Sign Up For Newsletter

Blueprints For Healthy Youth Development logo

Achievement Mentoring

A school-based intervention that aims to reduce drug use and school failure among high-risk adolescents through small group meetings focused on enhancing school attendance, promptness, achievement, and discipline.

Program Outcomes

  • Academic Performance
  • Delinquency and Criminal Behavior
  • Employment
  • Illicit Drugs
  • Truancy - School Attendance

Program Type

  • Cognitive-Behavioral Training
  • School - Individual Strategies
  • Truancy Prevention

Program Setting

  • School

Continuum of Intervention

  • Selective Prevention

Age

  • Early Adolescence (12-14) - Middle School

Gender

  • Both

Race/Ethnicity

  • All

Endorsements

Blueprints: Promising

Program Information Contact

Brenna H. Bry, Ph.D.
Rutgers University
Grad. Sch. of Applied & Professional Psychology
152 Frelinghuysen Road
Piscataway, NJ 08854
bbry@rci.rutgers.edu

Program Developer/Owner

Brenna H. Bry, Ph.D.
Rutgers University


Brief Description of the Program

Achievement Mentoring (formerly Behavioral Monitoring and Reinforcement Program) is a school-based intervention designed to change the negative school behavior of middle school adolescents. Students meet in small groups and systematically work through behavior change. The intervention consists of four components: (1) Collecting up-to-date information about each student's school-related behavior; (2) Providing systematic feedback to the student and/or the parents about the student's behavior; (3) Attaching point values to the student's behavior to earn incentives; and (4) Helping the student figure out how he/she can earn more points. The program lasts for two years.

Blueprints has not certified the high school adaptation of the program.

Outcomes

Study 1

Bry & George (1979) found that, relative to the control group, the intervention group improved significantly more on

  • Attendance and grade-point average at one school (but did significantly worse on grade-point average in the other) after one program year
  • Attendance at one school after the second program year.

Study 2

Bry & George (1980) found that, relative to the control group, the intervention group improved significantly more on

  • Attendance after the second program year but not after the first program year
  • Grade-point average after the second program year but not after the first program year.

Study 3

Bry (1982) found that the intervention group relative to the control group showed significantly

  • Fewer school problems at the one-year follow-up
  • Lower unemployment at the one-year follow-up.

Brief Evaluation Methodology

Study 1

Bry & George (1979) used a randomized controlled trial to examine 40 seventh-grade students in two New Jersey middle schools who were at high risk of school failure. The study randomly assigned the students to the intervention group or a no-treatment control group and assessed the students on academic performance at the end of seventh and eighth grades.

Study 2

Bry & George (1980) used a randomized controlled trial to examine 40 seventh-grade students in an urban middle school who were at high risk of school failure. The study randomly assigned the students to the intervention group or a no-treatment control group and assessed the students on academic performance at the end of seventh and eighth grades.

Study 3

Bry (1982) used a randomized controlled trial to examine 58-60 seventh-grade students recruited as part of Studies 1 and 2 (Bry & George, 1979, 1980). The randomly assigned students were assessed at one year and five years after the main program to measure school problems, unemployment, substance use, and delinquency.

Study 2

Bry, B. H., & George, F. E. (1980). The preventive effects of early intervention on the attendance and grades of urban adolescents. Professional Psychology, 11, 252-260.


Study 3

Bry, B. H. (1982). Reducing the incidence of adolescent problems through preventive intervention: One- and five-year follow-up. American Journal of Community Psychology, 10(3), 265-276.


Risk Factors

Individual: Antisocial/aggressive behavior*, Favorable attitudes towards antisocial behavior

School: Low school commitment and attachment, Poor academic performance*

Protective Factors

Individual: Clear standards for behavior, Prosocial behavior

Family: Attachment to parents

School: Rewards for prosocial involvement in school


* Risk/Protective Factor was significantly impacted by the program

Race/Ethnicity/Gender Details
None of the studies tested for differences in program effects by race, ethnicity, or gender.

Sites interested in implementing the Achievement Mentoring Program purchase a package of services from the Princeton Center for Leadership Training (PCLT) that includes training, curriculum, ongoing technical support, and fidelity monitoring. Specifically, the following services are included:

  • An initial, on-site meeting (3 hours) with administrators and other key stakeholders to prepare for program implementation
  • Two days (10 hours), on-site implementation training (for up to 5 mentors)
  • A follow-up, on-site meeting (3 hours) with administrators and other key stakeholders to assess program implementation progress and sustainability plan
  • Certificate of Attendance for each training participant upon completion of the training
  • Manuals (for up to 5 mentors)
  • Weekly Reporting Forms (brief checklist to be completed by mentors and submitted to program developer/PCLT on a weekly basis)
  • Electronic reminders to prompt mentors to complete and submit Weekly Reporting Forms
  • Monthly Mentoring Summary Report (report on mentoring activities sent to building administrator and on-site mentoring coordinator)
  • 30 hours of consultation/technical assistance to mentors (1 hour every other week, provided in a group setting via phone - consultation typically occurs on a bi-weekly basis and is scheduled at a mutually convenient time for the consultant, Program Coordinator, and mentors)
  • End-of-year Certificate of Participation for each mentor who completes mentor training, participates in 70% of consultation/technical assistance meetings, provides mentoring to students, and submits 100% of Weekly Reporting Forms (Note: this does not mean that the mentor must meet with each mentee on a weekly basis, but he/she must submit the Weekly Reporting Form indicating that no meeting occurred)
  • End-of-year letter from program developer that certifies the program was conducted with fidelity (Note: Letter will be provided if Weekly Reporting Forms are completed by mentors and indicate regular mentoring is provided to mentees.)

NOTE: Mentors must participate in the initial mentor implementation training in order to be eligible to provide mentoring to students.

The following includes a more detailed description of the training that is provided:

Stakeholder Meetings with District/Agency Administrators

Initial and follow-up (3-hour) stakeholder meetings with the district/agency administrators and site-based coordinator focus on planning and preparing for program implementation and ensuring that the necessary systems and processes are in place to ensure the mentors are able to participate in mentor training, have time in their schedule to meet with mentees, and are able to access student school records. Another focus of these meetings includes developing a plan to introduce the program to the school faculty and other student support personnel who will play a role in providing the mentors with information about the mentees. In addition, these stakeholder meetings focus on facilitating communication among district/agency administrators, the program/site-based coordinator, and the mentors, as well as assessing program progress, troubleshooting obstacles, and developing a program sustainability plan.

Training for Program Delivery Staff

An initial 2-day implementation training is for the program/site-based coordinator and the adult mentors and focuses on the specific components of the program model, its theoretical basis, and developing the skills and competencies needed to be an effective mentor. It is a program requirement that any individual who intends to mentor students participate in this initial training.

Location of Meetings/Training

The stakeholder meetings and initial implementation training take place at the implementation site or a nearby location. The program developer, Dr. Brenna Bry, or trainers from the Princeton Center for Leadership Training, Dr. Bry's training arm, travel to the implementation site to provide the initial training.

Program Benefits (per individual): $9,441
Program Costs (per individual): $1,342
Net Present Value (Benefits minus Costs, per individual): $8,098
Measured Risk (odds of a positive Net Present Value): 64%

Source: Washington State Institute for Public Policy
All benefit-cost ratios are the most recent estimates published by The Washington State Institute for Public Policy for Blueprint programs implemented in Washington State. These ratios are based on a) meta-analysis estimates of effect size and b) monetized benefits and calculated costs for programs as delivered in the State of Washington. Caution is recommended in applying these estimates of the benefit-cost ratio to any other state or local area. They are provided as an illustration of the benefit-cost ratio found in one specific state. When feasible, local costs and monetized benefits should be used to calculate expected local benefit-cost ratios. The formula for this calculation can be found on the WSIPP website.

Start-Up Costs

Initial Training and Technical Assistance

A one-time start-up fee for the Achievement Mentoring program is $20,000, plus trainer travel. This includes three days of on-site training for up to 5 mentors, program manuals for 5 mentors, reporting forms, and monthly consultation with mentors for two academic years.

Curriculum and Materials

Curriculum and materials are included in the start-up fee listed under initial training and technical assistance.

Materials Available in Other Language: A program brochure and parent letter are available in Spanish, at no additional cost. No other program materials have been translated.

Licensing

None.

Other Start-Up Costs

None.

Intervention Implementation Costs

Ongoing Curriculum and Materials

Minimal photocopying of reporting forms required.

Staffing

When offered by a school, mentors are usually existing school staff members who volunteer their time as mentors. Mentoring usually occurs during the school day. In some instances mentors have been compensated for their time, although this is unusual.

Other Implementation Costs

Costs for optional in-school AM program launch luncheon and year-end AM program awards luncheon. In a school-based program, there is no cost for space or transportation. Costs for space and transportation would need to be considered for implementation at a non-school site. Sites may also want to consider providing mentee and mentor incentives.

Implementation Support and Fidelity Monitoring Costs

Ongoing Training and Technical Assistance

These costs are included in the start-up fee listed above.

Fidelity Monitoring and Evaluation

The start-up fee includes fidelity monitoring and program evaluation (mentor and mentee surveys) for the first two years.

Ongoing License Fees

None.

Other Implementation Support and Fidelity Monitoring Costs

No information is available

Other Cost Considerations

No information is available

Year One Cost Example

The following example is for a school to initiate the Achievement Mentoring program with 5 mentors and 20 students (4 per mentor).

Start-up Fee (includes training, materials, on-going consultation, fidelity monitoring and program evaluation) $20,000.00
Travel - estimated cost varies depending on site location $3,500.00
Total One Year Cost $23,500.00

Fee also covers second school year of AM program.
For a school to initiate the Achievement Mentoring program with 5 mentors and 20 mentees, the Year 1 cost would be $23,500. This consists of the initial start-up fee and trainer travel. The cost per mentee would be $1175 for the two school years of the program.

Funding Overview

Achievement Mentoring would rely on grants and fundraising for financial support. In this case, funds would be needed primarily to pay the one-time start-up cost.

Allocating State or Local General Funds

Grant funding from departments of education and juvenile justice agencies at the local and state levels should be explored.

Maximizing Federal Funds

Discretionary Grants: Discretionary grants from a variety of federal agencies should be considered in support of the Achievement Mentoring Program. Department of Education grant opportunities are an obvious source. With its focus on youth behavior, Department of Justice grants should be explored, in particular those issued by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Foundation Grants and Public-Private Partnerships

Foundation grants, particularly from foundations with a focus on educational achievement, juvenile justice and mentoring, would be excellent sources of funding for Behavioral Monitoring.

Generating New Revenue

Fundraising by a PTA as well as corporate giving should be considered as sources of start-up funding.

Data Sources

All information comes from the responses to a questionnaire submitted by the purveyors of Achievement Mentoring at the Princeton Center for Leadership Training to the Annie E. Casey Foundation.

Program Developer/Owner

Brenna H. Bry, Ph.D.Rutgers UniversityGraduate School of Applied Professional Psychology152 Frelinghuysen RoadPiscataway, NJ 8854bbry@rci.rutgers.edu

Program Outcomes

  • Academic Performance
  • Delinquency and Criminal Behavior
  • Employment
  • Illicit Drugs
  • Truancy - School Attendance

Program Specifics

Program Type

  • Cognitive-Behavioral Training
  • School - Individual Strategies
  • Truancy Prevention

Program Setting

  • School

Continuum of Intervention

  • Selective Prevention

Program Goals

A school-based intervention that aims to reduce drug use and school failure among high-risk adolescents through small group meetings focused on enhancing school attendance, promptness, achievement, and discipline.

Population Demographics

The program targets middle and junior high school students at high risk for increasing school failure experiences. Teens are considered to be at-risk if they meet at least two of three criteria: (1) low academic motivation, (2) family problems, i.e., feeling of distance from the family, and (3) frequent or serious discipline referrals.

Target Population

Age

  • Early Adolescence (12-14) - Middle School

Gender

  • Both

Race/Ethnicity

  • All

Race/Ethnicity/Gender Details

None of the studies tested for differences in program effects by race, ethnicity, or gender.

Other Risk and Protective Factors

Risk Factors: low academic motivation, a disregard for rules, and a feeling of distance from the family.

Protective Factors: natural community of reinforcers in society which maintain positive behavior, belief that desired consequences are gained through the subjects' own actions.

Risk/Protective Factor Domain

  • Individual
  • School
  • Family

Risk/Protective Factors

Risk Factors

Individual: Antisocial/aggressive behavior*, Favorable attitudes towards antisocial behavior

School: Low school commitment and attachment, Poor academic performance*

Protective Factors

Individual: Clear standards for behavior, Prosocial behavior

Family: Attachment to parents

School: Rewards for prosocial involvement in school


*Risk/Protective Factor was significantly impacted by the program

Brief Description of the Program

Achievement Mentoring (formerly Behavioral Monitoring and Reinforcement Program) is a school-based intervention designed to change the negative school behavior of middle school adolescents. Students meet in small groups and systematically work through behavior change. The intervention consists of four components: (1) Collecting up-to-date information about each student's school-related behavior; (2) Providing systematic feedback to the student and/or the parents about the student's behavior; (3) Attaching point values to the student's behavior to earn incentives; and (4) Helping the student figure out how he/she can earn more points. The program lasts for two years.

Blueprints has not certified the high school adaptation of the program.

Description of the Program

Achievement Mentoring is a two-year school-based intervention designed to change the negative school behavior of middle school adolescents. Students meet in small groups and systematically work through behavior change. The intervention consists of four components: (1) Collecting up-to-date information about each student's school-related behavior (from daily attendance, tardiness, and disciplinary action records, and interviews with teachers); (2) Providing systematic feedback to the student and/or the parents about the student's behavior; (3) Attaching point values to the student's behavior (e.g., points for coming to school, not being tardy, receiving no disciplinary action, etc.), with points earned towards an extra school trip; and (4) Helping the student figure out how he/she can earn more points.

Theoretical Rationale

The program is based on behavior modification theory. It is based on the findings of various research studies indicating that problem behaviors in adolescents are preceded by increases in cynicism about the predictability of the world and decreases in the sense of competence to deal with it. Additionally, this cynicism can be prevented and self-efficacy increased through repeated exposure to environments in which it is clear that desired consequences are gained through the subject's own actions.

Theoretical Orientation

  • Self Efficacy
  • Behavioral

Brief Evaluation Methodology

Study 1

Bry & George (1979) used a randomized controlled trial to examine 40 seventh-grade students in two New Jersey middle schools who were at high risk of school failure. The study randomly assigned the students to the intervention group or a no-treatment control group and assessed the students on academic performance at the end of seventh and eighth grades.

Study 2

Bry & George (1980) used a randomized controlled trial to examine 40 seventh-grade students in an urban middle school who were at high risk of school failure. The study randomly assigned the students to the intervention group or a no-treatment control group and assessed the students on academic performance at the end of seventh and eighth grades.

Study 3

Bry (1982) used a randomized controlled trial to examine 58-60 seventh-grade students recruited as part of Studies 1 and 2 (Bry & George, 1979, 1980). The randomly assigned students were assessed at one year and five years after the main program to measure school problems, unemployment, substance use, and delinquency.

Outcomes (Brief, over all studies)

Study 1

Bry & George (1979) found after one year that the intervention group improved significantly more than the control group on attendance and grade-point average in one school but worsened significantly more on grade-point average at the other school. The second-year results were limited to only one of the schools and showed a significant effect on attendance.

Study 2

Bry & George (1980) found no significant differences on any of the outcomes after one year. After two years, change scores were significantly better for the intervention group than the control group for grades and attendance but not for tardiness or disciplinary actions.

Study 3

Bry (1982) found that at the one-year follow-up, the intervention group relative to the control group showed significantly fewer school problems and lower unemployment. At the five-year follow-up, there were no significant condition differences.

Outcomes

Study 1

Bry & George (1979) found that, relative to the control group, the intervention group improved significantly more on

  • Attendance and grade-point average at one school (but did significantly worse on grade-point average in the other) after one program year
  • Attendance at one school after the second program year.

Study 2

Bry & George (1980) found that, relative to the control group, the intervention group improved significantly more on

  • Attendance after the second program year but not after the first program year
  • Grade-point average after the second program year but not after the first program year.

Study 3

Bry (1982) found that the intervention group relative to the control group showed significantly

  • Fewer school problems at the one-year follow-up
  • Lower unemployment at the one-year follow-up.

Mediating Effects

Not examined.

Effect Size

Not presented.

Generalizability

The samples were limited to three middle schools.

Potential Limitations

Study 1 (Bry & George, 1979)

  • Consent followed randomization
  • Potential non-independence of teachers grading students and assisting with the program
  • No tests for differential attrition but dropped both matched pair members of dropouts to avoid bias
  • No main effects examined, and inconsistent effects across the two sample schools

Study 2 (Bry & George, 1980)

  • Potential non-independence of teachers grading students and assisting with the program
  • Incomplete tests for baseline equivalence
  • No tests for differential attrition but dropped both matched pair members of dropouts to avoid bias
  • Sample from only one middle school

Study 3 (Bry, 1982)

  • No information on the reliability or validity of the scales
  • No baseline controls used
  • No tests for differential attrition but dropped both matched pair members of dropouts to avoid bias
  • No long-term effects

Endorsements

Blueprints: Promising

Program Information Contact

Brenna H. Bry, Ph.D.
Rutgers University
Grad. Sch. of Applied & Professional Psychology
152 Frelinghuysen Road
Piscataway, NJ 08854
bbry@rci.rutgers.edu

References

Study 1

Bry, B. H., & George, F. E. (1979). Evaluating and improving prevention programs: A strategy from drug abuse. Evaluation and Program Planning, 2, 127-136.

Study 2

Certified

Bry, B. H., & George, F. E. (1980). The preventive effects of early intervention on the attendance and grades of urban adolescents. Professional Psychology, 11, 252-260.

Study 3

Certified

Bry, B. H. (1982). Reducing the incidence of adolescent problems through preventive intervention: One- and five-year follow-up. American Journal of Community Psychology, 10(3), 265-276.

Study 1

Evaluation Methodology

Design:

Recruitment: The sample came from seventh-grade students in two New Jersey middle schools. Participating students needed to meet two of three selection criteria as rated by school staff: (1) low academic motivation, (2) family problems, i.e., feeling of distance from the family, or (3) frequent or serious discipline referrals. The cutoffs used to define the selection thresholds differed between the two schools, and 26 students out of a class of 250 in each school met the criteria. The students were matched on class, teacher, and achievement. When the process matched three students, the two most similar were selected, leaving 10 matched pairs in each school and a total sample of 40 students.

Assignment: Each pair member was randomly assigned to the intervention group or a no-treatment control group. Consent followed randomization, with the three non-consenting program students replaced in the pair and a new randomization done within the new pair. The same replacement procedure was used for a program student who was transferred in the first year to a class for emotionally disturbed children. The control group received no special program but could access typical school resources.

Attrition: The first assessment occurred at the end of seventh grade, only partway through the two-year program. This assessment included all randomized students. The second assessment occurred at the end of eighth grade and after a second year of the program (noting, however, that the program changed in one school). The analysis was limited to only one of the schools, which lost one program student. After also dropping the matched pair, the analysis included 18 of the 20 assigned students (90%).

Sample: The sample consisted of 65% males and 83% whites. Most students came from families in the lower-middle and upper-lower classes.

Measures: Measures came from school records, and they included absences, tardy days, grades, and disciplinary actions. Teachers who assigned grades assisted in delivering the program.

Analysis: The analysis examined the median change from baseline to the one-year assessment separately for the two schools. It then examined the change for one of the schools.

Intent-to-Treat: Analyses followed an intent-to-treat approach using all available data.

Outcomes

Implementation Fidelity:

During the first year, the low involvement of teachers and parents at one school warranted some changes. Staff members became more involved in working with teachers and parents. Parent attendance at the bi-yearly meetings was low.

Baseline Equivalence:

Statistical tests showed no differences between the program and control groups on the baseline measures in either school.

Differential Attrition:

Not examined, though attrition occurred in only one school and, given attrition for one student, both the program and control students in a pair were dropped.

Posttest:

In the first year, the tests for changes in the medians showed significant intervention benefits for two of four outcomes in school A (days in school and GPA) but no significant benefits and one significant iatrogenic effect on GPA in school B. Tests for the second year were limited to school B and, after the program was revised to better connect program staff with teachers and parents, the tests showed a significant effect on days in school and no significant iatrogenic effect.

Long-term:

Not examined.

Study 2

Design:

Recruitment: The study selected 40 seventh graders from a class of 555 students in a large, urban, racially mixed junior high school. Based on consultation with school personnel and examination of the guidance folders of every seventh grader, the research team selected students meeting at least two of the three criteria: (a) low academic motivation, (b) family problems, and (c) frequent or serious discipline referrals. These students were judged to be at risk for school failure.

Assignment: Random assignment of 40 students occurred after matching 20 pairs on classroom assignment, teachers, academic track, sixth-grade attendance, and sixth-grade grades. One member of each matched pair was randomly assigned to the intervention group and the other to the control group, which received no special program but could access other resources ordinarily available within the school system.

Attrition: Outcome assessments of the two-year program occurred at the end of the first year (interim) and the end of the second year (posttest). Five program students transferred to other school systems during the second year of the program. After dropping both students in the matched pair, 15 pairs and 30 students remained (75%) for the analysis.

Sample:

The sample consisted of 68% Black students, 32% white students, 60% male students, and 40% female students. Most students came from upper lower-class families. The selected students had been absent from school for an average of 22 days during sixth grade and had a D+ grade point average.

Measures:

The study examined four outcome measures that were obtained from school records. Teachers who assigned grades assisted in delivering the program.

  • Total number of days absent over the past year
  • Total days tardy over the past year
  • GPA from final grades in physical education, English, math, science, and social studies
  • Total number of times that each student had been disciplined during both the seventh and eighth grades divided by the number of days present for each year.

Each measure was treated as a change score from the baseline (sixth grade) measure, except for times disciplined, which was measured as a change score from seventh to eighth grade because of unavailable sixth-grade data.

Analysis: The analysis used Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-ranks tests to examine one-year and two-year results.

Intent-to-Treat: Analyses followed an intent-to-treat approach using all randomized pairs with complete data.

Outcomes

Implementation Fidelity:

Not examined.

Baseline Equivalence:

The authors stated that "Statistical analyses of the students' sixth-grade grades and attendance showed no significant differences between the program and control groups prior to the start of the treatment."

Differential Attrition:

The study did not examine differential attrition, but potential attrition bias was minimized by excluding both students in a pair when one student dropped out.

Posttest:

After one year, no significant differences in any of the outcomes were found. After two years, the change scores were significantly better for the intervention group than the control group for grades and attendance but not for tardiness or disciplinary actions.

Long-term:

Not examined.

Study 3

Evaluation Methodology

Design:

Recruitment: The study used data initially gathered in Studies 1 and 2 (Bry & George, 1979, 1980). The baseline sample thus included 80 seventh graders from two separate program evaluations, one from a low-income, inner-city school (n = 40) and one from two middle-class, suburban schools (n = 40). The students met at least two of three selection criteria: (1) low academic motivation, (2) family problems, i.e., feeling of distance from the family, or (3) frequent or serious discipline referrals.

Assignment: Subjects from the same schools and classrooms with similar sixth-grade records were matched into pairs, and one member of the pair was randomly assigned to the intervention group and the other member to the control group. The control group received no special program but could access the typical resources available within the school system.

Attrition: Post-baseline assessments occurred at one year and five years after the end of the two-year program. However, booster sessions were offered during the third year, making the one-year follow-up a posttest and the five-year follow-up a four-year follow-up. The one-year follow-up assessed 66 of the original 80 randomized students (83%) and obtained outcome measures for 58 (73%). The five-year follow-up obtained data for 60 of the original 80 randomized students (75%). To minimize attrition bias, the study dropped the matched pair of those who had moved outside the school system or refused interviews.

Sample: The one-year sample included 67% males and 33% females (mean age = 15.5 years). More students (55%) came from the suburban schools than the urban school (45%). By race, 42% were African American and 58% were white.

Measures:

For the one-year follow-up, records were used to code the extent of school problems (i.e., suspension, absenteeism, tardiness, and academic failure), and students were interviewed about unemployment, drug use, alcohol use, and criminal behavior (i.e., vandalism, car theft, grand theft, and robbery). Interviewers were unaware of condition, and their ratings of the subject's honesty in reporting showed no significant difference between conditions. However, the authors presented no information on the reliability or validity of the scales they used.

For the five-year follow-up, criminal records were obtained from the county probation department to examine intervention effects on delinquency and drug-related arrests. The authors stated that "the appearance of a young person's name in the county files indicates a serious or chronic involvement with the criminal justice system."

Analysis: The analyses examined condition differences at follow-up without baseline controls and used Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-ranks tests, chi-square tests, and a Mann-Whitney U test.

Intent-to-Treat: Analyses followed an intent-to-treat approach using all randomized pairs with complete data.

Outcomes

Implementation Fidelity:

Not examined.

Baseline Equivalence:

No statistical differences were found between the conditions in sixth-grade grades or attendance, age, sex, race, or number of contacts with the county court.

Differential Attrition:

The study did not examine differential attrition, but potential attrition bias was minimized by excluding both students in a pair when one student dropped out or refused to be interviewed.

Posttest:

At the one-year follow-up, which actually came after booster sessions and represented a posttest, the intervention group relative to the control group showed significantly (p < .05) fewer school problems and lower unemployment.

Long-Term:

At the five-year follow-up, the intervention failed to significantly affect (p < .05) either drug-related arrests or delinquency.

Contact

Blueprints for Healthy Youth Development
University of Colorado Boulder
Institute of Behavioral Science
UCB 483, Boulder, CO 80309

Email: blueprints@colorado.edu

Sign up for Newsletter

If you are interested in staying connected with the work conducted by Blueprints, please share your email to receive quarterly updates.

Blueprints for Healthy Youth Development is
currently funded by Arnold Ventures (formerly the Laura and John Arnold Foundation) and historically has received funding from the Annie E. Casey Foundation and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.