A Process and Outcome Evaluation of the 4-H Mentoring/ Youth and ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

YFP/4-H Mentoring Evaluation Average Improvement 5.5 4.5 3.5 2.5 1.5 0.5 -0.5 -1.5 Long Attenders From Pre to Post-Test 2 Long Attenders from Pre to Post Time 1 Short Attenders from Pre to Post-test 1 Interpersonal strength Family Involvement Intrapersonal Strength School Functioning Affective Strength Career Strength Figure 8. YFP Youth BERS-2 Improvement at Post-Test Time One and Two Last Post-Test for YFP Youths When the last post-test prior to discharge (this could have occurred at post-test time one, two, or three) is examined for YFP youths, changes are similar to those seen from pre-test to year one. There are some differences in the average improvement from the pre-test to the last posttest, but in no instance is the average difference greater than the change seen from the pre-test to the year one post-test (see Table 39). This again raises the issue of the optimum length of stay in the program. Given the substantial number of YFP youths with high scores on Career Strength at the pre-test, little weight should be given to the gain scores indicating negative change on the pre-test. 105
YFP/4-H Mentoring Evaluation Table 39. YFP Youth Change From Pre-Test to Last Post-Test BERS-2 Scale Mean Std. Dev. DF Sig. Interpersonal strength 2.40 10.35 229 .001 Family Involvement 1.16 6.82 230 .011 Intrapersonal Strength 3.37 8.01 229 .000 School Functioning 1.33 6.19 229 .001 Affective Strength .88 5.34 232 .013 Career Strength -.52 3.89 162 .093 Sub-group Differences for the YFP Group We examined the relationship between youths’ BERS-2 pre-test scores and various background characteristics as well as factors related to program involvement and found many significant correlations (see Table 40 below). With the exception of Career Strength, youths with higher pre-test scores on the BERS-2 scales were less involved in the program, both in terms of overall time in the program and program dosage, and were more likely to be discharged from the program because they stopped attending. Non-whites had lower scores on Family Involvement. Girls had higher Interpersonal Strength, School Functioning and Affective Strength. 106
Page 1 and 2:
A Process and Outcome Evaluation of
Page 3 and 4:
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...
Page 5 and 6:
Table 22. Positive Mentee Changes R
Page 7 and 8:
Table 68. Court Involvement in Thir
Page 9 and 10:
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS There were many pe
Page 11 and 12:
YFP/4-H Mentoring Evaluation variou
Page 13 and 14:
YFP/4-H Mentoring Evaluation REVIEW
Page 15 and 16:
YFP/4-H Mentoring Evaluation have a
Page 17 and 18:
YFP/4-H Mentoring Evaluation Henrie
Page 19 and 20:
YFP/4-H Mentoring Evaluation David
Page 21 and 22:
YFP/4-H Mentoring Evaluation Rhodes
Page 23 and 24:
YFP/4-H Mentoring Evaluation trust
Page 25 and 26:
YFP/4-H Mentoring Evaluation mentee
Page 27 and 28:
YFP/4-H Mentoring Evaluation effect
Page 29 and 30:
YFP/4-H Mentoring Evaluation progra
Page 31 and 32:
YFP/4-H Mentoring Evaluation activi
Page 33 and 34:
YFP/4-H Mentoring Evaluation compet
Page 35 and 36:
YFP/4-H Mentoring Evaluation of the
Page 37 and 38:
YFP/4-H Mentoring Evaluation their
Page 39 and 40:
YFP/4-H Mentoring Evaluation activi
Page 41 and 42:
YFP/4-H Mentoring Evaluation number
Page 43 and 44:
YFP/4-H Mentoring Evaluation more o
Page 45 and 46:
YFP/4-H Mentoring Evaluation consid
Page 47 and 48:
YFP/4-H Mentoring Evaluation Table
Page 49 and 50:
YFP/4-H Mentoring Evaluation Progra
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
YFP/4-H Mentoring Evaluation monthl
Page 57 and 58:
YFP/4-H Mentoring Evaluation found
Page 59 and 60:
YFP/4-H Mentoring Evaluation with t
Page 61 and 62:
YFP/4-H Mentoring Evaluation mentor
Page 63 and 64: YFP/4-H Mentoring Evaluation Accord
Page 65 and 66: YFP/4-H Mentoring Evaluation Three
Page 67 and 68: YFP/4-H Mentoring Evaluation Sport
Page 69 and 70: YFP/4-H Mentoring Evaluation one pa
Page 71 and 72: YFP/4-H Mentoring Evaluation Table
Page 73 and 74: YFP/4-H Mentoring Evaluation 25 20
Page 75 and 76: YFP/4-H Mentoring Evaluation 250 Nu
Page 77 and 78: YFP/4-H Mentoring Evaluation availa
Page 79 and 80: YFP/4-H Mentoring Evaluation The Pr
Page 81 and 82: YFP/4-H Mentoring Evaluation proxim
Page 85 and 86: YFP/4-H Mentoring Evaluation relati
Page 87 and 88: YFP/4-H Mentoring Evaluation docume
Page 89 and 90: YFP/4-H Mentoring Evaluation mentor
Page 91 and 92: YFP/4-H Mentoring Evaluation OUTCOM
Page 93 and 94: YFP/4-H Mentoring Evaluation Youths
Page 95 and 96: YFP/4-H Mentoring Evaluation • Sc
Page 97 and 98: YFP/4-H Mentoring Evaluation form.
Page 101 and 102: YFP/4-H Mentoring Evaluation that t
Page 103 and 104: YFP/4-H Mentoring Evaluation Initia
Page 105 and 106: YFP/4-H Mentoring Evaluation collec
Page 107 and 108: YFP/4-H Mentoring Evaluation are no
Page 109 and 110: YFP/4-H Mentoring Evaluation matche
Page 113: YFP/4-H Mentoring Evaluation If onl
Page 117 and 118: • youths ages 12 to 17 at admit,
Page 119 and 120: etween boys in the two groups. When
Page 121 and 122: Predicting Change on the BERS-2 Sub
Page 123 and 124: Table 50. Predictors of Change on A
Page 125 and 126: Table 53. BERS-2 Pretest Subscale S
Page 127 and 128: Table 55. Correlation Between YRM S
Page 129 and 130: two, youths reported that mentor ac
Page 131 and 132: Given these very low numbers, we di
Page 133 and 134: differences in the proportion of yo
Page 135 and 136: Table 67. Court Involvement in Firs
Page 137 and 138: youths’ perspectives regarding th
Page 139 and 140: percentage (83%) of comparison yout
Page 141 and 142: Table 73. How Much the Program Help
Page 143 and 144: youths were closest to “mostly Bs
Page 145 and 146: skipped school, but improvement on
Page 147 and 148: PROGRAM COSTS Overview In order to
Page 149 and 150: There was substantial variation by
Page 151 and 152: school performance nor scores on th
Page 153 and 154: for several subscales they continue
Page 155 and 156: youth met with their mentor once ev
Page 157 and 158: differences is the concentration of
Page 159 and 160: court-involved. It may be that thos
Page 161 and 162: of a weak method, the “retrospect
Page 163 and 164: started out equivalent, we would ha
Page 165 and 166:
implementation matched the program
Page 167 and 168:
The results from our study of 4-H M
Page 169 and 170:
REFERENCES Ahrens, K., DuBois, D.,
Page 171 and 172:
Freedman, M. (1993). The Kindness o
Page 173 and 174:
Larose, S., Ceyrenne, D., Garceau,
Page 175 and 176:
Scales, P.C., & Leffert, N. (2004).
Page 177 and 178:
APPENDIX B: SITE-SPECIFIC INFORMATI
Page 179 and 180:
Table B2. YFP Activities During the
Page 181 and 182:
Table B4. Average Number of In-Pers
Page 183 and 184:
Table B6. Site Type and Use of High
Page 185 and 186:
Table B8. Reasons for Referral Beha
Page 187 and 188:
Table B10. Mentor Characteristics S
show all

A Process and Outcome Evaluation of the 4-H Mentoring/ Youth and ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?