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 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: 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 makeup 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 what constitutes mentoring and what might be key components for future research. d)To identify gaps in this research area and make recommendations for further research. e)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.