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 2: Mentoring as a Drug Prevention Strategy: An Evaluation of Across Ages

Draft Version: This profile has not yet received feedback from evaluators or program staff.
Evaluation Description
Evaluation Purpose To assess whether the various program elements improved youth outcomes in four areas: (a) personal and social resources (e.g., self-control and self-confidence); (b) school performance; (c) problem behavior, including substance use; and (d) attitudes toward the elderly.
Evaluation Design Experimental: Ten sixth-grade classrooms in 3 Springfield, Massachusetts schools agreed to participate in Across Ages during the 1997–1998 and 1998–1999 school years. Classes were then assigned to one of three groups via random assignment at the beginning of each school year: (a) the mentor group, in which youth received the life skills curriculum, community service activities, and were assigned a mentor; (b) the curriculum group, in which youth received only the life skills curriculum and community service activities; and (c) the control group, in which youth received no intervention. All youth completed surveys on 3 occasions: at baseline, at the conclusion of the 12 month program, and 6 months following the cessation of program activities. Analyses controlled for demographic factors (race, ethnicity, gender, family structure, and language spoken at home) and baseline levels of the outcomes. Analyses indicated that the random assignment procedures succeeded in creating initially comparable treatment and control groups. In total, 505 youth completed the baseline survey (response rate of 93%), and about 90% of these completed the posttest and 6 month follow-up surveys. In addition, 73% of the mentor group and 85% of the curriculum group met the minimum participation levels (defined as at least 2 months of mentoring and 6 mentoring contacts for the mentor group, and at least one lesson per week for 10 weeks for the curriculum group). This left 85 youth in the mentor group, 135 youth in the curriculum group, and 138 youth in the control group.
Data Collection Methods Surveys/Questionnaires: The survey contained measures of self-control; self-confidence; cooperation; family and school bonding; school absences and grades; alcohol and marijuana use; problem behavior; and attitudes toward drug use, the elderly, and helping.

Tests/Assessments: Most survey measures came from the Individual Protective Factors Index (IPFI; Springer & Phillips, 1997), an instrument that measures adolescent resiliency in a variety of domains.

Reference:
Springer, F., & Phillips, J. (1997). Individual protective factors index (IPFI): A measure of adolescent resiliency. Folsom, CA: EMT Associates, Inc.
Data Collection Timeframe Data were collected during the 1997–1998 and 1998–1999 school years, as well as 6 months after the 1998–1999 school year.

Findings:
Summative/Outcome Findings
Academic At posttest, youth in the mentor group exhibited significantly (p < .05) greater school bonding than youth in the other two groups and fewer absences than control group youth. The curriculum group also had significantly higher posttest grades than did control group youth (p < .05). These differences did not persist at 6-month follow-up.
Family Youth in the mentor group reported higher levels of family bonding than youth in the other two groups at posttest (p < .05); this impact did not persist at the 6-month follow-up.
Prevention In terms of posttest behaviors, both mentor and curriculum group youth exhibited significantly less alcohol use than control group youth (p < .05), while mentor group youth also exhibited significantly less problem behavior than control group youth. No impacts were found for posttest marijuana use. At 6-month follow-up, mentor group youth reported significantly less marijuana use than control group youth (p < .05) and curriculum group youth exhibited significantly less problem behavior than control group youth (p < .05)

Attitudes toward drug use at posttest were significantly lower among youth in the mentor group than amongst youth in the curriculum group (p < .05).
Youth Development Youth in the mentor group reported significantly higher self-control levels than youth in the other two groups at posttest (p < .05). Youth in the mentor group also reported significantly higher levels (p < .05) of self-confidence relative to those in the curriculum group and of cooperation relative to youth in the control group. None of these estimated impacts persisted to the 6-month follow-up, with the exception of cooperation impacts between the mentor group and the control group, which remained significant (p < .05).

Curriculum group youth reported significantly lower self-confidence levels at posttest than control group youth (p < .05). This impact was not found at the 6-month follow-up.

Youth in the mentor and curriculum groups had significantly more positive posttest attitudes toward the elderly than youth in the control group (p < .05). Youth in the mentor group also reported significantly more positive posttest attitudes toward helping others than youth in the other two groups (p < .05).

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