Mentoring Interventions to Affect Juvenile Delinquency and Associated Problems: A Systematic Review

Abstract

The Campbell Collaboration was founded on the principle that systematic reviews on the effects of interventions will inform and help improve policy and services. Campbell offers editorial and methodological support to review authors throughout the process of producing a systematic review. A number of Campbell's editors, librarians, methodologists and external peer reviewers contribute. Plain language summaryInterventions to reduce homelessness and improve housing stability are effectiveThere are large numbers of homeless people around the world. Interventions to address homelessness seem to be effective, though better quality evidence is required. What is this review about?There are large numbers of homeless people around the world. Recent estimates are over 500,000 people in the USA, 100,000 in Australia and 30,000 in Sweden. Efforts to combat homelessness have been made on national levels as well as at local government levels.This review assesses the effectiveness of interventions combining housing and case management as a means to reduce homelessness and increase residential stability for individuals who are homeless, or at risk of becoming homeless. What is the aim of this review?This Campbell systematic review examines the effectiveness of interventions to reduce homelessness and increase residential stability for individuals who are homeless, or at risk of becoming homeless. Forty-three studies were included in the review, 37 of which are from the USA. What studies are included?Included studies were randomized controlled trials of interventions for individuals who were already, or at-risk of becoming, homeless, and which measured impact on homelessness or housing stability with follow-up of at least one year.A total of 43 studies were included. The majority of the studies (37) were conducted in the United States, with three from the United Kingdom and one each from Australia, Canada, and Denmark. 6The Campbell Collaboration | www.campbellcollaboration.org What are the main findings of this review?Included interventions perform better than the usual services at reducing homelessness or improving housing stability in all comparisons. These interventions are: These interventions seem to have similar beneficial effects, so it is unclear which of these is best with respect to reducing homelessness and increasing housing stability. What do the findings of this review mean?A range of housing programs and case management interventions appear to reduce homelessness and improve housing stability, compared to usual services.However, there is uncertainty in this finding as most the studies have risk of bias due to poor reporting, lack of blinding, or poor randomization or allocation concealment of participants. In addition to the general need for better conducted and reported studies, there are specific gaps in the research with respect to: 1) disadvantaged youth; 2) abstinence-contingent housing with case management or day treatment; 3) non-abstinence contingent housing comparing group vs independent living; 4) Hous...

Twelve experiments in restorative justice: the Jerry Lee program of randomized trials of restorative justice conferences

“…Offenders, in theory, cannot experience as much intensity of remorse without someone they had actually harmed expressing the pain they had suffered. It is for that reason that the RISE and UK experiments with personal victims present in the RJCs (RISE without the shoplifting and drink-driving experiments) were the only Jerry Lee Program experiments incorporated into our Campbell Collaboration Systematic Review of RJC effects (Sherman 2014*;Strang et al 2013*). That review found overall reductions in recidivism of RJCs compared to conventional justice, for RJCs with personal victims present.…”

“…This calculation was extremely important, but not readily transparent to many readers. We therefore re-computed the cost-benefit ratios from data in the Sheffield report, spelling out the overall cost-benefit ratio for the UK experiments at 8:1, or £8 in costs of crime prevented for every £1 spent on providing RJCs to supplement the prosecution and sentencing Strang et al 2013*). This ratio ranged from a high of 14:1 in the London robbery and burglary cases combined, to a low of 1.2:1 in all Northumbrian cases combined, with a majority of them juvenile offenses.…”

“…The Strang et al (2013*) systematic review of RJC effects on recidivism included a moderator analysis by offense severity. The biggest effect of any moderator in that analysis (including offender age, time at risk, use of conviction outcomes only or including arrests) was the interaction of RJCs with offense severity.…”

A Review of the Evidence on the Effects of Community-based Programs on Young People’s Social and Emotional Skills Development

“…However, in line with the current review, Tolan et al (2013) commented on the overall weakness of the mentoring intervention studies and called for greater specification of what actually comprises mentoring programs and their implementation features. More comprehensive evaluations of mentoring interventions in the UK context are needed to determine the full potential and impact of these interventions for young people at risk.…”

“…Previous reviews of the international evidence on youth mentoring programs (e.g., the meta-analysis by Tolan et al 2013) reported significant effect sizes for high-risk youth in relation to delinquency and academic functioning and with positive trends for aggression and drug use. However, in line with the current review, Tolan et al (2013) commented on the overall weakness of the mentoring intervention studies and called for greater specification of what actually comprises mentoring programs and their implementation features.…”