No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
The Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency: Diversion From the Juvenile Justice System.
... Of the 48 obtained, 16 met the inclusion criteria. Two of the 16 studies (Frazier et al., 1981 andDavidson andRedner, 1988) reported on more than one separate study. Therefore, all the analyses were based on 18 comparisons of mentored and control/comparison groups. ...
... Of the 48 obtained, 16 met the inclusion criteria. Two of the 16 studies (Frazier et al., 1981 andDavidson andRedner, 1988) reported on more than one separate study. Therefore, all the analyses were based on 18 comparisons of mentored and control/comparison groups. ...
... The price of juvenile delinquency and predelinquent behavior is high in both monetary and social terms. In 1987 the average cost of care for an incarcerated juvenile for one year was estimated at over $40,000 (Davidson & Redner, 1988). Roughly one in four schools is vandalized each month, costing taxpayers more than $200 million annually (National School Boards Association, 1984). ...
... One exception to the rather dismal outcomes of these efforts was the Adolescent Diversion Project (Davidson & Redner, 1988). Youth charged with person, property, or status offenses were referred by court personnel to a program of intervention including behavioral contracting, relationship building, and youth advocacy within the family. ...
Programs to reduce or prevent juvenile delinquency have been generally unsuccessful. Apparently the risk factors that make a child prone to delinquency are based in too many systems--including the individual, the family, and community networks--to make isolated treatment methods effective. Surprisingly, longitudinal studies of some early childhood intervention programs suggest they may help to reduce future delinquency. These programs take an ecological approach to enhancing child development by attempting to promote overall social competence in the many systems impacting on children. Not engaging in criminal acts is one indicator of competence that is related to others, such as being successful in school and in personal relationships. Evaluators must gather more data to confirm this unanticipated benefit of comprehensive interventions.
... Relationships that are youth-centered (sometimes also referred to as developmental) in their orientation, as opposed to being driven primarily by the interests or expectations of the mentor (sometimes also referred to as prescriptive), have been found to predict greater relationship quality and duration (Herrera et al., 2000;Morrow & Styles, 1995;Styles & Morrow, 1992) as well as improvements in how youth experience their relationships with other adults (Karcher, Roy-Carlson, Benne, Gil-Hernandez, Allen, & Gomez, 2006a). Helping youth to set and work toward goals that are important to their development also appears to be benefi cial (Balcazar, Davies, Viggers, & Tranter, in press;Balcazar, Keys, & Garate, 1995;Davidson & Redner, 1988;Hamilton & Hamilton, 2005), especially if the goals are agreed upon by mentor and youth in accordance with the youthcentered approach described above (Larose, Chaloux, Monaghan, & Tarabulsy, 2006). This latter consideration is consistent with other research suggesting that balanced attention to multiple sets of potentially competing concerns may be necessary to achieve optimal results when mentoring youth within a developmental frame-A growing number of studies have revealed signifi cant associations between youth's involvement in mentoring relationships and positive developmental outcomes. ...
... In addition to longstanding concerns regarding the degree to which intervention effects are replicated in applied settings, researchers across many disciplines have long struggled with the complexities involved in wide-scale dissemination of prevention and intervention programs and the broader organizational and training issues that mitigate the movement of EBIs into practice settings (Blakely et al., 1987;Davidson & Redner, 1988;Hoagwood, Burns, Kiser, Ringeisen, & Schoenwald, 2001;. Transportability research is a type of effectiveness research (see Figure 2.1) that focuses on understanding how the intervention works in the real world and who can (or will) conduct the intervention, under what conditions, and to what effect . ...
... On the other hand, delinquent youth with arrests for major offenses experienced fewer subsequent arrests than youth with no arrests for major offenses when they participated in a program in which mentors (referred to as "buddies") used behavioral contingencies to improve behavior (O'Donnell, Lydgate, & Fo, 1979). It may be that behaviorally disordered youth can benefit from highly structured and behaviorally focused training carried out in conjunction with mentoring (see also Davidson & Redner, 1988 There is encouraging, but by no means definitive, evidence that mentoring offers added value when implemented in combination with other programs and services. We offer this conclusion cautiously in light of both methodological limitations of available research and substantive concerns. ...
... Among the methodologically stronger studies, the results are mixed (significant positive and negative effects) (e.g., McCord, 1992;O'Donnell, Lydgate, & Fo, 1979). In addition, given that DuBois et al. excluded the McCord Cambridge-Somerville and the Diversion Project (Davidson & Redner, 1988), both major mentoring studies, the implications for mentoring as a criminal justice intervention are not as clear as desired. Both of the latter two studies are likely to have a substantial effect on estimates overall and on design, program, and other issues in moderator analyses. ...
... This could be a considerable obstacle to district-wide implementation. Teaching adults to exhibit new behaviors is not automatic (Davidson & Redner, 1988) Given that a requirement for being safe on the school bus is to stay firmly seated behind the protective barrier of the seat back in front of the student, it was noted by the researcher that having three students in a seat made this almost physically impossible for all but the smallest of riders. The National Highway Safety Administration (2002) has determined the number of students permitted in a seat based upon hip width. ...
... Lipsey's (1992) survey of 443 offender rehabilitation programs reported an average reduction in recidivism of 10% in favor of the treatment group in over half of the studies reviewed. Finally, rehabilitative efforts have been reported to be significantly less expensive than incarceration (Davidson & Redner, 1988;DeLuca, Miller, & Wiedemann, 1991). ...
Current levels of juvenile crime and a review of juvenile justice programming outcomes reveal the need for prevention-oriented, family-based juvenile crime reduction programming. This article presents the Growing Up FAST: Families and Adolescents Surviv-
ing and Thriving Diversion Program as an illustration of a logic-model–based approach to the development, implementation, and eventual outcome evaluation of a juvenile crime prevention program. It describes the development of a program logic model that has both
intermediate outcomes (reduced risky behavior and increased family functioning) and initial outcomes (awareness of goals associated with successful adulthood and identification of the resources that will help achieve these goals) that are linked to the longer-term outcome
of reduced recidivism. Program outputs that contribute to initial outcomes are presented in a detailed description of five interrelated programming levels. Descriptive data on youth and families who have been referred to this program also are provided, as well as descriptions of the outcome measures being utilized with these families. With such logically derived initial and intermediate outcomes, Growing Up FAST is thought to exemplify a crime-prevention program that is family-based and can be reliably evaluated for outcomes early
in its implementation.
... Aos et al. (2001), for instance, identified only a dozen rigorous studies that contrast outcomes of alternative juvenile sentences. These include comparisons between diversion and standard court processing by Davidson and Redner (1988), Dunford, Osgood, and Weichselbaum (1982), the National Council on Crime and Delinquency (1987), Quay and Love (1977), and Severy and Whitaker (1982); between intensive supervision and regular probation by Elrod and Minor (1992), Empey and Erickson (1972), Fagan and Reinarman (1991), Land, McCall, and Williams (1992), and the National Council on Crime and Delinquency (1987); and between intensive supervision and incarceration by Barton and Butts (1990) and Lerman (1975). ...
Recent decades have seen juvenile justice broaden its focus from the child and treatment to include offenses and accountability. This expansion, manifest in juvenile codes that support punishment and doctrines that include transfers to adult criminal court, has had significant caseload and fiscal impacts. However, a scarcity of pertinent research and of cost-benefit analyses leaves unclear whether this newer, get tough focus achieves greater delinquency reduction than previously attained. Combined with a quasi-experimental empirical simulation of the effects of punitive sanctions, a cost-benefit analysis of alternative dispositions in Dallas County, Texas, suggests that harsher sentencing can indeed prevent some offenses. The value of this gain, however, is much less than its cost to produce. As a result, by consuming public resources that might otherwise be invested in more productive purposes within or outside the justice system, the policy of toughness visits substantial opportunity costs on communities that embrace it.
... Likewise, although it may be notably more difficult for mentors to make constructive inroads with youth who have already become engaged in delinquent activity (e.g., gang involvement), the bonds that are established may be especially beneficial (Blechman & Bopp, 2005 ). In line with these considerations, prior research indicates positive contributions of mentoring relationships for youth with interpersonal vulnerabilities, including young people in foster care (Ahrens, DuBois, Richardson, Fan, & Lozano, 2008; Greeson, Grinstein-Weiss, & Usher, 2010; Munson & McMillen, 2008; Rhodes, Haight, & Briggs, 1999), children of prisoners (Shlafer, Poehlmann, Coffino, & Hanneman, 2009), and adolescents with a history of engaging in delinquent behavior (Davidson & Redner, 1988), but also formidable challenges and risks when attempting to effectively mentor youth with these backgrounds (Blechman & Bopp, 2005; Britner & Kraimer-Rickaby, 2005). Social competencies. ...
During the past decade, mentoring has proliferated as an intervention strategy for addressing the needs that young people have for adult support and guidance throughout their development. Currently, more than 5,000 mentoring programs serve an estimated three million youths in the United States. Funding and growth imperatives continue to fuel the expansion of programs as well as the diversification of mentoring
approaches and applications. Important questions remain, however, about the effectiveness of these types of interventions and the conditions required to optimize benefits for young people who participate in them. In this article, we use meta-analysis to take stock of the current evidence on the effectiveness of mentoring programs for youth. As a guiding conceptual framework for our analysis, we draw on a developmental model of youth mentoring relationships (Rhodes, 2002, 2005). This model posits an interconnected set of processes (socialemotional, cognitive, identity) through which caring and meaningful relationships with nonparental adults (or older peers) can promote positive developmental trajectories. These processes are presumed to be conditioned by a range of individual, dyadic, programmatic, and contextual variables.
Based on this model and related prior research, we anticipated that we would find evidence for the effectiveness of mentoring as an approach for fostering healthy development among youth. We also expected that effectiveness would vary as a function of differences in both program practices and the
characteristics of participating young people and their mentors. The meta-analysis encompassed 73 independent evaluations of mentoring programs directed toward children and adolescents published over the past decade (1999–2010). Overall, findings support the effectiveness of mentoring for improving outcomes across behavioral, social, emotional, and academic domains of young people’s development. The most common pattern of benefits is for mentored youth to exhibit positive gains on outcome measures while nonmentored youth exhibit declines. It appears then that mentoring as an intervention strategy has the capacity to serve both promotion and prevention aims. Programs also show evidence of being able to affect multiple domains of youth functioning simultaneously and to improve selected outcomes of policy interest (e.g., academic achievement test scores). From a developmental standpoint, benefits of participation in mentoring programs are apparent from early childhood to adolescence and thus not confined to a particular stage of development. Similarly, although programs typically have utilized adult volunteers and focused on cultivating one-to-one relationships, those that have engaged older peers as mentors or used group formats
show comparable levels of effectiveness. Collectively, these findings point toward the flexibility and broad applicability of mentoring as an approach for supporting positive youth development. Several other aspects of our findings, however, underscore a need for caution. These include a failure of evaluations to assess several key outcomes of policy interest (e.g., juvenile offending, obesity prevention) or to determine whether benefits for youth are sustained at later points in their development. More generally, we find that gains on outcome measures for the typical young person in a mentoring program have been modest (equivalent to a difference of 9 percentile points from scores of nonmentored youth on the same measures). This level of impact is within the range of effects observed for other types of interventions for children and adolescents but fails to reflect discernible improvement over the previous generation of mentoring programs (DuBois, Holloway, Valentine, & Cooper, 2002). Variability in program effectiveness, although less pronounced, also continues to be evident even after accounting for methodological differences in studies. In analyzing this variability, we find that programs have been more effective when (a) participating youth have either had preexisting difficulties (including problem behavior specifically) or been exposed to significant levels of environmental risk, (b) evaluation samples have included greater proportions of male youth, (c) there has been a good fit between the educational or occupational backgrounds of mentors and the goals of the program, (d) mentors and youth have been paired based on similarity of interests, and (e) programs have been structured to support mentors in assuming teaching or advocacy roles with youth. These findings suggest that effects may hinge to a noteworthy extent on decisions that are made regarding which youth and mentors to involve in a program and on the care with which mentoring relationships are established and then guided toward specific types of activities. Taking stock of the available evidence leads us to see value
in continued support for youth mentoring programs. The argument for using mentoring as an intervention strategy is particularly strong when there is interest in promoting outcomes across multiple areas of a young person’s development. For investments to yield optimal returns, however, there is a need for policy to be directed toward several critical areas of concern: (a) ensuring adherence to core practices (e.g., screening and training of mentors) that both research and common sense dictate to be essential elements of program quality, (b) facilitating ongoing refinement and strengthening of programs using the available evidence as a guide, and (c) fostering stronger collaborations between practitioners and researchers
as a framework for evidence-driven dissemination and growth within the field. From a research standpoint, to support and inform these efforts there is a pressing need to (a) gauge the impact of mentoring interventions on key outcomes of policy interest and on the outcomes of participating youth at later points in their development; (b) utilize study designs and analyses that are capable of addressing the relative
effectiveness of competing models and practices, the unique contributions of mentoring within more complex, multi-component interventions, and differences in youth responsiveness (including potential harmful effects for some youth); (c) investigate increasingly well-specified models of how different types of
program practices and processes may be instrumental in shaping consequential features of mentoring relationships and ultimately, the realization of particular desired outcomes for youth; and (d) establish a research registry to improve the quality and synthesis of available evidence regarding the effectiveness of
youth mentoring as an intervention strategy.
... Therefore, focusing on training is necessary, but not sufficient. Researchers have long struggled with this issue and have concluded that the adoption of innovative practices is anything but automatic (Davidson & Redner, 1988). Backer (2000) argues that the most common failure of past dissemination strategies is assuming that one factor (e.g., training) is enough to create change. ...
The transportability of an evidence-based teacher professional development program, the Incredible Years Classroom Management Program, was evaluated. This study compared the impact of two training methods: self-administered videotape modeling (VM) and self-administered videotape modeling plus consultation (VMC) on teachers' use of classroom management strategies, reductions in disruptive behaviors, acceptability, and contextual barriers of sustaining EBIs in practice settings. Four pairs of teachers (N = 8) were randomly assigned to VM or VMC conditions in a multiple probe design. Students (1-2 per classroom; N = 13) displaying high levels of externalizing problems also participated. Statistically significant between-groups differences in teacher confidence ratings, use of positive instructional practices, and acceptability favored the VMC condition. Positive trends favoring VMC students, including clinically significant increases in social competence, were also found. Although students in both groups exhibited reductions in disruptive behaviors, significant between-groups differences related to disruptive behavior were not observed. Findings related to contextual variables (e.g., time, cost, institutional support, adaptability of the program) have implications for future adoption of this program. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
... Likewise, although it may be notably more difficult for mentors to make constructive inroads with youth who have already become engaged in delinquent activity (e.g., gang involvement), the bonds that are established may be especially beneficial (Blechman & Bopp, 2005). In line with these considerations, prior research indicates positive contributions of mentoring relationships for youth with interpersonal vulnerabilities, including young people in foster care (Ahrens, DuBois, Richardson, Fan, & Lozano, 2008;Greeson, Grinstein-Weiss, & Usher, 2010;Munson & McMillen, 2008;Rhodes, Haight, & Briggs, 1999), children of prisoners (Shlafer, Poehlmann, Coffino, & Hanneman, 2009), and adolescents with a history of engaging in delinquent behavior (Davidson & Redner, 1988), but also formidable challenges and risks when attempting to effectively mentor youth with these backgrounds (Blechman & Bopp, 2005;Britner & Kraimer-Rickaby, 2005). ...
In this introductory chapter, we first briefly consider definitions of mentoring as well as the prevalence and scope of current forms of youth mentoring that are addressed in the
Handbook. We then discuss the significance of theory, research, and practice and their interrelationship to the field, drawing on contributions to the
Handbook as illustrations. We conclude by highlighting the need for scholarship to keep pace with the fast-expanding and evolving practice of youth mentoring. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
... Having a career mentor was associated with a match (as opposed to a gap) between adolescents' aspirations and expectations. In addition, youth with natural and volunteer mentors have been found to be more likely to graduate from high school and attend college (DuBois & Silverthorn, 2005; Klaw et al. 2003) and less likely to take part in delinquent problem behaviors (Aseltine, Dupre, & Lamlein, 2001; Beam, Chen, & Greenberger, 2002; Davidson & Redner, 1988; DuBois & Silverthorn, 2005; Grossman & Tierney, 1998; Zimmerman, Bingenheimer, & Notaro, 2002). ...
Anecdotal reports of the protective qualities of mentoring relationships for youth are corroborated by a growing body of research. What is missing, however, is research on the processes by which mentors influence developmental outcomes. In this article, we present a conceptual model of the mentoring process along with a delineation of some of the current research on what makes for more effective mentoring relationships. A set of recommendations for future research is offered. © 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
... Evaluations of volunteer mentoring programs provide evidence of positive influences on adolescent developmental outcomes, including improvements in academic achievement (McPartland & Nettles, 1991), self-concept, lower recidivism rates among juvenile delinquents (Davidson & Redner, 1988), and reductions in substance abuse (LoSciuto, Rajala, Townsend, & Taylor, 1996). A national evaluation of Big Brothers Big Sisters programs found that in addition to positive changes in grades, perceived scholastic competence, truancy rates, and substance use, mentored youth were more likely than nonmentored youth to report improved parent and peer relationships (Grossman & Tierney, 1998). ...
A conceptual model was tested in which the effects of mentoring relationships on adolescents' academic outcomes were hypothesized to be mediated partially through improvements in parental relationships. The parameters of the model were compared with those of an alternative, in which improved parental relationships were treated as an outcome variable rather than a mediator. The study included 959 young adolescents (M age = 12.25 years), all of whom applied to Big Brothers Big Sisters programs. The adolescents were randomly assigned to either the treatment or control group and administered questions at baseline and 18 months later. The hypothesized model provided a significantly better explanation of the data than the alternative. In addition to improvements in parental relationships, mentoring led to reductions in unexcused absences and improvements in perceived scholastic competence. Direct effects of mentoring on global self-worth, school value, and grades were not detected but were instead mediated through improved parental relationships and scholastic competence. Implications of the findings for theory and research are discussed.
... One area of substantial interest is youth mentoring, estimated to involve approximately five million youth in some form of structured or unstructured school-or community-based volunteer mentoring programs in the USA (Rhodes, 2001). Though positive outcomes are associated with youth mentoring (e.g., Davidson & Redner, 1998;Grossman & Tierney, 1998;LoSciuto, Rajala, Townsend, & Taylor, 1996), Rhodes suggests that over 50% of youth mentoring programs do not provide adequate training to their volunteer mentors. Attracting and retaining youth mentors is often difficult and training is a high priority. ...
The benefits of the mentoring relationship for protégés have been a primary focus in the mentoring literature. Researchers have recently begun to examine how mentoring can benefit the mentor. The purpose of the present study is to examine whether direct report-ratings of a manager’s career-related mentoring behaviors are related to boss-ratings of that manager’s performance. In addition, this study assesses whether the cultural background of the manager moderates the career-related mentoring–performance relationship via multilevel methodology. Results reveal that managers who are rated by their direct reports as engaging in career-related mentoring behaviors are perceived as better performers by their bosses. Moreover, the GLOBE societal culture dimension of Performance Orientation was a significant cross-level moderator of the career-related mentoring–performance relationship. Implications for the practice of mentoring in cross-cultural contexts across multiple disciplines are discussed.
... Evidence supporting mentoring programs for aggressive children or antisocial youth is particularly hard to find (Blechman & Bopp, 2005; Blechman, Maurice, Buecker, & Helberg, 2000; Cavell & Smith, 2005; Davidson & Redner, 1988; Roberts, Liabo, Lucas, DuBois, & Sheldon, 2004; Smith, 2002), and quantitative reviews cast serious doubt on the efficacy of mentor-based interventions for this population (DuBois, Holloway et al., 2002; Smith, 2002). Smith (2002) reported a mean weighted effect size for outcomes involving antisocial behavior opposite of that expected (d = -.12, ...
We used data from a randomized clinical trial to examine the degree to which relationship quality predicted outcomes for aggressive children in two different mentoring programs. Data were available for 145 aggressive children in Grades 2 and 3. Children were blocked by school and randomly assigned to PrimeTime (n = 75) or Lunch Buddy (n = 70) programs. PrimeTime combined community-based mentoring with child-focused skills training and consultation for parents and teachers, and mentors were extensively trained and supervised. Lunch Buddy was a stand-alone, school-based mentoring program that involved lunchtime visits and a different mentor each semester. PrimeTime children rated their mentors as more supportive than did Lunch Buddy children. Relationship conflict predicted changes in teacher-rated externalizing problems. Ratings of relationship quality interacted with treatment in predicting changes in parent-rated externalizing behavior for PrimeTime children only.
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
Background
In 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 training, certification, or predetermined status differences such as parent‐child or teacher‐student relationships. A total of 39 topic and methodologically eligible studies were identified for inclusion in the meta‐analysis (out of 112 outcome reports) on delinquency, aggression, drug use, and academic achievement, which are each associated consistently with delinquency involvement or risk for such involvement.
Objectives
This systematic review had the following objectives:
To statistically characterize the evidence to date on the effects of mentoring interventions (selective and indicated) for delinquency (e.g. arrest, reported delinquency), and related problems of aggression drug use, school failure.
To attempt to clarify the variation in effects of mentoring related to program makeup and delivery, study methodology, and participant characteristics.
To help define mentoring in a more systematic fashion than has occurred to date to, in turn, help clarify what constitutes mentoring and what might be key components for future research.
To identify gaps in this research area and make recommendations for further research.
To inform policy about the value of mentoring and the key features for utility.
Search Strategy
The authors of three meta‐analyses on mentoring or related topics (1) DuBois et al. (2002) on mentoring in general, 2) Lipsey and Wilson (1998) on delinquency interventions in general, and 3) Aos et al. (2004) on interventions for delinquency and associated social problems) were contacted for databases on reports and coding approaches. In addition, we searched various databases including PsychINFO, Criminal Justice Abstracts, Criminal Justice Periodicals Index, Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI), Science Citation Index (SCI), Applied Social Sciences Indexes and Abstracts (ASSIA), MEDLINE, Science Direct, Sociological Abstracts, Dissertation Abstracts, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness, and ERIC (Education Resources
Information Center) and the Social, Psychological, Educational and Criminological Trials Register (SPECTR), the National Research Register (NRR, research in progress), and SIGLE (System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe). Finally, the reference lists of primary studies and reviews in studies identified from the search of electronic resources were scanned for any not‐yet identified studies that were relevant to the systematic review.
Selection Criteria
Studies that focused on youth who were at risk for juvenile delinquency or who were currently involved in delinquent behavior. Risk is defined as the presence of individual or ecological characteristics that increase the probability of delinquency in later adolescence or adulthood.
We included interventions focusing on prevention for those at‐risk (selective interventions) and treatment (indicated interventions) that included mentoring as the intervention or one component of the intervention and at least measured impact of the program. We excluded studies in which the intervention was explicitly psychotherapeutic, behavior modification, or cognitive behavioral training and indicated provision of helping services as part of a professional role.
We required studies to measure at least one quantitative effect on one of the four outcomes (delinquency, aggression, substance use, academic achievement) in a comparison of mentoring to a control condition. Experimental and high quality quasi‐experimental designs were included.
The review was limited to studies conducted within the United States or another predominately English‐speaking country and reported in English and to studies reported between 1970 and 2005.
Data collection and Analysis
All eligible studies were coded using a protocol derived from three related prior meta‐analyses, with 20% double‐coded. The intervention effect for each outcome was standardized using well established methods to calculate an effects size with 95% confidence intervals for each of the four outcomes (if included in that study): delinquency, aggression, drug use and academic achievement. Meta‐analyses were then conducted for each independent study within a given outcome (delinquency, aggression, drug use, and academic achievement). Effect sizes for each study were scaled so that a positive effect indicated a desirable outcome (i.e., lower delinquency, drug use, and aggression or higher academic achievement).
Main Results
112 studies were identified as meeting inclusion criteria as focused on delinquency and mentoring. Of these, 39 met the additional criteria for inclusion in the quantitative analyses. 22 were randomized controlled trials and 17 were quasi‐experimental studies involving non‐random assignment, but with matched comparison groups as was described above. Twenty studies reported delinquency outcomes, 19 reported academic achievement outcomes, 6 reported drug use outcomes, and 6 reported aggression outcomes.
Main effects sizes were positive and statistically significant for all four outcomes, though some studied showed zero or negative effects. Significant variation across studies was also present. For delinquency substantial heterogeneity was found among studies’ results ( Q (19) = 71.2, p < .01 ; Range: SMD = ‐0.18 to SMD = 1.73) and the mean effect size using random effects calculation was SMD = 0.23, 95% CI = 0.11 – 0.36. For aggression some heterogeneity was found among studies’ results ( Q (19) = 9.78, p < .10; SMD = ‐0.05 to SMD = 0.95) and the mean effect size using random effects calculation was SMD = 0.40, 95% CI = 0.06 – 0.74. For drug use heterogeneity was substantial ( Q (5) = 18.5, p < .01; SMD = ‐0.13 to SMD = 0.34). The mean effect size using random effects calculation was SMD = 0.13, 95% CI = ‐0.02 – 0.28. Academic achievement results did not show evidence of heterogeneity ( Q (19) = 25.4, ns; SMD = ‐0.21 to SMD = 0.63), and the weighted random effects estimate of effect size was SMD = 0.08, 95% CI = 0.01 – 0.15.
We compared effect sizes of those studies that were random assignment experimental designs with those that were quasi‐experimental and found RCTS had a larger average effect size. We conducted moderator analyses to attempt to determine whether effects differed according to the criteria for selecting participants, key processes of mentoring interventions, presence of other interventions in the study, motivations of mentors, or assessment of quality or fidelity of the intervention. To do so we combined effects across outcomes to provide adequate power for valid analyses and because analyses to check for bias in effects due to outcome suggested no such effect. The analyses were limited due to the relatively limited information about these characteristics extractable from many reports and perhaps may have some limitation in direct application due to this combining of outcomes. We found evidence for moderation when professional development was a motive for becoming a mentor and when emotional support was emphasized within the intervention. Effect sizes did not differ by whether or not other components were used, how risk was identified (environmental versus individual characteristics) or if fidelity adherence and implementation features were assessed.
Reviewers’ Conclusions
This analysis of 39 studies on four outcomes measuring delinquency or closely related outcomes suggests mentoring for high‐risk youth has a modest positive effect for delinquency, aggression, drug use, and achievement. However, the effect sizes varied by outcome with larger effects for delinquency and aggression than for drug use and achievement. Also, effect sizes varied more for delinquency and aggression than for drug use or academic achievement. We also identified some characteristics that moderated effects that provide some additional understanding for further studies and program preference. RCTS had larger effect sizes than quasi‐experimental studies. Effects tended to be stronger when emotional support was a key process in mentoring interventions, and when professional development was an explicit motive for participation of the mentors. While these findings support viewing mentoring as a useful approach for intervention to lessen delinquency risk or involvement, due to limited description of content of mentoring programs and substantial variation in what is included as part of mentoring efforts detracts from that view. The valuable features and most promising approaches can not be stated with any certainty. In fact, there is a remarkable lack of description of key features or basic program organization that is typically provided in empirical reports of effects with not much increase in quality of reports over the time period studied here. Given the popularity of this approach, the promise of benefits should be seen as a strong argument for a concerted effort through quality randomized trials to specify the theoretical and practical components for effective mentoring with high‐risk youth. Concordantly, lacking such features, further trials may not add useful knowledge.
We used meta‐analysis to review 55 evaluations of the effects of mentoring programs on youth. Overall, findings provide evidence of only a modest or small benefit of program participation for the average youth. Program effects are enhanced significantly, however, when greater numbers of both theory‐based and empirically based “best practices” are utilized and when strong relationships are formed between mentors and youth. Youth from backgrounds of environmental risk and disadvantage appear most likely to benefit from participation in mentoring programs. Outcomes for youth at‐risk due to personal vulnerabilities have varied substantially in relation to program characteristics, with a noteworthy potential evident for poorly implemented programs to actually have an adverse effect on such youth. Recommendations include greater adherence to guidelines for the design and implementation of effective mentoring programs as well as more in‐depth assessment of relationship and contextual factors in the evaluation of programs.
Tobacco control efforts have been associated with a significant reduction in the prevalence of tobacco use in the United States. Efforts to reduce the incidence of violent crime have been much less successful. This paper argues that progress on tobacco control stems from the existence of a clear, empirically based, and widely understood analysis of the tobacco problem that articulates (a) the harms associated with its use, (b) the causes of tobacco use, and (c) the programs and policies that could reduce tobacco use. This analysis has guided the development of a network of social organizations that have been advocating for policies and programs that are reducing tobacco use. In contrast, there is not a widely shared, cogent, and empirically based analysis of the problem of violent crime. As a result, efforts to combat violent crime are fragmented and it has proven difficult to generate support for preventive programs and policies. Substantial empirical progress has been made, however, on how violent crime could be prevented. That evidence is reviewed. It is argued that the articulation of this evidence is a critical first step for achieving widespread reduction in the incidence of violent crime. Communication of that evidence to audiences that matter will require that behavioral scientists become better organized to advocate for the adoption of empirically supported practices.
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. In this update we report on 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 164 identified studies published between 1970 and 2011, 46 met criteria for inclusion. Mean effects sizes were significant and positive for delinquency and academic functioning with trends (marginal significance level) for aggression and drug use. Effect sizes were modest by Cohen's differentiation. However, there was heterogeneity in effect sizes across studies for each outcome. The obtained patterns of effects suggest mentoring may be valuable for those at‐risk or already involved in delinquency and for associated outcomes. Comparison of study design (randomised control trial (RCT) or quasi‐experimental (QE)) did not show significant differences in effects. Moderator analysis showed larger effects when professional development was the motivation of the mentors for involvement, but not for basis of inclusion of participants (environmental vs. person basis of risk), presence of other interventions, or assessment of quality of fidelity. We also undertook the first systematic evaluation of key processes that seem to define how mentoring may aid youth (e.g. identification/modeling, teaching, emotional support, advocacy) to see if these related to effects.
Based on studies we could code for the presence or absence of each as part of the program effort, analyses found stronger effects when emotional support and advocacy were emphasized. These results suggest mentoring is as effective for high‐risk youth in relation to delinquency as many other preventive and treatment approaches and that emphasis on some theorized key processes may be more valuable than others. However, the collected set of studies is less informative than expected with quite limited specification about what comprised the mentoring program and implementation features. The juxtaposition of popular interest in mentoring and empirical evidence of benefits with the limited reporting of important features of the interventions is seen highlights the importance of more careful and extensive evaluations. Including features to understand testing of selection basis, program organization and features, implementation variations, and theorized processes for effects will greatly improve understanding of this intervention. All are essential to guide effective practice of this popular and very promising approach.
Synopsis
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. In this update we report on 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 164 identified studies published between 1970 and 2011, 46 met criteria for inclusion. Mean effects sizes were significant and positive for delinquency and academic functioning with trends (marginal significance level) for aggression and drug use. Effect sizes were modest by Cohen's differentiation. However, there was heterogeneity in effect sizes across studies for each outcome. The obtained patterns of effects suggest mentoring may be valuable for those at‐risk or already involved in delinquency and for associated outcomes. Comparison of study design (RCT vs. QE) did not show significant differences in effects. Moderator analysis showed larger effects when professional development was the motivation of the mentors for involvement, but not for basis of inclusion of participants (environmental vs. person basis of risk), presence of other interventions, or assessment of quality of fidelity. We also undertook the first systematic evaluation of key processes that seem to define how mentoring may aid youth (e.g. identification/modeling, teaching, emotional support, advocacy) to see if these related to effects. Based on studies we could code for the presence or absence of each as part of the program effort, analyses found stronger effects when emotional support and advocacy were emphasized. These results suggest mentoring is as effective for high‐risk youth in relation to delinquency as many other preventive and treatment approaches and that emphasis on some theorized key processes may be more valuable than others. However, the collected set of studies is less informative than expected with quite limited specification about what comprised the mentoring program and implementation features. The juxtaposition of popular interest in mentoring and empirical evidence of benefits with the limited reporting of important features of the interventions is seen highlights the importance of more careful and extensive evaluations. Including features to understand testing of selection basis, program organization and features, implementation variations, and theorized processes for effects will greatly improve understanding of this intervention. All are essential to guide effective practice of this popular and very promising approach.
Abstract
BACKGROUND
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, DuBois, Portillo, Rhodes, Silverthorn, & Valentine, 2011). One account lists over 5000 organizations within the United States that use mentoring to promote youth wellbeing and reduce risk (MENTOR/National Mentoring Partnership, 2006). 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 training, certification, or predetermined status differences such as parent‐child or teacher‐student relationships. A total of 46 topic and methodologically eligible studies (out of 164 outcome reports) were identified for inclusion in the meta‐analysis on delinquency and outcomes associated to delinquency: aggression, drug use, and academic achievement.
OBJECTIVES
This systematic review had the following objectives:
• a) To statistically characterize the evidence to date on the effects of mentoring interventions (selective and indicated) for delinquency (e.g. arrest, reported delinquency), and related problems of aggression drug use, school failure.
• b) To attempt to clarify the variation in effects of mentoring related to program organization and delivery, study methodology, and participant characteristics.
• c) To help define mentoring in a more systematic fashion than has occurred to date to, in turn, help clarify how intervention processes suggested as compromising how mentoring has effects and other important considerations for future research..
• d) To inform policy about the value of mentoring and the key features for utility.
SEARCH STRATEGY
This is an update of a review completed 4 years ago. In the original review search we benefitted from the authors of three meta‐analyses on mentoring or related topics (1) DuBois et al. (2002) on mentoring in general, 2) Lipsey and Wilson (1998) on delinquency interventions in general, and 3) Aos et al. (2004) on interventions for delinquency and associated social problems) who provided databases on reports and coding approaches. In addition, we searched various databases including PsychINFO, Criminal Justice Abstracts, Criminal Justice Periodicals Index, Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI), Science Citation Index (SCI), Applied Social Sciences Indexes and Abstracts (ASSIA), MEDLINE, Science Direct, Sociological Abstracts, Dissertation Abstracts, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness, and ERIC (Education Resources Information Center) and the Social, Psychological, Educational and Criminological Trials Register (SPECTR‐ in original search), the National Research Register (NRR, research in progress), and SIGLE (System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe). Finally, the reference lists of primary studies and reviews in studies identified from the search of electronic resources were scanned for any not‐yet identified studies that were relevant to the systematic review. For this update we searched the same databases (except SPECTR as it no longer existed), surveyed pertinent journals and the reference lists of primary studies and reviews.
SELECTION CRITERIA
• 1. Studies that focused on youth who were at risk for juvenile delinquency or who were currently involved in delinquent behavior. Risk is defined as the presence of individual or ecological characteristics that increase the probability of delinquency in later adolescence or adulthood.
• 2. We included interventions focusing on prevention for those at‐risk (selective interventions) and treatment (indicated interventions) that included mentoring as the intervention or one component of the intervention and at least measured impact of the program. We excluded studies in which the intervention was explicitly psychotherapeutic, behavior modification, or cognitive behavioral training and indicated provision of helping services as part of a professional role.
• 3. We required studies to measure at least one quantitative effect on one of the four outcomes (delinquency, aggression, substance use, academic achievement) in a comparison of mentoring to a control condition. Experimental and high quality quasi‐experimental designs were included.
• 4. The review was limited to studies conducted within the United States or another predominately English‐speaking country and reported in English and to studies reported between 1970 and 2011. We did not have resources for translating reports not reported in English.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
All eligible studies were coded using a protocol derived from three related prior meta‐analyses, with 20% double‐coded. The intervention effect for each outcome was standardized using well established methods to calculate an effect size with 95% confidence intervals for each of the four outcomes (if included in that study): delinquency, aggression, drug use and academic achievement. Meta‐analyses were then conducted for each independent study within a given outcome (delinquency, aggression, drug use, and academic achievement). Effect sizes for each study were scaled so that a positive effect indicated a desirable outcome (i.e., lower delinquency, drug use, and aggression or higher academic achievement).
MAIN RESULTS
A total of 164 studies were identified as meeting inclusion criteria as focused on delinquency and mentoring. Of these, 46 met the additional criteria for inclusion in the quantitative analyses. 27 were randomized controlled trials and 19 were quasi‐experimental studies involving non‐random assignment, but with matched comparison groups as was described above. Twenty‐five studies reported delinquency outcomes, 25 reported academic achievement outcomes, 6 reported drug use outcomes, and 7 reported aggression outcomes.
Main effects sizes were positive and statistically significant for all four outcomes. Some studies showed effects that were not significant and a few reported negative effects. For each outcome there was substantial variation in effect size, too. Average effects were larger for delinquency than for other outcomes. When moderation was tested, there was considerable variation in effect sizes of studies that were similar in regard to the presence of a given moderating influence.
We compared effect sizes of those studies that were random assignment experimental designs with those that were quasi‐experimental using meta‐regression and found no evidence of differences in effect sizes. We conducted moderator analyses to determine whether effects found differed by 1) criteria for selecting participants, 2) presence of other components along with the mentoring intervention, 3) motivation of mentors for participation, or 4) assessment of quality or fidelity of implementation of the intervention. We also conducted moderator analyses to test for outcome differences by the presence or absence of four theorized key components of mentoring interventions. The relatively limited information about potential moderating characteristics extractable from many reports and the limited number of reports with extractable information led us to combine effects across all four outcomes to enable adequate power and in combination to our directional expectations for moderators to test significance using a one‐tailed test (p < .05). For these analyses, we averaged effect sizes within a given study if more than one outcome of interest was reported. We also conducted analyses to check for bias in effects due to type of outcome, and found no suggestion of bias.
We found evidence for moderation when professional development was a motive for becoming a mentor. There was also moderation of the effect size when mentoring programs emphasized either of two theorized components: emotional support or advocacy. Effect sizes did not differ by whether or not the program emphasized the other two key components: modeling/identification or teaching, nor by whether other components were used, how risk was defined (environmental versus individual characteristics) or if fidelity/adherence of implementation features were assessed.
REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS
This analysis of 46 studies on four outcomes measuring delinquency or closely related outcomes of aggression, drug use, and academic functioning suggests mentoring for high‐risk youth has a modest positive effect for delinquency and academic functioning, with trends suggesting similar benefits for aggression and drug use. Effect sizes varied more for delinquency and academic achievement than for aggression and drug use. We did not find a significant difference in effect size by study design (RA vs. QE) or by whether or not fidelity was assessed. We identified some characteristics that moderated effects that provide additional understanding for further studies and program design. Effects tended to be stronger when professional development was an explicit motive for participation of the mentors. Of four processes theorized as comprising the methods of effects in mentoring, we found evidence for significantly larger effects when emotional support and advocacy were emphasized. Although these findings support viewing mentoring as a useful approach for intervention to lessen delinquency risk or involvement, limited description of content of mentoring programs and substantial variation in what is included as part of mentoring efforts detracts from better understanding about what might account for the benefits. The valuable features and most promising approaches cannot be ascertained with any certainty. In fact, the body of studies is remarkably lacking in description of key features, program design organization, and theorized processes of impact that are typically provided in empirical reports of intervention effects. Our judgment is also that there does not seem to be much progression in quality of details in reports over the time period studied here. Given the popularity of this approach, the promise of benefits should be seen as a strong argument for a concerted effort through quality randomized trials to specify the theoretical and practical components for effective mentoring with high‐risk youth. Concordantly, lacking such features, further trials may not add useful knowledge.
The notion of offender ‘accountability’ has emerged as a key concept in contemporary penality in recent years, perhaps especially in the areas of youth justice, restorative justice, and gendered violence. However, the criminological literature offers few definitions of and little critical scholarly engagement with the meanings, aims and parameters of offender ‘accountability’. This comment begins to address this gap by drawing attention to this widely used but taken-for-granted concept and starting a critical conversation about offender ‘accountability’. After documenting its widespread acceptance, this comment charts some of the various meanings of the term implicit in the criminological canon. It also posits a series of questions that criminal justice scholars and professionals might consider in relation to the theoretical and practical application of offender ‘accountability’. It concludes with a brief consideration of future research questions.
The problem of school absenteeism in childhood has been identified in the literature as a potential precursor of serious academic problems and eventual dropout during adolescence. This is why it is important to intervene early. This entry reviews the issues associated with the definition of school absenteeism, as well as various intervention models that have been developed to address the problem. Most effective intervention models include a combination of school-based and community-based approaches. It should be recognized that these models do require systemic changes at the family, school, and community levels. The studies suggest that the complex contexts of the children, their families, their schools, and their communities are not only part of the problem but also part of the Solution.
The influence of a mentoring program (Big Brothers-Big Sisters) on the peer relationships of foster youth in relative and nonrelative care was examined. Youth were randomly assigned to either the treatment or control condition, and changes in their peer relationships were assessed after 18 months. Foster parents were more likely than nonfoster parents to report that their child showed improved social skills, as well as greater comfort and trust interacting with others, as a result of the intervention. In addition, whereas the peer relationships of all nonfoster youth (N = 90) remained stable, treatment foster youth (N = 90) reported improvements in prosocial and self-esteem enhancing support, and control foster youth showed decrements over time. When the foster youth were differentiated further on the basis of their placement, a pattern of findings emerged in which treatment youth in relative foster care reported slight improvements in prosocial support, whereas treatment youth in nonrelative foster care reported slight declines. All foster youth in the control group reported decrements in peer support over time, with nonrelative foster youth reporting the sharpest declines. Implications for research and intervention are discussed.
This study utilizes a social exchange perspective to examine mentors’ reported commitment and relational maintenance in formal youth mentoring relationships. One hundred and forty-five adult mentors from four mentoring programs completed surveys about aspects of their current youth mentoring relationship. Study measures assessed Investment Model variables (satisfaction, alternatives, investments, and commitment), stay/leave behavior, and reported use of relational maintenance strategies. Analyses supported hypotheses derived from the Investment Model, and commitment, in turn, predicted stay/leave behavior for mentors. In addition, a mediation model demonstrated that commitment mediates the relationships between some Investment Model variables and three of five relational maintenance strategies. The unique nature of formal youth mentoring relationships as prescribed is discussed, as are practical applications for mentoring programs.
Objectives
To conduct a meta-analytic review of selective and indicated mentoring interventions for effects for youth at risk on delinquency and key associated outcomes (aggression, drug use, academic functioning). We also undertook the first systematic evaluation of intervention implementation features and organization and tested for effects of theorized key processes of mentor program effects.
Methods
Campbell Collaboration review inclusion criteria and procedures were used to search and evaluate the literature. Criteria included a sample defined as at risk for delinquency due to individual behavior such as aggression or conduct problems or environmental characteristics such as residence in a high-crime community. Studies were required to be random assignment or strong quasi-experimental design. Of 163 identified studies published from 1970–2011, 46 met criteria for inclusion.
Results
Mean effects sizes were significant and positive for each outcome category (ranging from d = 0.11 for academic achievement to d = 0.29 for aggression). Heterogeneity in effect sizes was noted for all four outcomes. Stronger effects resulted when mentor motivation was professional development but not by other implementation features. Significant improvements in effects were found when advocacy and emotional support mentoring processes were emphasized.
Conclusions
This popular approach has significant impact on delinquency and associated outcomes for youth at risk for delinquency. While evidencing some features may relate to effects, the body of literature is remarkably lacking in details about specific program features and procedures. This persistent state of limited reporting seriously impedes understanding about how mentoring is beneficial and ability to maximize its utility.
In Deutschland gehörte die Prävention psychischer Störungen bis in die 1990er Jahre zu den vernachlässigten Forschungsgebieten.
In den letzten Jahren hat dieses Gebiet hier zwar an Bedeutung gewonnen, in anderen europäischen und außereuropäischen Ländern
wie den USA und Australien gibt es jedoch länger schon zahlreiche Institutionen, spezielle Task Pannels und internationale
Organisationen, die sich der Prävention widmen (z. B. Greenberg et al., 2001).
In this article we describe how community psychology can enhance the consultation process in settings such as schools and other human service organizations. We detail the core community psychology concepts of empowerment and systemic change, and we illustrate the ecological perspective as an encompassing theoretical framework. We then identify and address the following three common dilemmas consultants face when working with human service agencies: representation of the client's interest, implementation of changes, and dissemination of results. Limitations of the community psychology approach are also discussed.
Current levels of juvenile crime and a review of juvenile justice programming outcomes reveal the need for prevention-oriented, family-based juvenile crime reduction programming. This article presents the Growing Up FAST: Families and Adolescents Surviving and Thriving Diversion Program as an illustration of a logic-model–based approach to the development, implementation, and eventual outcome evaluation of a juvenile crime prevention program. It describes the development of a program logic model that has both intermediate outcomes (reduced risky behavior and increased family functioning) and initial outcomes (awareness of goals associated with successful adulthood and identification of the resources that will help achieve these goals) that are linked to the longer-term outcome of reduced recidivism. Program outputs that contribute to initial outcomes are presented in a detailed description of five interrelated programming levels. Descriptive data on youth and families who have been referred to this program also are provided, as well as descriptions of the outcome measures being utilized with these families. With such logically derived initial and intermediate outcomes, Growing Up FAST is thought to exemplify a crime-prevention program that is family-based and can be reliably evaluated for outcomes early in its implementation.
Religious and mental health organizations share a number of common goals, including an interest in prevention of future problems in living. Community narratives-the telling of stories-is one method used by religious communities to accomplish some of their goals, including public education, healing and empowerment. Narratives are increasingly recognized by cognitive psychologists, mental health professionals and theologians as powerful tools for both learning and self-understanding. Many of the assumptions of preventive psychology and empowerment, including beliefs concerning the competence of individuals, the utility of self help groups and (he power of community healing, are consistent with beliefs about the healing power of communities prominent in Judeo-Christian religious narratives. These narratives, when believed, incorporated into personal stories, and acted upon, serve as a counter to the tendency of medical and mental health stories to isolate people and force reliance on scarce resources and inaccessible expertise. Several of these narratives, concerned with the value of every individual, the power of people in a community to care for one another, attributes of self, of God, of hope and of history are described, and their functions illustrated in the context of a particular congregational community.
A comprehensive understanding of abnormal psychology requires coverage of recent advances in primary prevention that are documented by empirical research. We describe a brief conceptual scheme and exemplary studies for presenting primary prevention in abnormal psychology courses and suggest resources and teaching methods for instructors. Our approach assumes that clinical and community psychology are conceptually distinct but complementary fields; the study of prevention not only connects them but provides a useful perspective for understanding abnormal psychology. Our concern with integrating primary prevention into abnormal psychology courses goes beyond articles on more specialized courses on community and preventive psychology recently published in Teaching of psychology.
We investigated a process-oriented model of mentoring using data on 50 relationships in a Big Brothers/Big Sisters program. Data were collected on a monthly basis from both mentors and youth over a one-year period; relationship benefits for youth were assessed at the end of the year by each type of informant. The degree to which relationships were continued throughout the one-year period also was assessed. Path analyses using both youth and mentor report data revealed relations among study variables consistent with the proposed model. Mentors' ratings of their efficacy, obtained prior to the start of relationships, predicted greater amounts of mentor/youth contact as well as more positive experiences in relationships (e.g., fewer obstacles). Feelings of closeness between mentors and youth, in turn, were a final common component in model pathways that linked mentor/youth contact and most other measures to greater perceived benefits and relationship continuation. Implications for the design and evaluation of mentoring programs for youth are discussed. © 2002 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Does Mentoring Promote Positive Outcomes?
What are the Implications for Mentoring Practice, Research, and Policy?
Implications for Practice
Implications for Policy
Conclusions
Keywords:
mentoring;
nonparent adults;
intergenerational relationships ;
mentoring programs;
coaches;
role models
A conceptual model was tested in which mentoring relationships were hypothesized to reduce substance use both directly and indirectly through improvements in adolescents' self-perceptions and close relationships. The study included 928 young adolescents (M age = 12.25), all of whom applied to Big Brothers Big Sisters programs. The adolescents were randomly assigned to either the treatment or control group and administered questions at baseline and 18 months later. The hypothesized model was not substantiated particularly well with data from the entire sample but was strongly supported when it was estimated with a subgroup of youth who were in longer lasting relationships. Being matched for longer than 12 months had significant impacts on the frequency of substance use and on parental relationships. Consistent with our conceptual model, parental relationships mediated the relationship between mentoring and substance use. Implications of these findings for research and interventions are discussed.
This study evaluated a primary prevention program called Going for the Goal [GOAL], designed by Danish and colleagues to teach life skills to at-risk urban adolescents. The 10-week program was administered to 350 middle school students by 55 trained high school leaders in a predominantly Hispanic school district. The program focused on setting positive, reachable goals, anticipating and responding to barriers to goal attainment, using social support, and building on one's strengths. Participants were randomly assigned to treatment or waiting-list control group conditions. Results demonstrated gains in knowledge of the skills being taught as well as attainment of goals set during the program. Leaders also showed an increase in their knowledge of life skills. The approach maximized both community resources and ecological validity while giving high school leaders the chance to benefit in their role as helpers.
This study examined the interaction between college students attachment orientation and mentors relational style in the prediction of students behaviors and perceptions in academic mentoring and of their subsequent academic achievement. Ninety college students were administered the Adult Attachment Interview and their professors-mentors completed the Attachment Style Questionnaire. Students displayed more adaptive behaviors and perceptions in mentoring and earned higher grades when their attachment orientation was in contrast to their mentors relational style. Implications for the practice of academic mentoring in college are discussed.
Supportive relationships with nonparent adults are considered to be among the key developmental assets predicting positive
youth outcomes. Indeed, researchers at Search Institute have identified “supportive relationship with three or more other
adults,” “adult role models,” and “adults in community value youth” as essential to youths’ healthy development and well-being
(Benson, Leffert, Scales, & Blythe, 1998; Scales & Leffert, 1999). Similarly, researchers working from within a risk-and-resilience framework have repeatedly called attention to the protective
influence of supportive relationships with adults (Garmezy, 1985; Masten & Coatsworth, 1998; Werner & Smith, 1982). In this chapter, we will describe the ways in which nonparental adults function as resources in the lives of adolescents.
Within this context, we will review mentoring relationships and the settings in which they are most likely to emerge. We will
also discuss strategies for maximizing the benefits of mentoring and look at the underlying processes that might affect developmental
outcomes. As we will describe, mentoring can occur naturally or through formal assignments, and the characteristics of mentoring
relationships are as varied as the youth and mentors who enter into them.
Political and social changes during the last decade and their implications for community psychology research and practice are discussed. Shifting responsibility for social problems, economic considerations, and levels of citizen concern and involvement in community problem solution are considered stimuli for new opportunities for innovation and change. The discipline is challenged to renew efforts in the promotion of innovation and to develop and disseminate interventions that result in modification in the role relationships characterizing the ecology of social problems.
We investigated the relation between participation in the Child-Parent Center and Expansion Program during preschool to third grade and measures of adolescent delinquency for low-income, mostly Black youths in the Chicago Longitudinal Study. Based on analyses of 1,262 program and comparison-group children, duration of program participation (0 to 6 years) and extensive participation in the program were significantly associated with lower rates of school-reported delinquency infractions at ages 13 and 14. Extended program participation was only marginally associated with a lower rate of delinquency infractions over ages 12 to 16. Preschool participation alone had no systematic relation with delinquency but was marginally associated with delinquency reports at ages 15 and 16. Reductions in school-reported delinquency were due to less frequent mobility and to postprogram parent involvement in school. Given the high cost of crime to society, even the relatively modest effects of early childhood intervention on delinquency suggest that such programs can provide another weapon in the war on crime.
Tobacco control efforts have been associated with a significant reduction in the prevalence of tobacco use in the United States. Efforts to reduce the incidence of violent crime have been much less successful. This paper argues that progress on tobacco control stems from the existence of a clear, empirically based, and widely understood analysis of the tobacco problem that articulates (a) the harms associated with its use, (b) the causes of tobacco use, and (c) the programs and policies that could reduce tobacco use. This analysis has guided the development of a network of social organizations that have been advocating for policies and programs that are reducing tobacco use. In contrast, there is not a widely shared, cogent, and empirically based analysis of the problem of violent crime. As a result, efforts to combat violent crime are fragmented and it has proven difficult to generate support for preventive programs and policies. Substantial empirical progress has been made, however, on how violent crime could be prevented. That evidence is reviewed. It is argued that the articulation of this evidence is a critical first step for achieving widespread reduction in the incidence of violent crime. Communication of that evidence to audiences that matter will require that behavioral scientists become better organized to advocate for the adoption of empirically supported practices.
We used meta-analysis to review 55 evaluations of the effects of mentoring programs on youth. Overall, findings provide evidence of only a modest or small benefit of program participation for the average youth. Program effects are enhanced significantly, however, when greater numbers of both theory-based and empirically based "best practices" are utilized and when strong relationships are formed between mentors and youth. Youth from backgrounds of environmental risk and disadvantage appear most likely to benefit from participation in mentoring programs. Outcomes for youth at-risk due to personal vulnerabilities have varied substantially in relation to program characteristics, with a noteworthy potential evident for poorly implemented programs to actually have an adverse effect on such youth. Recommendations include greater adherence to guidelines for the design and implementation of effective mentoring programs as well as more in-depth assessment of relationship and contextual factors in the evaluation of programs.
Youth mentoring programs are an increasingly popular intervention, and although successful mentoring relationships can promote a range of positive developmental outcomes, relationships that fail can lead to decrements in a youth’s functioning and self-esteem. The present research develops and validates a youth mentoring relationship quality inventory, based on data from a national evaluation of Big Brothers Big Sisters (BBBS) mentoring programs (N = 347 youth). This tool can be administered to adolescents who have been assigned mentors in order to assess the quality of the relationship as it is forming and to identify dyads that may need additional support before those relationships fail. Implications of such a tool for mentoring interventions and research are discussed.
Editors’ Strategic Implications: Reliability and validity data are presented for a measure of youth’s perceptions of the quality of their mentoring relationship. This measure shows promise as a tool for research and evaluation of a wide array of mentoring programs due to its brevity, demonstrated psychometrics, and straightforward focus on the mentoring relationship.
This paper argues that the issues facing effective prevention programs when they embark on dissemination, implementation, and routinization have been largely ignored by the field. Through the example of the Adolescent Diversion Program, these issues are illustrated and discussed. Four sequential longitudinal experimental studies are summarized as a context for the discussion of dissemination issues. In each case, the alternative preventive program is demonstrated to be more effective than traditional approaches. Challenges to widespread implementation of effective prevention programs are then discussed with a call for the field to add such issues to its scientific agenda.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.