Ask an Advisor Answers

Question: Today, I took a trip down memory lane. A rural coalition asked if I had any their origination documents as they are preparing to apply for new funding. In digging through the Memorex disks, what I was struck by was it seems my prevention leadership work 25 years ago was focused on gathering kids from homes that didn't have a computer or internet and inviting them to activities that cost little to nothing; giant tarps spread across the grass with water hoses for slippery slides, old boards made into long skis for teams to race, laser tag under the moon, meeting a tribal group walking across the prairie and joining them for a day to learn about their mission; board games with multi-generational volunteers, Guitar Hero and Dance Dance Revolution competitions, making homemade cinnamon rolls from scratch. Are these activities still valued in Prevention? Over the past 25 years, did we find out whether these types of in-person, intergenerational connections lowered risk factors or built protective factors for youth and substance misuse? It's hard work. Is it worth it?
Answer:

Thanks for this important question. I did a quick search, and I’ll summarize what I found about reducing substance misuse. Then I’ll share a couple of thoughts about other ways I think your activities are extremely beneficial.

 

Building Protective Factors to Reduce Substance Misuse

 

Research suggests that in-person intergenerational relationships, particularly mentoring between older adults and youth, can strengthen protective factors such as social connectedness, resilience, and self-efficacy—all of which are associated with reduced risk of substance misuse. 

 

One Intergenerational program, Across Ages, demonstrated improvements in social and emotional development, family bonding, and school engagement—key mediators of substance use prevention. LoSciuto et al. (1996) found that youth in the Across Ages program exhibited higher self-control and stronger attachments to family and school compared to controls, though direct effects on substance use were not sustained. Similarly, SAMHSA (2021) identifies bonding with prosocial adults and engagement in community activities as key protective factors that buffer against substance-use risk.

 

More recently, Kaufman et al. (2023) examined mentor–mentee conversations among African American youth and reported that these relationships enhanced protective communication and belonging, though no significant reductions in substance use were observed. Campbell et al. (2024) conducted a systematic review of intergenerational programs and found that such activities improved youth mental health and well-being—factors indirectly related to substance-use prevention. Phillippi et al. (2025) explored mentoring youth affected by familial substance use and found that mentorship buffered emotional stress and enhanced resilience, though quantitative effect sizes were not provided. Ongoing trials, such as Boering et al. (2024), continue to examine youth-initiated mentoring and its impact on delinquency, resilience, and potential reductions in substance misuse.

Collectively, these findings suggest that intergenerational mentorship has a positive but indirect influence on substance-use outcomes by reinforcing psychosocial protective factors rather than directly suppressing use behaviours. The strongest benefits appear when programs ensure long-term, consistent mentoring relationships (12 months or longer) and integrate mentorship into broader prevention frameworks involving families, schools, and communities (Erdem & Kaufman, 2020).

 

Several mechanisms explain the benefits of the intergenerational connections that were observed:

 

  • Social modeling: Exposure to positive adult role models helps youth learn adaptive coping and prosocial behaviour.
  • Emotional regulation and belonging: Supportive adult relationships decrease isolation and increase resilience.
  • Monitoring and accountability: Adult mentors provide informal supervision and guidance that mitigate peer pressure.
  • Enhanced self-efficacy: Consistent reinforcement of achievement expectations and future orientation strengthens resistance to risk behaviours.

     

It’s important to note that despite the conceptual and preliminary empirical support, very few studies include effect sizes or longitudinal substance-use measures. Few explicitly target opioids or other high-risk substances, focusing primarily on alcohol and cannabis. Intergenerational mentoring research remains largely descriptive, and outcomes vary with mentor quality, match stability, and program duration. 

 

Other ways these Activities Could be Helpful

 

I was really excited when you mentioned  the artifacts you have collected over the years documenting prevention initiatives, because:  

 

  1. The kinds of artifacts you have collected are extremely useful for helping an organization or initiative tell its story, develop its theory of change, communicate its work, evaluate its work, and build connections among team members. You could, for example, ask a team to co-create a timeline of the program’s work (using the artifacts as props to get started). The exercise helps everyone deepen their shared understanding of the work, and it helps everyone see each other’s places in the work. I have led this kind of exercise with tremendous success (in fact I’ve had trouble tearing people away from it).

 

  1. Relationships are key to everything. The Collective Impact approach for example, recognizes that strong relationships are at the heart of meaningful change (Kania & Kramer, 2011). The kinds of intergenerational activities you’ve been doing help build relationships across generations, and among program partners to the extent that they are involved as well. Partners who trust and respect each other listen, learn, and collaborate with honesty and care, which facilitates them aligning their efforts and adapting more easily as circumstances change (Smart, 2017).

 

I’m sure you’re aware of these benefits because you’re doing these things - and I think it bears emphasizing here.

 

References

 

Boering, M., van der Helm, G., & van Vugt, E. (2024). Effectiveness, working mechanisms, and implementation of youth-initiated mentoring for juvenile delinquents: A multiple-methods study protocol. Health & Justice, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40352-024-00258-9

 

Campbell, P., Hennessy, E., O’Shea, E., & Gleeson, J. (2024). What is the effect of intergenerational activities on children and adolescents’ mental health and well-being? A systematic review. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, 31(4), e1429. https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1429

 

Erdem, G., & Kaufman, M. R. (2020). Mentoring for preventing and reducing substance use and associated risks among youth: Outcome review. National Mentoring Resource Center. https://nationalmentoringresourcecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Mentoring_for_Preventing_and_Reducing_Substance_Use_and_Associated_Risks_Among_Youth_Outcome_Review.pdf

Kania, J., & Kramer, M. (2011, Winter). Collective impact. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 9(1), 36-41. https://ssir.org/articles/entry/collective_impact Stanford Social Innovation Review+2Harvard Business School+2

Kaufman, M. R., Clark, D., & Johnson, S. (2023). Preventing substance use among urban, African American youth: The potential of mentor–mentee conversations. Journal of Adolescent Research, 38(5), 612–634. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10615866/

 

LoSciuto, L., Rajala, A. K., Townsend, T. N., & Taylor, A. S. (1996). An evaluation of the Across Ages intergenerational mentoring approach to drug prevention. Journal of Adolescent Research, 11(1), 116–129. https://doi.org/10.1177/0743554896111007

 

Phillippi, J., Roberts, A., & Smith, L. (2025). Impacting the substance abuse epidemic in America: Mentors of youth experiencing familial substance use disorders. Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41075745/

 

SAMHSA. (2021). Risk and protective factors for substance misuse in childhood. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. https://www.samhsa.gov/sites/default/files/sptac-risk-protective-factors-substance-misuse-childhood.pdf

Smart, J. (2017). Collective impact: Evidence and implications for practice. Child Family Community Australia, Australian Institute of Family Studies. https://aifs.gov.au/resources/practice-guides/collective-impact-evidence-and-implications-practice

Question Date: Wed, 11/05/2025