NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JUVENILE AND FAMILY COURT JUDGES MENTORING IN JUVENILE TREATMENT DRUG COURTS 1

Mentoring in 

Juvenile Treatment 

Drug Courts

Strategies and Tips from On-Site 

Technical Assistance Visits and a Focus Group Report

Authored by:

Logan A. Yelderman, MA and Douglas Thomas, MS, MPA
Brief authored by:

Logan A. Yelderman, MA, Research Assistant 

National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges

Douglas Thomas, MS, MPA, Senior Research Associate

National Center for Juvenile Justice

This Technical Assistance Brief is a publication of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ) and 

the National Center for Juvenile Justice (NCJJ). The NCJFCJ and the NCJJ wish to acknowledge that this material is made 

possible by 2013-DC-BX-K001 awarded by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice 

Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Points of view or opinions are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent 

the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice, the NCJJ or the NCJFCJ.

Reproduction of this publication for non-commercial education and information purposes is encouraged. Reproduction of 

any part of this publication must include the copyright notice and attribution to: Technical Assistance Brief, Mentoring in 

Juvenile Treatment Drug Courts: Strategies and Tips from On-Site Technical Assistance Visits and Focus Group Reports, 

published by the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, Reno, Nevada.

Mari Kay Bickett, J.D., Chief Executive Officer 

National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges

Shawn C. Marsh, Ph.D., Chief Program Officer, Juvenile Law

National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges

Melissa Sickmund, Ph.D., Director

National Center for Juvenile Justice

The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court 

Judges® (NCJFCJ), headquartered on the University of 

Nevada campus in Reno since 1969, provides cuttingedge training, wide-ranging technical assistance, and 

research to help the nation’s courts, judges, and staff 

in their important work. Since its founding in 1937 by a 

group of judges dedicated to improving the effectiveness 

of the nation’s juvenile courts, the NCJFCJ has pursued a 

mission to improve courts and systems practice and raise 

awareness of the core issues that touch the lives of many 

of our nation’s children and families. 

©2015, National Council of Juvenile and Family Court 

Judges. All rights reserved.

©2015, National Center for Juvenile Justice. All rights 

reserved.
From December 2013 to January 2014, 

members of the NCJFCJ staff conducted 

10 on-site technical assistance visits to 

juvenile treatment drug courts (JTDCs) 

with mentoring programs and hosted 

team members from these sites for 

a focus group meeting. The following 

information was acquired during these 

visits and focus groups. The purpose of 

this brief is to provide tools, tips, and 

strategies to jurisdictions interested in 

beginning mentoring programs and those 

that have current mentoring programs 

within JTDCs. 

Note
4 MENTORING IN JUVENILE TREATMENT DRUG COURTS NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JUVENILE AND FAMILY COURT JUDGES
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JUVENILE AND FAMILY COURT JUDGES MENTORING IN JUVENILE TREATMENT DRUG COURTS 1

Adolescents who suffer from concurrent 

delinquency and substance abuse 

are in need of effective programs that 

address negative behaviors and provide 

opportunities to develop pro-social 

attitudes and skills. When juveniles have 

no available alternatives to disorganized 

and dysfunctional lifestyles, they are at 

risk for continued destructive behaviors 

and further justice involvement. Promising 

programs such as specialized treatment 

courts, mentoring, and evidence-based 

interventions have been developed and 

implemented in order to pursue positive 

behavioral change in at-risk youth. These 

programs vary in quality, but when well 

designed and implemented with integrity, 

they may positively impact targeted youth. 

Research shows that well designed and 

implemented JTDCs can have an impact in a 

number of different areas:1

•Reduce recidivism; 

•Reduce substance use/abuse; 

•Strengthen the potential for positive 

outcomes for youth participants in 

JTDCs; and 

•Increase cost-effectiveness, particularly 

when utilizing a wide range of nondetention based sanctions (e.g., stricter 

curfews, retracting opportunities for 

bonuses/rewards, etc.). 

JTDC programs that adhere to evidencebased practices (EBP)i

 and that actively 

address parental supervision and peer 

influence can significantly increase positive 

outcomes. Further, frequent and high quality 

training of JTDC personnel is associated 

with improved outcomes. Finally, JTDCs that 

have consistent policies and procedures 

and stability in staffing have greater costbenefit ratios.2 Mentoring programs in 

JTDCs can potentially enhance the success 

and effectiveness of these courts, providing 

another resource to the JTDC team. 

However, implementing mentoring programs 

in JTDCs requires operational stability and 

significant collaboration among the JTDC 

team, community, and stakeholders. JTDCs 

i In operational terms, evidence-based practice refers to 

applying the best available research to policies, practices, and 

procedures when working with youth, their families, and the 

communities in which they live. EBP is the progressive, 

organizational use of direct, current scientific evidence to guide 

and inform efficient and effective services. EBPs are practices 

that have scientific evidence to support specific outcomes 

given specific uses and implementation.

Introduction

A Review of Mentoring 

Programs and Research
2 MENTORING IN JUVENILE TREATMENT DRUG COURTS NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JUVENILE AND FAMILY COURT JUDGES

that have these foundations in place are in 

the best position to benefit their youth by 

adding a mentoring program.

Mentoring Programs and 

Outcomes

The U.S. Office of Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention’s (OJJDP) website 

includes three mentoring-based programs 

in its Model Program Guide: Big Brothers 

Big Sisters (BBBS), Across Ages, and 

the School-Based Mentoring Program 

for At-Risk Middle School Youth. BBBS 

is a community-based mentoring (CBM) 

program that features one-to-one mentoring 

in a community setting. Across Ages is 

a mentoring initiative designed to delay 

or reduce substance use by increasing 

the resiliency and protective factors of 

at-risk middle school youths through a 

comprehensive intergenerational approach. 

The School-Based Mentoring Program 

is also a one-to-one mentoring program 

designed for middle school students who 

have had high numbers of office disciplinary 

referrals and unexcused absences. More 

information about these programs can be 

found through the OJJDP website. Although 

most jurisdictions might not have access 

to these specific mentoring programs, 

they are good examples of programs that 

provide structured mentoring relationships 

for at-risk youth and typically report 

positive impacts on youth.3,4 For courts that 

do not have access to well-established 

mentoring programs provided by reputable 

organizations, this brief serves as an 

informative guide to help JTDCs develop 

mentoring programs, based on research 

and recommended practice. 

Past research regarding mentoring 

programs in the juvenile justice system has 

yielded mixed results.5 However, a metaanalysis (an analysis of several research 

studies) provided evidence that at-risk 

youth benefit from mentoring programs, 

such as reduced delinquency and increased 

involvement within communities and 

schools.6 Although there is not a great deal 

of solid research on mentoring programs 

specifically related to juvenile justice 

youth, there is plenty of research on the 

characteristics of effective and successful 

mentoring programs. This research 

suggests several key aspects of mentoring 

programs that are associated with effective 

practice including: length of the mentoring 

relationship, gender matching, crossgenerational relationship, relationship 

styles, communication styles, education 

focus, and connections with socializing 

agents in the community. 

Length of Mentor-Mentee Relationship 

The length of a mentor/mentee relationship 

influences the outcome of the mentoring 

relationship, such that longer term 

mentorships report higher success rates 

when relationships are established and not 

abandoned.7 This supports the aim of many 

programs to retain volunteers and mentors 

for significant lengths of time in hopes of 

creating and sustaining stable relationships 

between mentors and mentees. Typically, 

a mentoring relationship lasting at least 

a year is the goal. However, anecdotally, 

shorter mentoring relationships might still 

be effective if mentors are highly competent 

and activities are structured and mutually 

beneficial.

Gender Focus and Matching

Mentor programs benefit mentees when 

matching the mentors and mentees 

on various demographic and social 

characteristics. Matching practices enhance 
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JUVENILE AND FAMILY COURT JUDGES MENTORING IN JUVENILE TREATMENT DRUG COURTS 3

the bonds and relationships between 

mentors and mentees.8,9 Gender-focused 

mentor programs (programs that assign 

same gendered mentors to mentees) also 

promote an increased likelihood of strong 

bonds between mentors and mentees.10

Further, mentor/mentee matching is also 

important in addressing cultural and 

social similarities among individuals. It 

appears there is an advantage when a 

mentor has experienced similar societal 

or cultural challenges as the mentee and 

has successfully coped with them. Being 

able to relate to a mentee’s situation and 

experiences gives the mentor an enhanced 

understanding of the mentee’s perspective 

and provides hope to the mentee for 

positive future outcomes. 

Mentor-Mentee Relationship Style 

Mentor/mentee relationships rely on trust, 

structure, and activity.11 Relationship 

styles between mentors and mentees 

make a difference in the impact of the 

relationship, and these relationship styles 

might vary depending on the mentee. 

Relationship styles include active (high 

activity, lower communication, and problem 

solving), moderate (moderate activity 

and structured support), low-key (high 

structure and support but low activity), and 

unconditionally supportive (high support 

and structure but moderate activity). Both 

active and moderate relationship styles are 

associated with the most positive results 

and the most value out of all relationships 

styles according to the mentees. Active 

relationships involve a high level of 

participation in mentoring activities. These 

activities appear to be the central bonding 

characteristic of the mentoring relationship. 

However, active relationships were also 

the most unstructured out of all of the 

relationship styles. Moderate relationships 

involve participation in fewer mentoring 

activities, but include moderate structure 

and conversations revolving around goals 

and future plans.12

Both active and moderate relationship 

types produced significant positive 

behavioral changes in mentees. Moderate 

relationships were related to increased 

self-worth and school competence and 

decreased feelings of alienation, inequality 

with friends, and conflict with friends, family, 

and classmates. Active relationships were 

related to increased emotional support, 

intimacy with peers, and school competence 

(see Table 1).13

TABLE 1. IMPACT OF RELATIONSHIP STYLES BETWEEN MENTORS AND MENTEES

Active Relationships Moderate Relationships

•High level of participation in mentoring 

activities 

•Activities are the central bonding characteristic 

of the mentoring relationship

• Most unstructured out of all of the relationship 

types

•Increased emotional support, intimacy with 

peers, and school competence

•Lower level of participation in mentoring 

activities

•Increased conversation about goals and future 

plans

•Result in moderate structure

•Relate to increased self-worth and school 

competence

•Decreased feelings of alienation, inequality 

with friends, and conflict with friends, family, 

and classmates
4 MENTORING IN JUVENILE TREATMENT DRUG COURTS NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JUVENILE AND FAMILY COURT JUDGES

Cross-Generational Relationships 

Research on cross-generational mentoring 

suggests that mentorships benefit from 

adopting aspects of a secure parenting 

relationship rather than simply a peer 

relationship.14 Cross-generational programs 

include the usefulness of caring non-familial 

adults, contributing to the resource of social 

capital (or social resources), recognizing and 

addressing issues involving attachment, 

integrating developmental assets, 

building youth resilience, and developing 

generalizable social skills. Non-parent adult 

mentors might also better provide job and 

skill training indirectly because they have 

more experience in a career. They also have 

overcome more barriers to employment, 

strong familial bonds, stable finances, and 

health, compared to younger mentors (e.g., 

young adults or college students). This 

allows these types of mentors to provide 

significant insight into equipping youth with 

problem-solving strategies, and this can be 

beneficial for both high risk/high need youth 

along with well-adjusted youth. 

Communication Styles 

While relationship styles between 

mentors and mentees appear important, 

communication styles could also significantly 

influence the impact of mentor relationships 

on mentees. Communication approaches 

such as Gerard Egan’s (2002) SOLER model 

and Dennis Rivers’ (2012) Seven Challenges 

model might enhance the ability of mentors 

to communicate positive messages to 

mentees. Understanding and implementing 

communication effectiveness might increase 

the overall attitude and behavioral change of 

mentees.15,16

Education Focus

Mentor programs often address at-risk 

youth and delinquency prevention in 

educational settings. Some programs 

suggest that intervening through education 

and employment has the potential to 

address the root causes of juvenile 

delinquency and crime.17 These types 

of programs can provide numerous 

benefits to youth but rely on a high level 

of collaboration among the mentoring 

program, school, and employers. Applied 

to the juvenile justice system, this type 

of program would also require effective 

collaboration of juvenile justice system 

professionals. 

Community Socializing Agents

Appropriateness of environment is also 

important in mentor/mentee relationships. 

Socialization agents, such as community 

organizations (e.g., schools, churches, 

or other local organizations centered on 

well-organized mentoring programmatic 

activities and familial involvement), can help 

or hinder mentor/mentee relationships.18,19,20

Collaboration between JTDC mentoring 

programs and these organizations is 

critical and can significantly enhance the 

effectiveness of mentoring programs and 

the impact of mentoring programs on youth.

Effective Mentoring Practices Applied to 

JTDC Programs

JTDCs have several features that fit well with 

the characteristics of mentoring programs 

described above that research has found 

to be effective. Because JTDC programs 

can last from 9 to 24 months (or longer), 

long-term mentor/mentee relationships 

are achievable, and they might lead to 

relationships that extend beyond the term 

of the JTDC program. However, because 
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JUVENILE AND FAMILY COURT JUDGES MENTORING IN JUVENILE TREATMENT DRUG COURTS 5

youth are usually in the program for 

several months before receiving a mentor, 

shorter programs (e.g., 9-12 months) might 

include structural barriers, preventing the 

positive effects of long-term relationships. 

JTDCs can gender match mentors/

mentees relatively easily as well, but this 

is dependent on the mentoring pool. Some 

JTDCs have very small mentoring pools or 

use a few paid mentors for several youth. 

In these cases, gender-matching might be 

difficult. Still, JTDCs should strive to match 

mentors and mentees as best as possible. 

Mentoring programs can also include 

a focus on relationship style and 

communication style in the criteria they 

use and the information they obtain 

from mentors and mentees about their 

preferences and interests. JTDCs can help 

facilitate the use of effective relationship 

styles and communication styles by 

providing adequate opportunities for 

certain activities and events consistent 

with the relationship and communication 

style. This individualized approach to 

mentoring relationships is consistent with 

what JTDCs already do to individualize 

other aspects of the program (e.g., case 

planning and treatment planning). Lastly, 

JTDC programs that already emphasize 

school participation and educational 

achievement would find it easy to 

implement a school and education-based 

focus within their mentoring program.

In sum, several mentoring strategies have 

evidence to support their effectiveness in 

youths’ lives. JTDCs have certain structures 

that enable them to incorporate many 

of these processes into their existing 

practices. However, JTDCs might also face 

barriers to implementing some of these 

practices.

Best Practices

Outcomes from mentoring program 

evaluations suggest that program success is 

strongly linked to the application of theorydriven and evidence-based practices.21

According to research, the best results for 

mentor programs are achieved by: 

•Implementing a formal structure; 

•Developing clear expectations; 

•Providing consistent and ongoing 

support for mentors, mentees, and 

family members; and

•Implementing organizational selfmonitoring practices (e.g., staff 

evaluation and training). 

Further, the research suggests that the 

best practices for mentors include: 

•Appropriate and adequate training 

in mentoring program rules and 

guidelines (e.g., 6-8 hour orientation 

and consistent training opportunities 

throughout the program); 

•Commitment to the mentor 

relationship (typically a year or longer); 

•Incorporation and respect for the 

mentee’s family, outlook, and 

attitudes (e.g., culture); 

•Engaging in mutually enjoyable and 

beneficial activities; and

•Access to support from the mentor 

program, communities, schools, and 

other organizations.

Combined, these best practices can lead 

to the mentee’s success in school and the 

community, an increased sense of selfworth, improved communication skills, 

and a long-term contribution to society.22,23

Mentor programs incorporating several 
6 MENTORING IN JUVENILE TREATMENT DRUG COURTS NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JUVENILE AND FAMILY COURT JUDGES

or all of these practices may contribute 

to longer mentor/mentee relationships, 

increased school attendance, improved 

grades, reduced violence, reduced drug 

use, increased positive behaviors, increased 

peer relationship behaviors, improved 

relationships with parents, and active 

participation in societal events.24,25,26

Similarly, understanding the frameworks 

of effective organizations can benefit 

courts when implementing mentoring 

programs. Below is a list of characteristics 

found in highly effective organizations. 

Characteristics of effective organizations 

can help inform good practices for JTDC 

mentoring programs and help create 

effective structural processes.

Twelve Characteristics of Effective 

Organizations:

27

1. Clear, specific, and measurable goals;

2. Clear, documented, and shared values;

3. Clear internal communication;

4. Alignment of mission, vision, values, and 

strategic objectives;

5. Clear and unambiguous organizational 

roles; precisely defined 

duties and responsibilities;

6. Clarity regarding individual goals, 

including measurable benchmarks 

for evaluating performance;

7. Performance is measured and evaluated 

on a consistent basis;

8. Incentives for people who consistently 

meet their goals;

9. Consequences for people who 

consistently fail to meet their goals; 

10. Candor: highly successful companies 

uphold the highest standards

 of openness, honesty, and fairness;

11. People recognized as the most 

important resource; and

12. Recruit, train, motivate, and develop 

good people.
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JUVENILE AND FAMILY COURT JUDGES MENTORING IN JUVENILE TREATMENT DRUG COURTS 7

Observations from Juvenile 

Treatment Drug Courts with 

Mentoring Programs

Data Collection

1. Site Visits

From 2012 through 2013, NCJFCJ staff 

conducted on-site technical assistance 

visits to 10 jurisdictions operating JTDC 

Mentoring Programs. These 10 sites 

received a grant from OJJDP to implement 

a mentoring component within their already 

existing JTDCs. The purpose of the site 

visits was to gather information about the 

personnel, policies, and practices in place 

to operate JTDC Mentoring Programs. 

Each site visit included a review of the 

available materials describing the mission, 

scope, purpose, and operations of the 

respective program as well as interviews or 

meetings with one or more key personnel: 

the juvenile drug court judge, the program 

coordinator, the program manager, the 

mentor coordinator, mentors, the JTDC 

case worker, and the juvenile probation 

officer. On-site, NCJFCJ staff met with one 

or more mentees as well. In addition, staff 

met with educators, service providers, law 

enforcement, and other interested parties 

in the community. On-site activities also 

included observations of JTDC staffing 

sessions and hearings.

2. Focus Groups

In addition to conducting the site visits with 

the 10 jurisdictions listed above receiving 

OJJDP funding, NCJFCJ staff held a focus 

group meeting in January 2014. Selected 

drug court and mentoring professionals 

from each of the sites attended the focus 

group meeting to discuss the effective use 

of mentors in a JTDC. During the focus 

group meeting, the participants completed 

a force field analysis addressing key factors 

THE FOLLOWING JURISDICTIONS HOSTED SITE VISITS

Ashland County, WI Monroe, County, NY

Brown County, MN Muscogee County, GA

Denver, CO St. Mary’s County, MD

El Paso County/Ysleta Del Sur Pueblo, TX Washoe County, NV

Maricopa County, AZ Worcester County, MD
8 MENTORING IN JUVENILE TREATMENT DRUG COURTS NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JUVENILE AND FAMILY COURT JUDGES

that increased the chance of success 

(i.e., driving forces), as well as factors that 

inhibited success (i.e., restraining forces) for 

mentoring programs within JTDCs.ii

Results: Key Components of 

Mentoring Programs within 

JTDCs

1. Mission and Goals 

A strong mission points an organization in 

the right direction, from which logical goals 

and objectives may be derived. Mission 

statements and goals are a key component 

in mentoring programs. Effective mission 

statements are short, memorable, and 

meaningful and share a number of other 

common characteristics. Characteristics of 

effective missions include28:

•Emphasizing the organization’s core 

values;

ii For the focus group seminar, NCJFCJ also invited participants 

from Dayton, OH and Caldwell, ID.

•Recognizing the major spheres of 

interest in which the organization 

operates;

•Providing a long-term or strategic point 

of view;

•Focusing on just a limited number of 

goals; and

•Pointing to desirable organizational 

outcomes.

During the focus group meeting, a 

mentoring program’s mission and goals 

were frequently mentioned as the most 

important programmatic component to 

success; they were viewed as foundational 

when implementing a mentoring program 

(or any program). The most prevalent goals 

suggested by missions across the sites 

included both reducing substance use and 

providing mentors for each of the youth. 

These goals overlapped for both JTDCs 

and mentoring programs, suggesting that 

collaboration between mentoring programs 

and JTDCs could be mutually beneficial in 

accomplishing these goals. Other important 

goals for both JTDCs and mentoring 

programs, shared by the majority of sites, 

include: 

•Increasing community safety;

•Increasing pro-social behavior; and

•Increasing family functioning.

Factors related to mission and goal 

achievement include: 

•Team members skilled in specific jobs, 

tasks, or roles;

•Community support and recognition;

•Adequate resources for the mentor and 

the program; and

•Positive catalysts (initiators of positive 
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JUVENILE AND FAMILY COURT JUDGES MENTORING IN JUVENILE TREATMENT DRUG COURTS 9

and productive practices).

Factors identified as inhibiting mission and 

goal achievement include: 

•Lack of adequate resources;

•Competing visions/goals;

•Family cynicism;

•Poverty and mental illness;

•Status quo mentality (not wanting to 

change/improve); and

•Lack of mission clarity – lack of 

vision and goal clarity seemed to be 

a common area of conflict as one 

member of the focus group suggested 

that when two people have competing 

goals, they end up pulling the youth in 

two different directions by confusing 

the youth and holding conflicting 

expectations.29

2. Follow the Model

Program models are typically structured 

sets of specific elements or characteristics 

related to the purpose or outcome of 

the program.iii The specific mentoring 

model utilized in each of the sites is 

another important component of mentor 

programs within JTDCs. This includes both 

the overall JTDC model as well as the 

specific mentoring model used. Effective 

mentoring models proposed by the sites 

were characterized by a clear mission, 

unambiguous goals, measurable objectives, 

implementation with integrity, and a 

commitment to measuring performance 

and evaluation outcomes. The Mentoring 

JTDC sites we visited employed juvenile 

treatment drug court models or youth 

iii In organizational terms, a model is an adjective meaning 

very good or excellent and deserving to be copied by others. 

Although having an excellent mentor program is ideal, fidelity to 

a good program is more realistic and equally important.

and family driven models characterized 

by significant incorporation of treatment 

planning, mentor matching, and programrelated decisions, emphasizing empowering 

youth. Participants from the sites identified 

several factors related to maintaining youth 

and family driven models.

Factors related to following the model 

include: 

•High levels of collaboration;

•High levels of communication among 

the JTDC team, mentors, and the 

mentor program team;

•Freedom of choice for mentors (the 

ability to choose qualified mentors 

rather than being assigned with 

available mentors);

•Effective and/or evidence based 

training for mentors (e.g., conflict 

resolution, at-risk youth, cultural 

competence, etc.); and

•Adequate guidance/training for mentors 

by the JTDC and mentor program 

teams.

Factors identified as inhibiting the ability to 

follow the program model include: 

•Contractual constraints (e.g., where, 

when, and how long mentors/mentees 

can meet);

•Poor community connections; and

•Lack of collaboration and funding.

The TA sites followed a variety of practices 

related to the use of paid or volunteer 

mentors and one-on-one or group activities 

for how mentors and mentees spent time 

together. Five sites used volunteer one-toone mentors, five sites used paid one-toone mentors, two sites used group mentor 
10 MENTORING IN JUVENILE TREATMENT DRUG COURTS NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JUVENILE AND FAMILY COURT JUDGES

models, and two sites used group peer 

mentor models. St. Mary’s County (MD) 

used both volunteer one-to-one and paid 

one-to-one mentors, and Ashland (WI) and 

Muscogee (GA) used volunteer one-to-one, 

group, and group peer models. 

Within these mentoring programs and 

juvenile drug court programs, program 

characteristics differed significantly. For 

instance, Muscogee County (GA) used 

volunteer mentors. Adults (21 and older) 

were recruited for one-on-one mentoring 

while college students (under 21) from the 

local university were recruited for peer 

group activities that are supervised by the 

mentoring program coordinator. This mentor 

program emphasized academic goals 

related to future success. The peer mentor 

group helped to provide role modeling for 

education success to mentees and provided 

opportunities for JTDC mentees to learn 

about setting and achieving academic 

goals. In this program, one-on-one mentors 

received a packet filled with a year of 

mentor/mentee activities for a new and 

interesting activity each week that included 

service activities. 

In Ashland County (WI), monthly structured 

group activities were provided for the 

mentors, mentees, and families to attend. 

Because culture was important, this 

program model also included activities 

that provided opportunities to explore 

cultural identity. These activities were 

popular among the bi-cultural and bi-racial 

youth. The Ashland County mentoring 

coordinator utilized L.I.F.E. (Living In Female 

Empowerment), a female empowerment 

program to help address female issues 

related to body image and self-esteem. 

Mentors were also allowed to attend family 

planning meetings with the youth and 

their family, if invited. This provided the 

opportunity for the mentoring relationship to 

guide some relational development between 

youth and their families.

Also, several juvenile drug courts used 

professional mentoring organizations to 

provide mentoring models for their drug 

court youth. For instance, El Paso County 

(TX) and Saint Mary’s County (MD) both 

Sites

MENTORING PROGRAM ELEMENTS

Volunteer 

One-to-One 

Mentors

Paid Oneto-OneGroup 

Mentor

Group Peer 

Mentor

Maricopa County, AZ x

Muscogee County, GA x x x

St. Mary’s County, MD x x

Worcester County, MD x

Brown County, MN x

Washoe County, NV x

Monroe County, NY x

El Paso County and Yselta Del 

Sur Pueblo, TX x

Ashland County, WI x x x
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JUVENILE AND FAMILY COURT JUDGES MENTORING IN JUVENILE TREATMENT DRUG COURTS 11

used Big Brothers Big Sisters (BBBS) 

as mentoring agencies. BBBS provides 

a mentoring model for youth which is 

evidence-based and typically related 

to positive outcomes. The use of these 

organizations helped provide structure 

to the mentoring program for JTDC youth 

without taxing the JTDC’s resources. 

Professional mentoring agencies provided 

the advantage of implementing an already 

developed professional mentor model that 

can be adapted to the specific court. These 

agencies can also help develop a mentoring 

case plan designed to address the specific 

needs of the JTDC youth and their families. 

However, not all sites found that external 

professional agencies fit with their JTDC 

program. In El Paso, the BBBS organization 

experienced significant conflict with the 

Ysleta Del Sur Pueblo court. Clashes in 

cultural understandings led to the court 

dropping the BBBS mentor service. Cases 

such as these stress the importance of 

cultural competence in implementing 

mentor programs. This is especially salient 

when hiring external professional mentoring 

agencies with previously established 

practices and procedures. Other courts 

might not formally hire professional services 

but instead adopt the models used by 

these professional services. In these 

situations, a court’s ability to adapt and use 

the resources available can be important 

when determining whether to use certain 

professional agencies with specific models 

or to develop a novel mentoring model 

specific to the court. 

Although these JTDCs use different 

mentoring strategies (e.g., paid, volunteer, 

one-to-one, and group), two common 

themes emerged. First, it is important to 

choose a model that fits best with the JTDC, 

and mentor strategies were found to be an 

important element. Second, adhering to 

that specific model and conducting frequent 

evaluations is foundational to a successful 

mentor/mentee relationship. This approach 

involves utilizing the resources in the most 

efficient and effective way (i.e., increases 

program sustainability and improves 

program facilitation). 
12 MENTORING IN JUVENILE TREATMENT DRUG COURTS NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JUVENILE AND FAMILY COURT JUDGES

3. Recruitment, Screening, and Matching

A third key component of mentoring 

programs was the recruitment, screening, 

and matching process. These steps in 

developing mentor/mentee relationships 

were considered crucial to a successful 

mentor program. Mentor recruiting 

processes might coincide with resources 

available to JTDCs and mentor programs, 

but enhanced recruiting strategies (using 

more or better recruiting mediums) can lead 

to an increased quantity of mentors. Larger 

mentor pools provide mentoring programs 

with more options when matching mentors 

with mentees.

The majority of the sites used word of 

mouth, human resources, and flyers/posters 

as recruitment strategies. For example, 

Monroe County (NY), Maricopa County (AZ), 

and Worcester County (MD) use human 

resources or civil service mechanisms to 

recruit mentors because these mentors 

are paid staff typically housed within 

other agencies. The mentor coordinator in 

Ashland County (WI) attends volunteer fairs 

and uses personal contacts (thought to be 

one of the most successful strategies for 

Ashland County) to find and obtain mentors. 

Muscogee County (GA) similarly uses 

volunteer and career fairs for recruitment; 

the coordinator also attends meetings with 

community organizations to promote the 

mentoring program and recruit mentors. 

Screening strategies used by the majority 

of the sites included criminal background 

checks, human resources screening, 

in person interviews, applications, and 

personal references. Other screening 

practices included making home visits, 

setting age requirements, and asking 

prospective mentors about their personal 

interests and life experiences (including a 

history of abuse). However, a majority of the 

sites do not use these strategies. Muscogee 

County (GA) initially had prospective 

mentors fill out an application including 

professional references, a background 

check, and personal information. Then the 

prospective mentors filled out an interest 

survey, and participated in an in-person 

interview in which the coordinator asked the 

prospective mentor numerous questions 

including perspectives on discipline. Lastly, 

the case manager conducted a home visit 

to a mentor’s home and planned a meeting 

between the mentor and mentee with the 

coordinator. 

Matching strategies used by a majority of 

the sites include matching youth to mentors 

by location, gender, interests, availability, 

and race/ethnicity/culture. 

Factors related to increasing chances of 

getting a stable match include: 

•Building a quality mentor pool;

•Establishing trust among mentors, 

families, and mentees; and

•Incorporating several factors in the 

matching process (e.g., matches on 

several characteristics such as gender, 

race, and culture).

Factors identified as inhibiting the ability 

to develop and maintain stable matches 

include: 

•Lack of resources and funding; and

•Inability to find mentors with critical 

matching characteristics.

For instance, Muskogee County (GA) 

experienced difficulty finding Caucasian 

mentors for their JTDC youth, but AfricanAmerican mentors seemed to be more 

available. Matching based on race and 
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JUVENILE AND FAMILY COURT JUDGES MENTORING IN JUVENILE TREATMENT DRUG COURTS 13

gender was considered important because 

it engendered the youths’ sense of being 

understood by their mentors. In Saint Mary’s 

County (MD), Ashland County (WI), and El 

Paso County (TX), mentors and mentees 

were matched on activity preferences or 

interests. This type of matching provides 

a common ground for both mentors and 

mentees in the relationship and also 

provides the mentors with an understanding 

of the types of activities the mentees might 

enjoy. 

4. Collaboration

Collaboration, or the extent to which all 

members of the program work together 

toward the same intended outcome, is 

the fourth key component of mentoring 

programs within JTDCs. Important 

collaborators included the juvenile 

court, juvenile probation, school boards, 

prosecutors, public defenders, and 

mentoring programs. For example, in Monroe 

County (NY), each JTDC team meeting 

included individuals from the family court, 

judge’s office, attorney’s office, mentor 

agencies, and the school district. Worcester 

County (MD) and Saint Mary’s County (MD) 

were highly collaborative programs. They 

included representatives from the office 

of the state attorney, the juvenile court, 

the department of juvenile services, the 

county health department, the board of 

education, the public defender’s office, and 

law enforcement as well as the juvenile 

drug court coordinator. In some sites, 

collaborating agencies also included mental 

health and private service providers. 

One key aspect of collaboration was the 

inclusion of mentors in court hearings 

and potentially case planning. Some sites 

mentioned this as an important component, 

but few sites implemented it. Allowing 

mentors to listen in and even speak 

up during these sessions can enhance 

the overall mentoring relationship and 

potentially provide relational insight in 

discussions about the youth, their progress, 

and challenges while in the JTDC. 

Factors related to enhanced collaboration 

across mentoring programs, mentors, and 

JTDCs include:

•Effective training; 

•Perceptions of being needed; 

•Recognition of efforts and success; 

•Strategies to increase team member 

communication, motivation, and 

commitment; and 

•Personal desire among mentors to help 

substance-abusing youth. 

Factors identified as inhibiting collaboration 

include: 

•Lack of funding; 

•Team turnover; 

•Lack of transition policies; 

•Burnout; and 

•Lack of community support.

Inclusion of mentors in JTDC programmatic 

practices and collaborative planning might 

increase the effectiveness of mentoring 

programs in JTDCs. Involving mentors in case 

planning, team meetings, treatment plans, 

incentives and sanctions, and educational 

activities may help to bridge the JTDC with 

the mentor program. However, confidentiality 

must be respected. 

However, an important consideration 

for mentoring programs within JTDCs 

is whether mentoring adds another

activity or requirement for the youth 
14 MENTORING IN JUVENILE TREATMENT DRUG COURTS NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JUVENILE AND FAMILY COURT JUDGES

that is perceived by the youth or family 

as a burden. JTDC youth are required to 

show up to court, attend treatment and 

school, and participate in service. Adding 

a meeting with a mentor each week might 

be overwhelming (to both courts and the 

mentee and mentees’ families). However, 

integrating mentors into the overall JTDC 

program might alleviate the perception of 

an additional requirement and instead instill 

the idea that mentors are simply part of the 

overall program and case plan. 

5. Community Support 

Community support is an essential 

programmatic component of mentoring 

programs within JTDCs. Community support 

increases the adaptability and sustainability 

of mentoring programs by providing 

mentors, funders, team members and 

collaborators, and communication agents. 

Community support can be present in the 

activities available to mentors and mentees, 

as in Ashland County (WI) and Muscogee 

County (GA). These counties have support 

from various local organizations and 

businesses that offer mentors and mentees 

activities such as skiing or snowboarding 

sessions, space for group meetings and 

events, activities for service projects, and 

other opportunities. 

Factors related to enhancing community 

support include: 

•Team investment in the mentoring 

and JTDC program;

•Community buy-in;

•Education and training for mentors;

•Advertising and raising awareness 

about the program; and

•Funding (state, federal, etc.).

Factors identified as inhibiting community 

support include: 

•Lack of community or program 

resources (e.g., funding, community 

activities, program teams support); 

and

•Lack of cultural awareness (this might 

stem from the lack of diversity among 

mentors).

In the focus group discussion, community 

support emerged as one of the most 

important resources for a mentoring 

program within a JTDC. Community support 

increases opportunities for contact 

between youth and positive environments, 

provides activities to fill in the gaps when 

mentors run out of ideas, and gives youth 

a feeling and experience of belonging. 

Community support and engagement also 

provide the youth with future opportunities 

for employment, school, and productive 

leisure activities. These opportunities carry 

significant weight because they involve 

influential socialization agents. 
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JUVENILE AND FAMILY COURT JUDGES MENTORING IN JUVENILE TREATMENT DRUG COURTS 15

Tips for Starting Your Own 

Mentoring Program

The following four tips are considered to 

be the most important and foundational 

aspects of beginning or re-defining 

mentoring programs within JTDCs. These 

four aspects are listed in no particular order 

and are considered to be equally critical and 

important. 

Choose a Clear Mission, Clear 

Goals, and a Shared Vision

A clear mission and unambiguous goals help 

increase the effectiveness of mentoring 

programs. Clear goals assist with several 

factors: identifying and attaining necessary 

resources, increasing team cohesion, 

increasing family support, increasing overall 

mentor program effectiveness, and assuring 

that mentors and JTDC staff share the same 

vision. Important mission-driven goals in 

new and existing programs might include 

effective recruitment of mentors, careful 

matching of mentors with all program 

youth, active supervision and monitoring of 

JTDC youth, linking youth with appropriate 

services, providing training for mentors, and 

substance use reduction.

Practice Fidelity to the 16 

Strategies and Mentoring Model

Choosing a sustainable mentoring model 

is critical to the success of mentor/mentee 

relationships. Fidelity to this mentor model 

will benefit both the mentor and mentee and 

lead to program success and effectiveness. 

Fidelity may be increased through the 

availability of clear program missions and 

goals (i.e., aims and scope of mentoring 

program), significant training opportunities 

for mentors (i.e., extensive orientation 

training and periodic training throughout the 

program), and the use of one-to-one mentor/

mentee practices (i.e., unique mentor for 

each unique youth). Implementing these 

mentoring program model components 

will allow youth to achieve consistency 

and dependability with the same mentor, 

while also allowing mentors to adapt and 

attend to the needs of the relationship.

Also, JTDC fidelity to the 16 Strategies30 is 

essential. Overall program effectiveness and 

success are more likely to increase when 

the mentoring program operates in concert 

with the juvenile drug court model (i.e., 16 

Strategies) and the JTDC utilizes the mentors 

appropriately (fully embedding mentors into 

1.

2.
16 MENTORING IN JUVENILE TREATMENT DRUG COURTS NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JUVENILE AND FAMILY COURT JUDGES

the JTDC program practices and procedures). 

Fidelity to the mentoring model and the 

JTDC 16 Strategies will likely improve overall 

effectiveness, success, and goal attainment. 

Continuous evaluation and monitoring 

for fidelity will help ensure that JTDC and 

mentoring strategies are implemented and 

effective.

Use Effective Recruitment, 

Screening, and Matching Strategies

Including adequate recruitment and 

screening practices and carefully matching

mentors and mentees will enhance 

outcomes. JTDCs should employ various 

advertising strategies (e.g., word of mouth, 

posters, volunteer fairs, and want ads) 

and engage with various agencies through 

human resource departments to increase 

recruitment. JTDC mentor programs 

should conduct in-person interviews 

and criminal background checks for 

screening, and collect information regarding 

interests, availability, and demographic 

characteristics of mentors for matching. 

While effectiveness and success might be 

hindered by inadequate mentor pools and 

funding, increased trust and stability in 

mentor/mentee relationships might improve 

the process of acquiring quality mentoring 

relationships and increase positive 

outcomes for youth.

Implement Collaborative Planning 

and Strategies

Collaboration and community support

are essential to successful and effective 

programs. These may be enhanced through 

team members’ openness with each other, 

increased team member commitment, 

recognition of efforts by the JTDC team and 

mentors, motivation, advertisement and 

awareness of the program, and community 

interest and buy-in. When collaboration 

between courts and mentoring programs 

increases, it can help facilitate efficiency 

within the program and provide consistency 

and clear expectations for the youth. 

Also, increasing collaboration by including 

mentors in program and case planning 

could help increase continuity between 

mentoring and JTDC programs and the 

effectiveness of mentoring programs 

overall.

To learn more about the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges and 

the National Center for Juvenile Justice, visit www.ncjfcj.org or www.ncjj.org.

3.

4.
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JUVENILE AND FAMILY COURT JUDGES MENTORING IN JUVENILE TREATMENT DRUG COURTS 17

1 van Wormer, J., & Lutze, F. (2011) Exploring the Evidence: 

The Value of Juvenile Drug Courts. Juvenile and Family 

Justice Today, pp. 16-20.

2 See Note 1.

3 VanderVen, K. (2004). Adults are still needed! 

Intergenerational and mentoring activities. Reclaiming 

Children and Youth, 13(2), pp. 94-102.

4 Anastasia, T. T., Skinner, R. L., & Mundhenk, S. E. (2012). 

Youth mentoring: Program and mentor best practices. 

Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences, 104(2), pp. 

38-44.

5 Britner, P. A., Balcazar, F. E., Blechman, E. A., BlinnPike, L., & Larose, S. (2006). Mentoring special youth 

populations. Journal of Community Psychology, 34(6), pp. 

747-763.

6 DuBois, D. L., Holloway, B. E., Valentine, J. C., & Cooper, 

H. (2002). Effectiveness of mentoring programs for youth: 

A meta-analytic review. American Journal of Community 

Psychology, 30(2), pp. 157-197.

7 Rhodes, J., & Lowe, S. R. (2008). Youth mentoring and 

resilience: Implications for practice. Child Care in Practice, 

14(1), pp. 9-17.

8 Hovland, C. I., Janis, I. L., & Kelley, H. H. (1953). 

Communication and persuasion: Psychological studies of 

opinion change. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

9 Mills, J., & Jellison, J. M. (1968). Effect on opinion 

change of similarity between the communicator and the 

audience he addressed. Journal of Personality and Social 

Psychology, 9(2), pp. 153-156.

10 Holsinger, K., & Ayers, P. (2004). Mentoring girls in 

juvenile facilities: Connecting college students with 

incarcerated girls. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 

15(2), pp. 351-372.

11 Langhout, R. D., Rhodes, J. E., & Osborne, L. N. (2004). 

An explanatory study of youth mentoring in an urban 

context: Adolescents’ perceptions of relationship styles. 

Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 33(4), pp. 293-306.

12 See Note 11.

13 See Note 11.

14 See Note 3.

15 Egan, G. (2002). The skilled helper. Belmont, CA: 

Wadsworth.

Endnotes 16 Rivers, D. (2012). The Seven Challenges Workbook: 

Cooperative communication skills for success at home and 

at work. Creative Commons. Retrieved from http://www.

newconversations.net/sevenchallenges.pdf

17 Jones-Brown, D. D., & Henriques, Z. W. (1997). Promises 

and pitfalls of mentoring as a juvenile justice strategy. 

Social Justice, 23(4), pp. 212-233.

18 See Note 17.

19 Herrera, C., & Pepper, S. K. (2003). Faith in Action: 

Using Interfaith Coalitions to Support Voluntary Caregiving 

Efforts, Executive Summary. A Public/Private Venture 

Study.

20 Branch, A. Y. (2002). Faith and Action: Implementation 

of the National Faith-Based Initiative for High Risk Youth. 

Philadelphia, PA: A Public/Private Venture Study.

21 See Note 6.

22 See Note 4.

23 MENTOR (2009). Elements of Effective Practice for 

Mentoring: 3rd Edition. Retrieved from: http://www.

mentoring.org/downloads/mentoring_1222.pdf

24 See Note 17.

25 Tierney, J. P., Grossman, J. B., & Resch, N. L. (1995). 

Making a Difference: An Impact Study of Big Brothers Big 

Sisters. A Public/Private Venture Study.

26 Eells, S. (2003). Providing therapeutic mentoring. 

Corrections Today, 65(6), pp. 20-22.

27 Froschheiser, L., & Chutkow, P. (2007). Vital factors: the 

secret to transforming your business and your life. San 

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. 

28 Thomas, D. (2014). 7 (Easy) Steps to Measuring 

Performance of Juvenile Drug Courts. In B. E. Ortega, J. M. 

Pearce, W. L. Schiller, & D. Thomas, 7 series: 7 articles with 

7 easy steps to improving your juvenile drug court. Reno, 

NV: National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges.

29 See Note 28.

30 U.S. Department of Justice (2003). Juvenile Drug Courts: 

Strategies in Practice. Office of Justice Programs, Bureau 

of Justice Assistance.
22 MENTORING IN JUVENILE TREATMENT DRUG COURTS NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JUVENILE AND FAMILY COURT JUDGES

Notes

__________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________

Action Items:
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JUVENILE AND FAMILY COURT JUDGES MENTORING IN JUVENILE TREATMENT DRUG COURTS 23

_________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________
24 MENTORING IN JUVENILE TREATMENT DRUG COURTS NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JUVENILE AND FAMILY COURT JUDGES