Mentoring in the Juvenile Justice System: Findings From Two Pilot Programs

• NCJ Number: 162035
• Author(s): C A Mecartney; M B Styles; K V Morrow
• Date Published: 1994
• Length: 91 pages
• Sale Source: Public/Private Ventures
• Publication Type: Program Description (Model)
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

A model mentoring program was piloted in juvenile justice facilities and community-based programs in Atlanta and St. Louis, recognizing that youth need positive, consistent relationships with adults to support their development.

Abstract

The St. Louis program involved five residential facilities and was run by the Missouri Division of Children and Youth Services. The Atlanta program involved one residential facility and various nonresidential community-based programs and was operated by the Georgia Department of Children and Youth Services and the Southeast Regional Office of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. In both programs, adult volunteers were asked to make a 1-year commitment to meet weekly with youth. Of 163 program matches involving mentors and youth, only 41 matches (26 percent) met regularly at least twice a month for more than 6 months. In juvenile justice facilities and in the community, program matches encountered problems that interfered with their ability to meet. Even though many relationships ended before youth were released, most young people said they valued mentor efforts. Sustained mentor-youth matches were those in which mentors understood the importance of consistency, mentors stayed focused on youth in providing help, and mentors interacted with families. Recruiting mentors was time-consuming and difficult. The programs in Atlanta and St. Louis had relative success in recruiting black mentors but were not able to attract a sufficient number of elderly mentors. Most mentors attended at least one training session but felt training would have been more helpful if it included specific information about youth. Mentors and youth were matched based on common interests and youth needs. Recommendations to improve the mentoring process are offered that focus on increasing the number of volunteers, screening out adults who overcommit their time, increasing the length and content of training, providing consistent supervision and support to volunteers, and assigning volunteers to youth in the community only as part of an established aftercare program. Methods used to conduct and evaluate the two mentoring programs in Atlanta and St. Louis are described in an appendix. 36 references and 8 tables