Mentoring Interventions to Affect Juvenile Delinquency and Associated Problems

• NCJ Number: 306613
• Author(s): Patrick Tolan; David Henry; Michael Schoeny; Arin Bass
• Date Published: 2008
• Length: 112 pages

Annotation

This systematic review had the following five objectives: to statistically characterize the available evidence on the effects of mentoring interventions for delinquency, drug use, and 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; to identify gaps in this research area and make recommendations for further research; and to inform policy about the value of mentoring and the key features for utility.

Abstract

The authors 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 such as aggression, drug use, academic functioning. Of 112 identified studies that were published between 1970 and 2005, 39 met the authors’ 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 randomized 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. Publisher Abstract Provided