Program Profile: Project Arrive

This is a school-based group mentoring program that seeks to improve academic performance and promote resilience against criminal involvement for ninth graders at risk of dropping out. The program is rated Ineffective. While there were statistically significant increases in problem solving and prosocial peers for the intervention group, there were no statistically significant differences between intervention and comparison students in juvenile offenses, empathy, and perceptions of home support.

An Ineffective rating implies that implementing the program is unlikely to result in the intended outcome(s).

An Ineffective rating implies that implementing the program is unlikely to result in the intended outcome(s).

Program Goals

Project Arrive is a school-based group mentoring program designed to improve academic performance and promote resilience against criminal involvement for ninth graders at risk of dropping out of school. Specifically, the program uses meaningful relationships with mentors and peers to address and reduce challenges related to regular school attendance (such as truancy) and/or academic performance and help students develop academic and life skills by providing them access to resources within their schools and communities. Overall, the goal of the program is to improve attendance, academic performance, and resilience factors (or assets) to reduce the likelihood of students’ dropping out of school and engaging in crime.

Target Population

Research finds that students who are transitioning from the eighth to ninth grade may experience major changes in school structure and in adult and peer relationships, which can be associated with declines in self-confidence and academic engagement (Herrera et al., 2011). Thus, the program is targeted at students who are transitioning from middle to high school. Eligible students are identified in eighth grade as being at risk for dropping out of school, as measured by an Early Warning Indicators system based on a history of academic failure (GPA less than 2.0), and truancy (receipt of less than 87.5 percent of possible instructional time) during eighth grade. Program enrollment is voluntary.

Program Components

The Project Arrive program is delivered in a group format (usually six to eight students per group). Each mentoring group typically consists of two volunteer co-mentors, who are either school staff or community partners. Groups are expected to meet weekly, during school hours, for 50 minutes a session during the fall and spring semesters.

During group sessions, program activities are based on Tuckman’s (1965) model of group development, which includes the following stages: 1) forming (group members are coming together and getting to know one another); 2) storming (members begin to share ideas about goals and processes; this stage may be characterized by interpersonal conflicts about the group’s goals); 3) norming (the group is developing shared values about how team members will work together); 4) performing (group members are working together well); and 5) adjourning (the team has met all/most of its goals and is focused on wrapping up final tasks). This “curriculum with creativity” model allows mentors the ability to tailor mentoring sessions to the diverse needs and interests of each group.

Mentors help students build positive connections with peers and adults (as soon as they start high school); develop a sense of belonging and safety within the larger school community; receive consistent support in addressing barriers to academic and life success; and participate in special events, outings, and leadership opportunities throughout the year.

Key Personnel

Project Arrive mentors are volunteer school staff (counselors, advisers, principals, etc.) or staff from community partners (e.g., local nonprofits). Mentors are encouraged to work collaboratively with their groups to develop activities and topics in line with overall program goals. The primary roles of a mentor are to guide, coach, advocate, and be a facilitator during group sessions.

Mentors receive preprogram training and ongoing support from a full-time program coordinator. Additionally, the program coordinator assists in recruiting and enrolling students in the program and serves as a liaison between each school and the school district’s student support program office.

Program Theory

The Project Arrive mentoring program is based on concepts of social learning theory (Bandura, 1977), which states that learning happens in a social context and can occur through observation and imitation. In addition, the expectation that both mentor and peer relationships will positively affect internal and external resilience factors, and academic and behavior outcomes, is consistent with the theory of positive youth development (Benson et al., 2007). Thus, if students can observe how adult mentors model prosocial skills, such as cooperation and listening to other perspectives, students may develop internal and external resilience factors (such as self-efficacy, establishing caring relationships). This in turn may reduce truancy and crime engagement behaviors.

Study

Kuperminc, Chan, and Hale (2018) conducted a quasi-experimental study to evaluate the efficacy of Project Arrive on internal and external risk factors for juvenile justice system involvement. Eligible students were identified using an Early Warning Indicators (EWI) system as being at risk for dropping out of school based on a history of academic failure (GPA less than 2.0) and truancy (receipt of less than 87.5 percent of total instructional time) during eighth grade. The sample consisted of 114 ninth grade students attending one of four high schools that were taking part in Project Arrive (i.e., the intervention group). The comparison group consisted of 71 EWI–identified students attending one of three high schools in the district that did not offer Project Arrive. Participating schools served predominately low-income Hispanic/Latino or African American students. Participating students were between 12.8 and 15.9 years old (median age was 14.0 years), and 53 percent were male. Of this group, 61.6 percent were Hispanic, 15.1 percent were Asian/Pacific Islander, 10.3 percent were African American, 4.3 percent were white, and 8.6 percent were of mixed race.

Statistical analyses used propensity scores and inverse probability of treatment weighting to adjust for selection bias. A partially clustered model was used to adjust for clustering within the intervention group, but not within the comparison group. There were no statistically significant differences in baseline characteristics between students in the intervention and comparison groups.

Study participants completed online, pretest and posttest surveys in the fall and spring semesters of ninth grade (the start and end of the program, respectively). Surveys assessed students’ perceptions of four internal resilience assets (self-efficacy, empathy, problem solving, and self-awareness) and seven external resilience assets (school belonging, school support, school meaningful participation, peer caring relationships, prosocial peers, home support, and home meaningful participation) from the Resilience Youth Development Module (Hanson and Kim, 2007). The CrimeSolutions review of this study focused on two (of the four) internal assets: 1) problem solving (students’ problem-solving techniques) and 2) empathy (students’ attempts to understand the perspectives of others and whether they feel bad when others’ feelings are hurt). All items were rated on a four-point scale, ranging from 1 (not at all true) to 4 (very much true). The CrimeSolutions review of this study also focused on two (of the seven) external assets: 1) prosocial peers (the extent to which participants felt they had friends who do what is right and perform well in school) and 2) home support (the extent to which participants felt there was a parent or adult who cared about them). All items were rated on a four-point scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). Aggregate data on rates of juvenile offending and re-offending in the intervention and comparison groups were collected from the local juvenile probation department for grades 8 (i.e., at baseline) through 10 (i.e., at the 12-month follow-up).

A logistic regression model was used to determine differences between the intervention and control groups on internal and external outcomes, at posttest. Risk Ratios were used to determine differences between the intervention and comparison groups on juvenile justice system contact data (i.e., juvenile offenses), at the 12-month follow-up. No subgroup analyses were conducted.

The Project Arrive curriculum is implemented by trained mentors, who received training from full-time program coordinators. Mentors typically are school staff (i.e., counselors, advisers, principals, other staff) or community partners (such as employees of local nonprofits).

Training consists of basic program information, expectations and responsibilities of mentors, tips for co-facilitation, and an overview of the group development stages. In addition to monthly logistical and match support from the program coordinator, mentors receive a program manual with information on program procedures and curricula and have access to a website with activities corresponding to the stages of group formation (forming, storming, norming, and performing) and information that addresses common adolescent issues (e.g., identity formation, conflict resolution, study skills). In addition to training, mentors also receive ongoing support during the intervention.

Additional implementation information is available at http://sites.gsu.edu/project-arrive/.

These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

Bandura, Albert. 1977. “Self-Efficacy: Toward a Unifying Theory of Behavioral Change.” Psychological Review 84(2):191.

Benson, Peter L., Peter C. Scales, Stephen F. Hamilton, and Arturo Sesma Jr. 2007. “Positive Youth Development: Theory, Research, and Applications.” In R.M. Lerner. (ed.). Handbook of Child Psychology: Theoretical Models of Human Development. Volume 1. Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley & Sons, 894–941.

Chan, Wing Yi, Gabriel P. Kuperminc, Scot Seitz, Christyl Wilson, and Nadim Khatib. 2020. “School-Based Group Mentoring and Academic Outcomes in Vulnerable High-School Students.” Youth & Society 52(7):1220–37.

Hanson, Thomas L., and Jin–Ok Kim. 2007. “Measuring Resilience and Youth Development: The Psychometric Properties of the Healthy Kids Survey.” Issues & Answers. REL 2007-No. 34. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory West.

Herrera, Carla, Jean Baldwin Grossman, Tina J. Kauh, and Jennifer McMaken. 2011. “Mentoring in schools: An Impact Study of Big Brothers Big Sisters School-Based Mentoring.” Child Development 82: 346–61.

Kuperminc, Gabriel P., Wing Yi Chan, Katherine Erickson Hale, Hannah L. Joseph, and Claudia A. Delbasso. 2019. “The Role of School-Based Group Mentoring in Promoting Resilience Among Vulnerable High School Students.” American Journal of Community Psychology 65(1–2):136–48.

Project Arrive. 2019. Operations Manual.

Tuckman, B.W. 1965. “Developmental Sequence in Small Groups.” Psychological Bulletin 63(6):384–99.

Following are CrimeSolutions-rated programs that are related to this practice:

Mentoring for Youth Development

This practice provides youth with a positive and consistent adult or older youth relationship to promote healthy youth development and social functioning and to reduce risk factors. The practice is rated Effective in reducing delinquency and improving educational outcomes; Promising in improving psychological outcomes and cognitive functioning; and Ineffective in reducing substance use.

Evidence Ratings for Outcomes

	Crime & Delinquency - Multiple crime/offense types
	Education - Multiple education outcomes
	Mental Health & Behavioral Health - Psychological functioning
	Mental Health & Behavioral Health - Cognitive functioning
	Mental Health & Behavioral Health - Social functioning
	Drugs & Substance Abuse - Multiple substances

Why might a practice's outcome ratings differ from the ratings of specific programs encompassed by that practice?