Mentoring Enhancement Demonstration Program (MEDP), Multi-Site Evaluation in 11 States [Restricted-Use], 2012-2017 (ICPSR 37379)

Version Date: Apr 6, 2020

Cite this study |

Principal Investigator(s):
G. Roger Jarjoura, American Institutes for Research

https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR37379.v1

Version V1

Slide tabs to view more

Alternate Title

MEDP, 2012-2017

Summary

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.

Citation

Jarjoura, G. Roger. Mentoring Enhancement Demonstration Program (MEDP), Multi-Site Evaluation in 11 States [Restricted-Use], 2012-2017. Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2020-04-06. https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR37379.v1

Export Citation:

  • RIS (generic format for RefWorks, EndNote, etc.)
  • EndNote

Funding

United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (LCFRD12C0016)

Subject Terms

Geographic Coverage

Restrictions

This data collection may not be used for any purpose other than statistical reporting and analysis. Use of these data to learn the identity of any person or establishment is prohibited. To protect respondent privacy, some of the data files in this collection are restricted from general dissemination. Users interested in obtaining these data must complete a Restricted Data Use Agreement, specify the reasons for the request, and obtain IRB approval or notice of exemption for their research.

Distributor(s)

Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research
Hide

Time Period(s)

2012 -- 2017

Date of Collection

2013-08 -- 2016-06 (Mentor - Post-Training Survey), 2015-04 -- 2017-01 (Parent - 18 Month Survey)

Data Collection Notes

  1. The variables COLLABORATIVE and SITE 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 COLLABORATIVE is only present in the Main Analysis File (DS1). The variable SITE is only available in the Main Analysis File (DS1) and the Staff Survey (DS5).

  2. Youth, mentors, and parents are identified by by the variables Y_ID, M_ID, and P_ID 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. Y_ID is available only in DS1. M_ID is in DS1, DS2, and DS3. And P_ID is available in DS1 and DS4.

  3. The ID variables M_ID and P_ID can be used to link DS2, DS3, and DS4 to DS1. To link DS5, the staff survey, to DS1 or DS2 the variable SITE would be used.

  4. 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.

  5. 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 SITE was randomized and de-identified in the data it was decided, in the interest of disclosure protection, to withhold this listing of sites.

  6. 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.

Hide

Study Purpose

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.

Study Design

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.

Time Method

Longitudinal: Panel

Universe

Youth, aged 12 to 14, participating in community agency mentoring programs.

Unit(s) of Observation

collaborative program, individual, program site

Data Source

Surveys - youth (baseline, 12-month follow-up after match); mentors (baseline, post training, 12 month follow-up after match); parents (baseline, 12-month follow-up after match, 6 month's after 12-month follow-up); staff

Focus Group - Staff (not a part of the data collection)

Site Visits - in-person trainings prior to program implementation and then one formal visit later on (not a part of the data collection)

Program Records - training rosters, cost survey, REDCap database, juvenile justice records, school records (not a part of the data collection)

Program Documents - program checklists and tools, enhancement materials, grantee proposals and continuation applications (not a part of the collection)

Data Type(s)

Mode of Data Collection

Description of Variables

Main Analysis File (DS1): 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.

Mentor - Baseline Survey (DS2): 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.

Mentor - Post Training Survey (DS3): 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.

Parent - 18 Month Survey (DS4): 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.

Staff Survey (DS5): 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.

Response Rates

  • Youth: Baseline: 95.6 percent / 12-month follow-up: 73.8 percent
  • Mentor: Baseline: 96.6 percent / 12-month follow-up: 75.6 percent
  • Parent: Baseline: 94.1 percent / 12-month follow-up: 71.1 percent / 18-month follow-up: 68.4 percent

Hide

Original Release Date

2020-04-06

Version History

2020-04-06 ICPSR data undergo a confidentiality review and are altered when necessary to limit the risk of disclosure. ICPSR also routinely creates ready-to-go data files along with setups in the major statistical software formats as well as standard codebooks to accompany the data. In addition to these procedures, ICPSR performed the following processing steps for this data collection:

  • Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes.

Hide

Notes

  • The public-use data files in this collection are available for access by the general public. Access does not require affiliation with an ICPSR member institution.

  • ICPSR usually offers files in multiple formats for researchers to be able to access data and documentation in formats that work well within their needs. If you have questions about the accessibility of materials distributed by ICPSR or require further assistance, please visit ICPSR’s Accessibility Center.

  • One or more files in this data collection have special restrictions. Restricted data files are not available for direct download from the website; click on the Restricted Data button to learn more.