Case Study

In 2015, LifeXchange was approached by Hosken Consolidated Investment’s (HCI) corporate social responsibility division, also known as HCI Foundation, that has implemented a

“tracking” programme within Lavender Hill High School. Lavender Hill is an area on the Cape Flats that is known for its gangsterism and violence. Drug abuse, high school drop-out rates and teenage pregnancy are rife in this area and affect the school directly. Lavender Hill High School is one of the few high schools in South Africa that can claim to have a semi-bullet proof school fence. The HCI Foundation Tracking Programme was managed by a local pastor and his wife and consisted of doing structured interviews with the students of the High School to determine the “level” of risk they have. In this context, risk was understood as a student dropping out of school because of gang/drug involvement or the risk of a student dropping out of school because of other factors making them vulnerable to gang/drug involvement. The tracking programme classified students in priority groups of which priority group 1 were those indicating the highest risk factors, and positioned students within the imminent to active categories on the at-risk continuum (Chapter 2). LifeXchange was asked to start a mentoring intervention programme with this group of students within Lavender Hill High School.

Even though the mentoring intervention programme was community-based (and not school- based), Lavender Hill High School became the ‘gate’ into the community and created a controlled environment for research. Since the school is based in a very high risk community, and the tracking programme identified students that were at a high risk from the community and surrounds, the school was chosen. The mentoring intervention programme also started from “scratch,” not building on or extending any existing programme, the researcher considered this project as the ideal programme to be evaluated as a case study.

5.4.2 Sampling

Because of the research design, non-probability judgment sampling was used as a sampling method. In non-probability judgment (or positive) sampling, a sample is selected on the basis of one’s knowledge about the population; in short, the sample is selected on one’s judgment and purpose of the study (Babbie & Mouton 2009:167). Since this study focused on the implementation of a mentoring model as a youth-at-risk mentoring intervention, a registered youth-at-risk mentoring intervention organization, LifeXchange NPC, having a youth-at-risk intervention mentoring programme within Lavender Hill High School, provided the context and population for the research.

How LifeXchange (staff) implemented this mentoring intervention programme within Lavender Hill High School, and what the participants’ experience was, were under scrutiny. Their systems and methods used for implementation were examined, in light of the EMMP fourth addition and whether they have reached their programme objectives (i.e. programme duration, frequency, consistence and emotional connection) was questioned. In order to do this, the researcher considered the programme within its complete life cycle (from start to finish). Lastly, programme participatory experience is a crucial component of an implementation evaluation. In order to investigate whether LifeXchange has reached their implementation objectives and assess participatory experience, the researcher tracked and evaluated both mentor and mentee, within their specific mentor/mentee matches, within the programme. LifeXchange selected mentees and recruited mentors for their programme according to their programme design. The researcher, however, only investigated those mentor/mentee matches of whom the mentee fell within the Imminent Risk or Active Risk categories on the at-risk continuum:

Minimum Risk Remote Risk High Risk Imminent Risk Active Risk Favorable demographics Less Favourable demographics Negative demographics Negative demographics Negative demographics Positive family Less positive

family Negative family Negative family Negative family Good school Average school Negative school Negative school Negative school Positive social interaction Less positive social interaction Negative social interaction Negative social interaction Negative social interaction Limited sociological stressors Some sociological stressors Numerous sociological stressors Numerous sociological stressors Numerous sociological stressors Negative attitudes Negative attitudes Negative attitudes Negative emotions Negative emotions Negative emotions Skill deficiencies Skill deficiencies Skill deficiencies

Gateway behavior Gateway behavior Maladaptive behaviour Participation in risk activity Figure 5.2 At-risk continuum

LifeXchange received funding to implement a mentoring intervention programme within Lavender Hill High School, for eighteen youth. All eighteen youth selected for the programme (according to a school assessment) fell within the Imminent, but mostly Active, at-risk categories. Therefore, the researcher considered all the mentees with their mentors, thus all participants, for the evaluation.

5.4.3 Data collection

To consider the proper implementation of the mentoring programme, the researcher needed data on the application process, the screening, selection and matching of mentors and mentees, the decline phase, redefinition and any interventions that were taken when the programme ‘drifted’ away from its programme parameters. He also needed data on the duration and frequency of meetings, as well as the consistency of the mentors and whether the programme participants responded positively to the mentoring intervention.

Most researchers agree that “three main sources of data for implementation evaluation studies exist” (Babbie, 2001:347). They are: records, that include all forms of service documentation; observation, which normally includes systematic or structured participant observation; and self-report, which refers to interviewing people that participated in an intervention. The youth- at-risk mentoring organisation, LifeXchange NPC, which agreed to the implementation of a mentoring programme for research purposes, has agreed to make available all records as well as interviewing as a means of data-collection, but has denied observation as a means of gathering data, since they believed it could have interfered with the one-on-one mentoring process. The researcher held that the records provided enough data to evaluate the implementation and participation of the mentors and mentees in the programme. He also used self-report to obtain data from programme staff at the completion of the programme.

Because there will be various stakeholders (units of analysis) in this programme (mentors, mentees, project coordinator and the programme itself), the researcher decided to make use of a triangulation approach. Triangulation, where different sources of data are used, contributes to the validation of the findings within research. Every stakeholder (unit) will produce data through programme reports, including contact session forms, surveys and evaluation forms. The process coordinator will also be interviewed, after which all data will be captured in software and coded for analysis, which will allow the construction of patterns and identification of themes.

5.4.3.1 Records

LifeXchange NPC claims to follow a best practice model for its mentor recruitment, application and screening process, which includes application forms (Appendix A) and police clearance. They also make use of four types of records for their own monitoring and evaluation of the intervention. These records are: Contact Session Forms (Appendix B), YMS (Appendix C), MCQ (Appendix D) as well as an evaluation form (Appendix E & F). The researcher used all documents produced by the application process as well as all mentor contact session forms and bi-annual survey analysis reports for a time period of 18 months as sources for data analysis.

Mentors( Data!Collection:! *!CSF! *!MCQ! *!Evaluation!Forms! ( Mentees( Data!Collection:! *!YMS! *!Evaluation!Forms! ( Process( Coordinator( Data!Collection:! *!Interviews! *!Programme!! !!documents! ! Objective(1:!Evaluation!of! programme!Implementation! Objective(2:!Participant! experience!

These records produced data that indicated the duration of the process, the frequency of contact between mentors and mentees, comfort levels within the mentoring relationship but also comfort levels between participants (mentors) and programme implementation organisation (staff). The documentation also throws light on whether the programme was implemented according to the planned programme parameters and whether benchmarks were met.

(a) Contemplation Phase: Application Process Records, screening, matching and training. After the mentor recruitment campaign (the process where mentors are recruited for a specific mentoring intervention), it is a requirement that all mentors go through an application process that includes an application form, police clearance and interview/home visitation before they commence their training. Mentor application forms, police clearance forms, training attendance, mentee info forms and guardian consent forms should be produced in this phase. All records were collected for all those that applied to, and were selected to, become mentors and mentees within the Lavender Hill High School Mentoring Intervention.

Records obtained through the application process were stored on a server (i.e. application forms) and hardcopies of documents (i.e. police clearance) were filed. Other forms such as mentee information and when and where mentors were trained were also made available to the researcher. Permission was granted to the researcher to print the application and other data forms off the server and make copies of any other documentation for the use of this research.

The primary reason for collecting documents concerned with the Contemplation Phase was to determine whether all the elements of a best practice model (EEMP) were evident in the application process. Were the mentors screened? How well was the screening done? Have they attended training? Did LifeXchange receive police clearance from the mentors? Have parents given permission for their children to be mentored? Not only could all these questions be addressed by documents produced in the Contemplation Phase, it also provided valuable data on mentor demographics (gender, age, occupation, intentions for wanting to mentor, religious preference and physical proximity (location) to that of the mentee, etc.). This data is very useful when considering theory building and findings in formative research since it helps identifying strengths and weaknesses in the implementation of the mentoring programme within a South African youth-at-risk context.

(b) Initiation Phase: Mentor/Mentee Contract

The Initiation Phase is concerned with the communication of expectations between mentors and mentees as well as “kick-starting” the relationship. A “contract” or document where these expectations are captured between mentor and mentee will serve as data for the mentor. LifeXchange facilitated the initiation process and made available the contracts to the researcher to copy for research purposes. The need for collecting the contracts was two-fold. In the first place, the presence of these contracts served to prove that the initiation phase was implemented and took place. Secondly, the contracts provided information re: expectations that were set at the beginning of the mentoring process. Additionally, they also serve as useful information when one considers the overall participant experience within the mentoring programme.

(c) Growth & Maintenance Stage: Contact Session Forms, MCQ & YMS

The Growth & Maintenance Phase of mentoring comprise the actual mentoring that takes place between mentors and mentees. The Contact Session Form (CSF) is an online application that mentors use to “log” the date of their mentor/mentee meeting, the duration of the meeting, the perceived quality of meeting, have an option to request support from programme staff and make notes/comments about their mentoring journey.

The mentoring programme parameters held that mentors should have met with their mentee no less than 12 months, at a frequency of once a week for no less than an hour, or the equivalent time of an hour a week for the duration of 12 months. Every time a mentor met with a mentee they filled in (or were supposed to complete) a contact session form. All information was collected and entered into a programme (Numbers) specifically designed to collect and express data in spreadsheet and chart form for analysis. The aim of the analysis for the Contact Session Forms data was to explore three main areas: the duration of the mentoring relationship, the consistency of the mentor and the frequency of meetings. Every mentor’s perceived meeting quality was also recorded as well as their need for additional support from programme staff. The researcher also used software to extrapolate the comments from each CSF in order to discover themes around the experience of mentors within the programme implementation.

Besides the CSF, the Programme Coordinator, as a part of their ongoing monitoring and evaluation process, conducted surveys with both mentors and mentees more or less every 6 months and/or after 20 contact sessions. The Programme Coordinator met individually with mentors and mentees to do these surveys. For the mentors, the Process Coordinator used the Match Characteristics Questionnaire (MCQ) and for the mentees, the Youth Mentoring Survey (YMS). The MCQ and YMS are complementary mentor and mentee surveys that assess key characteristics of match quality, match structure, and external factors that influence a match. DuBois, a leader in the area of mentoring research regards the MCQ and YMS as "a truly ground-breaking contribution to the field of youth mentoring." The YMS and the MCQ can show how programmatic efforts influence participants' experience and how match characteristics promote mentee outcomes. The researcher was given access to the survey data analysis reports of all the participants (mentors and mentees) within the LHHS Intervention Project. The purpose for analysis was aimed at assessing whether the primary reason for the implementation (emotional connection development or relationship building) was achieved as well as what the participants experience of the mentoring process implementation was (i.e. was there enough support, interferences etc.).

The researcher has used Excel the capture all data and analyzed it according to MCQ and YMS analysis process. He also used QDA Miner Lite, to extrapolate the data from each evaluation form in order to explore themes around the experience of mentors within the programme implementation.

(d) Decline & Redefinition: Evaluation Forms

The decline phase is concerned with preparing mentors and mentees for the redefinition phase. Unfortunately, there are no documents produced by the decline phase, thus the only data the researcher collected on the implementation of this phase, was through self-report. The Redefinition Phase, also known as Closure Phase, is concerned with completing the mentoring programme. In this phase the Programme Coordinator facilitates the redefinition of the relationship through another contract between mentor and mentee, where new expectations are written down as to the dynamics of the relationship. The “contracts” were gathered by the organisation and the researcher received access to them. These contracts provide great data to determine participant experience.

At the completion of the Redefinition Phase the Programme Coordinator required all mentors and mentees to complete an evaluation where they evaluated their experience within the programme. These evaluation forms were printed and filed and the researcher was granted access to them. The evaluation forms provided important information as to the participant experience of the programme and whether they would participate in such a programme again in the future.

5.4.3.2 Self-Report

Even though evaluative research often relies on extensive interviewing of everyone that is involved within the intervention (including all programme staff, board members, funders, etc.), the researcher has only interviewed the LHHS Programme Coordinator. The Programme Coordinator was responsible for the implementation of the whole process from the beginning (recruitment), provided mentor and mentee support, intervened when necessary and conducted the YMS and MCQ survey and evaluations as well as had to report to Board members and Funders re: the project. Neither the LifeXchange NPC board nor the funder was directly involved with the implementation of the intervention and carried little knowledge about the actual implementation process. The Programme Coordinator made use of staff assistance in order to recruit within the application process, however, their participation was too infrequent and inconsistent that the researcher decided to not use them as a source of self-report.

From the analysis of all the reports received as well as using the framework for mentoring relationships discussed in Chapter 3, the researcher constructed a semi-structured open-ended question interview about the implementation of the mentoring process, discussing each phase with the Programme Coordinator. The aim of the interview data analysis served the primary purpose of assessing the experience of the implementer, and secondarily to assess the implementer’s perceived strengths and weaknesses re: the implementation of a mentoring intervention programme, and lastly to explain in the light of evidence received from record analysis, why and why not LifeXchange has reached programme benchmarks or drifted from programme parameters.

5.4.4 Data Analysis

Because the various elements of the project were implemented over time, data collection and analysis happened simultaneously. Data analysis was an ongoing process that began with the first piece of data collected. The analysis started by firstly managing the data, sorting all the documents into categories (e.g. all application forms, police clearance etc. were filed under Contemplation Stage). The researcher then started with a reduction process followed by the coding process. The goal was to identify patterns and themes in the data and the links between them. In order to do so, the researcher used software for the reduction, coding and theme- building of the data.

5.5 Pilot Study

Although a pilot study does not guarantee success in the main study, it greatly increases the likelihood (Simon 2011:1). Since the implementation of a mentoring programme (that consists of best practice elements) with youth that have an imminent or active risk status has never been attempted within a South African context, and has a significant amount of variables (19 components to be implemented), the researcher suggested a pilot study for two reasons:

1.! To form a small-scale programme implementation in order to minimize any changes in the actual (main) implementation and address potential logistical issues. For best research results, concerning an evaluative study, one needs consistency in the implementation, thus no room for a trial and error approach that will change the implementation process as the process unfolds, potentially invalidating the research. 2.! To test the data collection approach in order to consider the reliability and validity of

potential results.

Lavender Hill High School, the same school from which the researcher drew his sample for the main study, was chosen. The number of mentor/mentees recruited was not a concern for the researcher, but rather learning from the process of recruiting. How long will it take to recruit mentors? Where will one find them? Will they be willing to go into high risk areas? Will the mentees accept them, etc.? Besides learning more about the mentors and mentees, and how they respond to the invitation to join the programme, the researcher was also interested to test the implementation of all 5 stages. As discussed in Chapter 3, the mentoring relationship goes through five stages: contemplation, initiation, growth and maintenance, decline and closure.

Each stage has various activities that need to be completed. Below the stages, activities and what was learned through the pilot:

5.5.1 Contemplation Stage

(a)!Mentee recruitment – It was suggested that the Lavender Hill High School tracking programme would provide a list of students identified for the pilot. The information received on these students, however, was often not accurate, i.e. students have already dropped out of school or contact information was not accurate. Out of an initial group