DOI: 10.3886/icpsr37379.v1
title: Mentoring Enhancement Demonstration Program (MEDP), Multi-Site Evaluation in 11 States [Restricted-Use], 2012-2017
title: Version 1

description: In 2012, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) launched a demonstration field experiment, the Mentoring Enhancement Demonstration Program (MEDP) and Evaluation to examine: (1) the use of an "advocacy" role for mentors; and (2) the use of a teaching/information provision role for mentors. The overall goal of MEDP was to develop program models that specified what advocacy and teaching look like in practice and to understand whether encouraging the general practice of advocacy and teaching could improve youth outcomes. The American Institutes for Research (AIR) conducted a rigorous process and outcome evaluation of programs funded by OJJDP in 2012. The evaluation was designed to rigorously assess the effectiveness of programs that agreed to develop and implement enhanced practices incorporating advocacy or teaching roles for mentors, including providing focused prematch and ongoing training to mentors, and providing ongoing support to help mentors carry out the targeted roles.MEDP grantees comprised collaboratives that would offer coordinated implementation of the same set of program enhancements in three or four separate established and qualified mentoring programs located within the same regional area. The MEDP collaboratives varied widely in their geographical locations, their size and experience in mentoring, and the structure of their mentoring programs. The types and structures of mentoring programs also varied across, and sometimes within, collaboratives. All the collaboratives proposed enhancements in the way they would train mentors for their roles, and in the way they would provide ongoing support to the mentors and in some cases the youth that they were matched with. This data collection consists of multiple types of respondents (youth, parents, mentors, and staff) across multiple data collection periods.
description: The purpose of this study was to rigorously and systematically assess the overall effects of enhanced models of advocacy and teaching for mentors over traditional programming and which approaches were most effective. The study sought to develop program models that specify what advocacy and teaching looks like in practice; and to determine whether encouraging the general practice of advocacy and teaching can improve outcomes.
description: For this MEDP initiative a funding opportunity was announced to solicit applications for partners who had an established youth mentoring program to enroll in the program. OJJDP awarded funding to the grantee partnerships. Each grantee partnership was referred to as a collaborative. The following characteristics were required for each collaborative: Be an established youth mentoring program for at least 3 years. Provide mentoring services to a defined population in a specific geographic area. All mentors are un-paid volunteers. Target youth primarily ages 12 to 14 years old. Operate and implement program in 3 to 5 cooperating separate agencies in the same geographic area. Awards were given to 10 collaboratives that covered 11 states with a total of 30 program sites. Each collaborative agency would develop its own program enhancements incorporating teaching and advocacy into their work mentoring youth involved in their individual programs. Youth, mentors, and parents would complete surveys at the beginning of the program implementation and then following-up with them 12 months after a mentor-youth match was made. Staff at each site were also surveyed. Additionally, other data collection methods would be utilized as part of the overall program evaluation.
description: <strong>Main Analysis File (DS1): </strong>The file contains 2,427 variables and 2,107 cases. This file merges survey responses from youth, parents, and mentors. Each of the 2,107 cases corresponds to one youth. There are multiple cases for some of the same parents and mentors. There are four major sections within this dataset: Questionnaire data: Multiple surveys are used for this file including Appendix G4 and G5 (youth baseline and 12-month follow-up), G6 and G7 (parent baseline and 12-month follow-up), and G1, G2, and G3 (mentor baseline and 12-month follow-ups). The second section of variables are repeat mentor follow-up survey items but with valid data limited to one of the 10 specific collaboratives. The third variable section includes recoded survey questions from the youth and parent surveys.The fourth and final section are variables constructed and provided by the Principal Investigators for additional analytical utility. <strong>Mentor - Baseline Survey (DS2): </strong>Each file contains 155 variables and 2,932 cases. Survey used was Appendix G1 which asks about the mentor's background and demographic characteristics, and then asks about their goals for those they mentor, and their preparations for participating in the program. <strong>Mentor - Post Training Survey (DS3): </strong>File contains 89 variables and 1,172 cases. This file also uses the survey in Appendix G1, except it does not include the first section of the survey with questions about the mentor's background and demographic characteristics. As a result the variable names are different from the mentor baseline survey, but the survey questions are the same for the second half of G1. <strong>Parent - 18 Month Survey (DS4): </strong>File contains 145 variables and 1,097 cases. Survey used was Appendix G8 which includes questions regarding the enrolled child(ren) experiences and behaviors over the past 6 months, and their experiences with their matched mentor. <strong>Staff Survey (DS5): </strong>File contains 172 variables and 104 cases. Survey used was Appendix G10 which examines staff experiences, supports, and challenges in implementing the selected agency enhancements as part of the mentoring program.
description: Response Rates: <strong>Youth:</strong> Baseline: 95.6 percent / 12-month follow-up: 73.8 percent <strong>Mentor:</strong> Baseline: 96.6 percent / 12-month follow-up: 75.6 percent <strong>Parent:</strong> Baseline: 94.1 percent / 12-month follow-up: 71.1 percent / 18-month follow-up: 68.4 percent
description: Datasets: DS0: Study-Level Files DS1: Main Analysis File DS2: Mentor - Baseline Survey DS3: Mentor - Post Training Survey DS4: Parent - 18 Month Survey DS5: Staff Survey
description: Youth, aged 12 to 14, participating in community agency mentoring programs.
description: mixed mode; self-enumerated questionnaireThe variables <strong>COLLABORATIVE</strong> and <strong>SITE</strong> have been randomized and de-identified. The data does not identify a specific state, city, or program. Each of the 10 collaboratives are identified by a single letter. Each site refers to the collaborative letter followed by a single digit. The collaboratives (with number of sites) are: A (3), E (4), F (3), H (3), I (3), K (3), L (3), R (3), S (1), and Y (3). The variable <strong>COLLABORATIVE</strong> is only present in the Main Analysis File (DS1). The variable <strong>SITE</strong> is only available in the Main Analysis File (DS1) and the Staff Survey (DS5).Youth, mentors, and parents are identified by by the variables <strong>Y_ID</strong>, <strong>M_ID</strong>, and <strong>P_ID</strong> respectively. The ID's combine the 2 character site code, a single letter for the respondent type (Y, M, or P), and a 4 digit numeric code. <strong>Y_ID</strong> is available only in DS1. <strong>M_ID</strong> is in DS1, DS2, and DS3. And <strong>P_ID</strong> is available in DS1 and DS4.The ID variables <strong>M_ID</strong> and <strong>P_ID</strong> can be used to link DS2, DS3, and DS4 to DS1. To link DS5, the staff survey, to DS1 or DS2 the variable <strong>SITE</strong> would be used.The questionnaire document associated with this study combines all the baseline and follow-up surveys for youth, mentors, parents, and staff. It also includes sections for other data collected as part of the program evaluation, but is not associated with this particular data collection. The processing notes at the beginning of each ICPSR codebook state which "Appendix" was used so that the codebook and questionnaire can be used together.ICPSR redacted the specific program names listed on page 2 of the staff survey (Appendix G10). That page listed the 30 individual sites. Although the variable <strong>SITE</strong> was randomized and de-identified in the data it was decided, in the interest of disclosure protection, to withhold this listing of sites.The Main Analysis files (DS1) contain an additional zip file that contains three syntax files provided by the Principal Investigator. These files provide the recodes, transformations, and constructed scale variables that comprise the last portion of variables within each dataset.