Mentoring Interventions to Affect Juvenile Delinquency and Associated Problems

Abstract

Mentoring is one of the most commonly‐used interventions to prevent, divert, and remediate youth engaged in, or thought to be at risk for delinquent behavior, school failure, aggression, or other antisocial behavior. We conducted a meta‐analytic review of selective and indicated mentoring interventions that have been evaluated for their effects on delinquency outcomes for youth (e.g., arrest or conviction as a delinquent, self‐reported involvement) and key associated outcomes (aggression, drug use, academic functioning). Of 112 identified studies reported published between 1970 and 2005, 39 met criteria for inclusion. Mean effects sizes were significant and positive for each outcome category. Effects were largest (still moderate by Cohen's differentiation) for delinquency and aggression. However, these categories also showed the most heterogeneity across studies. The obtained patterns of effects suggest mentoring may be valuable for those at‐risk or already involved in delinquency and for associated outcomes. Moderator analyses found stronger effects in randomised controlled trials compared to quasi‐experimental studies, for studies where emotional support was a key process involved in mentoring, and where professional development was a motivation for mentors. However, the collected set of studies are less informative than expected with quite limited detail in studies about what comprised mentoring activity and key implementation characteristics. This limitation encourages caution particularly in interpreting the moderated effects. These findings add to the longstanding calls for more careful design and testing of mentoring efforts to provide the needed specificity to guide effective practice of this popular approach. Abstract BackgroundIn recent years, mentoring has drawn substantial interest from policymakers, intervention theorists, and those interested in identifying promising and useful evidence‐based approaches to interventions for criminal justice and child welfare outcomes (Grossman & Tierney, 1998; Jekliek et al., 2002). Mentoring is one of the most commonly‐used interventions to prevent, divert, and remediate youth engaged in, or thought to be at risk for, delinquent behavior, school failure, aggression, or other antisocial behavior (DuBois, Holloway, Valentine, & Cooper, 2002). One account lists over 4500 organizations within the United States that use mentoring to promote youth wellbeing and reduce risk (Rhodes, 2002). Definitions of mentoring vary, but there are common elements. For the purpose of this review, mentoring was defined by the following 4 characteristics: 1) interaction between two individuals over an extended period of time, 2) inequality of experience, knowledge, or power between the mentor and mentee (recipient), with the mentor possessing the greater share, 3) the mentee is in a position to imitate and benefit from the knowledge, skill, ability, or experience of the mentor, 4) the absence of the role inequality that typifies other helping relationships and is marked by professional tr...

Mortality of Youth Offenders Along a Continuum of Justice System Involvement

“…National efforts to reduce detentions (e.g., the Juvenile Detention Alternative Initiative) have decreased taxpayer costs 30 and may also reduce youth mortality rates. Evidence-based violence prevention programs such as mentoring, 31 afterschool programs, 32 and school-based programming 33 can effectively reach large numbers of arrested youth before they experience the increased risk of death associated with secure confinement. National organizations have repeatedly highlighted the need to reduce firearm violence, a leading cause of homicide-related death among adolescent and young adult populations.…”

An interdisciplinary meta-analysis of the potential antecedents, correlates, and consequences of protégé perceptions of mentoring.

“…There have been four broad edited handbooks (T. D. DuBois & Karcher, 2005;S. Fletcher & Mullen, 2012;Ragins & Kram, 2007a), numerous meta-analytic reviews (T. D. Allen et al, 2004;Blinn-Pike, 2007;DuBois et al, 2002DuBois et al, , 2011Eby, Allen, Evans, Ng, & DuBois, 2008;Jolliffe & Farrington, 2007;Kammeyer-Mueller & Judge, 2008;Tolan, Henry, Schoeny, & Bass, 2008;Underhill, 2006;Wheeler, Keller, & DuBois, 2010), and narrative reviews (e.g., Sambunjak, Straus, & Mamsic, 2006;Wanberg, Welsh, & Hezlett, 2003) that transverse the youth, academic, and workplace mentoring literature. Table 1 provides a summary of previous meta-analyses, many of which focused exclusively on comparing those who have been mentored to those who have not.…”

Long-term outcomes of Sweden's Contact Family Program for children

“…While evaluations of youth mentoring programs indicate positive impacts on participants' development in the short-term (Eby, Allen, Evans, Ng & DuBois, 2008;Tolan, Henry, Schoeny & Bass, 2008), we essentially do not know anything about the effects of other similar programs, for example the Australian Aunties and Uncles Co-operative Family Program or the Swedish CFP. Thus, after 30 years an evaluation of the CFP is long overdue…”