. 1 or 2 times f. 40 to 99 times 

c. 3 to 9 times g. 100 or more times 

d. 10 to 19 times 

If you responded “Yes” to the previous question, please answer the following question: 

23. During the past 30 days, how many times did you use marijuana? 

a. 0 times b. 1 or 2 times 

63

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

64

c. 3 to 9 times e. 20 to 39 times 

d. 10 to 19 times f. 40 or more times 

These next questions ask about some other behaviors that could get you in trouble. Please remember to answer 

honestly. 

24. During the past 12 months, on how many days did you carry a weapon such as a gun, knife, or club on school 

property? 

a. 0 times e. 6 or 7 times 

b. 1 time f. 8 or 9 times 

c. 2 or 3 times g. 10 or 11 times 

d. 4 or 5 times h. 12 or more times 

25. During the past 12 months, how many times were you in a physical fight on school property? 

a. 0 times e. 6 or 7 times 

b. 1 time f. 8 or 9 times 

c. 2 or 3 times g. 10 or 11 times 

d. 4 or 5 times h. 12 or more times 

26. During the past 12 months, about how many times did you skip school or cut classes? 

a. 0 times 

b. 1–2 times 

c. A few times 

d. Once a month 

e. Once a week 

f. More than once a week 

64

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

65

27. During the past 12 months have you been arrested for a crime, offence, and/or a violation? 

a. Never 

b. Yes, 1-2 times 

c. Yes, 3-4 times 

d. Yes, 5 or more times 

e. I prefer not to answer 

28. Do you consider yourself a member of a gang? 

a. No 

b. Yes 

These next questions are about the people in your life. For each statement, indicate how true you feel these 

statements are about your personally. 

Not at all 

true 

A little 

true 

Pretty 

much true 

Very 

much true 

1. I have a friend my own age who really cares about me. 

2. I have a friend my own age who talks with me about my 

problems. 

1 

1 

2 

2 

3 

3 

4 

4 

3. I have a friend my own age who helps me when I’m having 

a hard time. 

1 2 3 4 

4. My friends try to do what is right. 

5. My friends do well in school. 

6. At my school, there is a teacher or some other adult who 

really cares about me. 

7. At my school, there is a teacher or some other adult who 

tells me when I do a good job. 

8. At my school, there is a teacher or some other adult who 

notices when I’m not there. 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

9. At my school, there is a teacher or some other adult who 

always wants me to do my best. 

10. At my school, there is a teacher or some other adult who 

listens to me when I have something to say. 

1 

1 

2 

2 

3 

3 

4 

4 

11. At my school, there is a teacher or some other adult who 

believes that I will be a success. 

1 2 3 4 

12. At school, I do interesting activities. 

13. At school, I help decide things like class activities or rules. 

14. At school, I do things that make a difference. 

1 

1 

1 

2 

2 

2 

3 

3 

3 

4 

4 

4 

15. At home there is a parent or some other adult who 

expects me to follow the rules. 

16. At home there is a parent or some other adult who is 

interested in my schoolwork. 

17. At home there is a parent or some other adult who 

believes that I will be a success. 

1 

1 

1 

2 

2 

2 

3 

3 

3 

4 

4 

4 

18. At home there is a parent or some other adult who talks 

with me about my problems. 

19. At home there is a parent or some other adult who 

always wants me to do my best. 

1 

1 

2 

2 

3 

3 

4 

4 

20. At home there is a parent or some other adult who listens 

to me when I have something to say. 

21. I do things at home that make a difference. 

1 

1 

2 

2 

3 

3 

4 

4 

65

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

66

22. I help make decisions with my family. 1 2 3 4 

These next questions are about activities you do during your free time (at school or in your neighborhood). For 

each activity, indicate whether you have been involved in the past 12 months. 

Yes No Not sure 

1. School athletic team Y N 

2. School activities such as clubs or student government Y N 

3. Activities in the community such as scouts, service, hobby, and clubs Y N 

4. Organized summer after-school or sport recreational programs Y N 

5. Volunteer service activities Y N 

6. Civic rights activities Y N 

7. Other hobbies or activities Y N 

8. Have you ever been a part of a formal mentoring program? Y N NS 

9. I have an adult, other than my parents or guardian that I can go to for Y N NS 

support and guidance. 

The next questions are about how you think about yourself and how you do things in general. For each 

sentence, think about how you are in most situations and indicate which response describes you the best. 

None of A little of Some of A lot of Most of All of the 

the time the time the time the time the time time 

1. I think I am doing pretty well. 1 2 3 4 5 6 

2. I can think of many ways to get the 1 2 3 4 5 6 

things in life that are most important to 

me. 

3. I am doing just as well as other kids my 1 2 3 4 5 6 

age. 

4. When I have a problem, I can come up 1 2 3 4 5 6 

with lots of ways to solve it. 

5. I think the things I have done in the past 1 2 3 4 5 6 

will help me in the future. 

6. Even when others want to quit, I know 1 2 3 4 5 6 

that I can find ways to solve the problem. 

66

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

67

Appendix E 

Comparison Group Survey: Beginning of Year 

Supporting Student Success/Fall 

Welcome to the Supporting Student Success Survey! Georgia State University and the San Francisco Unified School 

District are working together to conduct a research study about factors that affect the development of young people 

like you through the 9th grade year. With your help we will be able to create better programs that help students like 

you succeed in the future. 

First, please answer a few questions about yourself. 

8. What year were you born? 

a. 1998 or before c. 2000 

b. 1999 d. 2001 

9. What month were you born? 

a. January g. July 

b. February h. August 

c. March i. September 

d. April j. October 

e. May k. November 

f. June l. December 

10. What is your sex? 

a. Male 

b. Female 

11. Are you of Hispanic or Latino origin? 

a. Yes 

b. No 

12. What is your race? 

a. American Indian or Alaska Native 

b. Asian 

c. Black or African American 

d. Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 

e. White 

f. Mixed (two or more) races 

13. What best describes where you live? A home includes a house, apartment, trailer, or mobile home. 

a. A home with both parents f. Foster home, group care, or waiting 

b. A home with only one parent placement 

c. Other relative’s home g. Hotel or motel 

d. A home with more than one family h. Other living arrangement 

e. Friend’s home 

14. Do you get or are you eligible for a free or reduced-price lunch at your school? 

a. Free lunch 

b. Reduced-price lunch 

c. Neither 

67

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

68

These next questions are about how you feel about yourself. 

For each statement, indicate how true you feel these statements are about you. 

False Somewhat Not Sure Somewhat True 

False True 

1. I usually think of myself as a happy person. 1 2 3 4 5 

2. In reality I don't like myself very much. 1 2 3 4 5 

3. I'm not very sure of myself. 1 2 3 4 5 

4. I'm the kind of person who has a lot of fun. 1 2 3 4 5 

5. I worry too much about things that aren't 1 2 3 4 5 

important. 

6. I often feel sad or unhappy. 1 2 3 4 5 

7. I usually feel I'm the kind of person I want to be. 1 2 3 4 5 

For each statement, indicate how often you experience the following emotions. 

Never Not Often Sometimes Often Almost 

Always 

8. I feel nervous or afraid that things won't work 1 2 3 4 5 

out the way I would like them to. 

9. I feel lonely. 1 2 3 4 5 

10. I get into such a bad mood that I just feel like 1 2 3 4 5 

sitting around and doing nothing. 

11. In recent years, I have felt more nervous or 1 2 3 4 5 

worried about things than I have needed to. 

12. I feel very happy. 1 2 3 4 5 

The next questions are about how you feel about yourself and others. 

For each statement, indicate how true you feel these statements are about you. 

Not at all A little Pretty Very 

true true much true much true 

1. I can work with someone who has different opinions than 1 2 3 4 

mine. 

2. I can work out my problems. 1 2 3 4 

3. I can do most things I try. 1 2 3 4 

4. There are many things I do well. 1 2 3 4 

5. I feel bad when someone gets their feelings hurt. 1 2 3 4 

6. I try to understand what other people go through. 1 2 3 4 

7. I try to understand what other people feel and think. 1 2 3 4 

8. When I need help I find someone to talk with. 1 2 3 4 

9. I try to work out my problems by talking or writing about 1 2 3 4 

them. 

10. There is purpose to my life. 1 2 3 4 

11. I understand my moods and feelings. 1 2 3 4 

12. I understand why I do what I do. 1 2 3 4 

68

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

69

Please indicate how many times you did each of these things in the last 7 days. 

None 1 2-3 4-5 6+ 

Time Times Times Times 

1. I teased students to make them angry. 0 1 2-3 4-5 6+ 

2. I got angry very easily with someone. 0 1 2-3 4-5 6+ 

3. I fought back when someone hit me first. 0 1 2-3 4-5 6+ 

4. I said things about a kid to make other students laugh. 0 1 2-3 4-5 6+ 

5. I encouraged other students to fight. 0 1 2-3 4-5 6+ 

6. I pushed or shoved other kids. 0 1 2-3 4-5 6+ 

7. I was angry most of the day. 0 1 2-3 4-5 6+ 

8. I got into a physical fight because I was angry. 0 1 2-3 4-5 6+ 

9. I slapped or kicked someone. 0 1 2-3 4-5 6+ 

10. I called other students bad names. 0 1 2-3 4-5 6+ 

11. I threatened to hurt or hit someone. 0 1 2-3 4-5 6+ 

The next questions are about your academic future. 

5. If you could do exactly what you wanted, how far would you go in school? 

a. 9th – 11th grade 

b. Graduate high school 

c. Post high school, vocational, or tech training 

d. Some college 

e. Business college, or two-year associates degree 

f. Graduate from a four-year college 

g. Get a Master’s degree or teaching credential 

h. Get a law degree, PhD, or medical doctor’s degree 

6. We can’t always do what we most want to do. How far do you think you will actually go in school? 

a. 9th – 11th grade 

b. Graduate high school 

c. Post high school, vocational, or tech training 

d. Some college 

e. Business college, or two-year associates degree 

f. Graduate from a four-year college 

g. Get a Master’s degree or teaching credential 

h. Get a law degree, PhD, or medical doctor’s degree 

These next questions are about your ethnic group membership. Think about the ethnic group you belong to and 

indicate how much you agree with each statement. 

Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly 

Disagree Agree 

1. I have spent time trying to find out more about 1 2 3 4 5 

my ethnic group, such as history, traditions, and 

customs. 

2. I have a strong sense of belonging to my own 1 2 3 4 5 

ethnic group. 

3. I understand pretty well what my ethnic group 1 2 3 4 5 

membership means to me. 

69

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

70

Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly 

Disagree Agree 

4. I have often done things that will help me 1 2 3 4 5 

understand my ethnic background better. 

5. I have often talked to other people in order to 1 2 3 4 5 

learn more about my ethnic group. 

6. I feel a strong sense of attachment towards my 1 2 3 4 5 

own ethnic group. 

7. Most of my friends belong to my ethnic group. 1 2 3 4 5 

The next questions are about how you think feel about yourself academically. For each statement, indicate how 

true you feel these statements are about you. 

Not true A little true Often true Always 

true 

1. I am good at my schoolwork. 1 2 3 4 

2. I am just as smart as other people my age. 1 2 3 4 

3. I am slow in finishing my schoolwork. 1 2 3 4 

4. I do my class work well. 1 2 3 4 

5. I have trouble figuring out the answers in school. 1 2 3 4 

For these next questions, please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with the following statements 

about your school. 

Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly 

Disagree Agree 

1. I feel close to people at this school. 1 2 3 4 5 

2. I am happy to be at this school. 1 2 3 4 5 

3. I feel like I am part of this school. 1 2 3 4 5 

4. The teachers at this school treat students fairly. 1 2 3 4 5 

5. I feel safe in my school. 1 2 3 4 5 

These next questions ask about cigarette smoking. For each question, please remember to answer honestly. 

29. Have you ever tried cigarette smoking, even one or two puffs? 

a. Yes 

b. No 

If you responded “Yes” to the previous question, please answer the following two questions: 

30. During the past 30 days, on how many days did you smoke cigarettes? 

a. 0 days e. 10 to 19 days 

b. 1 or 2 days f. 20 to 29 days 

c. 3 to 5 days g. All 30 days 

d. 6 to 9 days 

31. During the past 30 days, how many cigarettes did you smoke per day? 

a. I did not smoke cigarettes during d. 2 to 5 cigarettes per day 

the past 30 days e. 6 to 10 cigarettes per day 

b. Less than 1 cigarette per day f. 11 to 20 cigarettes per day 

c. 1 cigarette per day g. More than 20 cigarettes per day 

70

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

71

These next questions ask about drinking alcohol. This includes drinking beer, wine, wine coolers, liquor such as 

rum, gin, vodka, or whiskey. For these questions, drinking alcohol does not include drinking a few sips or wine 

for religious purposes. Please remember to answer honestly. 

32. During your life, on how many days have you had at least one drink of alcohol? 

a. 0 days e. 20 to 39 days 

b. 1 or 2 days f. 40 – 99 days 

c. 3 to 9 days g. 100 or more days 

d. 10 to 19 days 

If you responded “Yes” to the previous question, please answer the following two questions: 

33. During the past 30 days, on how many days did you have at least one drink of alcohol? 

a. 0 days e. 10 to 19 days 

b. 1 or 2 days f. 20 to 29 days 

c. 3 to 5 days g. All 30 days 

d. 6 to 9 days 

34. During the past 30 days, on how many days did you have 5 or more drinks of alcohol in a row, that is, within a 

couple of hours? 

a. 0 days e. 6 to 9 days 

b. 1 day f. 10 to 19 days 

c. 2 days g. 20 or more days 

d. 3 to 5 days 

These next questions ask about marijuana use. Marijuana is also called grass or pot. Please remember to answer 

honestly. 

35. During your life, how many times have you used marijuana? 

a. 0 times e. 20 to 39 times 

b. 1 or 2 times f. 40 to 99 times 

c. 3 to 9 times g. 100 or more times 

d. 10 to 19 times 

If you responded “Yes” to the previous question, please answer the following question: 

36. During the past 30 days, how many times did you use marijuana? 

a. 0 times d. 10 to 19 times 

b. 1 or 2 times e. 20 to 39 times 

c. 3 to 9 times f. 40 or more times 

These next questions ask about some other behaviors. Please remember to answer honestly. 

37. During the past 12 months, on how many days did you carry a weapon such as a gun, knife, or club on school 

property? 

a. 0 times e. 6 or 7 times 

b. 1 time f. 8 or 9 times 

c. 2 or 3 times g. 10 or 11 times 

d. 4 or 5 times h. 12 or more times 

71

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

72

38. During the past 12 months, how many times were you in a physical fight on school property? 

a. 0 times e. 6 or 7 times 

b. 1 time f. 8 or 9 times 

c. 2 or 3 times g. 10 or 11 times 

d. 4 or 5 times h. 12 or more times 

39. During the past 12 months, about how many times did you skip school or cut classes? 

a. 0 times 

b. 1–2 times 

c. A few times 

d. Once a month 

e. Once a week 

f. More than once a week 

72

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

73

40. During the past 12 months have you been arrested for a crime, offence, and/or a violation? 

a. Never 

b. Yes, 1-2 times 

c. Yes, 3-4 times 

d. Yes, 5 or more times 

e. I prefer not to answer 

41. Do you consider yourself a member of a gang? 

a. No 

b. Yes 

These next questions are about the people in your life. For each statement, indicate how true you feel these 

statements are about your personally. 

Not at all A little Pretty Very 

true true much true much true 

1. I have a friend my own age who really cares about me. 1 2 3 4 

2. I have a friend my own age who talks with me about my 1 2 3 4 

problems. 

3. I have a friend my own age who helps me when I’m having 1 2 3 4 

a hard time. 

4. My friends try to do what is right. 1 2 3 4 

5. My friends do well in school. 1 2 3 4 

6. At my school, there is a teacher or some other adult who 1 2 3 4 

really cares about me. 

7. At my school, there is a teacher or some other adult who 1 2 3 4 

tells me when I do a good job. 

8. At my school, there is a teacher or some other adult who 1 2 3 4 

notices when I’m not there. 

9. At my school, there is a teacher or some other adult who 1 2 3 4 

always wants me to do my best. 

10. At my school, there is a teacher or some other adult who 1 2 3 4 

listens to me when I have something to say. 

11. At my school, there is a teacher or some other adult who 1 2 3 4 

believes that I will be a success. 

12. At school, I do interesting activities. 1 2 3 4 

13. At school, I help decide things like class activities or rules. 1 2 3 4 

14. At school, I do things that make a difference. 1 2 3 4 

15. At home there is a parent or some other adult who 1 2 3 4 

expects me to follow the rules. 

Not at all A little Pretty Very 

true true much true much true 

16. At home there is a parent or some other adult who is 1 2 3 4 

interested in my schoolwork. 

17. At home there is a parent or some other adult who 1 2 3 4 

believes that I will be a success. 

18. At home there is a parent or some other adult who talks 1 2 3 4 

with me about my problems. 

19. At home there is a parent or some other adult who 1 2 3 4 

always wants me to do my best. 

73

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

74

20. At home there is a parent or some other adult who listens 1 2 3 4 

to me when I have something to say. 

21. I do things at home that make a difference. 1 2 3 4 

22. I help make decisions with my family. 1 2 3 4 

These next questions are about activities you do during your free time (at school or in your neighborhood). For 

each activity, indicate whether you have been involved in the past 12 months. 

Yes No 

1. School athletic team Y N 

2. School activities such as clubs or student government Y N 

3. Activities in the community such as scouts, service, hobby, and clubs Y N 

4. Organized sport or recreational programs outside of school Y N 

5. Volunteer service activities Y N 

6. Civic rights activities Y N 

7. Other hobbies or activities Y N 

8. Have you ever been a part of a formal mentoring program? Y N 

9. I have an adult, other than my parents or guardian that I can go to for Y N 

support and guidance. 

The next questions are about how you think about yourself and how you do things in general. For each 

sentence, think about how you are in most situations and indicate which response describes you the best. 

None of A little of Some of A lot of Most of All of the 

the time the time the time the time the time time 

1. I think I am doing pretty well. 1 2 3 4 5 6 

2. I can think of many ways to get the 1 2 3 4 5 6 

things in life that are most important to 

me. 

3. I am doing just as well as other kids my 1 2 3 4 5 6 

age. 

4. When I have a problem, I can come up 1 2 3 4 5 6 

with lots of ways to solve it. 

5. I think the things I have done in the past 1 2 3 4 5 6 

will help me in the future. 

6. Even when others want to quit, I know 1 2 3 4 5 6 

that I can find ways to solve the problem. 

74

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

75

Appendix F 

Comparison Group Survey: End of Year 

Supporting Student Success/Post-Test 

Welcome to the Supporting Student Success Survey! Georgia State University and the San Francisco Unified School 

District are working together to conduct a research study about factors that affect the development of young 

people like you through the 9th grade year. With your help we will be able to create better programs that help 

students like you succeed in the future. 

First, please answer a few questions about yourself. 

5. What year were you born? 

a. 1995 or before f. 2000 

b. 1996 g. 2001 

c. 1997 h. 2002 

d. 1998 i. 2003 

e. 1999 j. 2004 

6. What month were you born? 

a. January g. July 

b. February h. August 

c. March i. September 

d. April j. October 

e. May k. November 

f. June l. December 

7. What is your sex? 

a. Male 

b. Female 

8. During the past school year, how often have you visited your school’s Wellness Program for information or 

services? 

a. Never 

b. One or two times 

c. Three to five times 

d. Six to 10 times 

e. More than 10 times 

These next questions are about how you feel about yourself. For each statement, indicate how true you feel 

these statements are about you personally. 

False Somewhat Not Sure Somewhat True 

False True 

1. I usually think of myself as a happy person. 1 2 3 4 5 

2. In reality I don't like myself very much. 1 2 3 4 5 

3. I'm not very sure of myself. 1 2 3 4 5 

4. I'm the kind of person who has a lot of fun. 1 2 3 4 5 

5. I worry too much about things that aren't 1 2 3 4 5 

important. 

6. I often feel sad or unhappy. 1 2 3 4 5 

7. I usually feel I'm the kind of person I want to be. 1 2 3 4 5 

Never Not Often Sometimes Often Almost 

Always 

75

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

76

8. I feel nervous or afraid that things won't work 1 2 3 4 5 

out the way I would like them to. 

9. I feel lonely. 1 2 3 4 5 

10. I get into such a bad mood that I just feel like 1 2 3 4 5 

sitting around and doing nothing. 

11. In recent years, I have felt more nervous or 1 2 3 4 5 

worried about things than I have needed to. 

12. I feel very happy. 1 2 3 4 5 

The next questions are about how you feel about yourself and others. For each statement, indicate how true 

you feel these statements are about you personally. 

Not at all A little Pretty Very 

true true much true much true 

1. I can work with someone who has different opinions than 1 2 3 4 

mine. 

2. I can work out my problems. 1 2 3 4 

3. I can do most things I try. 1 2 3 4 

4. There are many things I do well. 1 2 3 4 

5. I feel bad when someone gets their feelings hurt. 1 2 3 4 

6. I try to understand what other people go through. 1 2 3 4 

7. I try to understand what other people feel and think. 1 2 3 4 

8. When I need help I find someone to talk with. 1 2 3 4 

9. I try to work out my problems by talking or writing about 1 2 3 4 

them. 

10. There is purpose to my life. 1 2 3 4 

11. I understand my moods and feelings. 1 2 3 4 

12. I understand why I do what I do. 1 2 3 4 

Please indicate how many times you did each of these things in the last 7 days. 

None 1 Time 2-3 4-5 6-7 

Times Times Times 

1. I teased students to make them angry. 0 1 2-3 4-5 6-7 

2. I got angry very easily with someone. 0 1 2-3 4-5 6-7 

3. I fought back when someone hit me first. 0 1 2-3 4-5 6-7 

4. I said things about a kid to make other students laugh. 0 1 2-3 4-5 6-7 

5. I encouraged other students to fight. 0 1 2-3 4-5 6-7 

6. I pushed or shoved other kids. 0 1 2-3 4-5 6-7 

7. I was angry most of the day. 0 1 2-3 4-5 6-7 

8. I got into a physical fight because I was angry. 0 1 2-3 4-5 6-7 

9. I slapped or kicked someone. 0 1 2-3 4-5 6-7 

10. I called other students bad names. 0 1 2-3 4-5 6-7 

11. I threatened to hurt or hit someone. 0 1 2-3 4-5 6-7 

The next questions are about your academic future. 

7. If you could do exactly what you wanted, how far would you go in school? 

a. 9th – 11th grade 

b. Graduate high school 

c. Post high school, vocational, or tech training 

d. Some college 

e. Business college, or two-year associates degree 

76

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

77

f. Graduate from a four-year college 

g. Get a Master’s degree or teaching credential 

h. Get a law degree, PhD, or medical doctor’s degree 

8. We can’t always do what we most want to do. How far do you think you will actually go in school? 

a. 9th – 11th grade 

b. Graduate high school 

c. Post high school, vocational, or tech training 

d. Some college 

e. Business college, or two-year associates degree 

f. Graduate from a four-year college 

g. Get a Master’s degree or teaching credential 

h. Get a law degree, PhD, or medical doctor’s degree 

These next questions are about your ethnic group membership. 

Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly 

Disagree Agree 

1. I have spent time trying to find out more about 1 2 3 4 5 

my ethnic group, such as history, traditions, and 

customs. 

2. I have a strong sense of belonging to my own 1 2 3 4 5 

ethnic group. 

3. I understand pretty well what my ethnic group 1 2 3 4 5 

membership means to me. 

4. I have often done things that will help me 1 2 3 4 5 

understand my ethnic background better. 

9. I have often talked to other people in order 1 2 3 4 5 

to learn more about my ethnic group. 

Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly 

Disagree Agree 

6. I feel a strong sense of attachment towards my 1 2 3 4 5 

own ethnic group. 

7. Most of my friends belong to my ethnic group. 1 2 3 4 5 

The next questions are about how you think feel about yourself academically. For each statement, indicate how 

true you feel these statements are about your personally. 

Not true A little true Often true Always 

true 

1. I am good at my schoolwork. 1 2 3 4 

2. I am just as smart as other people my age. 1 2 3 4 

3. I am slow in finishing my schoolwork. 1 2 3 4 

4. I do my class work well. 1 2 3 4 

5. I have trouble figuring out the answers in school. 1 2 3 4 

For these next questions, please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with the following statements 

about your school. 

Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly 

Disagree Agree 

1. I feel close to people at this school. 1 2 3 4 5 

2. I am happy to be at this school. 1 2 3 4 5 

77

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

78

3. I feel like I am part of this school. 1 2 3 4 5 

4. The teachers at this school treat students fairly. 1 2 3 4 5 

5. I feel safe in my school. 1 2 3 4 5 

These next questions ask about cigarette smoking. For each question, please remember to answer honestly. 

42. Have you ever tried cigarette smoking, even one or two puffs? 

a. Yes 

b. No 

If you responded “Yes” to the previous question, please answer the following two questions: 

43. During the past 30 days, on how many days did you smoke cigarettes? 

a. 0 days e. 10 to 19 days 

b. 1 or 2 days f. 20 to 29 days 

c. 3 to 5 days g. All 30 days 

d. 6 to 9 days 

44. During the past 30 days, how many cigarettes did you smoke per day? 

a. I did not smoke cigarettes during d. 2 to 5 cigarettes per day 

the past 30 days e. 6 to 10 cigarettes per day 

b. Less than 1 cigarette per day f. 11 to 20 cigarettes per day 

c. 1 cigarette per day g. More than 20 cigarettes per day 

These next questions ask about drinking alcohol. This includes drinking beer, wine, wine coolers, liquor such as 

rum, gin, vodka, or whiskey. For these questions, drinking alcohol does not include drinking a few sips or wine 

for religious purposes. Please remember to answer honestly. 

45. During your life, on how many days have you had at least one drink of alcohol? 

a. 0 days e. 20 to 39 days 

b. 1 or 2 days f. 40 – 99 days 

c. 3 to 9 days g. 100 or more days 

d. 10 to 19 days 

If you responded “Yes” to the previous question, please answer the following two questions: 

46. During the past 30 days, on how many days did you have at least one drink of alcohol? 

a. 0 days e. 10 to 19 days 

b. 1 or 2 days f. 20 to 29 days 

c. 3 to 5 days g. All 30 days 

d. 6 to 9 days 

47. During the past 30 days, on how many days did you have 5 or more drinks of alcohol in a row, that is, within a 

couple of hours? 

a. 0 days e. 6 to 9 days 

b. 1 day f. 10 to 19 days 

c. 2 days g. 20 or more days 

d. 3 to 5 days 

These next questions ask about marijuana use. Marijuana is also called grass or pot. Please remember to answer 

honestly. 

48. During your life, how many times have you used marijuana? 

78

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

79

a. 0 times e. 20 to 39 times 

b. 1 or 2 times f. 40 to 99 times 

c. 3 to 9 times g. 100 or more times 

d. 10 to 19 times 

If you responded “Yes” to the previous question, please answer the following question: 

49. During the past 30 days, how many times did you use marijuana? 

a. 0 times d. 10 to 19 times 

b. 1 or 2 times e. 20 to 39 times 

c. 3 to 9 times f. 40 or more times 

These next questions ask about some other behaviors that could get you in trouble. Please remember to answer 

honestly. 

50. During the past 12 months, on how many days did you carry a weapon such as a gun, knife, or club on school 

property? 

a. 0 times e. 6 or 7 times 

b. 1 time f. 8 or 9 times 

c. 2 or 3 times g. 10 or 11 times 

d. 4 or 5 times h. 12 or more times 

51. During the past 12 months, how many times were you in a physical fight on school property? 

a. 0 times e. 6 or 7 times 

b. 1 time f. 8 or 9 times 

c. 2 or 3 times g. 10 or 11 times 

d. 4 or 5 times h. 12 or more times 

52. During the past 12 months, about how many times did you skip school or cut classes? 

a. 0 times 

b. 1–2 times 

c. A few times 

d. Once a month 

e. Once a week 

f. More than once a week 

79

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

80

53. During the past 12 months have you been arrested for a crime, offence, and/or a violation? 

a. Never 

b. Yes, 1-2 times 

c. Yes, 3-4 times 

d. Yes, 5 or more times 

e. I prefer not to answer 

54. Do you consider yourself a member of a gang? 

a. No 

b. Yes 

These next questions are about the people in your life. For each statement, indicate how true you feel these 

statements are about your personally. 

Not at all A little Pretty Very 

true true much true much true 

1. I have a friend my own age who really cares about me. 1 2 3 4 

2. I have a friend my own age who talks with me about my 1 2 3 4 

problems. 

3. I have a friend my own age who helps me when I’m having 1 2 3 4 

a hard time. 

4. My friends try to do what is right. 1 2 3 4 

5. My friends do well in school. 1 2 3 4 

6. At my school, there is a teacher or some other adult who 1 2 3 4 

really cares about me. 

7. At my school, there is a teacher or some other adult who 1 2 3 4 

tells me when I do a good job. 

8. At my school, there is a teacher or some other adult who 1 2 3 4 

notices when I’m not there. 

9. At my school, there is a teacher or some other adult who 1 2 3 4 

always wants me to do my best. 

10. At my school, there is a teacher or some other adult who 1 2 3 4 

listens to me when I have something to say. 

11. At my school, there is a teacher or some other adult who 1 2 3 4 

believes that I will be a success. 

12. At school, I do interesting activities. 1 2 3 4 

13. At school, I help decide things like class activities or rules. 1 2 3 4 

Not at all A little Pretty Very 

true true much true much true 

14. At school, I do things that make a difference. 1 2 3 4 

15. At home there is a parent or some other adult who 1 2 3 4 

expects me to follow the rules. 

16. At home there is a parent or some other adult who is 1 2 3 4 

interested in my schoolwork. 

17. At home there is a parent or some other adult who 1 2 3 4 

believes that I will be a success. 

18. At home there is a parent or some other adult who talks 1 2 3 4 

with me about my problems. 

19. At home there is a parent or some other adult who 1 2 3 4 

always wants me to do my best. 

80

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

81

20. At home there is a parent or some other adult who listens 1 2 3 4 

to me when I have something to say. 

21. I do things at home that make a difference. 1 2 3 4 

22. I help make decisions with my family. 1 2 3 4 

These next questions are about activities you do during your free time (at school or in your neighborhood). For 

each activity, indicate whether you have been involved in the past 12 months. 

Yes No Not sure 

1. School athletic team Y N 

2. School activities such as clubs or student government Y N 

3. Activities in the community such as scouts, service, hobby, and clubs Y N 

4. Organized summer after-school or sport recreational programs Y N 

5. Volunteer service activities Y N 

6. Civic rights activities Y N 

7. Other hobbies or activities Y N 

8. Have you ever been a part of a formal mentoring program? Y N NS 

9. I have an adult, other than my parents or guardian that I can go to for Y N NS 

support and guidance. 

The next questions are about how you think about yourself and how you do things in general. For each 

sentence, think about how you are in most situations and indicate which response describes you the best. 

None of A little of Some of A lot of Most of All of the 

the time the time the time the time the time time 

1. I think I am doing pretty well. 1 2 3 4 5 6 

2. I can think of many ways to get the 1 2 3 4 5 6 

things in life that are most important to 

me. 

3. I am doing just as well as other kids my 1 2 3 4 5 6 

age. 

4. When I have a problem, I can come up 1 2 3 4 5 6 

with lots of ways to solve it. 

5. I think the things I have done in the past 1 2 3 4 5 6 

will help me in the future. 

6. Even when others want to quit, I know 1 2 3 4 5 6 

that I can find ways to solve the problem. 

81

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

82

Appendix G 

Group Mentor End of Year Survey 

Mentoring For Success: Project Arrive

Group Mentor End-of-Year Survey 

1. How long have you worked at this school? 

o 1-2 years 

o 3-4 years 

o 5-7 years 

o More than 8 years 

2. How many years of experience do you have in education and/or youth development? 

o Less than 1 year 

o 1-2 years 

o 3-5 years 

o 6-10 years 

o 11-15 years 

o More than 16 years 

3. Did you attend the 4 hour "Group Mentor Boot Camp" in September 2014? 

o Yes 

o No 

o I attended the training in a previous year 

4. How helpful was the training for making you feel prepared? 

1 2 3 4 5 

Not at all Somewhat helpful Extremely helpful 

5. How long do your group sessions typically last? 

o Less than 40 minutes 

o 40-50 minutes 

o Over 50 minutes 

6. Check any of the following activities that your group participated in at least once. 

o Ice breakers/opener 

o Games 

o Closing/reflection/debrief 

o Journaling 

o Other (please specify) 

7. Did you group participate in any of the following activities? 

Guest speakers Yes ____ No ____ 

Field trips Yes ____ No ____ 

Academic check-in Yes _____ No_____ 

8. How often did you use the Project Arrive group curriculum provided at the beginning of the 

year? 

1 2 3 4 5 

Never About half of Almost every session 

the sessions 

9. How helpful did you find the curriculum in helping you plan/prepare for your group activities? 

82

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

83

Conflict resolution 

Jobs/career planning 

1 2 3 4 5 

Not at all Somewhat helpful Extremely helpful 

10. How much of a role do mentees have in deciding what will be done in a group? 

1 2 3 4 5 

Mentors always Decide together Mentees always decide 

Decide or split 50/50 

11. How often did you cover the following topics in your group? 

1 2 3 4 5 

Never About half of Every session 

the sessions 

Transitioning to high school 1 2 3 4 5 

Goal setting 1 2 3 4 5 

Academic achievement 1 2 3 4 5 

1 2 3 4 5 

1 2 3 4 5 

Family relationships 

Peer relationships 1 2 3 4 5 

1 2 3 4 5 

Other (please specify) 1 2 3 4 5 

12. Please rate the overall sense of cohesion that characterizes your group at this point in the year 

1 2 3 4 5 

Not at all Somewhat cohesive Very cohesive 

cohesive 

13. How important are the following factors in supporting cohesion in your group? 

1 2 3 4 5 

Not at all Somewhat Important Extremely Important 

Having structured activities 1 2 3 4 5 

Having unstructured activities (such as games, sports) 1 2 3 4 5 

Providing a safe, supportive space for students to talk 1 2 3 4 5 

Having positive peer relationships 1 2 3 4 5 

Snacks 1 2 3 4 5 

Incentives 1 2 3 4 5 

Other (please specify) 1 2 3 4 5 

________ ______ ______ ______ _____ 

14. Would you consider yourself someone that your mentees would turn to if they needed help? 

83

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

________ ______ ______ ______ ______ __ 

84

other mentees) 

One of two mentee(s) not actively participating 

o Yes, most of them would come to me for anything 

o Maybe some of them would, depending on what they needed 

o No, they don't turn to me outside of our group time 

15. How often did you encounter the following challenges? 

1 2 3 4 5 

Never About half of the Almost every session 

sessions 

Personal conflicts between mentees 1 2 3 4 5 

One of two mentee(s) dominating discussion (drowning out 1 2 3 4 5 

1 2 3 4 5 

Inconsistent attendance by mentor (s) 

Inconsistent attendance by mentees 1 2 3 4 5 

1 2 3 4 5 

Other (please specify) 1 2 3 4 5 

16. If any of your assigned mentees withdrew from your group, what are the reason(s) you believe 

they stopped attending? (check all that apply) 

o Opted out within first month 

o Switched to a different mentoring group at this school 

o Transferred out of this school 

o Chronically absent from school 

o Other school related obligations (teacher objections/academic obligations) 

o Interpersonal conflict (between mentees) 

o Interpersonal conflict (between mentee and mentor) 

o Does not apply – no students withdrew 

o Other (please specify) ________________________________ 

17. Aside from the time you spent meeting with you group, how much time would you estimate 

you spent on Project Arrive activities within a typical week? 

o Less than 30 minutes a week 

o 30-60 minutes a week 

o 1-2 hours a week 

o 3-4 hours a week 

o More than 4 hours a week 

18. What level of support have you had from your school administrator(s) for taking the time to be 

a group mentor? 

1 2 3 4 5 

No support Some support A high level of support 

19. How important is it to have a co-facilitator/mentor? 

1 2 3 4 5 

Not at all Somewhat Important Extremely Important 

84

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

85

20. How well did you work with your co-facilitator? 

1 2 3 4 5 

Not at all Somewhat Well Extremely Well 

6 Did not have a co-facilitator 

21. How much support have you received from the Project Arrive district coordinator

(consultation, logging, peer sharing, field trips, etc)? 

1 2 3 4 5 

No support Some support A high level of support 

22. How many students did you have at the start of the year? 

23. How many students did you have at the end of the year? 

24. How often did you have a full group (no more than 2 students absent)? 

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 

No sessions About half All sessions 

of the sessions 

25. How many times did the group session have to be canceled? 

o Never 

o 1-2 times 

o 3-4 times 

o 5-6 times 

o 7-8 times 

o 9 or more times 

26. How much personal money have you spent on your group (i.e., good, incentives, field trips)? 

27. What is the likelihood that you will choose to be a group mentor again next year? 

1 2 3 4 5 

Extremely Unlikely Maybe Extremely Likely 

28. Based on your experience this year, would you encourage colleagues at your school to

become a group mentor next year? 

1 2 3 4 5 

Extremely Unlikely Maybe Extremely Likely 

29. Please rate your overall group mentoring experience. 

1 2 3 4 5 

Bad experience OK experience Excellent experience 

30. What recommendations for possible program improvements do you have? 

85

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

86

Appendix H 

Mentee Focus Group Protocol 

Hello and welcome. Our names are ___________. We are part of the GSU Research Team 

working with Project Arrive. 

Thank you for taking the time to meet with us today. We have invited you here today because of 

your participation with Project Arrive. 

Taking part in today ́s discussion is voluntary. You don’t have to answer any of the questions if 

you don’t want to. You will have a chance to decide if you want to take part in today ́s focus 

group or not after we review what it is all about. 

We would like to record the conversation and take notes. This helps us remember what you said. 

We will record only if you are OK with it. Please let us know if you would prefer that we don ́t 

record the interview. The notes and recordings will be kept private in our office. 

We would like to assure you that everything we talk about today will be confidential. We will 

not use your name or any information that will identify you. After we get the required 

information from the recordings, we will destroy them. You can let us know what you really 

think. 

In general we would like to discuss your experiences in Project Arrive, how you feel while in 

your group, and your relationship with your mentors and group members. 

Before we get started do you have any questions? 

First, let’s go around the room and introduce ourselves. 

Thinking back, tell me about the first couple of meetings with the group. (Forming) 

- What was it like first getting to know one another? 

- How did you know what was expected of you? 

- How did you start trusting one another? 

How did your group come up with a group agreement? (Storming) 

- (If there is no group agreement, how did your group decide on the ways you were 

going to treat one another while in group) 

- What kinds of disagreements did you have when trying to create the group 

agreement? 

- How did you resolve the conflicts? 

What kinds of things did you include in your agreement? (Norming) 

- What are the most important aspects of the group agreement? 

- What happens if someone doesn’t follow the agreement? 

- How does your group respond to members who talk too much or too little? 

How does you group work together now? (Performing...maybe) 

86

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

87

- What kinds of personal things do you share with your group? 

- How do group members support one another? 

- Can you think of a time when things worked really well in your group? Was everyone 

involved? 

- How has being in the group helped you with things like organizing time, interacting 

with teachers, getting assignments done, and improving your grades? 

- How has being in group helped you get along with other students? What about feeling 

like you really belong in this school? 

-

What happens when new people join or regular members leave the group? 

How is the group important to you? Why? 

If you could talk to a current eighth grader who is planning to participate in Project Arrive 

next year, what would you tell him or her about the program? 

- What advice would you give them about joining Project Arrive? 

- What about your group helped you the most with being a 9th grader? 

- What do you wish your group could have done to help you more? 

Closing: 

Is there anything else you want to share about your group? 

Thank you so much for coming and sharing your thoughts with us! 

87

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

88

Appendix I 

Mentor Focus Group Protocol 

Hello and welcome. Our names are ___________. We are part of the GSU Research Team 

working with Project Arrive. 

Thank you for taking the time to meet with us today. Some of you may remember us from last 

year. We have invited you here today because of your work as a mentor with Project Arrive. 

We would like to record the conversation and take notes. This helps us remember what you said. 

We will record only if you are OK with it. Please let us know if you would prefer that we don ́t 

record the interview. The notes and recordings will be kept private in our office. 

We would like to assure you that everything we talk about today will be confidential. We will 

not use your name or any information that will identify you. After we get the required 

information from the recordings, we will destroy them. You can let us know what you really 

think. Today, we would like to discuss your experiences as a Project Arrive mentor, training you 

may have attended before you started mentoring, and additional resources that may make your 

position as a mentor more effective. 

Before we get started do you have any questions? 

First, let’s go around the room and introduce ourselves. 

School specific questions: 

School 1 (how to improve): 

The program coordinator has told us how impressed she is with the big strides you’ve 

taken this year, could you share how and what steps were taken to reach this point? 

- Any new challenges you are now facing? 

School 2 (how to start): 

This is the first year of Project Arrive. What are some things that helped get it off the 

ground? 

- What worked well, what didn’t? 

Schools 3 and 4 (how to maintain): 

So far you’ve done a great job with your groups in Project Arrive. How do keep up the 

momentum and stay committed? 

- What needs to happen to keep the program going? 

All SchoolsMentor Training/Preparedness: 

To get started we want to ask some questions about training before the year started. This 

may be different for new mentors and those who have been around for a while. Later we 

will ask about ongoing training throughout the year. 

- Who is new, and who has been a mentor for a while? 

- What trainings were you able to attend prior to becoming a PA mentor? 

- What aspects of the training were helpful? 

88

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

89

- Anything you could have used more of? 

- If ongoing training was available throughout the year, would you be interested? 

- What would make them easier to attend? 

- What kinds of ongoing training or support would be helpful to you? 

School Integration: 

How is Project Arrive perceived in the school? 

- Is it viewed as contributing to students’ academic success? (If no, what would be 

needed to convey this message) 

- Is it viewed as a program that is needed in the school? (why/why not?) 

- Is it seen as sustainable and worth sustaining? (why/why not?) 

- How does the school support you in your mentor role? 

Website Use: 

As I’m sure you know, we have launched a website for Project Arrive that has a lot of 

resources and activities for mentors and mentees. I want to talk with you all about your 

experience using this site. For those of you who have used it, tell me about your experience. 

- If you haven’t used it, what has stopped you? 

- What did you use the website for? Was it useful? 

- Which pages are the most useful? 

- What is missing? What could we add to help you more? 

- The website has a discussion section function, but it is not often used. What’s keeping 

you from using the function? 

Group structure: 

If you could construct the ideal group, what would it look like? 

- How many people would be in it? 

- Who would be in it? 

- How would you include people with different skills/talents? Different challenges? 

- What types of students would not be suited for your ideal group? 

Importance of co-mentors: 

What has it been like working with a co-mentor? 

- How important is Teamwork? 

- How do you utilize any complementary skills/talents? 

- What happens if one of you is busy with other things and can’t prioritize group that 

week? 

Sustainability: 

What does it take to maintain a viable group? 

- What skills do mentors need? (Are they the same skills as mentoring 1:1?) 

- What about logistical constraints or opportunities in the school? 

What is the most important thing to you about being a group mentor? 

Closing: Is there anything else you want to share about your group? 

89

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

90

Appendix J. 

Internal Resilience Assets Infographic 

90

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

91

Appendix K. 

External Resilience Assets Infographic 

91

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

92

Appendix L. 

Group Processes Infographic 

92

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

93

Appendix M. 

Academic Outcomes Infographic 

93

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.