Last updated: February 2019 www.ojjdp.gov/mpg 

Youth Mentoring and Delinquency Prevention 

Although the exact nature of the mentoring relationship varies from program to program, youth 

mentoring is generally defined as a consistent, prosocial relationship between an adult or older peer 

and one or more youth (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention [OJJDP], n.d.). Generally, 

the goal of mentoring programs (as it relates to delinquency prevention) is to provide youth with 

positive adult contact to 1) reduce risk factors for delinquency such as early antisocial behavior, 

alienation, family management problems, and lack of commitment to school; and 2) enhance protective 

factors, including healthy beliefs, opportunities for involvement, and social and material reinforcement 

for appropriate behavior (OJJDP, 1998a) (for more information, see the Model Programs Guide literature 

review on Risk Factors for Delinquency). Therefore, in addition to establishing positive prosocial 

relationships, mentoring programs tend to focus on several common goals, including life and social 

skills, general youth development, academic enrichment, career exploration, leadership development, 

and college access (Garringer, McQuillin, and McDaniel, 2017). 

Scholars suggest that mentoring, as a form of prevention, dates back to the late-19th century, when the 

Friendly Visiting campaign recruited hundreds of middle-class women to work with poor and 

immigrant communities (Freedman, 2008). Since then, many different forms of mentoring relationships 

have been incorporated into workforce and youth development programs or developed as stand-alone 

mentoring programs. However, the growth of mentoring programs has significantly increased over the 

years, and it is a challenge to determine how many mentoring programs exist today (Garringer, 

McQuillin, and McDaniel, 2017). 

Mentoring programs have been supported by both private and federal funds. Private entities have been 

responsible for a large percentage of mentoring programs (Fernandes, 2008). Federal funding for 

mentoring has been provided to a variety of federal agencies, including the following programs: 

• The Juvenile Mentoring Program (OJJDP, 1998b) 

• The Mentoring Children of Prisoners Program (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 

2011) 

• The Safe and Drug-Free Schools Mentoring Program, for children at risk of educational failure, 

dropping out of school, or involvement in delinquent activities (U.S. Department of Education, 

2005) 

• The Mentoring Initiative for System-Involved Youth, for youth in foster care and juvenile justice 

system (OJJDP, 2006) 

• Mentoring Opportunities for Youth Initiative (OJJDP, n.d.) 

Suggested Reference: Development Services Group, Inc. 2019. “Youth Mentoring and Delinquency Prevention.” Literature review. 

Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. https://www.ojjdp.gov/mpg/litreviews/Mentoring.pdf 

Prepared by Development Services Group, Inc., under cooperative agreement number 2013–JF–FX–K002. Points of view or opinions 

expressed in this document are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of OJJDP or the U.S. 

Department of Justice. 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 1 
The focus of this literature review is on the different types of mentoring models for youth at risk or 

already involved in the juvenile justice system and their various components, including setting, mode 

of delivery, and target population. The review also provides a summary of mentoring programs that 

have been evaluated and discusses gaps in research on program implementation. There is also 

additional information about research and effectiveness available on the OJJDP National Mentoring 

Resource Center. 

Theoretical Foundation 

Nonparental adults and peers play an important role in promoting healthy development for youth. 

Research suggests that mentoring relationships can 1) increase the social-emotional development of 

children and adolescents and challenge the negative views youth hold of themselves; 2) improve 

cognitive development and thinking skills, which help youth be more receptive to advice and 

instruction; and 3) facilitate identity development (Rhodes, 2002, 2005; Dubois et al., 2011). 

There are several theoretical frameworks that explain how these social and psychological benefits might 

emerge from mentoring relationships, including 1) attachment theory, 2) social support, and 3) 

resiliency theory. 

Attachment theory suggests that the bonds or attachments that an infant or child forms impact how 

their future relationships develop, the characteristics of those relationships, and the levels of trust or 

closeness they experience (Bowlby, 1969). Youth who experience close attachments with parents 

develop a secure base or foundation from which to explore the physical and social world, facilitating 

development of trusting relationships with nonparental adults (Sroufe and Waters, 1977; Rhodes, 

Contreras, and Mangelsdorf, 1994; Zimmerman, Bingenheimer, and Behrendt, 2004). 

Secure attachments that youth form during infancy and childhood can also evolve into a perceived 

sense of social support during adolescence. Social support includes emotional support, tangible aid 

and service, cognitive guidance, and appraisal support or information that is useful for a youth’s selfevaluation (Heaney and Israel, 2002). Such support is delivered by parents or other individuals within 

a youth’s social network. These trusted individuals can provide the guidance and material support 

(e.g., rides to community centers, monetary support to join sports teams) needed to create opportunities 

for youth to develop mentoring relationships (Zimmerman, Bingenheimer, and Behrendt, 2004). 

Resiliency theory suggests that the positive or protective factors in a youth’s life can buffer him or her 

against the potentially negative consequences of risk factors and prevent juvenile delinquency 

(Vanderbilt-Adriance and Shaw, 2008; Werner, 1993). Thus, the presence of available and caring 

mentors, as a protective resource, may provide youth with the necessary guidance, support, and 

supervision needed to help them overcome individual, peer, familial, school, and community risk 

factors (Hawkins et al., 2000). For high-risk youth who have limited access to informal mentoring by 

positive role models, mentoring programs may provide a buffer against potential negative factors in 

their lives and play an important role in promoting healthy development.1 

Despite the benefits associated with mentoring relationships and the potential for such relationships to 

contribute to delinquency prevention, research also indicates that mentoring programs and 

relationships are not without risk themselves (DuBois et al., 2011; Herrera et al., 2011). Some have found 

potentially negative effects associated with short-term or prematurely ended mentoring relationships 

1 For more information, see the Model Programs Guide literature review on Protective Factors Against Delinquency. 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 2 
within programs, including feelings of loss and rejection and a reduced willingness to engage in future 

mentoring opportunities (Grossman and Rhodes, 2002; Zilberstein and Spencer, 2017). Others have 

suggested, based on their findings, that youth may experience greater risks than rewards if the 

mentoring relationships are of poor quality (Lyons and McQullin, 2019). 

Mentoring Models and Components 

There are no standard approaches to delivering mentoring programs; mentoring models and 

components tend to vary substantially (Garringer, McQuillin, and McDaniel, 2017). There are various 

mentoring models in use today, but most fall into two categories: informal or formal mentoring. 

Informal mentoring, sometimes called “natural mentoring,” occurs whenever a youth has an ongoing 

relationship with an older person who provides the youth with guidance or support that has the 

potential to benefit one or more areas of the youth’s developmental progress (National Mentoring 

Resource Center, n.d.). Such relationships tend to exist between youth and extended family members 

or youth and non-related individuals, including neighbors, church members, teachers, and other school 

personnel (Schwartz, Lowe, and Rhodes, 2012). These natural relationships emerge organically within 

a youth’s existing social network and result from the frequent, unstructured contacts youth have with 

adults in their day-to-day lives (DuBois and Silverthorn, 2005; DuBois and Rhodes, 2006; Busse, 

Campbell, and Kipping, 2018). 

Given the organic nature of such relationships, there is considerable variation in their specific form, 

duration, and function; however, most relationships tend to extend over significant portions of a 

youth’s development (DuBois and Karcher, 2014). 

Formal mentoring occurs when programs provide volunteer or paid mentors for at-risk youth. The 

formal mentoring relationship between the youth and the volunteer is fostered through a structured 

program operated by community agencies, faith-based programs, schools, afterschool programs, and 

other youth-serving organizations. The organizations or agencies usually have a structured program 

that includes recruitment of youth and volunteers, screening and training of mentors, guidelines for 

matching mentors and youth, and ongoing monitoring and training. Once a mentor is matched with a 

youth, the pair agrees to meet over time to engage in various activities (DuBois and Rhodes, 2006; Busse, 

Campbell, and Kipping, 2018). 

Several forms of formal mentoring have emerged during the past several decades, and they tend to 

vary according to 1) setting (community-based, school-based, or electronic methods); 2) mode of 

delivery (peer or group mentoring); and 3) target population (DuBois and Rhodes, 2006; Kaufman, 

2017; Kuperminc and Thomason, 2014; Noam, Malti, and Karcher, 2013; Ahrens et al., 2008). 

Setting 

Community-Based Mentoring 

Community-based mentoring (CBM) matches an at-risk youth with a mentor. Mentors can include any 

adult in a community organization or the wider community. The pair agrees to meet regularly, usually 

for at least 4 to 8 hours per month, and can be supported in establishing either a short-term or longterm mentoring relationship. Typically, the pair engages in developmentally appropriate social 

activities within the community, including sports, games, movies, or visiting a library or museum. 

Youth are usually referred to the CBM program by a parent or guardian (Erdem et al., 2016; Garringer, 

McQuillin, and McDaniel, 2017; Borden, 2010). 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 3 
School-Based Mentoring 

School-based mentoring (SBM) involves the pairing of a young person with a positive role model in 

school. The mentor may be an adult or an older student. The mentoring activities tend to be 

concentrated on academics, along with social activities (Grossman et al., 2012). 

This model is sometimes called site-based mentoring (DuBois and Rhodes, 2006) because, unlike CBM, 

the mentor and mentee meet at a specific location rather than engage in activities in various places 

within the community. The SBM pair usually meets at school in a supervised setting for about 1 hour 

once a week during or after school. Schools are the common site, perhaps because they are better able 

to capitalize on the knowledge, referrals, and support of adults who are already active in that setting 

(Borden, 2010; Erdem et al., 2016; Herrera et al., 2007). In some cases, SBM is provided through a 

community agency, and youth meet with their mentors at a community center or other similar location. 

The mentoring relationship, established through SBM programs, usually lasts only about 9 months 

during a school year. In a few cases, the mentor-mentee pair meets during the summer or even during 

the following school year (Grossman et al., 2012; Herrera et al., 2007). However, many SBM programs 

have been working over the past decade to build more consistent, multiyear mentoring relationships 

(Herrera et al., 2011). 

E-Mentoring 

E-mentoring refers to the practice of using electronic methods, entirely or in part, as the primary 

channel of communication between mentors and youth (Kaufman, 2017). The key difference between 

e-mentoring and other forms of mentoring is based on whether they occur in person. In traditional 

mentoring, relationships are created and nurtured by consistent face-to-face contact. However, ementoring creates relationships by relying on the internet or social media to connect youth with 

mentors. Electronic conversations can occur via email, chat, web, message boards, or other social media 

platforms that are popular among youth. Such communication can include face-to-face time depending 

on the specific program, but it is not required (DuBois and Rhodes, 2006). 

E-mentoring creates more flexible and diverse opportunities to develop and maintain mentoring 

relationships. Such programs provide options to homebound youth with chronic illness, those 

differently abled, and youth in rural areas (Kaufman, 2017). Because mentors and youth are not limited 

to specific geographic locations in e-mentoring, this increases the pool of available mentors and allows 

individuals, who may never meet, to build relationships. E-mentoring provides a more flexible 

schedule, and youth can have access to their mentors without altering their day-to-day schedules 

(Karcher et al., 2006; Hamilton and Scandura, 2003). 

Mode of Delivery 

Most mentoring tends to take place one-on-one, between a youth and older, more experienced adult 

(DuBois and Karcher, 2014; Garringer, McQuillin, and McDaniel, 2017). However, mentoring programs 

may adopt other modes of delivery, including 1) group mentoring, wherein one or more mentors meet 

with a group of youth; or 2) peer mentoring, wherein students usually 2 or more years older than the 

youth serve as mentors. 

Group Mentoring2 

Group mentoring usually involves one or more mentors working with a least 2 but no more than 32 

2 Group mentoring in this section focuses on formal mentoring programs. However, informal mentoring 

programs that can occur may involve group mentoring of youth in afterschool programs and sports teams. 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 4 
youth (Kuperminc and Thomason, 2014). Group mentoring programs can vary in size, number of 

mentors, and the mentor-to-youth ratios (Kuperminc, 2016; Jones, 2016). These programs are based on 

the premise that mentors who interact with small groups of youth can develop a number of fruitful and 

productive relationships simultaneously (Herrera, Vang, and Gale, 2002). Group mentoring is different 

from other forms of mentoring because it encourages two-way relationships: mentor-to-youth and 

youth-to-youth (Kuperminc, 2016). Such programs are ideal for youth who are uncomfortable in oneon-one meetings with adults or other youth. 

Group mentoring programs tend to occur in a structured environment such a school or other youthserving organization in the community. Consequently, youth have access to several adults, including 

teachers, youth workers, and other adults willing to serve as mentors (Karcher et al., 2006; Herrera, 

Vang, and Gale, 2002). These mentoring programs can also vary in terms of programmatic goals such 

as substance abuse prevention or improving academic performance. 

Peer Mentoring 

Cross-age, one-to-one peer mentoring programs include youth who are at least 2 to 3 years older than 

their mentees and fulfill roles similar to those in traditional forms of adult mentoring (Noam, Malti, 

and Karcher, 2013). This form of mentoring is based on the premise that older youth can serve 

effectively as role models and provide guidance to the mentee. Peer mentoring typically occurs in 

school or community settings, with youth in high school matched with those in middle or elementary 

school. Such programs are highly structured and supervised, with at least six to eight meeting sessions 

(Karcher and Berger, 2017). 

An advantage of peer mentoring is its potential to enhance learning and support for behavioral change 

based upon a perceived sense of social support and psychological safety that younger youth receive 

from older youth. In addition, older youth may reap benefits from serving as mentors, as it may help 

them to meet their own social needs (Smith, 2011). 

Population-Specific Mentoring 

Some mentoring programs can be designed to build mentoring relationships between caring adults and 

a wide range of youth populations, while other programs provide population-specific mentoring. For 

example, some mentoring programs target specific segments of high-risk populations—including 

youth living in high-poverty neighborhoods, youth of color (Sanchez, 2016); lesbian, gay, bisexual, 

transgender, questioning, intersex, and gender nonconforming (LGBTQI-GNC) youth (Rummell, 2016); 

immigrant and refugee youth (Oberoi, 2016); children in foster care (Ahrens et al., 2008; Taussig and 

Weiler, 2017); children of incarcerated parents (Goode and Smith, 2005; Jarjoura, 2016); youth involved 

in commercial sex activity (DuBois and Felner, 2016); youth with disabilities (Lindsay, 2018); and youth 

with mental health challenges (Britner et al., 2006; Munson and Railey, 2016). Other mentoring 

programs concentrate on abused and neglected youth, pregnant and parenting adolescents, 

academically at-risk students, and justice-involved youth (Munson and Railey, 2016; Britner et al., 

2006). 

While many mentoring programs do not specifically focus on delinquency prevention, some 

population-specific programs often focus on overcoming the risk factors for delinquency most 

associated with the target population of interest. For example, many ethnic minority youth deal with 

factors related to ethnic identity and belonging to a cultural group. Therefore, mentoring programs for 

minority youth are sometimes designed to promote cultural awareness/pride and can help facilitate 

ethnic or racial identity and relationship development (Wakefield and Hudley, 2007; Sanchez et al., 

2014). Alternatively, there are linguistic, educational, developmental, economic, and cultural gaps that 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 5 
immigrant and refugee youth face in U.S. society. Therefore, mentoring programs for immigrant and 

refugee youth sometimes provide social support and assist in academic or language tutoring and 

building self-esteem and personal skills (MENTOR, 2015; Oberoi, 2016). Mentoring programs for youth 

returning home from residential placement focus on matching youth with adults in the community 

who can serve as positive role models, since many youth return to the same environments or 

circumstances that contributed to their initial delinquency (Eddy and Schumer, 2016; Bouffard and 

Bergseth, 2008). Similarly, mentoring programs for youth with mental health challenges may match 

youth with mentors who also have experienced mental health problems and who thus may be 

especially well-equipped to guide youth in navigating the health system and life (Koplewicz, 2013; 

Munson and Railey, 2016). 

Elements of Effective Practice 

While there are no standardized approaches to mentoring, the Elements of Effective Practice for Mentoring 

(Garringer et al., 2015) identifies six elements to create and sustain quality youth-mentoring programs 

and successful relationships. These research-informed elements include 1) using strategies that match 

the goals and structure of the program and ensure the recruitment of appropriate mentors and mentees; 

2) screening prospective mentors to determine if they have the time, commitment, and desire required 

to be effective mentors; 3) providing training that ensures that all mentors have the basic knowledge, 

attitudes, and skills needed to develop effective relationships; 4) using strategies that examine the 

individual characteristics of mentors and mentees to match and initiate relationships; 5) monitoring and 

supporting mentoring relationships; and 6) ensuring the appropriate closure of mentoring relationships. 

These six elements are intended to be applicable, with adaptation when appropriate, across almost 

every type of mentoring program and ensure that youth-mentoring relationships are safe, effective, and 

produce positive outcomes for youth involved in such programs (Garringer et al., 2015). 

Outcome Evidence 

Mentoring programs seek to positively affect outcomes such as delinquency, aggression, drug and 

alcohol use, mental and behavioral health, and educational engagement and achievement. A particular 

program may focus on promoting specific outcomes, such as substance use, but many, such as Big 

Brothers Big Sisters, adopt a more general approach to promote overall positive development across 

several areas. Numerous evaluations have been conducted to examine mentoring program 

effectiveness, including several meta-analyses. 

Evaluations of Individual Programs 

Several different mentoring programs have been evaluated using rigorous research designs that 

compare outcomes for youth assigned to receive mentoring through a program with a comparison or 

control group of otherwise similar youth. These interventions are generally implemented with children 

ages 6–18 in schools, clinics, or other community settings. They have been implemented in rural, urban, 

and suburban areas. The following examples from CrimeSolutions.gov and the Model Programs Guide 

represent some of the most relevant interventions. See also the National Mentoring Resource Center 

website for a more comprehensive list of reviews of mentoring programs. 

The Big Brothers Big Sisters (BBBS) Community-Based Mentoring Program provides one-to-one 

mentoring in a community setting for at-risk youth. BBBS was found to be associated with a statistically 

significant reduction in youth reports of initiating drug and alcohol use and antisocial behaviors. In 

addition, mentored youth reported statistically significant, better relationships with parents and 

emotional support among peers. However, these effects were small in magnitude, and the program did 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 6 
not have a statistically significant effect on several other outcomes such as reported academic 

performance (grades and absences) or self-worth (Tierney, Grossman, and Resch, 2000). 

The Adolescent Diversion Project (Michigan State University) is a strengths-based, university-led 

program that diverts arrested youth from formal processing in the juvenile justice system and provides 

them with volunteer college student mentors who carry out the community-based structured 

mentoring program. The program results have shown a statistically significant reduction in the rates of 

official delinquency, but no significant effect on self-reported delinquency (Davidson et al., 1987; Smith 

et al., 2004). 

Career Academy is a “school within a school” that uses a multifaceted approach for academic success, 

mental and emotional health, and labor market success. Mentoring is one of the program components, 

in that youth are matched with adults who can provide career guidance. Three studies examined the 

outcomes of Career Academy (Kemple and Willner, 2008; Kemple and Scott–Clayton, 2004; Page, 2012) 

and found that it had a significant, positive effect on earnings among young men in the Academy group, 

but no significant effect on young women’s labor market outcomes or on all participating youth’s high 

school completion rates, postsecondary education or attainment, or social adjustment outcomes. 

E-mentoring Program for Secondary Students with Learning Disabilities is a program designed for high 

school students with mild learning disabilities to improve their ability to identify postsecondary career 

goals and the necessary steps to achieve those goals. Students were mentored by college students on a 

password-secure website with virtual classrooms where topics related to postsecondary transition were 

discussed, including problem solving, decisionmaking, time management, and self-advocacy. Students 

who received the e-mentoring intervention were found to differ significantly in a favorable direction 

from the control group on outcome measures of transition competency, self-determination, and social 

connectedness (Collier, 2009). However, there was no significant difference between the groups on 

measures of ratings of educational or career goals, academic connectedness, and familial 

connectedness. 

Cross-Age Peer Mentoring is a school-based, peer-mentoring program in which high school students 

provide one-on-one mentoring to late elementary and early middle school students. The goals of the 

program are to promote mentees’ connectedness (to school, parents, and the future) and improve 

academic achievement by experiencing a supportive relationship with an older peer at school. Students 

in the program had significantly greater change in a favorable direction than the control group on 

measures of spelling achievement and connectedness to parents. However, there was no significant 

difference between the groups on measures of connectedness to school or to the future (Karcher, Davis, 

and Powell, 2002; Karcher, 2005). 

The Cognitive–Behavioral, Group-Mentoring Intervention for Children with Emotional and Behavioral 

Disturbances program is designed to improve child behavior and family functioning among 8- to 12-

year olds with mental health disorders, and their primary caregivers. The program uses mentors to 

provide training, coaching, modeling, and reinforcement in social communication and problem solving. 

Children in the program showed significant improvements in the frequency of externalizing and 

internalizing problems, social problem solving, and frequency of appropriate social skills and 

behaviors, compared with children in the control group. There were, however, no differences between 

the groups on measures of attachment to parents or levels of stress reported by their parents (Jent and 

Niec, 2009). 

Operation Peacekeeper is a community- and problem-oriented policing program in Stockton, Calif., 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 7 
designed to reduce gang involvement and violence among urban youth (10 to 18). Youth outreach 

workers served as positive role models and mentors for youth in neighborhood settings. Their role was 

to make sure youth understood the consequences of violence and the positive alternatives to gang 

membership. This program was associated with a statistically significant decrease in the monthly 

number of gun homicides. Also, when compared with gun homicide trends in other midsize California 

cities, the reduction in homicides in Stockton could be associated with the program (Braga, 2008). 

In addition to the mentoring interventions that have demonstrated positive outcomes, the following 

are examples of programs from CrimeSolutions.gov and the Model Programs Guide that did not 

demonstrate consistent, positive justice-related behavioral or attitudinal effects. 

A study of the Check and Connect school-based mentoring program, which was designed to reduce 

school absences and promote student engagement, found that students who participated in the 

mentoring intervention had fewer days absent and a larger percentage of days present in school, 

compared with a comparison group at the end of the 2-year intervention period. However, they also 

had lower standardized math scores than the comparison group, and there were no significant 

differences in outcomes related to GPA, course failure, and standardized reading scores (Guryan et al., 

2017) Another study of the same program found that after 3 years, there were no statistically significant 

differences between youth in the mentoring program and those in the control group on any of the 

education-related outcomes assessed (Heppen et al., 2017). 

A study of the Brief Instrumental School-Based Mentoring Program (BISBMP), an intervention 

designed for at-risk middle school students, found that students participating in the mentoring 

program had better math grades, reduced school behavioral office referrals, and increased life 

satisfaction, compared with the comparison group, which were all statistically significant differences 

(McQuillin et al., 2015). However, the program did not significantly affect students’ measures of teacher 

or school connectedness, tardiness, school absences, or grades in English, reading, or science. Given 

these mixed findings, the program was revised to include enhancements to mentor training and 

supervision and to the program curriculum. A new study of the BISBMP – Revised (McQuillin and 

Lyons, 2016) found that students participating in the mentoring program had fewer unexcused 

absences, higher math and English grades, and higher self-reported levels of life satisfaction, compared 

with the comparison group; these differences were all statistically significant. Thus, this program 

demonstrates how evaluations can be used to adapt and revamp mentoring programs and thereby 

achieve more promising outcomes. 

Meta-Analyses 

Several meta-analyses have also examined the effect of mentoring on youth outcomes. Such research 

has found small, positive effects for mentoring programs on crime and delinquency, drugs and 

substance use, education, psychological functioning, school attendance, school grades, and academic 

achievement test scores (DuBois et al., 2011; Thomas, Lorenzetti, and Spragins, 2013; Tolan et al., 2013; 

LaValle, 2015; Meyerson, 2013). However, these effects range considerably, depending on the type of 

program and the quality of the study.3 

A meta-analysis of 73 independent evaluations of mentoring programs (DuBois et al., 2011), published 

from 1999 to 2010, found support for the effectiveness of mentoring for improving both prevention and 

promotion outcomes across social, behavioral, emotional, and academic domains. These positive effects 

3 For more information, see the practice profile for Mentoring on CrimeSolutions.gov. 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 8 
were apparent for all ages of mentees, but modest in their average magnitude or size. The evidence 

indicated that programs were more effective when 1) mentees had been exposed to significant levels of 

environmental risk or had preexisting difficulties, 2) samples included greater proportions of male 

youth, 3) there was a good fit between the occupational or educational backgrounds of mentors and the 

goals of the program, 4) mentors and youth were paired based on similarity of interests, and 5) 

programs were structured to support mentors in teaching or advocacy roles with mentees. It should be 

noted, though, that these associations are correlational and thus do not necessarily indicate that the 

program characteristics involved had a causal influence on program effectiveness. 

One examination of four randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluated formal mentoring 

interventions to prevent drug and alcohol use in adolescents (Thomas, Lorenzetti, and Spragins, 2013). 

In two of the studies, mentoring reduced the rate of alcohol use initiation, and in one study, mentoring 

reduced the initiation of drug use. The study authors did not identify any adverse effects from the 

interventions. 

A meta-analysis of 46 studies (Tolan et al., 2013), which was an update of a previous meta-analysis 

(Tolan et al., 2008) examined the link between mentoring and delinquency, aggression, drug use, and 

academic achievement for at-risk and delinquent youth. The authors found that the main estimated 

effect sizes, averaged over all available evaluations, were positive and statistically significant for each 

of the four outcomes (aggression, externalizing problems, drug abuse, and academic 

achievement/school failure); however, there was substantial variability from study to study. Effect 

sizes appeared stronger for academic functioning and delinquency than for aggression and drug use. 

In their examination of moderators, they found larger positive effects when professional development 

was a motive for becoming a mentor and when mentoring programs emphasized either emotional 

support or advocacy. 

Smaller meta-analyses of subgroups also provide insight into the outcomes that mentoring can 

produce. In a meta-analysis of five studies on the effectiveness of mentoring programs for children with 

significant externalizing and internalizing behavioral problems on parenting stress and youth 

outcomes (La Valle, 2015), results revealed evidence of a small positive effect of these specialized 

mentoring programs on youth outcomes such as internalizing, externalizing, and interpersonal 

symptoms, and on parenting stress. The moderator analyses revealed that using programs in which 

mentoring is the sole intervention, and not part of a multicomponent intervention, was associated with 

enhanced effectiveness. There were also no statistically significant differences between mentors who 

were paired with one mentee and those who engaged in group mentoring. 

Another meta-analysis of mentoring programs (Meyerson, 2013) targeted youth with behavioral and 

emotional problems. This analysis of 13 studies indicated a small-to-moderate effect of specialized 

mentoring programs across different youth outcomes. Moderator analyses yielded several program 

characteristics and practices that were correlated with greater estimated effectiveness, including using 

formal mentors, school or clinic settings (instead of purely community-based mentoring), and 

provisions for parental involvement. 

Yet another meta-analysis (Wood and Mayo-Wilson, 2012) did not find that mentoring had a strong 

effect on youth outcomes. An evaluation of six studies on the impact of school-based mentoring for 

adolescents on academic performance, attendance, attitudes, behavior, and self-esteem found that effect 

sizes were very small across outcomes, and that most were not statistically significant. The authors 

concluded that the mentoring programs included in their review did not reliably improve any of the 

included outcomes. 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 9 
Taken as a whole, findings from meta-analyses suggest that mentoring can have a positive effect on 

youth outcomes. However, as has been noted (DuBois et al., 2011), it does not appear that mentoring 

program impact has improved substantially over the past few decades. Specifically, although the level 

of impact that participation in a mentoring program produces, for the average participating youth, is 

“within the range of effects observed for other types of interventions for children and adolescents”, it 

“fails to reflect discernible improvement over the previous generation of mentoring programs” (DuBois 

et al., 2011:57). 

However, research also demonstrates that the size of the effect can vary, and there are certain 

moderators, or features, of the mentoring relationship and mentoring program that tend to be 

associated with better outcomes for youth. Examples of key moderators suggested by research include 

the length and quality of the relationship as well as both the timing and types of training the program 

provides to mentors (Grossman and Rhodes, 2002; Zilberstein and Spencer, 2017; Lyons and McQuillin, 

2019). 

Gaps in Research and Program Implementation 

Although research supports mentoring as a useful approach in addressing risk and protective factors 

for youth, the details about program content, features, and promising approaches are lacking, and there 

is variation in program components, which limits understanding of how exactly mentoring can benefit 

youth (Tolan et al., 2013). 

For future studies, some researchers recommend more reporting on the mentor and mentee 

perspectives (Thomas, Lorenzetti, and Spragins, 2013) or greater attention to programs that target 

specific populations of children, such as those with mental health challenges (La Valle, 2015; Meyerson, 

2013). Others identify a need for closer examination of mentoring programs serving higher-risk youth 

(Garringer, McQuillin, and McDaniel, 2017) and of the effect of mentoring on outcomes such as 

educational attainment, juvenile offending, and obesity, which are of significant interest to 

policymakers and others (DuBois et al., 2011). Finally, it has been suggested that there should be further 

study on whether youth who experience durable relationships with their mentors experience better 

long-term outcomes than similar non-mentored peers (Wood and Mayo-Wilson, 2012). 

Most recommendations emphasize a continued need for more high-quality research of mentoring 

programs, which includes randomized controlled trials (La Valle, 2015; Meyerson, 2013; Tolan et al., 

2013), adequate sample sizes (Thomas, Lorenzetti, and Spragins, 2013), minimized attrition (Thomas, 

Lorenzetti, and Spragins, 2013), and more studies that identify mediating and moderating relationships, 

including the amount of mentoring that participants receive and the level of youth’s behavior 

difficulties (Wood and Mayo-Wilson, 2012). 

Conclusion 

The goal of mentoring is to provide youth with positive adult (or older peer) contact to enhance 

protective factors and reduce risk factors. While there are no standard approaches to mentoring, such 

programs are increasingly diverse and vary considerably in terms of age groups, target populations, 

models, and intended outcomes. Today, given the proliferation of different types of mentoring across 

a wide variety of youth-serving organizations, it is particularly challenging to discern how many 

mentoring programs exist and how many children and young people are engaged in mentoring 

relationships (Garringer, McQuillin, and McDaniel, 2017). 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 10 
Much research has been done on mentoring programs, and overall findings reveal relatively small, 

positive effects related to outcomes in crime and delinquency, substance abuse, education, mental 

health, and behavioral health. However, other programs have not resulted in positive outcomes, and 

researchers are still searching for the most promising approaches, program design, dosage, and theories 

of change (Dubois et al., 2011; Wood and Mayo-Wilson, 2012; Meyerson, 2013; Tolan et al., 2013; 

LaValle, 2015). Researchers recommend that future studies focus on quality randomized trials to specify 

the practical and theoretical components of mentoring interventions, rather than program evaluations 

that use less specific and rigorous methods. 

References 

Ahrens, K. R., DuBois, D. L., Richardson, L.P., Fan, M-Y., and Lozano, P. 2008. Youth in foster care with 

adult mentors during adolescence have improved adult outcomes. Pediatrics 121(5):e246–252. 

Borden, C.S. 2010. Implementing Effective Youth Mentoring Relationships for High School Students. 

Washington, DC. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary 

Education, Smaller Learning Communities. Retrieved October 17, 2018, from web: 

https://www2.ed.gov/programs/slcp/finalimplem.pdf 

Bouffard, J.A., and Bergseth, K.J. 2008. The impact of reentry services on juvenile offenders’ 

recidivism. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 6(3):295–318. 

Bowlby, J. 1969. Attachment and Loss, Vol. 1: Attachment. New York: Basic Books. 

Braga, A. 2008. Pulling levers focused deterrence strategies and the prevention of gun homicide. Journal 

of Criminal Justice 36(4):332–343. 

Britner, P.A., Balcazar, F. E., Blechman, E.A., Blinn–Pike, L., and Larose, S. 2006. Mentoring. Journal of 

Community Psychology 34(6):747–763. 

Busse, H., Campbell, R., and Kipping, R. 2018. Developing a typology of mentoring programmes for 

young people attending secondary school in the United Kingdom using qualitative 

methods. Children and Youth Services Review 88:401–415. 

Collier, M. 2009. An Investigative Study of the Effects of E-Mentoring on Transition Planning for 

Secondary Students with Learning Disabilities. PhD dissertation. Salt Lake City, Utah: 

University of Utah. 

Davidson, W. S., Redner, R., Blakely, C.H., Ernshoff, J.G., and. Mitchell, C.M. 1987. Diversion of juvenile 

offenders: An experimental comparison. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 55(1):68–75. 

DuBois, D.L., and Felner, J.K. 2016. Mentoring for youth with backgrounds of involvement in 

commercial sex activity. Retrieved January 7, 2016, from web: 

https://nationalmentoringresourcecenter.org/index.php/what-works-in-mentoring/modeland-population-reviews.html?id=125 

DuBois, D. L., and Karcher, M. J. 2014. Youth mentoring in contemporary perspective. In Handbook of 

Youth Mentoring, edited by D.L. DuBois and M.J. Karcher. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage :3-13. 

DuBois, D.L., and Rhodes, J.E. 2006. Introduction to the special issue: Youth mentoring: Bridging 

science with practice. Journal of Community Psychology 34(6):647–655. 

DuBois, D.L., and Silverthorn, N. 2005. Natural mentoring relationships and adolescent health: 

Evidence from a national study. American Journal of Public Health95(3): 518–524. 

DuBois, D.L., Portillo, N., Rhodes, J.E., Silverthorn, N., and Valentine, J.C. 2011. How effective are 

mentoring programs for youth? A systematic assessment of the evidence. Psychological Science 

in the Public Interest 12(2):57–91. 

Eddy, J.M., and Schumer, J. 2016. Mentoring for youth and young adults during reentry from 

confinement. Retrieved August 28, 2018, from the web: 

https://nationalmentoringresourcecenter.org/index.php/what-works-in-mentoring/modeland-population-reviews.html?id=165 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 11 
Erdem, G., DuBois, D.L., Larose, S., De Wit, D., and Lipman, E.L. 2016. Mentoring relationships, positive 

development, youth emotional and behavioral problems: Investigation of a mediational model. 

Journal of Community Psychology 44(4):464–483. 

Fernandes, A.L. 2008. Report to Congress. Vulnerable Youth: Federal Mentoring Programs and Issues. 

Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service. 

Freedman, M. 2008. The Kindness of Strangers: Adult Mentors, Urban Youth, and the New Volunteerism. San 

Francisco, CA: Jossey–Bass. 

Garringer, M., McQuillin, S., and McDaniel, H. 2017. Examining youth mentoring services across 

America: Findings from the 2016 Mentoring Program Survey. The National Mentoring 

Partnership. Retrieved August 28, 2018, from the web: https://www.mentoring.org/newsite/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Mentor-Survey-Report_FINAL_small.pdf 

Garringer, M., Kupersmidt, J., Rhodes, J., Stelter, R., and Tai, T. 2015. Elements of Effective Practice for 

Mentoring. Boston: MENTOR (The National Mentoring Partnership). Retrieved August 27, 2018, 

from the web: https://www.mentoring.org/new-site/wpcontent/uploads/2016/01/Final_Elements_Publication_Fourth.pdf 

Goode, W.W., and Smith, T J. 2005. Building From the Ground Up: Creating Effective Programs to Mentor 

Children of Prisoners—The Amachi Models. Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private Ventures. 

Grossman, J.B., and Rhodes, J.E. 2002. The test of time: Predictors and effects of duration in youth 

mentoring relationships. American Journal of Community Psychology 30(2):199–219. 

Grossman, J.B., Chan, C.S., Schwartz, S.E., and Rhodes, J.E. 2012. The test of time in school-based 

mentoring: The role of relationship duration and re-matching on academic outcomes. American 

Journal of Community Psychology 49(1–2), 43–54. 

Guryan, J., Christenson, S., Claessen, A., Engel, M., Lai, I., Ludwig, J., Turner, A.C., and Turner, M.C. 

2017. The Effect of Mentoring on School Attendance and Academic Outcomes: A Randomized Evaluation 

of the Check and Connect Program. Working Paper Series. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University, 

Institute for Policy Research. 

Hamilton, B., and Scandura, T.A. 2003. E-mentoring: Implications for organizational learning and 

development in a wired world. Organizational Dynamics 31(4): 388–402. 

Hawkins, D. J., Herrenkohl, T.I., Farrington, D.P., Brewer, D., Catalano, R.F., Harachi, T.W., and Lynn 

Cothern, L. 2000. Predictors of youth violence. Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention. 

Heaney, C.A., and Israel, B.A. 2002. Social networks and social support. In Health Behavior and Health 

Education, edited by K. Glanz, B. K. Rimer, and F.M. Lewis. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, pp. 

185–209. 

Heppen, J.B., Zeiser, K., Holtzman, D.J., O’Cummings, M., Christenson, S., and Pohl, A. 2017. Efficacy 

of the Check and Connect mentoring program for at-risk general education high school 

students. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness 11(1): 56–82. 

Herrera, C., Grossman, J.B., Kauh, T.J., Feldman, A.F., McMaken, J., and Jucovy, L.Z. 2007. Making a 

Difference in Schools: The Big Brothers Big Sisters School-Based Mentoring Impact Study. 

Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private Ventures. 

Herrera, C., Grossman, J.B., Kauh, T.J., and McMaken, J. 2011. Mentoring in schools: An impact study 

of Big Brothers Big Sisters school‐based mentoring. Child Development 82(1):346-361. 

Herrera, C., Vang, Z., and Gale, L.Y. 2002. Group Mentoring: A Study of Mentoring Groups in Three 

Programs. Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private Ventures. 

Jarjoura, G.R. 2016. Mentoring for children of incarcerated parents. Retrieved August 27, 2018, from the 

web: https://nationalmentoringresourcecenter.org/index.php/what-works-inmentoring/model-and-population-reviews.html?id=127 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 12 
Jent, J.F., and Niec, L.N. 2009. Cognitive behavioral principles within group mentoring: A randomized 

pilot study. Child & Family Behavior Therapy 31(3):203–219. 

Jones, K. R. 2016. Group mentoring. 4-H Youth Development Publications. 4. Retrieved August 27, 2018, 

from the web: 

https://uknowledge.uky.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1005&context=ky4h_reports 

Karcher, M. J. 2005. The effects of developmental mentoring and high school mentors' attendance on 

their younger mentees' self-esteem, social skills, and connectedness. Psychology in the 

Schools 42(1):65–77. 

Karcher, M.J., and Berger, J.R.M. 2017. One-to-one cross-age peer mentoring. Retrieved August 27, 2018, 

from the web: https://nationalmentoringresourcecenter.org/index.php/what-works-inmentoring/model-and-population-reviews.html?layout=editandid=301 

Karcher, M.J., Davis, C., and Powell, B. 2002. The effects of developmental mentoring on connectedness 

and academic achievement. School Community Journal 12(2):35–50. 

Karcher, M.J., Kuperminc, G.P., Portwood, S.G., Sipe, C.L., and Taylor, A.S. 2006. Mentoring programs: 

A framework to inform program development, research, and evaluation. Journal of Community 

Psychology 34(6): 709–725. 

Kaufman, M. 2017. E-mentoring. Retrieved August 27, 2018, from the web: 

https://nationalmentoringresourcecenter.org/index.php/what-works-in-mentoring/modeland-population-reviews.html?layout=editandid=323 

Kemple, J. J., and Willner, C.J. 2008. Career academies: Long-term impacts on labor market outcomes, 

educational attainment, and transitions to adulthood. San Francisco, CA: Manpower 

Demonstration Research Corporation. Retrieved August 27, 2018, from the web: 

http://www.mdrc.org/publications/482/full.pdf 

Kemple, J. J., and Scott–Clayton, J. 2004. Career Academies: Impacts on Labor Market Outcomes and 

Educational Attainment. San Francisco, CA: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation. 

Retrieved August 27, 2018, from the web: 

http://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/full_49.pdf 

Koplewicz, H.S. 2013. Call to action. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology 23(1):2. 

Kuperminc, G.P. 2016. Group mentoring. Retrieved August 27, 2018, from the web: 

https://nationalmentoringresourcecenter.org/index.php/what-works-in-mentoring/modeland-population-reviews.html?id=121 

Kuperminc, G.P., and Thomason, J.D. 2014. Group mentoring. In Handbook of Youth Mentoring, edited 

by D.L. DuBois and M.J. Karcher. Los Angeles, CA: Sage, pp. 273-289. 

La Valle, C. 2015. The effectiveness of mentoring youth with externalizing and internalizing behavioral 

problems on youth outcomes and parenting stress: A meta-analysis. Mentoring and Tutoring: 

Partnership in Learning 23(3):213–227. 

Lindsay, S. 2018. Mentoring for youth with disabilities. Retrieved August 27, 2018, from the web: 

https://nationalmentoringresourcecenter.org/index.php/what-works-in-mentoring/modeland-population-reviews.html?id=385 

Lyons, M.D., and McQuillin, S.D. 2019. Risks and rewards of school-based mentoring relationships: A 

reanalysis of the student mentoring program evaluation. School Psychology Quarterly 34(1):76– 

85. 

McQuillin, S., and Lyons, M.D. 2016. Brief instrumental school-based mentoring for middle school 

students: Theory and impact. Advances in School Mental Health Promotion 9(2):73–89. 

McQuillin, S., Strait, G., Smith, B., and Ingram, A. 2015. Brief instrumental school‐based mentoring for 

first‐and second‐year middle school students: A randomized evaluation. Journal of Community 

Psychology 43(7):885–899. 

MENTOR: The National Mentoring Partnership. 2015. Mentoring immigrant and refugee youth: A 

toolkit for program coordinators. Retrieved August 27, 2018, from the web: 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 13 
https://www.mentoring.org/new-site/wpcontent/uploads/2015/09/Mentoring_Immigrant_and_Refugee_YouthA_Toolkit_for_Program_Coordinators.pdf 

Meyerson, D.A. 2013. Mentoring youth with emotional and behavioral problems: A meta-analytic 

review. Unpublished dissertation. Chicago, IL: DePaul University, College of Liberal Arts and 

Sciences, Department of Psychology. 

http://via.library.depaul.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1058andcontext=csh_etd 

Munson, M.R., and Railey, J. 2016. Mentoring for youth with mental health challenges. Retrieved 

August 16, 2018, from the web: 

https://nationalmentoringresourcecenter.org/index.php/what-works-in-mentoring/modeland-population-reviews.html?id=220 

National Mentoring Resource Center. n.d. What is mentoring? Retrieved October 16, 2018, from the 

web: https://nationalmentoringresourcecenter.org/index.php/what-works-inmentoring/what-is-mentoring.html 

Noam, G.G., Malti, T., and Karcher, M.J. 2013. Mentoring relationships in developmental perspective. 

Handbook of Youth Mentoring:99-115. 

Oberoi, A. 2016. Mentoring for first-generation immigrant and refugee youth review. Retrieved August 

16, 2018, from the web: https://nationalmentoringresourcecenter.org/index.php/what-worksin-mentoring/model-and-population-reviews.html?id=228 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention [OJJDP]. 1998a. Juvenile mentoring program 

1998: Report to Congress. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice 

Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention [OJJDP]. 1998b. Juvenile mentoring program 

(JUMP). Retrieved January 7, 2019, from the web: 

www.ojjdp.gov/grants/grantprograms/ment2.html 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention [OJJDP]. 2006. Mentoring initiative for system 

involved youth. Grant Announcement. Retrieved January 7, 2019, from the web: 

www.ojjdp.gov/grants/solicitations/06mentoringinitiative.pdf 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention [OJJDP]. n.d. Mentoring program summary. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile 

Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Retrieved February 11, 2019, from the web: 

www.ojjdp.gov/programs/ProgSummary.asp?pi=54 

Page, L. C. 2012. Understanding the impact of career academy attendance: An application of the 

principal stratification framework for causal effects accounting for partial 

compliance. Evaluation Review 36:99–132. 

Rhodes, J.E. 2002. Stand By Me: The Risks and Rewards of Mentoring Today's Youth. Youth Mentoring 

Relationships. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 

Rhodes, J.E. 2005. A model of youth mentoring. In Handbook of Youth Mentoring, edited by D.L. Dubois 

and M.J. Karcher. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 30-43. 

Rhodes, J.E., Contreras, J.M., and Mangelsdorf, S.C. 1994. "Natural mentor relationships among Latina 

adolescent mothers: Psychological adjustment, moderating processes, and the role of early 

parental acceptance." American Journal of Community Psychology 22(2): 211–227. 

Rummell, C.L. 2016. Mentoring lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, questioning, intersex, and gender 

nonconforming youth. Retrieved August 27, 2018, from the web: 

https://nationalmentoringresourcecenter.org/index.php/what-works-in-mentoring/modeland-population-reviews.html?id=194 

Sanchez, B. 2016. Mentoring for black youth. Retrieved August 27, 2018, from the web: 

https://nationalmentoringresourcecenter.org/index.php/what-works-in-mentoring/modeland-population-reviews.html?id=177 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 14 
Sanchez, B., Colón-Torres, Y., Feuer, R., Roundfield, K.E., and Berardi, L. 2014. Race, ethnicity, and 

culture in mentoring relationships. In Handbook of Youth Mentoring, Second Edition, edited by D.L. 

DuBois and M.J. Karcher. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 

Schwartz, S.E., Lowe, S.R., and Rhodes, J.E. 2012. Mentoring relationships and adolescent selfesteem. The Prevention Researcher 19(2):17–20. 

Smith, E. P., Wolf, A.M., Cantillon, D.M., Thomas, O., and Davison, W.S. 2004. The Adolescent 

Diversion Project: 25 years of research on an ecological model of intervention. Prevention and 

Intervention in the Community 27(2):29–47. 

Smith, L. H. 2011. Cross-age peer mentoring approach to impact the health outcomes of children and 

families. Journal for Specialists in Pediatric Nursing 16:220–225. 

Sroufe, L. A., and Waters, E. 1977. Heart rate as a convergent measure in clinical and developmental 

research. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly of Behavior and Development 23(1): 3–27. 

Taussig, H., and Weiler, L. 2017. Mentoring for youth in foster care. Retrieved August 27, 2018, from 

the web: https://nationalmentoringresourcecenter.org/index.php/what-works-inmentoring/model-and-population-reviews.html?id=298 

Thomas, R.E., Lorenzetti, D.L., and Spragins, W. 2013. Systematic review of mentoring to prevent or 

reduce tobacco use by adolescents. Academic Pediatrics 13(4): 300–307. 

Tierney, J. P., Grossman, J.B., and. Resch, N. L. 2000 Making a Difference: An Impact Study of Big 

Brothers/Big Sisters. Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private Ventures. Retrieved August 27, 2018, from 

the web: 

http://ppv.issuelab.org/resource/making_a_difference_an_impact_study_of_big_brothersbi 

g_sisters_re_issue_of_1995_study 

Tolan, P. H., Henry, D. B., Schoeny, M., and Bass, A. 2008. Campbell Report on Mentoring Interventions to 

Affect Juvenile Delinquency and Associated Problems. Oslo, Norway: The Campbell Collaboration. 

Tolan, P., Henry, D., Schoeny, M., Bass, A., Lovegrove, P., and Nichols, E. 2013. Mentoring 

interventions to affect juvenile delinquency and associated problems. Campbell Systematic 

Reviews 9. Retrieved August 27, 2018, from the web: 

https://campbellcollaboration.org/library/mentoring-juvenile-delinquency-and-associatedproblems.html 

U.S. Department of Education. 2005. ESEA: Safe and Drug-Free Schools Mentoring Program and other 

national programs - 2004. Retrieved October 17, 2018, from the web: 

www2.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/2004report/edlite-g3eseasafe.html 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2011. Mentoring children of prisoners program 

(MCP). Retrieved January 7, 2019, from the web: https://aspe.hhs.gov/report/overview-andinventory-hhs-efforts-assist-incarcerated-and-reentering-individuals-and-theirfamilies/mentoring-children-prisoners-program-mcp 

Vanderbilt-Adriance, E., and Shaw, D. 2008. Protective factors and the development of resilience in the 

context of neighborhood disadvantage. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 36(6):887–901. 

Wakefield, W.D., and Hudley, C. 2007. Ethnic and racial identity and adolescent well-being. Theory into 

Practice 46(2): 147–154. 

Werner, E. E. 1993. Risk, resilience, and recovery: Perspectives from the Kauai longitudinal study. 

Development and Psychopathology 5:503–515. 

Wood, S., and Mayo-Wilson, E. 2012. School-based mentoring for adolescents: A systematic review and 

meta-analysis. Research on Social Work Practice 22(3):257–269. 

Zilberstein, K., and Spencer, R. 2017. Breaking bad: An attachment perspective on youth mentoring 

relationship closures. Child and Family Social Work22(1): 67–76. 

Zimmerman, M.A., Bingenheimer, J.B., and Behrendt, D.E. 2004. Natural mentoring relationships. 

In Handbook of Youth Mentoring, edited by D.L. DuBois and M.J. Karcher. Thousand Oaks, CA: 

Sage, pp. 143–157. 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 15