You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.

www.HFRP.org

The Harvard Family Research Project separated from the Harvard Graduate School of Education to become the Global Family Research Project as of January 1, 2017. It is no longer affiliated with Harvard University.

Terms of Use ▼


Program Description

Overview Begun in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and now operating nationally, the Across Ages program uses older adults (age 55 and over) as mentors for youth. Originally school based, the program now uses a wide-ranging prevention strategy suitable for a variety of settings during both school and out-of-school time. Mentors help “at-risk” youth develop awareness, self-confidence, and skills to help resist drugs and overcome obstacles.
Start Date 1991
Scope national
Type after school, summer/vacation, weekend, mentoring
Location urban
Setting public school, community-based organization
Participants elementary and middle school students
Number of Sites/Grantees over 50 sites across the country in 2006–2007
Number Served 30–40 children per site per year
Components Across Ages encompasses four main components.

Mentoring: Older adults (age 55 and over) are matched with one or two youth with whom they meet at least twice a week over a 12-month period, for at least 4 hours per week during out-of-school time, to engage in a variety of activities, such as help with class projects, school-related field trips, sporting or cultural events, and community service.

Community Service: Youth make biweekly, 1-hour visits to nursing homes, often with their mentors, in which they spend time talking or doing activities with residents. Youth keep a journal of their visits and discuss their experiences as a group in reflection sessions.

Classroom-Based Life Skills Curriculum: The Positive Youth Development Curriculum (PYDC, Weissberg, Caplan, & Silvo) is used to train teachers or program staff to offer a Social Problem-Solving model curriculum, which includes sessions on stress management, self-esteem, problem solving, substance knowledge, health information, and social networks, and a Substance Abuse Prevention curriculum, which allows youth to apply the problem-solving model to decisions about substance use.

Family Activities: Across Ages offers a series of activities to provide opportunities for interaction between youth, parents, and mentors. Usually held on Saturdays, these events include meals, entertainment, and the use of incentives such as free transportation or supermarket gift certificates. Mentors take an active role in involving parents in these activities via mailed letters, fliers sent home with youth, and phone calls to parents.

Reference:
Weissberg, R. P., Caplan, M., & Silvo, P. J. (1987). A new conceptual framework for establishing school-based social competence promotion programs. In L. A. Bond & B. E. Compas (Eds.), Primary prevention and promotion in schools (pp. 52–64). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Funding Level The cost of the program is approximately $1,500–$2,000 per year per child.
Funding Sources Center for Substance Abuse Prevention, Substance Abuse and Mental Heal Services Administration, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Pennsylvania Department of Education, state funds (for replication sites)


Evaluation

Overview One study examined program effects on midterm and long-range resiliency factors among youth based on 3 years of data on programs in Philadelphia. Another study looked at short- and longer term outcomes for programs in Massachusetts.
Evaluators Leonard LoSciuto, Amy K. Rajala, Tara N. Townsend, Andrea S. Taylor, Temple University

Robert H. Aseltine, Jr., University of Connecticut

Matthew Dupre, University of North Carolina

Pamela Lamlein, Brightside, Inc.
Evaluations Profiled An Outcome Evaluation of Across Ages: An Intergenerational Mentoring Approach to Drug Prevention

Mentoring as a Drug Prevention Strategy: An Evaluation of Across Ages
Evaluations Planned none
Report Availability LoSciuto, L., Rajala, A. K., Townsend, T. N., & Taylor, A. S. (1996). An outcome evaluation of Across Ages: An intergenerational mentoring approach to drug prevention. Journal of Adolescent Research, 11(1), 116–129.

Aseltine R., Dupre, M., & Lamlein, P. (2000). Mentoring as a drug prevention strategy: An evaluation of Across Ages. Adolescent and Family Health, 1, 11–20.

Taylor, A., LoSciuto, L., Fox, M., & Hilbert, S. (1999). The mentoring factor: An evaluation of Across Ages. Intergenerational program research: Understanding what we have created. Binghamton, NY: Haworth.

Taylor, A., & Bressler, J. (2000). Mentoring across generations: Partnerships for positive youth development. New York: Kluwer/Plenum.


Contacts

Evaluation Leonard LoSciuto, Ph.D.
Professor of Psychology
Institute for Survey Research
Temple University
1601 North Broad Street, 5th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19122
Tel: 215-204-8355
Fax: 215-204-3797
Email: leonard.losciuto@temple.edu

Robert Aseltine, Jr., Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Department of Behavioral Sciences & Health Care
University of Connecticut School of Dental Medicine
263 Farmington Avenue, MC3910
Farmington, CT 06030-3910
Tel: 860-679-3282
Fax: 860-679-1342
Email: aseltine@uchc.edu
Program Andrea Taylor, Ph.D.
Principal Investigator/Program Director
Center for Intergenerational Learning
Temple University
1601 N. Broad Street, USB 206
Philadelphia, PA 19122
Tel: 215-204-6708
Fax: 215-204-3195
Email: ataylor@temple.edu
Profile Updated July 11, 2007

Evaluation 1: An Outcome Evaluation of Across Ages: An Intergenerational Mentoring Approach to Drug Prevention



Evaluation Description

Evaluation Purpose To assess program impacts on youth’s (a) drug and alcohol resistance; (b) attitudes toward school, the future, older people, and community service participation; and (c) sense of self-worth and well-being.
Evaluation Design Experimental: Sixth-grade classes in the 3 middle schools in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, participated in the program in each of the 3 years included in the evaluation. Experimental and control group classrooms were selected randomly from among those sixth-grade teachers who indicated a willingness to participate in the study (virtually all such teachers). Classes for mentally gifted or special education students were eliminated from the selection. From the remaining pool of sixth grade classes, 3 classes were selected randomly in each of the 3 schools, for a total of 9 classes, and assigned to one of three groups: the control group, which received no intervention; the curriculum-only group, which participated in all program components except mentoring; and the mentoring group, which received all program components including mentoring. No significant differences were found by year among the three groups on any of the demographic, household composition, or attrition variables, so data were combined for all 3 years within each group in the analysis. Only youth who completed both the pretest and posttest and participated in program activities throughout the school year were included in analysis.

A survey was administered to youth at pretest (the beginning of each academic year) and posttest (at the end of each academic year). The final study sample consisted of 562 youth who completed both the pretest and posttest surveys over the 3-year period (77% of those originally pretested). Approximately equal numbers of youth completed both the pretest and posttest surveys in each of the three groups: 189 in the control group, 193 in the program group, and 180 in the mentoring group. Likewise, attrition rates were approximately identical (23% for control, 22% for program, and 25% for mentoring). Fifty-three percent of youth completing both the pretest and posttest surveys were female. The majority of youth were African American (52%), followed by White (16%), Asian American (9%), Hispanic (9%), and other (14%).
Data Collection Methods Secondary Sources/Data Review: Measures were constructed to account for the effects of nominal versus actual program participation. Teachers rated students on how much they participated in the PYDC and community service sessions, and project staff rated mentors on the level of involvement with each youth. These “dosage” measures were used as correlates of program effects.

Surveys/Questionnaires: The pretest survey included questions about youth’s demographics and household composition. Both the pretest and posttest survey included questions about youth’s attitudes toward school, elders, and the future and attitudes and knowledge about community service issues.

Tests/Assessments: The pretest and posttest surveys both contained several extant instruments that measured youth’s: reactions to situations involving drug use (Caplan, Weissberg, Bersoff, Ezekowitz, & Wells, 1986), reactions to stress or anxiety (Caplan, Weissberg, Grober, & Sivo, 1992), self-perception (Harter, 1985), frequency of substance abuse (Caplan et al., 1992), knowledge about older people (Palmore, 1977), well-being (Veit & Ware, 1983), problem-solving efficacy (Caplan et al., 1992), and knowledge about substance abuse (Caplan et al., 1986).

References:
Caplan, M., Weissberg, R. P., Bersoff, D. M., Ezekowitz, W., & Wells, M. L. (1986). The middle school Alternative Solutions Test (AST): Scoring manual. New Haven, CT: Yale University.

Caplan, M., Weissberg, R. P., Grober, J. S., & Sivo, P. J. (1992). Social competence promotion with inner-city and suburban young adolescents: Effects on social adjustment and alcohol use. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 60, 56–63.

Harter, S. (1985). Manual for the Self-Perception Profile for Children. Denver, CO: University of Denver Press.

Palmore, E. (1977). Facts on aging: A short quiz. The Gerontologist, 17, 315–320.

Veit, C. T., & Ware, J. E. (1983). The structure of psychological distress and general well-being in the general population. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51, 730–742.
Data Collection Timeframe Data were collected during the 1991–1992, 1992–1993, and 1993–1994 academic years.


Findings:
Summative/Outcome Findings

Academic The mentoring group demonstrated significantly fewer days absent from school (15.4 days vs. 19.9 days in the curriculum-only group and 21.8 days in the control group, p = .01). Within the mentoring group, youth rated by staff as having “exceptional” mentoring relationships had an average of 7.4 days absent, as compared to 12.0 days for those with “average” relationships, and 25.4 days for those with “marginal” relationships (p < .001).
Prevention Most youth reported little or no substance abuse. Therefore, there was relatively little room for improvement as measured by pre/post differences on this measure.

The mentoring group reported significantly better reactions to situations involving drug use than did the control group (p = .042). “Better reactions” meant that youth had better resistance skills and saw more options in terms of refusal (e.g., in answer to “If someone offered you a beer, what would you do?” responses included “Watch them drink, but not drink myself,” “walk away,” “drink anyway,” etc.).

The mentoring group reported marginally significant lower frequencies of substance use than did the curriculum-only group (p = .056).

Within the mentoring group, youth rated by staff as having “exceptional” mentoring relationships scored significantly better on reactions to situations involving drug use and knowledge about substance abuse (p = .018 for each) than did those who had either “average” or “marginal” relationships with their mentors.
Youth Development The mentoring group demonstrated significantly better attitudes toward school, future, and elders than did the control group (p = .038) or the curriculum-only group (p = .002).

The mentoring group demonstrated significantly better attitudes toward older people than did the control group (p = .005) or the curriculum-only group (p = .012).

The mentoring group had marginally significant higher scores on the well-being scale than did the control group (p = .058).

The mentoring group demonstrated significantly more knowledge about older people than did the control group (p = .008). The curriculum-only group demonstrated significantly more knowledge about older people than did the control group (p = .022) and marginally significant more knowledge than the mentoring group (p = .057).

The mentoring group demonstrated significantly better attitudes toward community service than did the control group (p = .025).

Within the mentoring group, youth rated by staff as having “exceptional” mentoring relationships scored significantly better on attitudes toward school, future, and elders (p = .041) and attitudes toward older people (p = .027) than did those who had either “average” or “marginal” relationships with their mentors.

© 2016 Presidents and Fellows of Harvard College
Published by Harvard Family Research Project