1

Final Report

October 2012

Researching the 

Referral Stage of 

Youth Mentoring 

in Six Juvenile 

Justice Settings

An Exploratory Analysis

Contributing Authors

J. Mitchell Miller, Ph.D.

Holly Ventura Miller, Ph.D. 

J.C. Barnes, Ph.D.

Pamela A. Clark, National Partnership for Juvenile Services

Michael A. Jones, National Partnership for Juvenile Services

Ronald J. Quiros, National Partnership for Juvenile Services

Scott Bernard Peterson, Global Youth Justice

October 2012

This project was supported by Grant #2010-JU-FX-0118 awarded by the Office of Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. 

The opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication/program/

exhibition are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of the Department of Justice.
ii

Acknowledgments

Researching the Referral Stage of Youth Mentoring in Six Juvenile Justice Settings: 

An Exploratory Analysis benefited greatly from the assistance of many individuals and 

organizations. In particular, the authors wish to acknowledge the collaboration of the three 

national grant partners MENTOR: The National Mentoring Partnership and the project 

management team led by Libra Johnson, Global Youth Justice and the National Partnership 

for Juvenile Services, as well as the representatives from the juvenile justice settings and 

mentoring programs who participated in the research by agreeing to be interviewed and 

providing data necessary for analysis. We also would like to thank the Office of Juvenile 

Justice and Delinquency Prevention whose funding made this project possible, particularly 

our grant monitor Barbara Tatem Kelley.
iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Researching the Referral Stage of Youth Mentoring 

in Six Juvenile Justice Settings: An Exploratory 

Analysis, prepared for the Office of Juvenile Justice 

and Delinquency Prevention, examines the referral 

stage of the mentoring process across six 

juvenile justice system settings (Juvenile Corrections, 

Juvenile Detention, Juvenile Probation, Delinquency 

Court, Youth/Teen Court, and Dependency Court). 

The current study reflects a commitment by the 

United States Department of Justice (USDOJ) to 

augment the empirical knowledge base on youth 

mentoring and move toward evidence-based best 

practices regarding the vital referral stage of the 

mentoring process. 

As a low-cost delinquency prevention and intervention option that capitalizes on the resources of local 

communities and caring individuals, mentoring has 

emerged as a promising delinquency reduction 

strategy for at-risk or high-risk youth. In general, 

the terms at-risk and high-risk refer to any youth 

who has a higher-than-normal probability of 

becoming involved in the juvenile or adult criminal 

justice system (for national probability arrest 

statistics, see Brame et al., 2012). Mentoring 

programs are suitable for service delivery in multiple 

forms ranging from popular one-to-one and group/

team approaches to peer-to-peer, cross-age 

and e-mentoring orientations and thus can be 

customized to a wide range of needs and situations. 

Mentoring relationships have dramatically increased 

in recent years for youth development, generally, and 

particularly for at-risk youth as an unprecedented 

amount of federal funding for mentoring initiatives 

has enabled wide scale implementation of mentoring 

programs. While mentoring services have substantially increased over the last few years, the empirical 

knowledge base on mentoring remains underdeveloped as too little empirical information exists 

to inform efforts to orient the mentoring community 

in evidence-based practices. 

In an effort to fill the gap in the knowledge base 

regarding the referral stage of youth mentoring 

processes, this report considers the following 

research objective driven questions:

1. What are the best practices in identifying and 

referring youth to mentoring programs across 

distinct juvenile justice settings?

2. What is the capacity of the mentoring community 

to support the youth identified for mentoring from 

six juvenile justice settings?

3. What is the quality of mentoring programs,

as defined by alignment with the Elements 

of Effective Practice for MentoringTM, across 

the juvenile justice settings?

4. What intermediate outcomes are achieved by 

mentoring throughout the settings? 

To examine these questions, a mixed-methods 

research design was employed that entailed the 

collection of original data obtained from instrumentdriven, site visit stakeholder interviews and a national 

survey on mentoring referral practices and related 

program capacity issues. The report begins with an 

overview chapter on youth mentoring with focused 

attention to mentoring at-risk youth, the diversity 

of mentoring forms and strategies, and review of 

the extant scientific literature regarding referral 

specific issues and evidence-based outcomes for 

delinquency prevention and reduction. The second 

chapter details the methodology followed by 

Chapters 3 and 4, which present qualitative (site 

visits) and quantitative (survey) findings, respectively. 

The report concludes with a fifth chapter that 

synthesizes the information collected from multiple 

sites and sources before discussing related 

implications for the mentoring community.
iv

Executive Summary

continued

Key findings include:

n Though not uniform, there are seven distinct 

steps in most referral processes from point of 

identification to mentoring relationship matching.

n Youth mentoring is overwhelmingly voluntary.

n Mentoring tends to be gender segregated with 

same gender mentor-mentee matches.

n The majority of mentoring is delivered by national 

level youth service organizations such as Boys 

& Girls Clubs and Big Brothers Big Sisters.

n The majority of mentoring settings examined 

utilize similar assessment criteria for determining 

suitability of referred youth for mentoring services.

n Intake and assessment of youth should precede 

referral.

n More youth are deemed eligible for referral than 

are ultimately matched with a mentor.

n The most pressing obstacle to matching is a 

shortage of qualified mentors; the lack of mentors 

is more pronounced for certain demographics, 

particularly African-American males.

n The most common reasons youth are not referred 

for mentoring services include violence, substance 

abuse and mental health issues.

n Youth and family member demeanor often play 

a significant role in the decision to refer.

n Juvenile justice settings using embedded 

mentoring programs more readily facilitate 

matching.

n The majority of mentoring is delivered in 

one-on-one and community contexts.

n Very few juvenile justice settings follow up with 

youth after referral.
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW OF MENTORING 1

The History and Evolution of Youth Mentoring 3

Mentoring and Delinquency Prevention and Reduction 5

 Mentoring For Delinquency Prevention and Reduction Across 6

 Juvenile Justice and Youth Work Settings

Types of Mentoring 7

 School-Based Mentoring 7

After-School Mentoring 7

Faith-Based Mentoring 8

Community-Based Mentoring 9

Referral to Youth Mentoring 10

 Selection Criteria for Youth Mentoring 10

Referral: Risk Status and Social-Demographic Factors 11

Mentoring Outcomes and Implications for At-Risk and System-Involved Youth 12

CHAPTER II: METHODOLOGY 16

Research Design and Objectives 16

Research Objectives 17

Qualitative Research Methodology: Site Visits 17

Site Visits and Questionnaires 21

Sample and Data 26

Quantitative Methods: National Survey 26

Sampling Strategy 27

Sample Size, Response Rate and Sample Coverage 30

Analysis Plan 34

CHAPTER III: QUALITATIVE FINDINGS 34

Site Visit Descriptive Data 43

Delinquency Court Site Visits 43

The Referral Process for Delinquency Court 44

Program Capacity and Characteristics: Delinquency Court 45

Outcomes for Mentoring: Delinquency Court 45

Dependency Court Site Visits 45

The Referral Process for Dependency Court 46

Program Capacity and Characteristics: Dependency Court 47

Outcomes for Mentoring: Dependency Court 48

TABLE OF CONTENTS

v
vi

Table of Contents

continued

Youth/Teen Court Site Visits 48

The Referral Process for Youth/Teen Court 48

 Program Capacity and Characteristics: Youth/Teen Court 49

 Outcomes for Mentoring: Youth/Teen Court 50

Juvenile Corrections Site Visits 50

 The Referral Process for Juvenile Corrections 50

 Program Capacity and Characteristics: Juvenile Corrections 51

 Outcomes for Mentoring: Juvenile Corrections 52

Juvenile Detention Site Visits 53

The Referral Process for Juvenile Detention 53

 Program Capacity and Characteristics: Juvenile Detention 53

 Outcomes for Mentoring: Juvenile Detention 54

 Juvenile Probation Site Visits 54

 The Referral Process for Juvenile Probation 54

 Program Capacity and Characteristics: Juvenile Probation 55

Outcomes for Mentoring: Juvenile Probation 56

SITE VISITS SUMMARY BY SETTING 56

CHAPTER IV: QUANTITATIVE FINDINGS FROM NATIONAL SURVEY 59

FINDINGS FROM STEP 1: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS 59

 Part 1: Basic Information on Survey Respondents and Their Programs 59

 Part 2: Referral Stage Information from Juvenile Justice Settings Only 67

 Part 3: Referral Stage Information from Mentoring Programs Only 78

FINDINGS FROM STEP 2: INFERENTIAL STATISTICAL ANALYSIS 96

CHAPTER V: DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS 118

Referral to Mentoring for Juvenile Justice - Involved Youth: Summary and Overview 118

KEY FINDINGS FROM QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS 120

References 123

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Qualitative Data Collection Instruments 128

Appendix B: OJJDP JuvJust Call for Participants 149

Appendix C: Survey 150
 1

Introduction and Overview 

of Mentoring

Delinquency Court (Juvenile 

and Family Court)

Delinquency Courts have jurisdiction over juveniles, 

juvenile delinquents, status offenders and children 

and youth in need of supervision. All juvenile courts 

are civil bodies, which means that juveniles cannot 

acquire a criminal record directly from Delinquency 

Court actions where the actions remain confined to 

the Delinquency Court. The Delinquency Court is 

most commonly associated with juvenile justice. 

Dependency Court (Juvenile 

and Family Court)

Dependency Courts involve a juvenile (child/youth) 

in cases most commonly associated with foster 

care, abuse and neglect. Dependency Court judges 

are charged with determining whether allegations 

of abuse or neglect are sustained by the evidence 

and, if so, are legally sufficient to support state 

intervention on behalf of the child. Some youth 

who appear in the Delinquency Court also appear 

in the Dependency Court at the same time for dual 

adjudicatory issues.  

Youth Court/Teen Court (Youth Justice)

Youth Courts are a juvenile justice diversion program 

in which juveniles are sentenced by their peers for 

minor crimes, offenses and/or violations. These

juvenile diversion programs are administered 

on a local level by law enforcement agencies, 

probation departments, Delinquency Courts, 

schools and local nonprofit organizations. These 

programs offer communities an opportunity to 

provide immediate consequences for primarily

first-time juveniles and they also offer important 

civic, service and volunteer opportunities for 

volunteer youth who serve as judges, defenders, 

prosecutors, clerks and jurors.

While there has been a considerable increase in advocacy and funding for mentoring in 

recent years, the empirical knowledge base remains under-developed. To close this gap 

between applied practice and knowledge regarding evidence-based and best practices, 

the current study explored and analyzed the referral process and related aspects of youth 

mentoring across six juvenile justice settings. These settings survey the scope of the 

juvenile justice system and reach a wide range of youth with various risk levels. The 

settings (Juvenile Probation, Youth Court/Teen Court, Juvenile Detention, Dependency 

Court, Delinquency Court, and Juvenile Corrections) are described in greater detail 

below and under the qualitative methods sample section (Chapter 2).

1
2

Introduction and Overview

continued

of quantitative findings and informed development 

of a national survey. A national level survey, in turn, 

enabled observation and description of referral and 

related mentoring practices and processes more 

generally. Exploration of the referral for mentoring 

phenomenon was based in four central research 

questions as described below.

Mentoring entails a relationship between older and 

more experienced adults and an unrelated younger 

mentee wherein ongoing guidance, instruction and 

support from the adult seeks to enhance the character and life skills of the mentee (Rhodes, 2005). 

The appeal and rise of mentoring is understandable 

as it is a low-cost delinquency prevention and 

intervention option that capitalizes on the resources 

of local communities and caring individuals. 

Mentoring services are suitable for services delivery 

in multiple forms ranging from popular one-to-one 

and group/team approaches to peer-to-peer, 

cross-age and e-mentoring orientations and thus 

can be customized to a wide range of needs and 

situations. Mentoring relationships have dramatically 

increased in recent years for youth development, 

generally, and particularly for at-risk youth as an 

unprecedented amount of federal funding for 

mentoring initiatives has enabled wide scale 

implementation of mentoring programs (Office 

of Justice Programs, 2011). 

While mentoring services have substantially 

increased over the last few years, the empirical 

knowledge base on mentoring is under-developed. 

There has been an ongoing commitment by the 

U.S. Department of Justice (USDOJ) to augment the 

empirical knowledge base on youth mentoring and 

move toward evidence-based practices as a major 

form of delinquency prevention and reduction. The 

majority of attention to mentoring has focused on 

important issues such as preferred processes for 

successfully matching adult mentors and youth 

Juvenile Detention 

Juvenile Detention refers to the legally-authorized 

temporary secure custody of juveniles who are 

accused of illegal conduct subject to the jurisdiction 

of the court and who require a restricted environment for their own or the community’s protection 

while pending legal action. Detention is often 

described as short-term immediate out-of-home 

placement in comparison to corrections. Some 

of the youth in detention are transferred to a 

corrections facility, but first must be adjudicated 

by the court.

Juvenile Corrections

Juvenile Corrections denotes a locked facility that 

has physical features that restrict the movement 

of adjudicated delinquent juveniles who are held in 

the facility as the Delinquency Court’s disposition. 

Juvenile Corrections is often described as long-term 

out-of-home placement in comparison to detention. 

Juvenile Probation 

Juvenile Probation refers to a sentence not 

involving confinement that imposes conditions 

and retains authority in sentencing court to modify 

conditions of sentence or resentence the juvenile 

offender for probation violations. Counties and 

cities often elect to have Juvenile Probation operate 

within an independent probation agency or Juvenile 

Probation will operate under the jurisdiction of the 

Delinquency Court.

As detailed in subsequent chapter sections, a 

research design utilizing qualitative (site visits and 

interviews) and quantitative (survey) data collection 

and analysis was executed in a stepwise manner 

(i.e., a mixed methods approach). Instrumentdriven qualitative work at a sample of selected sites 

enabled basic exploration and description of referral 

for mentoring practices, provided contextualization 
3

The History and Evolution of Youth 

Mentoring

The proliferation of youth mentoring programs in 

recent years has been the subject of considerable 

research and discussion (DuBois, Portillo, Rhodes, 

Silverthorn & Valentine, 2011). Estimates put the 

current number of programs and youth population 

served at more than 5,000 and approximately three 

million, respectively (MENTOR: National Mentoring 

Partnership, 2006). Despite the widespread proliferation of these programs, there is no officially or 

professionally designated description of what constitutes a mentoring relationship. Mentoring, however, 

is generally characterized as a relationship wherein 

growth and development of a younger protégé is 

fostered through instruction and support provided 

by an older, more experienced individual (DuBois & 

Karcher, 2005). Relationships can be formal and 

arranged through an organization that matches 

youth and adults or informal, naturally occurring 

connections such as those that develop between 

teacher and student. The former classification 

represents an estimated 30 percent of all mentoring 

relationships (Wood & Mayo-Wilson, 2012) and will 

be the focus of this review. 

While the dimensions and attributes of these 

relationships can vary across programs and settings, 

the common focus or purpose is to provide positive or pro-social influence on youth development in 

areas where it may be lacking. This theme of youth 

development is evident in the developmental stages 

of mentoring identified by Baker and McGuire (2005) 

that illustrate its growth and evolution in the United 

States. The noticeable increase and prevalence 

of delinquent behavior that accompanied the industrialization and urbanization boom of the early 20th 

century prompted creation of juvenile courts and 

demand for prevention and intervention efforts. 

Establishment of formal mentoring and service 

mentees, substantive modality elements, 

generally, and across mentoring forms, as well 

as consideration of which combination of factors 

and mentoring activities lead to successful 

outcomes. The current study focuses on the 

important referral stage of mentoring, a vital step 

in mentoring processes necessary to matching 

and mentoring services delivery.

This introductory section provides a background 

on youth mentoring so as to contextualize findings 

on the referral stage and related mentoring elements 

presented in subsequent sections. First, the history 

and evolution of youth mentoring are briefly 

observed en route to reviewing the extant literature 

on mentoring for delinquency prevention and

reduction across juvenile justice system and 

wraparound settings. Major forms of mentoring 

(e.g., school-based, after-school based, faith-based 

and community-based) are also recognized prior to 

observing the small amount of literature informing the 

focal concern of referral and related selection criteria. 

Last, the scientific evidence on the effectiveness, 

needs and prospects for mentoring development 

is reviewed. 

The second chapter of this report relates the 

methodology employed to investigate the referral 

stage, including reiteration of research objectives, 

sampling approach, description of qualitative and 

quantitative data collection instruments, and plan 

of analysis. The third chapter communicates 

qualitative findings from site visits to mentoring 

programs across juvenile justice system settings 

in three areas: 1) the referral process, 2) program 

capacity and characteristics, and 3) outcomes for 

mentoring. The fourth chapter presents descriptive 

and statistical information from national survey 

findings, including basic information on survey 

respondents and their programs. A final chapter 

summarizes conclusions and relates 

implications from the study.
4

Introduction and Overview

continued

The overall impact of mentoring on youth development has been positive with regard to outcomes 

such as improved attitudes, self-perception 

(LoSciuto, Rajala, Townsend & Taylor, 1996) and 

interpersonal relations, reduced truancy, dropout 

rates (Dondero, 1997; Jones-Brown & Henriquez, 

1997) and substance abuse (Bouffard & Bergseth, 

2008; LoSciuto et al., 1996; Thomas, Lorenzetti & 

Spragins, 2011; Tolan et al., 2008). Although more 

difficult to measure, mentoring proponents additionally suggest it increases protective factors such as 

resilience and social support (Day, 2006), translating 

to improved emotional wellbeing and interpersonal 

relations (Laakso & Nygaard, 2007; Thompson & 

Zand, 2010). These and other benefits, however, 

have been quite small in magnitude and shown to 

vary with program structure and relationship duration 

(DuBois et al., 2011; Enriquez, 2011; Keller, 2005; 

LoSciuto et al., 1996; Wood & Mayo-Wilson, 2012) 

as longer and better designed programs enhance 

positive effects of mentoring while shorter or prematurely terminated matches can have adverse consequences (Rhodes & DuBois, 2008). The pattern 

of small effect sizes found in recent meta-analyses 

by DuBois et al. (2011) and Wood and Mayo-Wilson 

(2012) is also underscored by the fact that mentoring 

is often part of a larger intervention program making 

its influence difficult to isolate from other factors. 

Given the lack of robustness and variability of 

mentoring effects, several concerns and limitations 

have emerged in the research literature. Outcomes 

and effectiveness differ for certain populations 

(DuBois et al., 2011; Enriquez, 2011; Keating, 

Tomishima, Foster & Alessandri, 2002; Smith & 

Stormont, 2011; Spencer, 2007; Tolan et al., 2008) 

and across different locations and settings (Bouffard 

& Bergseth, 2008; Dallos & Comley-Ross, 2005; 

Dappen & Isernhagen, 2006; Langhout et al., 

2004; Portwood & Ayers, 2005). Findings suggest 

gender, race, risk status and geographic location 

programs followed including Big Brothers Big 

Sisters, Boy and Girl Scouts and YMCA/YWCA. 

Interest in using a scientific approach and emphasizing crime control in the 1980s trumped delinquency 

prevention and mentoring as social service took a 

back seat until advocates and researchers refocused 

on developing best practices beginning in the 1990s. 

Part of mentoring’s attractiveness lies in the fact 

that it provides a seemingly simplistic and inexpensive remedy to the problem of diverting socially and 

economically disadvantaged youth away from risky 

or delinquent behaviors (DuBois & Karcher, 2005; 

Keller, 2005; Smith & Stormont, 2011). Matching 

of disaffected children and adolescents with caring 

adults who can offer emotional and social support 

that may be lacking at home or school is expected 

to counterbalance negative influences, helping 

youth to overcome hardships and avoid criminal 

involvement. Such assumptions and expectations 

are grounded more in faith than theory and do not 

consider the potential for participant characteristics 

as well as program structure and delivery or fidelity to affect intermediate and long-term outcomes 

(Newburn & Shiner, 2006; Rhodes, 2005; Rhodes 

& DuBois, 2008). Furthermore, the significance of 

adequate training, quality relationships, specified 

goals and linking program processes and activities 

with desired outcomes can be overlooked or ignored 

(Bouffard & Bergseth, 2008; Keller, 2005; Nakkula & 

Harris, 2005; Pryce & Keller, 2011; Spencer, 2006; 

Spencer, 2007; Thompson & Zand, 2010; Tolan, 

Henry, Schoeny & Bass, 2008). It is this absence of 

theoretical foundation and inattention to processes 

and practices that largely explains the mixed findings and positive but limited mentoring impacts 

documented in the evaluation literature (Coyne, 

Duffy & Wandersman, 2005; DuBois & Silverthorn, 

2005; DuBois et al., 2011; Newburn & Shiner, 2006; 

Rhodes & DuBois, 2008; Tolan et al., 2008; Wood & 

Mayo-Wilson, 2012).
5

While mentoring interventions for at-risk youth 

have been the subject of numerous studies and 

positive findings have fueled interest in and funding 

of corresponding juvenile offender programs, very 

little research has focused on mentoring for 

system-involved youth (DuBois et al., 2011).

Similar to outcomes with at-risk groups, mentoring 

results for re-entry and aftercare participants have 

also been inconsistent (Blechman & Bopp, 2005; 

Bouffard & Bergseth, 2008; Enriquez, 2011), and 

lack of rigorous testing has also presented problems. 

In a recent meta-analysis by DuBois et al. (2011), 

programs aimed at reducing juvenile offending 

were omitted due to underrepresentation and 

the potential for unreliable findings in this area. 

Mentoring has shown promise when used as a 

therapeutic approach in lieu of punitive responses 

to delinquency like boot camps or waiver to adult 

court (Jones-Brown & Henriquez, 1997). Findings 

suggest positive effects are stronger and more 

likely as part of a comprehensive re-entry program 

(Dubberley, 2006) but less effective for chronic 

offenders (Enriquez, 2011). It remains unclear, 

however, whether or exactly how much systeminvolved and high-risk youth can benefit from 

mentoring (Bouffard & Bergseth, 2008; Enriquez, 

2011). Understanding the influence of mentoring 

setting or location (school, community, justice 

system), population characteristics (risk level, 

needs) and the referral process (social, legal) can 

help contextualize findings and provide direction 

for future research. 

Unprecedented growth in funding and emergence 

of interventions targeting high-risk populations 

makes researcher and practitioner understanding 

of mentoring processes and the factors which 

moderate them that much more urgent and vital. 

Since 2004, $100 million has been allocated 

annually through the Departments of Education 

can all have an impact on mentoring experiences 

and results (Bogat & Liang, 2005; Keating et al., 

2002; Enriquez, 2011; Bouffard & Bergseth, 2008). 

Rhodes and DuBois (2008) also note that positive 

effects may not be sustained as many evaluations 

report only short-term outcomes and follow up is 

often lacking. Research additionally points out 

several problem areas practitioners and evaluators 

have neglected: modeling or structuring of programs 

(DuBois et al., 2011), delivery and implementation 

(Rhodes & DuBois, 2008), mentoring relationships 

(Keller, 2005) and targeting of populations (Smith 

& Stormont, 2011). 

Mentoring and Delinquency Prevention 

and Reduction

Since gaining wide acceptance as an intervention 

for socially and emotionally vulnerable youth, 

mentoring has also been enthusiastically embraced 

as a remedy for delinquency and misconduct 

among “at-risk” or “high-risk” youth and adolescent 

offenders. At-risk/high-risk is a broad classification but typically encompasses youth who, due to 

personal or environmental disadvantages, are more 

susceptible to negative life outcomes (Bouffard & 

Bergseth, 2008) but have not yet been labeled 

delinquent or offenders. In short, at-risk/high-risk 

youth are individuals whose probability of becoming 

involved in the juvenile or adult criminal justice 

system is higher than normal. Mentoring for this 

group is expected to function as a primary prevention or early intervention strategy to avoid or divert 

participants from the justice system. The term 

“system-involved” describes low level or chronic 

youth offenders who may be incarcerated or 

under community supervision. In these settings, 

mentoring is utilized as a reentry or aftercare 

approach to reduce or prevent recidivism (Bazron, 

Brock, Read & Segal, 2006; Bouffard & Bergseth, 

2008; Blechman & Bopp, 2005; Enriquez, 2011). 
6

Introduction and Overview

continued

subject to more scrutiny as existing evaluations have 

primarily focused on overall program effectiveness 

and outcomes (DuBois et al, 2011), with minimal 

but increasing attention to other factors. 

Because mentoring proliferation has largely been the 

result of grassroots efforts and occurred in absence 

of a prevailing model (Baker & McGuire, 2005), 

program structures, objectives and delivery vary 

widely but are typically framed around the 1) physical or social setting, 2) population to be served, or 3) 

desired outcomes (DuBois & Karcher, 2005; DuBois 

et al, 2011). While most interventions target generic, 

at-risk populations, some are tailored to very specific 

groups including teen parents, neglected or abused 

youth and children of incarcerated parents (DuBois & 

Karcher, 2005; Laakso & Nygaard, 2007). Expected 

outcomes vary and may or may not be explicitly 

stated (Newburn & Shiner, 2006) but often center 

on participant attitude (“soft” outcomes) or behavior 

(“hard” outcomes) modification (Dubberley, 2006; 

DuBois et al, 2011). Given that present populations 

of interest are limited to at-risk and system-involved 

youth, and mentoring for delinquency prevention/

reduction efforts is the primary focus, discussion 

here will concentrate on physical or social setting 

as a moderating factor. 

Although no formal mentoring typology exists, and 

some variation and overlap occur, interventions can 

be classified as site-based or community-based 

according to where most activity takes place 

(Sipe, 2005). Site-based programs generally operate 

out of schools, faith-based organizations and local 

service clubs (Dappen & Isernhagen, 2006; DuBois 

& Karcher, 2005) and may use paid or volunteer 

mentors. Activities are highly structured, may be 

group oriented and involve little or no interaction 

outside program functions, and relationships in this 

setting are often shorter in duration (Portwood & 

Ayers, 2005; Pryce & Keller, 2011; Smith & 

and Health and Human Services for mentoring 

children of incarcerated parents and academically 

disadvantaged middle-school students. The 

Second Chance Act, passed in 2008, offered 

funding through the Office of Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) and Bureau of 

Justice Assistance to provide mentoring services as 

part of juvenile reentry. In 2011, OJJDP granted $60 

million to national programs including Big Brothers 

Big Sisters and an additional $40 million to state 

and local programs. Since 1994, in excess of $500 

million has been appropriated to juvenile and youth 

mentoring by OJJDP, $97 million alone in 2010 

(Office of Justice Programs, 2011). The momentum 

behind this geographic and fiscal expansion 

of mentoring underscores the need for advancing 

the empirical knowledge base about program 

effectiveness.

Mentoring For Delinquency Prevention 

and Reduction Across Juvenile Justice 

and Youth Work Settings

Different contextual variables and dynamics have 

the potential to moderate or affect mentoring 

processes, outcomes and participant experiences. 

According to Rhodes’ (2005) model of youth 

mentoring, moderators include internal or individual 

youth characteristics, relationship and program 

aspects, and external or environmental factors. 

Few studies have extensively examined the effects of 

participant characteristics on mentoring relationships 

and outcomes (DuBois et al., 2011), and far fewer 

have analyzed the influence of external forces

including family and peer relationships on these 

interventions (Pryce & Keller, 2011; Spencer, 2007). 

These gaps in the literature are due to the limited 

availability of such data and because of the restricted 

ability of qualitative analyses to accurately operationalize and measure many of the intangible aspects of 

mentoring. Consequently, program setting has been 
7

(Smith & Stormont, 2011). Despite the inherent 

benefits, findings on mentoring effectiveness in 

school programs have been mixed (DuBois et 

al., 2011).

As part of a middle school substance abuse 

prevention curriculum emphasizing community 

service, life skills and protective drug/alcohol 

resistance skills, the mentoring group demonstrated 

significant positive outcomes compared to control 

and prevention without mentoring groups (LoSciuto 

et al, 1996). Effects of mentoring alone could not 

be disentangled from other activities, but results 

support other findings indicative of its greater 

potency as part of a comprehensive prevention 

program. Overall, meta-analyses have found small, 

nonsignificant positive effects for mentoring in a 

school context, but little or no improvement in 

outcomes (DuBois et al., 2011; Wood & MayoWilson, 2012) and consistently smaller effect sizes 

when compared to other program settings (DuBois 

et al., 2011). DuBois et al. (2011) and Wood and 

Mayo-Wilson (2012) concluded that school-based 

programs should produce enhanced outcomes 

with better development and increased duration. 

Due to concerns over economic and social 

disadvantages common to inner-city settings, 

school-based mentoring has also been examined

in urban and suburban locations to determine 

if differences in effectiveness exist. Dappen and 

Isernhagen (2006) determined both locations can 

offer similarly effective interventions and create 

positive changes, but noted urban settings may 

struggle with making timely and suitable matches as 

a result of the limited availability of willing mentors.

After-School Mentoring

Local service organizations sponsor site-based 

mentoring programs and offer weekend, beforeand after-school, and seasonal or summer activities 

Stormont, 2011). Community-based national 

organizations, such as Big Brothers Big Sisters, 

Boys & Girls Clubs and United Way, represent a 

slight majority of programs, are characterized by 

one-on-one mentor-protégé matches and involve 

less structured activities primarily occurring off-site 

at various locations (DuBois & Karcher, 2005). 

Participants determine scheduling and frequency 

of activities, and relationships tend to be longer, 

as a minimum one-year commitment is usually 

recommended (DuBois et al, 2011; Portwood 

& Ayers, 2005). Examples of each setting are 

described below; however, school- and communitybased programs are prevalent in the literature and 

will be covered in greater detail than other contexts. 

Types of Mentoring

School-Based Mentoring

Programs offered in the school setting are primarily aimed at academic improvement but also target 

other areas such as substance abuse and gang 

prevention, life skills, violence or aggression, and 

truancy. As with most site-based interventions, 

activities are organized around a set schedule and 

tend to be less social or recreational in nature. 

Relationships are shorter in duration and have less 

intensity of interaction than other settings because 

meetings are often no more than one hour each 

week and programs are confined to the nine-month 

school term (DuBois et al., 2011; Pryce & Keller, 

2011). Several advantages to school-based 

mentoring include its cost-effectiveness compared 

to other interventions (Portwood & Ayers, 2005), 

an abundance of natural mentors in teachers 

and setting conducive to identifying and targeting 

high-risk youth (McCluskey, Noller, Lamoureaux & 

McCluskey, 2004), convenience for participants with 

limited transportation access, immediacy of support 

and supervision, and a safe, neutral environment 
8

Introduction and Overview

continued

ties facilitating contact with at-risk and delinquent 

youth and placing them in a favorable position to 

positively influence outcomes through mentoring 

services. As with other site-based programs, there 

has been little intersection between practice and research, rendering the efficacy of these interventions 

largely undocumented and unclear.

Faith-Based Mentoring

Mentoring was a core component of President 

George W. Bush’s 2001 faith-based initiative to 

provide federal funding for nonprofits offering 

assistance and services to local communities 

(Maton, Santo Domingo & King, 2005). Under this 

policy, OJJDP has funded faith-based organizations 

as part of the Juvenile Mentoring Program (JUMP) 

and other youth advocacy initiatives. In order to 

qualify as faith-based, a congregation, tribal group 

or religious organization must provide mentors and 

program sponsorship. Similar to schools, congregations provide a ready supply of available mentors 

and share ties with local communities. Churches 

and nonprofits sometimes carry more credibility 

with inner-city families and minorities than secular 

organizations, and the spiritual or religious context 

may better facilitate emotional development and 

desired outcomes associated with mentoring (Maton 

et al., 2005). The potential for conflict between 

religious views of the organization and needs or 

beliefs of participants and their families presents 

special challenges for faith-based programs, as does 

the possibility of constitutional issues that may arise 

should organizational values clash with criteria linked 

to government funding (Maton et al., 2005).

While these programs provide the settings for a 

very small portion of youth mentoring interventions 

(Dappen & Isernhagen, 2006), their actual prevalence is unknown, and their scope is largely 

undefined. They are also not well represented in 

through their own locations or by partnering with 

schools and national groups like Big Brothers Big 

Sisters. Organizations such as YMCA/YWCA, 4-H, 

Girl/Boy Scouts, Rotary Club and Boys & Girls 

Clubs provide recreational, educational, cultural and 

vocational activities intended to promote 

development and prevent unsupervised youth from 

engaging in delinquent behavior (Hirsch & Wong, 

2005). Partnerships with educational and national 

organizations create some overlap with schooland community-based programs, and studies often 

do not distinguish after-school from school- or 

community-based mentoring. However, out-ofschool programs do differ from these other 

approaches because the settings vary and they 

frequently utilize group mentoring as opposed to 

one-on-one mentoring. Similar to school-based 

efforts, activities are structured and confined to a 

daily or weekly schedule set by the organization, 

but they are more varied than those offered in 

school programs. 

A 2005 evaluation linking after-school programs with 

limited positive effects led to substantial cutbacks 

in funding and political disputes over budgeting in 

the decade since the report (Hirsch & Wong, 2005). 

Very little research exists on after-school programs, 

and assessments have mainly been based on qualitative data measuring youth-staff relations and skill 

and personal development with minimal attention to 

specific outcomes and mentoring theory or literature 

(Hirsch & Wong, 2005). Some findings suggest these 

interventions are under-used with high-risk and older 

adolescents who could most benefit from them 

(Lauver, Little & Weiss, 2006). Other results indicate 

this same group might not respond positively in this 

particular type of setting (Enriquez, 2011) and may 

require more social support or one-on-one attention 

for mentoring to be effective. These organizations 

serve many disadvantaged and minority communi-
9

negative impact (DuBois et al., 2011). While reduced 

supervision and structure allows for relationships to 

develop more organically, lack of immediate support 

can further complicate the problems or challenges 

that arise (Weinberger, 2005).

Big Brothers Big Sisters provides the most 

prominent example of community-based mentoring 

and has been the subject of numerous evaluations. 

Findings indicate the one-on-one format and flexible 

structure may be more favorable for relationship 

development and bonding, ultimately promoting 

long-term positive youth development over 

temporary or immediate outcomes (Dallos & 

Comley-Ross, 2005; Keller, 2005; Langhout et al., 

2004; Pryce & Keller, 2011; Rhodes & DuBois, 

2008; Spencer, 2006; Thompson & Zand, 2010). 

Mutuality of mentor/protégé expectations, interests 

and desired outcomes can determine success or 

failure (DuBois et al., 2011; Pryce & Keller, 2011; 

Spencer, 2006; Spencer, 2007); consequently, the 

matching process is a key foundational aspect 

of this context. Similar to results with site-based 

research, benefits of the community-based setting 

also appear to be augmented when mentoring is 

supplemented by other prevention efforts (Dallos 

& Comley-Ross, 2005; LoSciuto et al., 1996). 

Efficacy of the community model is evident across 

different at-risk populations including but not limited 

to system-involved youth (Bouffard & Bergseth, 

2008), children and adolescents (Cavell & Smith, 

2005; Darling, 2005), children of incarcerated 

parents (Laakso & Nygaard, 2007), males and 

females (Bogat & Liang, 2005) and minorities 

(Sanchez, Esparza & Colón, 2008). Evaluations of 

interventions targeting system-involved and incarcerated youth are rare, however, and few mentoring 

programs use delinquency or recidivism as an 

outcome measure (Bazron et al., 2006; DuBois 

et al., 2011). 

the research literature as few have been studied and 

none have been systematically reviewed (Maton et 

al., 2005). Programs such as the Amachi Project 

and Tribal Youth Program represent mentoring 

interventions funded by OJJDP through faith-based 

initiatives. Amachi pairs at-risk urban youth with 

mentors in Philadelphia neighborhood congregations 

while Tribal Youth provides mentoring matches as 

part of reentry for Native American/American Indian 

juvenile offenders and delinquency prevention 

for other tribal youth. To date, these and similar 

interventions have produced positive effects but 

have by and large been evaluated on the basis of 

soft outcomes, such as improved confidence and 

self-esteem (Maton et al., 2005). 

Community-Based Mentoring

In contrast to site-based interventions, communitybased mentoring provides a less rigidly structured 

setting typified by social and recreational activities 

where participants determine meeting location, 

frequency and duration. Volunteers and youth are 

generally matched according to preferences and 

criteria provided to the organization, making the 

relationship and its effect on outcomes the focus 

rather than instrumental goals or objectives (Dallos 

& Comley-Ross, 2005). Caseworkers are assigned 

to provide some supervision but primarily serve in 

an advisory or supportive role. Because activities 

and interactions are less regulated, relationships in 

this context also tend to be less prescriptive or directive in tone and more enduring (DuBois et al., 2011; 

Pryce & Keller, 2011). This is important because 

relationship duration has consistently demonstrated 

a strong correlation with youth improvement across 

multiple outcomes (Grossman, Chan, Schwartz & 

Rhodes, 2011; Grossman & Rhodes, 2002; Rhodes 

& DuBois, 2008; Spencer, 2007), while shorter or 

untimely termination of relationships can have a 
10

Introduction and Overview

continued

regarding effects and implications of drug court 

referral offer reasonable comparisons for 

understanding and assessing mentoring referral. 

Examination of demeanor and other characteristics 

as predictors of selection reveals that individuals 

with certain traits are more likely to be admitted 

to drug court programs (Barnes et al., 2009; Miller 

et al., 2007). Research suggests corresponding 

patterns exist in the selection or identification of 

youth mentoring participants (Enriquez, 2011; 

DuBois et al., 2011; Rhodes, 2005; Tolan et al., 

2008). 

Selection Criteria for Youth Mentoring

Because a typology has not been established, 

mentoring programs are generally classified 

according to structural and environmental features 

or characteristics of participants (Sipe, 2005). The 

referral process, be it formal or informal, tends to 

reflect this same distinction in that selection is 

primarily contingent upon youth characteristics 

including risk status and fit with program objectives. 

For youth classified as at-risk due to social, 

economic or personal disadvantage, selection is 

often informal, unofficial and participation voluntary. 

Qualifying attributes range from academic 

difficulties and family disruption to emotional and 

behavioral issues (Dondero, 1997; Keating et al., 

2002; Weinberger, 2005). Parental consent and 

recommendation by teachers, counselors, social 

workers, clergy or other community members in 

regular contact with troubled youth are normally 

the only admission requirements (Dappen &

Isernhagen, 2006; Keating et al., 2002; Portwood 

& Ayers, 2005). 

Referrals may also occur as the result of formal 

partnerships between and among schools, 

faith-based groups, juvenile justice departments 

and national mentoring organizations (Maton et al., 

Referral to Youth Mentoring

Referral — the process by which youth come into 

contact with or are selected to participate in 

mentoring programs — and its impact are largely 

absent from the mentoring literature. Program 

access or entry is typically based on the perceived 

risk or vulnerability status of youth and, depending 

on the setting, determined by family members, 

advocates or professionals in the community 

(Bouffard & Bergseth, 2008; Dappen & Isernhagen, 

2006; Keating et al., 2002; Pryce & Keller, 2011; 

Tolan et al., 2008). Referral may be the result of 

justice system involvement or due to school staff 

or social workers recommending intervention in 

response to misconduct or performance issues. 

While self-referral is also an option for many 

programs, initiation of the referral process and 

decisions regarding which individuals will have 

the opportunity to participate typically reflect the 

discretion of a concerned and sympathetic or 

professionally obligated adult. This discretionary 

aspect of referral gives rise to the question of 

whether mentoring programs target youth in 

greatest need of services or rather those most 

amenable to intervention. As indicated by previous 

studies of referral (Barnes, Miller & Miller, 2009; 

Miller, Miller & Barnes, 2007), either scenario has 

implications for both participant outcomes and 

intervention efficacy. 

The literature on similar youth-centered interventions 

such as drug court provides a relevant context in 

which to consider referral and its potential influence 

on mentoring. Both mentoring and drug court 

programs tend to target low-level, non-violent 

juvenile offenders as part of delinquency prevention 

and reduction. While mentoring interventions often 

focus on at-risk youth, some admit system-involved 

participants and rely on referral criteria comparable 

to that of drug courts. Consequently, findings 
11

The purpose of referral is to ensure the intended 

recipients are being selected. Yet, inability to 

consistently and effectively target populations of 

interest is a common critique of mentoring programs 

(DuBois et al., 2011; Enriquez, 2011; Newburn & 

Shiner, 2006; Smith & Stormont, 2011). Besides risk 

of offending or recidivating, developmental stages 

(child versus adolescent), cultural distinctions, and 

emotional and mental health status should also 

inform selection or admission (Cavell & Smith, 2005; 

Darling, 2005; Smith & Stormont, 2011). In spite of 

its broad appeal, mentoring is not a one-size-fitsall intervention, and therapeutic needs may require 

supplemental programming (Cavell & Smith, 2005; 

Dallos & Comley-Ross, 2005).

In addition to risk status, other factors can affect 

referral and put some youth at an advantage or 

disadvantage for program admission. Selection 

by school staff or community members can be 

influenced by social factors and a desire to help 

certain individuals. In many cases, this effort may 

reflect the perception that some participants will be 

more amenable or compliant and, therefore, more 

predisposed to positive outcomes with mentoring. 

Research supports this notion as adults demonstrate 

more responsiveness and willingness in 

assisting youth who are socially competent, bright 

and perceived as resilient (DuBois et al., 2011; 

Rhodes, 2005). Qualitative findings regarding 

mentoring relationship processes additionally 

indicate at-risk youth desire support with serious 

personal issues such as abuse and neglect, but 

that adults are often reluctant and feel unequipped 

to tackle problems of this nature (Dallos & 

Comley-Ross, 2005). Consequently, at-risk youth 

who meet all other criteria but lack social skills 

or require emotional or mental health support may 

be excluded and fall victim to selection bias.

2005). Such partnerships are frequently the source 

of mentoring referrals for system-involved or 

high-risk youth in an attempt to reduce delinquency 

or prevent recidivism. With this population, similar to 

drug court, admission is often based on the client’s 

juvenile record and seriousness of offense and will 

usually be a legal condition of release or diversion 

to have a charge dismissed (Dubberley, 2006; 

Enriquez, 2011; Tolan et al., 2008). Incarcerated 

youth may also be admitted to mentoring 

interventions as a part of rehabilitation efforts in 

the form of job skills training or substance abuse 

treatment (Bazron et al., 2006). Risk status due to 

placement in foster care additionally qualifies as a 

referral criterion (Dallos & Comley-Ross, 2005). 

Processes vary with location and jurisdiction, but 

referral is typically initiated by law enforcement, 

probation officers, case workers, juvenile courts 

and corrections (Bazron et al., 2006; Bouffard & 

Bergseth, 2008; Enriquez, 2011; Langhout et al., 

2004; Newburn & Shiner, 2006). 

Referral: Risk Status and 

Social-Demographic Factors

Selection for mentoring programs, particularly those 

that adhere to a more formal structure, relies on 

some gauge of risk or vulnerability. As noted above, 

risk level tends to be a product of certain social and 

behavioral characteristics. While these factors may 

serve as dependable predictors of delinquency and 

demand for intervention, differing needs of “at-risk” 

and “high-risk” youth and the appropriateness of 

mentoring intervention (type, setting, structure) must 

also be taken into account (Blechman & Bopp, 

2005). Additionally, Cavell and Smith (2005) note that 

knowledge of youth development is necessary for 

accurately assessing risk. Because referral has 

not been closely examined or documented in the 

mentoring literature, little is known regarding the 

accuracy or efficacy of this risk assessment in 

determining which individuals to admit. 
12

Introduction and Overview

continued

literature, likely due to a lack of documentation 

regarding structure and processes of mentoring 

(Dallos & Comley-Ross, 2005; DuBois et al., 2011, 

DuBois & Silverthorn, 2005). However, evidence that 

drug court referral can be driven by factors unrelated 

to need or benefit potential (Barnes et al., 2009; 

Miller et al., 2007) suggests mentoring research 

and practice could benefit from utilizing a better 

structured or defined referral process and including 

referral as part of program evaluation. 

Mentoring Outcomes and Implications 

for At-Risk and System-Involved Youth

Mirroring outcomes with other populations, 

mentoring for at-risk and system-involved youth 

has generally positive but mixed effects (Bouffard 

& Bergseth, 2008; Dallos & Comley-Ross, 2005; 

Dappen & Isernhagen, 2006; DuBois et al., 2011; 

Enriquez, 2011; Keating et al., 2002; Laakso & 

Nygaard, 2007; Langhout et al., 2004; LoSciuto 

et al., 1996; Newburn & Shiner, 2006; Thomas et 

al., 2011; Tolan et al., 2008; Wood & Mayo-Wilson, 

2012), even when control or comparison groups are 

also examined. Participants report overall positive 

experiences and benefits (Dallos & Comley-Ross, 

2005; Laakso & Nygaard, 2007; Thompson & Zand, 

2010), and findings indicate improved behavior and 

attitudes are associated with mentoring interventions 

(Dappen & Isernhagen, 2006; DuBois et al., 2011; 

Keating et al., 2002; LoSciuto et al., 1996; Thomas 

et al., 2011; Tolan et al., 2008; Wood & MayoWilson, 2012). Single studies and meta-analyses, 

however, reveal a consistently muted effect size and 

that outcomes related to delinquency prevention 

and reduction vary or are rarely evaluated (DuBois, 

Holloway, Valentine & Cooper, 2002; DuBois et al., 

2011; Enriquez, 2011; Keating et al., 2002; Newburn 

& Shiner, 2006; Thomas et al., 2011; Tolan et al., 

2008; Wood & Mayo-Wilson, 2012). Furthermore, 

program practices and relationships — the change 

As previously noted, drug court referral provides a 

relevant context for understanding this potential for 

bias or “cherry-picking.” Both mentoring and drug 

court interventions rely on similar referral sources 

such as courts, law enforcement and school 

personnel and seek to reduce or prevent 

delinquency or offer an alternative to incarceration 

(DuBois et al., 2011; Miller et al., 2007). For 

system-involved youth, drug court referral offers 

insight into the influence of conduct, attitude and 

demeanor on admission, as those with favorable 

demeanor are significantly more likely to be selected 

to receive services (Miller et al., 2007). Additionally, 

similar patterns emerge when comparing the 

demographics of those admitted to youth 

mentoring and to drug court. Referrals are more 

likely to be male, white and from disrupted or 

single-parent homes (Barnes et al., 2009; DuBois et 

al., 2011; Miller et al., 2007; Tolan et al., 2008). While 

gender, race and family status are not significant 

predictors of drug court referral (Barnes et al., 2009; 

Miller et al., 2007), the magnitude of effect for these 

characteristics on mentoring referral is unknown. 

Notable differences also exist between drug court 

and mentoring which help explain the dearth of 

research on mentoring referral. Screening and intake 

is not common to mentoring practice, except for 

vetting of potential adult mentors (Dappen & 

Isernhagen, 2006; Dondero, 1997; Pryce & 

Keller, 2011; Rhodes & DuBois, 2008). Program 

descriptions reveal eligibility criteria exist but in lessstructured programs or more informal settings may 

not be stringently applied, and discretion is perhaps 

driven more by personality traits or sympathy than 

objective assessment (Rhodes, 2005; Walker, 2005). 

Determining eligibility can also be a more arbitrary 

process for “at-risk” youth given that the classification is so broad and imprecise. Data on youth 

mentoring referral is limited and does not seem 

to be the focus of any studies appearing in the 
13

2011). Yet, reviews indicate improvements and 

benefits may not be sustained (DuBois & Rhodes, 

2006), particularly if programs or relationships are 

short in duration (DuBois et al., 2011; Wood & 

Mayo-Wilson, 2012). Additionally, effect sizes tend 

to be small across all outcomes (DuBois et al., 2002; 

DuBois et al., 2011), failing to reach significance in 

some cases (Wood & Mayo-Wilson, 2012). While 

results are largely positive regarding mentoring as 

a delinquency prevention or reduction strategy, 

some studies reveal it may have limited potential 

for particular groups and individuals or in certain 

contexts (DuBois et al., 2011; Enriquez, 2011; 

Jones-Brown & Henriquez, 1997; Keating et al., 

2002; Langhout et al., 2004; Pryce & Keller, 2011; 

Spencer, 2007). 

Findings from a program targeting Juvenile 

Probationers suggest mentoring may not have the 

desired effects with chronic offenders, as re-arrest 

was three times higher for participants compared to 

the control group (Enriquez, 2011). Results here also 

signal that one-on-one mentoring may not offer 

any advantage over group mentoring because 

recidivism likelihood appears to be the same 

regardless of method used. Also worth noting is 

the fact that this study reinforces earlier findings 

that mentoring alone is not as successful as when 

supplemented with other treatments (Bouffard & 

Bergseth, 2008). Taken together with other study 

outcomes highlighting lengthier multidimensional 

programs and more precise targeting of participants 

(Bouffard & Bergseth, 2008; Keating et al, 2002; 

LoSciuto et al, 1996), research indicates mentoring 

produces more positive results when used as a 

delinquency prevention rather than reduction 

strategy and as part of a comprehensive approach. 

Although, Jones-Brown and Henriquez (1997) and 

Blechman and Bopp (2005) make the observation 

that at-risk youth fare better with mentoring than 

their counterparts subjected to more punitive 

agents of mentoring — receive far less scrutiny and 

assessment than outcomes in determining effectiveness (Dallos & Comley-Ross, 2005; Keller, 2005; 

Rhodes & DuBois, 2008; Spencer, 2006). 

Mentoring is linked with modest reductions in drug/

alcohol use and initiation, as well as violence and 

aggression and delinquency or misconduct in 

general (Bouffard & Bergseth, 2008; DuBois et al., 

2002; DuBois et al., 2011; LoSciuto et al., 1996; 

Thomas et al., 2011; Tolan et al., 2008). It should 

be noted, however, that infrequent review of youth 

offending outcomes and low baseline substance 

use with younger adolescents make accurate 

assessment of effectiveness difficult (DuBois et al., 

2011; Thomas et al., 2011). Improved academic 

performance and achievement, school attendance 

and vocational skills provide additional examples 

of behavioral outcomes reflecting mentoring 

effectiveness (Dappen & Isernhagen, 2006; DuBois 

et al., 2011; Laakso & Nygaard, 2007; Langhout 

et al., 2004; Newburn & Shiner, 2006; Wood & 

Mayo-Wilson, 2012). Positive attitudinal, social 

and emotional changes are also associated with 

mentoring for delinquency prevention and reduction 

(Bazron et al., 2006; DuBois et al., 2011; Laakso 

& Nygaard, 2007). Increased levels of confidence, 

positive outlook and self-image have been consistently observed across multiple studies (DuBois et 

al., 2011; Laakso & Nygaard, 2007; Keating et al., 

2002; LoSciuto et al., 1996; Wood & Mayo-Wilson, 

2012), and qualitative findings indicate participants’ 

interpersonal skills, as well as peer and familial 

relations, are also enhanced through mentoring 

interventions (Dallos & Comley-Ross, 2005; 

Langhout et al., 2004; Thompson & Zand, 2010).

These findings demonstrate the ability of 

mentoring to generate positive results across 

multiple dimensions, including “hard” (behavioral) 

and “soft” (developmental) outcomes (DuBois et al., 
14

Introduction and Overview

continued

as a result of exposure to mentoring, but must be 

specifically addressed in the program curriculum and 

activities. Matching, training and support of mentors, 

as well as youth participants, are additional areas 

of significance in that they influence relationship 

success and overall program effectiveness 

(DuBois et al., 2011). DuBois et al. (2011) found in 

their meta-analysis that similarity in interests and 

goals between mentors and protégés results in 

stronger, more dependable matching criteria and 

more durable relationships than demographic 

commonalities. However, qualitative analysis 

suggests relationship termination and dissatisfaction 

can be the consequence of cultural or racial 

differences (Spencer, 2007), and programs typically 

strive to pair mentor and youth on this basis 

(Sanchez & Colon, 2008). Failure to provide 

adequate training and support can also have a 

negative impact in that relationships may be 

prematurely terminated or unproductive if adults 

are not provided the tools and resources to navigate 

challenges associated with troubled youth 

(Spencer, 2007). 

Relationships are at the core of youth mentoring 

and ultimately expected to be the catalyst for youth 

change and development resulting from this type of 

intervention. Consequently, relationship quality and 

development should be areas of emphasis in the 

literature, but are only recently garnering more 

attention (Keller, 2005; Nakkula & Harris, 2005). 

In addition to duration, relationship tone, structure 

and level of intimacy and support affect evolution 

and quality of connections (Dallos & Comley-Ross, 

2005; Keller, 2005; Langhout et al., 2004; Nakkula 

& Harris, 2005; Pryce & Keller, 2011; Spencer, 

2006; Thompson & Zand, 2010). Relationships 

characterized by more activity and structure 

positively influence social and academic behaviors 

measures such as boot camp or waiver to adult 

court and probation. 

While research repeatedly shows that longer 

and better-targeted programs are more closely 

associated with positive youth outcomes (DuBois 

et al., 2011; Newburn & Shiner, 2006), studies 

focusing on mentoring structure, processes and 

relationships are noticeably scarce in the literature. 

With more attention to outcomes and program 

effectiveness, relationship development, mentoring 

practices and the factors that shape or alter these 

fundamental components often get overlooked 

(Dallos & Comley-Ross, 2005; DuBois et al., 2011; 

Keller, 2005; Pryce & Keller, 2011; Spencer, 2006; 

Spencer, 2007). Programs exhibiting better structure 

and focus regarding activities, goals, objectives and 

population served tend to produce more positive 

outcomes, benefits and participant satisfaction 

(Blechman & Bopp, 2005; LoSciuto et al., 1996; 

Newburn & Shiner, 2006; Smith & Stormont, 

2011; Wood & Mayo-Wilson, 2012). Specifically, 

interventions that adhere to “best practices” by 

implementing longer programs with greater 

frequency of interaction (DuBois et al., 2011; 

Keller, 2005), explicitly linking activities to goals 

and objectives (Newburn & Shiner, 2006), 

matching based on reliable criteria (Pryce & Keller, 

2011), targeting defined populations (Smith & 

Stormont, 2011), and providing training and support 

for mentors and protégés (Keller, 2005; Spencer, 

2007) demonstrate greater success. 

While some degree of structural flexibility and 

engagement in leisure activities should supplement 

instructional aspects of mentoring, Newburn and 

Shiner (2006) also point to the need for activities 

to be clearly linked to desired outcomes. Reduced 

delinquency, they note, cannot simply be assumed 
15

interference can occur if parents are not supportive 

of the mentoring relationship and undermine it, 

while negative peer influence or pressure can 

prevent youth from bonding with mentors (DuBois 

et al., 2011; Spencer, 2007). These adverse 

influences can additionally be compounded by 

ethnic, cultural and socioeconomic differences 

between mentor and youth (Spencer, 2007). DuBois 

et al. (2011) and Spencer (2007) recommend that 

parents or family members be actively included 

in mentoring programs and that mentors work 

to establish ties with parents and friends when 

possible. Such findings also have obvious 

implications for training and screening of potential 

mentors, as well as matching. 

Given these findings, it is clear that greater attention 

to program delivery and the processes and practices 

involved is still needed. Absence of a recognized 

model or typology for mentoring has resulted in 

considerable variation and inconsistency of structures and objectives across programs (Sipe, 2005; 

Smith & Stormont, 2011), as well as little attention 

to implementation (Dallos & Comley-Ross, 2005). 

Lack of insight into relationship quality and its effect 

on outcomes has also been problematic (Spencer, 

2006; Spencer, 2007; Thompson & Zand, 2010). 

Failure to target appropriate populations and achieve 

desired outcomes are additional consequences 

of the structural variation and indistinct goals that 

characterize many programs (Newburn & Shiner, 

2006; Smith & Stormont, 2011). Consequently, the 

potential of youth mentoring programs often goes 

unrealized, and greater accountability at program 

and policy levels is necessary (Coyne, Duffy & 

Wandersman, 2005).

(Newburn & Shiner, 2006) and are perceived as more 

beneficial by mentored youth (Laakso & Nygaard, 

2007; Langhout et al., 2004). Conversely, 

interactions that are task-focused tend to rate lower 

in perceived quality and lead to less engagement by 

youth (Pryce & Keller, 2011). Not surprisingly, when 

mentors function in a supportive rather than 

prescriptive role and develop a bond with their 

protégés, relationship satisfaction is high and more 

positive outcomes (behavioral and attitudinal) are 

observed (Dallos & Comley-Ross, 2005; Laakso & 

Nygaard, 2007; Nakkula & Harris, 2005; Thompson 

& Zand, 2010). 

These positive effects, as well as the relationships 

themselves, can be moderated, however, by 

different factors (DuBois et al., 2011; DuBois & 

Rhodes, 2006; Rhodes, 2005). Mentor and youth 

expectations, motivations and relational skills each 

have the potential to impact the development and 

duration of relationships (DuBois et al., 2011; Keller, 

2005; Spencer, 2007). When parties to the relationship enter with conflicting goals, expectations and 

values, matches are more likely to fail (Spencer, 

2007). Mentors may have unrealistic expectations 

regarding youth social competencies and expect 

more feedback or initiation of activities, while 

protégés may desire greater intimacy than the 

mentor. As Spencer (2007) notes, these aspects 

are often not verbalized until after a mentor and 

protégé have been matched, possibly setting 

up most relationships for failure from the start. 

Furthermore, some mentors assume a parental role 

in relationships when youth may be seeking a more 

companionable connection (Langhout et al., 2004). 

Quality and development of relationships are also 

be influenced by family and peer networks (DuBois 

et al., 2011; Rhodes, 2005; Spencer, 2007). Family 
16

1

As detailed in subsequent chapter sections, a 

research design utilizing qualitative (site visits and 

interviews) and quantitative (survey) data collection 

and analysis was executed in a stepwise manner. 

Instrument-driven qualitative work at a sample 

of selected sites enabled basic exploration and 

description of referral for mentoring practices, 

provided contextualization of quantitative findings, 

and informed development of a national survey. 

A national level survey, in turn, enabled observation 

and description of referral and related mentoring 

practices and processes more generally. Exploration 

of the referral for mentoring phenomenon was 

based in four central research questions as 

described below.

Research Objectives

1. What are the best practices in identifying and 

referring youth to mentoring programs across 

distinct juvenile justice settings?

To understand how youth are identified and 

channeled into mentoring services, it is vital to 

determine what specific information and referral 

procedures are utilized to identify youth most apt 

to benefit from mentoring program services. 

Similarly, it is important to specify the procedures 

that are used to successfully identify qualified 

mentors. Additional subtopics of interest include 

assessing the percentage of youth identified as apt 

to benefit from mentoring who actually are referred 

to services, the percentage of those referred who 

actually are matched with a mentor for services, 

the reasons for non-participation by referred youth, 

and differences in matching success that might 

be attributable to channeling processes (i.e., 

assessment versus court mandate).

While there has been a considerable increase in advocacy and funding for mentoring in 

recent years, the empirical knowledge base remains under-developed. To close this gap 

between applied practice and knowledge regarding evidence-based and best practices, 

the current study employed a mixed methods approach to explore the important referral 

process and related aspects of youth mentoring across six juvenile justice settings. These 

settings survey the scope of the juvenile justice system and reach a wide range of youth 

with various risk levels. The settings (Juvenile Probation, Youth Court/Teen Court, Juvenile 

Detention, Dependency Court, Delinquency Court, and Juvenile Corrections) are described 

in greater detail below under the qualitative methods sample section.

Methodology 2 Research Design and Objectives
17

4. What intermediate outcomes are achieved 

by mentoring throughout the settings? 

While measures such as recidivism and relapse 

are common outcome objectives for juvenile and 

criminal justice programming, there are also multiple 

intermediate outcomes that are both indicative of 

program quality and outcomes such as recidivism. 

These include the number of matches meeting 

commitment requirements, the frequency of 

interaction between mentor/mentee matched pairs 

and a juvenile justice setting representative, and 

the percentage of youth meeting program goals. 

It is also important to identify the most common 

outcomes across the settings and how they vary

according to mentoring program quality, match 

commitment and juvenile justice referral agency 

specified conditions.

Qualitative Research Methodology: 

Site Visits

Site Visits and Questionnaires

Qualitative data collection entailed a series of site 

visits made to a sample of each of the six juvenile 

justice settings. The research partners conducted 

site visits throughout 2011 in order to visit the 

targeted settings and programs and interview 

relevant staff. These site visits included individual, 

in-depth interviews with setting administrators and 

mentoring program staff. These site visits were 

guided by questionnaires developed by the grant 

partners for the purpose of systematic data

collection. These questionnaires are discussed 

in great detail in the following section and can 

be found in Appendix A.

2. What is the capacity of the mentoring community 

to support the youth identified for mentoring from six 

juvenile justice settings?

To assess the capacity of the mentoring community 

to effectively support referred youth, it is important 

to observe the balance of qualified mentors relative 

to the number of youth referred for services. 

Accordingly, knowing the extent of “supply and 

demand” across specified juvenile justice settings 

with consideration of the availability of mentoring 

programs and whether they have available qualified 

mentors is important for best practices alignment. 

Important related topics include whether programs 

within the settings maintain waitlists, assistance with 

locating available programs from state partnerships, 

and the alignment of need and services per age 

of youth. Also, in order to move toward an evidencebased/best practices orientation, the mentoring 

community must consider which factors are 

indicative of effective and viable programs. Answers 

should provide implications regarding opportunities 

and challenges that result from unmet needs. 

3. What is the quality of mentoring programs, as 

defined by alignment with the Elements of Effective 

Practice for Mentoring1

, across the juvenile justice 

settings?

Multiple elements comprise effective mentoring 

and constitute research questions regarding the 

use of evidence-based practices for recruiting, 

training, matching, monitoring, and supporting 

mentors and mentees. Related, it is important to 

discern the extent of available resources, including 

training specific for mentoring, and resource needs 

across the study settings with attention to the 

characteristics of high quality programs.

1 For more information on Elements of Effective Practice for MentoringTM, go to http://www.mentoring.org/downloads/

mentoring_1222.pdf
18

Methodology

continued

information regarding the mentoring process in each 

of the six juvenile justice settings. Two questionnaires 

were constructed, the first of which was used at the 

juvenile justice settings. The second questionnaire 

was used to elicit data from the mentoring programs 

that were associated with each of the specific sites. 

A third document — the “Site Demographic Form” 

—was also utilized by individuals collecting data from 

the sites. All three of these documents can be found 

in Appendix A. These data collection instruments are 

described in greater detail below.

Site Demographic Form

A site demographic form was developed by the 

grant partners in order to collect and organize basic 

information related to each of the visited sites. This 

form was also utilized to create a site selection 

matrix, which ensured that a diverse range of 

settings were identified for sample inclusion. This 

enabled the data collection to be systematically 

engaged across the six settings with attention paid 

to the geographic location, target population and 

mentoring program characteristics of each of the 

selected sites.

The first part of the site demographic form collected 

information related to the site contact information, 

number of youth served by the setting, number of 

youth referred to mentoring, and average length of 

time to match. Questions also asked respondents 

about the age and gender composition of the youth 

population. The second part of the form requested 

information regarding the geographic location of the 

site, including community designation (Urban, Rural, 

Suburban, Tribal) and region (Northeast, South, 

Midwest, West). This section of the form also 

allowed for the collection of additional information 

related to the site’s suitability for inclusion in the 

study.

Interviews are well-documented strategic research 

methods to collect in-depth information and should 

enrich knowledge regarding program performance, 

problems and improvement opportunities (Shover, 

1979; Maxfield & Babbie, 2008; Krueger, 1988; 

Morgan 1988, 1996). Specifically, in-depth 

interviews offer the ability to gauge the level of 

administration and staff endorsement of the program 

and identification of institutional and infrastructure 

barriers (Miller, Koons-Witt, & Ventura, 2004). 

In-depth interviews followed a structured format 

in which facilitators introduced topics by asking 

pre-determined questions to ensure systematic data 

collection across individual respondents and sites. 

Follow-up, open-ended questions were raised, when 

appropriate, to ensure all necessary areas of importance were addressed. Thus, the research design 

intentionally invites respondent input to enable the 

collection of richer, more detailed information. These 

interviews were conducted with staff from both the 

setting and the mentoring program associated with 

that setting. 

Site visits were made to a total of 23 sites across 

six settings, although several of these settings dealt 

with youth who were involved in other areas of the 

juvenile justice system as well. For example, some 

Delinquency Courts (i.e., juvenile court) have Juvenile 

Probation under their auspices; as a result, that 

setting refers youth to mentoring programs from 

both the court and probation. For the purpose of 

clarity, the sample is described below according to 

the primary setting represented by each of the sites. 

Prior to discussion of the sample and data, however, 

a description of the data collection instruments is 

presented.

Interviews during the site visits were guided by 

a questionnaire designed to obtain a breadth of 
19

justice setting, including whether the site used an 

embedded mentoring program.

Several items queried the specific selection referral 

criteria used by the site when determining the 

suitability of youth for mentoring services. 

Questions related to the referral criteria policies 

and procedures, the percentage of referred youth 

who are considered good candidates for mentoring 

based on these criteria, and the primary reasons 

why referred youth are excluded from services. 

Section I of the questionnaire also requested specific 

quantitative data related to the number of youth in 

the referral process during the previous six months.

After collecting data on the initial referral process, 

the questionnaire turned to more specific information about what occurs after the initial referral to 

mentoring services. In particular, the questionnaire 

asked about the percentage of youth who end up 

being matched with an adult mentor, the current 

number of youth involved in a mentoring relationship, 

and the average number of days it takes for a youth 

to be matched with a mentor. Respondents were 

also asked to provide the qualitative reasons why 

matches were not made and were provided with 

the following response categories: lack of mentoring 

programs, not enough mentors within a program, 

inadequate match, and youth or family refusal to 

accept referral or match. Subjects were asked to 

describe the conditions most likely to result in a 

successful referral or match and the most significant 

challenges to successful matches.

Section II addressed the topic of the site’s capacity 

to use mentoring for system-involved youth. 

Specifically, respondents were asked about 1) the 

number of staff involved in making referrals for 

mentoring services, 2) the number of staff with 

specific duties associated with supporting youth 

The third section of the site demographic form 

requested data related to the racial and ethnic 

composition of the site’s youth population. Research 

subjects were asked to report the percentage of 

youth classified as African-American, Hispanic/

Latino, Native-American/American Indian, white 

and other. The final section of this form collected 

pertinent information related to the characteristics of 

the mentoring programs associated with the juvenile 

justice setting. These questions included the focus 

of the mentoring program in terms of target youth. 

More specifically, the program was asked if they 

dealt with youth from each of the six juvenile justice 

settings, and if these youth were considered “at-risk” 

or “high-risk.” Additional data were collected related 

to the length of the program operation (in years), the 

type of mentoring used (individual, group, team) and 

the basic referral process.

Setting Site Visit Questionnaire

The setting site visit questionnaire was designed 

to inform four general areas of research interest: 

1) the referral process, 2) program capacity, 3) 

program characteristics, and 4) intermediate 

outcomes. These areas were intended to address 

the key research objectives of the project by 

collecting data in a systematic fashion across 

settings and sites.

Section I of the questionnaire investigated the 

process by which system-involved youth become 

involved in mentoring. Information collected included 

whether mentoring was court-ordered, referral 

sources (school, law-enforcement, Juvenile 

Probation, family), assessment criteria for youth 

suitability for mentoring, and data related to the 

statutory realities for the mentoring referral process. 

This section also included questions about the 

mentoring programs utilized by the particular juvenile 
20

Methodology

continued

Finally, Section V of the questionnaire included 

setting-specific questions designed to obtain data 

otherwise not covered in the previous four sections. 

Delinquency Court questions related to the role 

of probation within the court, dual adjudication, 

statutory timeframes, court involvement following 

referral, and mentoring programs specifically 

developed for court-involved youth. Dependency 

Court questions related to legal authority for referrals, whether mentoring was mandatory or voluntary, 

the involvement of Dependency Court following 

referral, and what specific dependency hearings 

lend themselves to making a referral. Juvenile 

Corrections questions related to the timing of referral 

(during or after confinement), the continuum of care 

across changes in placement and jurisdiction, and 

the appropriateness of mentoring agencies to 

serve incarcerated or previously incarcerated youth. 

Juvenile Detention questions related to facility 

operation, referral criteria in terms of length-of-stay, 

and the mentoring agencies utilized. Juvenile 

Probation questions related to the consequences 

for mentoring relationships with changes in jurisdiction or placement, risk/needs assessment, and 

number of mentoring programs for youth on 

probation. Finally, Youth/Teen Court questions 

included the role of youth volunteers in making 

referrals for mentoring, the role of Youth Court staff 

in service delivery, and whether mentoring was 

viewed as a wrap-around service. Complete 

versions of the questionnaires, including settingspecific questions, are included in Appendix A.

Mentoring Programs Site Visit Questionnaire

The mentoring programs site visit questionnaire 

was a truncated version of the setting questionnaire, which focused on the specific elements of the 

mentoring process that were primarily the purview 

of the programs. This questionnaire contained 20 

in mentoring relationships, 3) the ways in which 

mentoring programs are indentified for partnerships, 

and 4) the selection criteria used to identify potential 

mentoring programs.

Section III was designed to collect data related to the 

characteristics of the mentoring programs that sites 

worked with in referring youth for services. Queries 

were posed regarding the mentor’s role in assisting 

youth in navigating the juvenile justice system, and 

whether mentors were provided with any special 

training or guidance in how to do so. Questions then 

focused on the actual content and context of the 

mentoring relationship and activities. Specifically, 

respondents were asked about the type of mentoring strategy used (one-to-one, group, team), the 

location of the mentoring (home, secure facility, 

community location, non-secure facility), the 

frequency of the mentoring (twice a week, weekly, 

twice a month, monthly, other) and the duration 

of the mentoring interaction (one hour, two hours, 

three hours, other). The questionnaire also asked 

about required match commitments and whether 

mentoring practices were tailored for unique 

circumstances (i.e., specific types of offenses, 

individual youth history, specific juvenile justice 

settings, gender).

Section IV of the questionnaire queried respondents 

about the types of goals that are set for the mentor 

and mentee to achieve throughout the course of the 

mentoring relationship. The goal categories included: 

1) minimized contact with the juvenile/criminal justice 

system, 2) reduced recidivism, 3) improved school 

attendance, 4) improved academic performance, 

5) prosocial engagement, 6) employment preparation, and 7) other. This question was designed to 

elicit information regarding the common outcomes 

intended for youth who receive mentoring services. 
21

academic performance, pro-social engagement, 

employment preparation and other). Respondents 

were also given a final opportunity to provide any 

additional comments or observations otherwise not 

covered by the questionnaire. A complete version 

of the mentoring program site visit questionnaire 

can be found in Appendix A.

Sample and Data

Delinquency Court

Delinquency Courts have jurisdiction over juveniles, 

juvenile delinquents, status offenders and children 

and youth in need of supervision. All juvenile courts 

are civil bodies, which means that juveniles cannot 

acquire a criminal record directly from Delinquency 

Court actions where the actions remain confined to 

the Delinquency Court. The Delinquency Court is 

most commonly associated with juvenile justice. 

Four site visits were conducted to Delinquency 

Court settings in Tennessee, Connecticut, Nevada 

and Mississippi. The East Tennessee Delinquency 

Court located in Knoxville, TN, utilizes a wide range 

of programs including mentoring services as part 

of their early intervention plan. This Delinquency 

Court employs mentorship through the Big Brothers 

Big Sisters (BBBS) of Eastern Tennessee. This 

organization also receives referrals from the 

restorative justice program, county law offices, 

department of children and family services, Project 

Grad, Knoxville Community Advisory Board, 15 

mental health agencies, schools and parents and 

guardians. Youth served are deemed high-risk, 

and participation is voluntary.

The Hartford Delinquency Court is located in 

Hartford, CT, and utilizes a Juvenile Review Board 

(JRB) to divert youthful offenders in order to avoid 

appearing before the formal Delinquency Court. 

Referrals to the JRB include youth who are first 

questions posed to mentoring program staff, including queries related to the selection referral criteria, 

the percentage of youth who qualify for a mentor 

and the primary reasons referred youth are excluded 

from mentoring services. Items then inquire as to 

the percentage of referrals that are actually matched 

with a mentor, the common reasons why matches 

are not made and whether formal guidelines are provided by the setting for accepting the referred youth.

The next section of the questionnaire was designed 

to collect data related to the challenges experienced 

by the mentoring programs in working with youth 

referred from juvenile justice settings. Respondents 

were also asked to explain how challenges were 

addressed. Information was also collected about 

the kinds of training mentors received in dealing 

with youth from juvenile justice settings and whether 

safety had ever been a concern for the program.

The next part of the questionnaire revisited questions 

that were asked during the setting site visit. 

Specifically, questions were posed related to the 

type of mentoring strategy used by the program 

(one-to-one, group, team), the location of the mentoring activity (home, community location, secure 

facility, non-secure facility, other), the length of the 

match commitment, the frequency of mentoring 

interactions (twice a week, weekly, twice a month, 

monthly, other) and the duration of these meetings 

(one hour, two hours, three hours, other). Finally, 

the questionnaire asked the programs to report if 

mentoring practices were tailored for different kinds 

of offenses (gangs, property, violent, drug crime) 

or youth-specific realities (gender, mental health 

issues). The programs were also asked about the 

types of goals that were intended for the mentoring 

relationships and included the same categories 

as the setting questionnaire (minimized contact 

with juvenile or criminal justice system, reduced 

recidivism, improved school attendance, improved 
22

Methodology

continued

Dependency Court

Dependency Courts involve a juvenile (child/youth), 

typically in cases of abuse, neglect and mistreatment. Dependency Court judges are charged with 

determining whether allegations of abuse or neglect 

are sustained by the evidence and, if so, are legally 

sufficient to support state intervention on behalf 

of the child. Some youth who appear in the 

Delinquency Court also appear in the Dependency 

Court at the same time for dual adjudicatory issues. 

The Dependency Court is most commonly 

associated with foster care, abuse and neglect.  

Four site visits were made to Dependency Court 

settings in New York, California, Virginia and 

Vermont. The Saratoga Department of Children 

Services is located in Ballston Spa, NY, and utilizes 

supportive and rehabilitative services to children and 

families. This department may make referrals to the 

Saratoga Mentoring Program, which also receives 

referrals from public and private schools, transitional 

and independent living services, parents/guardians, 

Saratoga Catholic Charities, and Child Protective 

Services. The mentoring program only takes youth 

under the age of 16, and participation is voluntary. 

The Bridge (residential program) is located in San 

Diego, CA, and provides group home placement 

to youth between ages 12 and 17. These youth 

may be involved with domestic violence, neglect, 

abuse, abandonment, substance abuse or other 

life traumas. Most referrals for placement come 

from the San Diego County Department of Health 

and Human Services. Embedded within The Bridge 

is the Fostering Youth Independence Mentoring 

Program. Referrals are made internally and include 

foster care youth from San Diego county staff and 

contractually designated staff in approved private 

organizations and foster families. Participation is 

voluntary, and goals include reducing delinquency 

and placement disruption.

time offenders, have no prior JRB formal involvement, admit guilt and agree to participate in a JRB

to address their criminal/delinquent behavior (referred by the local police department). Youth must 

be under the age of 16 at the time of arrest. The JRB 

may then make a referral to the Youth ALIVE 

Mentoring Program. This program has a 96-day 

match waiting period (when referred from JRB). 

Participation is voluntary, and a one-to-one model 

is used.

The Clark County Juvenile Court is located in Las 

Vegas, NV, and handles cases involving minors 

including status offenders and delinquents. Other 

cases handled include dependent children who 

have been abused, neglected or abandoned. The 

mentorship program used is the Boys & Girls Clubs 

of Las Vegas. Youth are referred to this program 

through Juvenile Probation and Delinquency Courts 

(considered voluntary referrals). Additional voluntary 

referrals may come from parents/guardians and 

other social services providers. Mentorship may be 

individual, group or team, and services are provided 

for high-risk youth.

The Choctaw Tribal Court is located in Choctaw, MS, 

and is a court of general jurisdiction. The Tribal Court 

utilizes a Choctaw Teen Court with the main focus of 

intervening in anti-social, delinquent and/or criminal 

behavior. Offenses classified as A, B or C are eligible 

for referral to the Teen Court if they are first time 

offenders and they voluntarily agree to proceed in 

Teen Court. The Teen Court utilizes a team-based 

mentoring approach that is embedded within the 

court (only the Tribal Court makes referrals). The 

desired match duration is 12 months or more and 

begins as soon as the youth are accepted into the 

Teen Court.
23

serve as judges, defenders, prosecutors, clerks 

and jurors.

 A total of three site visits were made to settings 

primarily designated as Youth Courts in Illinois, 

Massachusetts and New York. The Lawrence 

County Peer Jury is located in Lawrenceville, IL, and 

utilizes the peer jury model of adjudication for largely 

first-time juvenile offenders involved in problem 

behavior such as truancy, theft and substance 

abuse. The Lawrence County Peer Jury receives 

referrals from many community sources including 

law enforcement, Juvenile Probation, Delinquency 

Court and schools. The peer jury serves as the 

referral source for mentoring services which are 

coordinated by Cra-Wa-La Volunteers in Probation, 

a local nonprofit organization. In addition to the peer 

jury, Cra-Wa-La receives referrals from other juvenile 

justice settings (e.g., probation, Delinquency Court, 

detention, etc.), social service agencies and selfreferrals. Participation in mentoring services is voluntary, and most matches are made within 30 days.

The New Bedford Youth Court (NBYC), located in 

Southeastern Massachusetts in the city of New 

Bedford, is used as a diversionary program by the 

New Bedford Juvenile Court. Youthful offenders may 

voluntarily choose to participate in the Youth Court if 

they are a first-time offender and are willing to admit 

guilt. The NBYC utilizes the services of the SMILES 

Mentoring Program (also located in New Bedford), a 

school-based one-to-one mentoring model program. 

Participation in mentoring services is also voluntary, 

and matches typically last nine months to coincide 

with the academic school year.

The Colonie Youth Court, located in Latham, NY, 

serves as a diversionary program for first-time 

juvenile offenders charged with low-level property 

offenses (e.g., petty larceny). The Colonie Youth 

Court receives referrals from the Colonie Police 

Located in the 4th Judicial District of Virginia is the 

Norfolk Juvenile and Domestic Relations District 

Court in Virginia Beach, VA. This court handles 

juveniles accused of delinquent acts, status 

offenses, traffic violations and those subjected to 

abuse, neglect, custodial issues or foster care. This 

court uses the Team Up Mentoring Program, and 

referrals made are limited to foster care youth who 

are formally involved with the Dependency Court 

and are made by social workers within various 

local departments of social services. Participation 

is voluntary and includes youth between ages 

6 and 16.

The Dependency Court in Vermont uses a wide 

range of private and public services for youth in the 

court. One private community-based agency is the 

Spectrum Youth and Family Services located in 

Burlington, VT. This agency provides contract 

services to youth who are abused, neglected, 

victimized or suffer from other non-juvenile justice 

issues. Embedded in this setting is the Spectrum 

Mentoring Program which receives referrals from 

the Dependency Court and allied and/or contractual child welfare community-based organizations 

(the latter as the primary source). This mentoring 

program serves high-risk youth and requires the 

parent(s)/guardian(s) and the youth’s agreement. 

Youth Courts

Youth Courts are a juvenile justice diversion program 

in which juveniles are sentenced by their peers for 

minor crimes, offenses and/or violations. These 

juvenile diversion programs are administered on 

a local level by law enforcement agencies, probation departments, Delinquency Courts, schools and 

local nonprofit organizations. These programs offer 

communities an opportunity to provide immediate 

consequences for primarily first-time juveniles, 

and they also offer important civic, service and 

volunteer opportunities for volunteer youth who 
24

Methodology

continued

the Program Director. Youth between ages 12 and 

18 are accepted, and participation is voluntary.

The Long Creek Youth Development Center (LCYDC) 

is located in South Portland, ME, serving both male 

and female youth between ages 13 and 17. One 

mentoring option offered by LCYDC is the Good 

Guides Mentoring Program. This center also has 

an embedded mentoring program. Participation 

is voluntary, and referrals are made by the Unit 

Treatment Team. This program also receives referrals 

from family, community contacts and self-referrals. 

The McLaughlin Youth Center (MYC) is located in 

Anchorage, AK, and serves youth between ages 

11 and 18. MYC offers specialized programs for 

sex offenders, girls, older teens, those who have 

participated in gangs and other youth who pose 

a risk to themselves and others. This center utilizes 

the mentoring services of Big Brothers Big Sisters 

of Alaska. Referrals may be made by the youth 

themselves, staff or the MYC treatment team 

(primary source). Participation is voluntary, and 

the expected match duration is one year.

The Sununu Youth Services Center is located in 

Manchester, NH, and provides secure placement 

for committed juveniles between ages 13 and 17. 

This correctional setting utilizes the Good Guides 

Mentoring Program, and referrals are made by the 

facility classification team or self-referrals. The 

classification of youth must be completed within 14 

days. Participation is voluntary for youth at this site.

Juvenile Detention

Juvenile Detention refers to the legally-authorized 

temporary secure custody of juveniles who are 

accused of illegal conduct subject to the jurisdiction 

of the court and who require a restricted 

environment for their own or the community’s 

protection while pending legal action. Detention is 

Department, Albany County Juvenile Court and 

Albany County Juvenile Probation. Following referral, 

all cases must be adjudicated within 90-120 days. 

The Colonie Youth Court utilizes the services of 

Big Brothers Big Sisters of Capital Region in Albany. 

Participation in mentoring services is voluntary, and 

most mentoring involves community-based activity 

(i.e., youth and mentors meet independently in the 

community). Mentoring matches typically last 

32 months, and goals include reduced justice 

system involvement and recidivism, improved school 

attendance and academic performance, prosocial 

engagement and employment preparation.

Juvenile Corrections

Juvenile Corrections denotes a locked facility that 

has physical features that restricts the movement 

of adjudicated delinquent juveniles who are held in 

the facility as the Delinquency Court’s disposition. 

Juvenile Corrections is often described as long-term, 

out-of-home placement in comparison to detention. 

A total of five site visits were made to juvenile correction settings located in Kansas, Indiana, Maine, 

Alaska and New Hampshire. The Judge Riddel Boys 

Ranch is located in Goddard, KS, and serves boys 

between ages 6 and 16 who are mostly involved 

in truancy. To provide mentoring services to these 

youth, the setting uses the Wichita Schools 

Mentoring Program. Self-referral is the primary 

source of youth (between ages 14 and 20) involved, 

and participation is voluntary.

In Indiana (South Bend and Logansport), the 

Division of Youth Services provides services for youth 

committed to the Indiana Department of Corrections 

(IDOC). This setting uses the Bienvenido Program 

for mentoring Hispanic/Latino youth in several locations around the state. Referrals to this program are 

received from the IDOC staff. Referrals are made by 
25

A total of five site visits to Juvenile Probation settings 

were conducted in Tennessee, Louisiana, Texas, 

Mississippi and New Hampshire. The Knox County 

Probation Department is located in Knoxville, TN, 

and provides probation services to all youth referred by the Knox County Juvenile Court. One of 

the four local programs offering mentoring to youth 

on probation for Knox County is the Boys and Girls 

Club (BGC) of the Tennessee Valley. The BGC may 

also receive referrals from the juvenile court judge 

and truancy board, and probation officers may 

make recommendations. Unless mentoring is court 

ordered, participation is voluntary and contact is 

made between 24 and 72 hours of completing an 

application.

The Caddo Parish Juvenile Services is located in 

Shreveport, LA, and has probation as one of eight 

focus areas. This site utilizes the Kennedy Center 

We All Win mentoring program. Referrals are made 

by the probation officers who also serve as a conduit 

for information should the juvenile not comply with 

expectations. Only violent offenders and those 

placed in a treatment facility or facility outside of 

the community may not be referred.

A third site visit was conducted at the Guadalupe 

County Juvenile Probation in Seguin, TX. Services 

are provided to youth between ages 10 and 17 who 

fall under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. Upon 

admission to detention, juveniles may be referred 

to the mentoring program operated by St. Andrews 

Episcopal Church. Participation is voluntary unless 

court ordered.

Kalamazoo, MI, is home to the Kalamazoo 

County 9th Circuit Court Field Services, where 

mentoring and guidance to juveniles is provided. 

This setting may make referrals of youth between 

ages 16 and 21 to the Youthful Offender Transition 

Program (YOTP). Referrals to YOTP may also come 

from school personnel, mental health practitioners, 

often described as short-term immediate out-ofhome placement in comparison to corrections. 

Some of the youth in detention are transferred to 

a corrections facility, but first must be adjudicated 

by the court.

Two site visits were made to Juvenile Detention 

centers in Tennessee and New York. The Richard 

L. Bean (RLB) Juvenile Service Center is located 

in Knoxville, TN, and is a county operated secure 

Juvenile Detention facility serving primarily preadjudicated youth throughout Knoxville County. 

The RLB Center hosts a Boys and Girls Club (BGC) 

program to provide mentoring services. Upon 

release from the RLB Center, youth are referred 

to one of the 14 BGC sites for post-incarceration 

mentoring. During incarceration, BGC programming 

is available to all youth; however, participation is 

voluntary. Post-incarceration contact is made with 

the youth and their caregiver(s) within 24 hours 

of the youth’s release.

The Erie County Youth Detention Facility is located 

in Buffalo, NY, is county operated and serves youth 

alleged to have committed status offenses and those 

charged with serious crimes. This facility also utilizes 

a BGC Program within the facility. All youth are 

referred during incarceration, and they are expected 

to participate. Post-incarceration participation is 

voluntary, and these referrals are from staff that 

facilitates mentoring programming.

Juvenile Probation

Juvenile Probation refers to a sentence not involving confinement that imposes conditions and retains 

authority in sentencing court to modify conditions 

of sentence or resentence the juvenile offender 

for probation violations. Counties and cities often 

elect to have Juvenile Probation operate within an 

independent probation agency or Juvenile Probation 

will operate under the jurisdiction of the Delinquency 

Court.
26

Methodology

continued

selecting participants from those cities). Although 

cluster sampling avoids the ostensible problem of 

having no sample frame, it does rest on several 

assumptions that may or may not hold when trying 

to conduct a survey of mentoring programs. Most 

importantly, the cluster sample assumes that all 

states (if that is the beginning level of aggregation) 

have mentoring programs at equivalent (or, at least, 

proportional) rates. While this assumption may hold, 

there is no known data source that can be referenced to justify it. Put differently, a cluster sample 

poses a new risk, namely that states, counties 

and cities may be selected that actually have no 

mentoring programs available to be studied which 

would lead to an increase in sampling error. 

When considering the most viable sampling strategy 

for this project, probability samples were discussed 

but were determined to be impractical due to the 

lack of a sampling frame and the potential for sample 

failure based on a cluster sampling strategy. Instead, 

a targeted, saturation sampling approach guided the 

current study. While the sampling strategy used is a 

non-probability sample, there were several features 

of the chosen design that made it the most attractive 

option. Primarily, the targeted, saturation sampling 

design ensured that mentoring programs would be 

contacted, that eligible participants would have the 

opportunity to respond and that a wide coverage of 

mentoring programs would be achieved.

The targeted, saturation sampling strategy utilized 

the vast networking resources of three of the grant 

partners — Global Youth Justice (GYJ), The 

National Partnership for Juvenile Services (NPJS) 

and MENTOR — as well as the networking 

connections of The Office of Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). Below is a description of each partner’s (and OJJDP’s) database that 

was used to contact potential eligible respondents. 

staff working in community-based agencies 

serving youth, families and current and past program 

participants. Participation is voluntary (unless court 

ordered), and youth are notified within three days 

of screening.

The New Hampshire Division of Juvenile Justice 

Services (DJJS) is located in Claremont, NH, and 

provides services to youth who are delinquent or 

in need of supervision. Probation officers may refer 

youth to the Good Guides Mentoring Program. 

Formal referrals will lead to court ordered mentoring 

services, while allowing for voluntary participation for 

informal referrals. If there is no waiting list, a match 

may be made and services started between 14 

and 30 days.

Quantitative Methods: 

National SuRVEY

Sampling Strategy

Relatively speaking, mentoring is a new strategy for 

juvenile justice intervention. This reality posed several 

unique challenges to conducting a national survey. 

In order to carry out a probability sample such as 

a simple random sample or a stratified random 

sample, it is necessary that the researcher have 

access to a sample frame — a list of known, eligible 

respondents/participants (Groves, Fowler, Couper, 

Lepkowski, Singer, & Tourangeau, 2009). In the 

absence of a sample frame, only one type of 

probability sample is achievable: a cluster sample. 

A cluster sample follows several general guidelines, 

the most basic being that the researcher starts with 

a higher level of aggregation than the final survey 

participants. Most researchers conducting a cluster 

sample will begin with a list of the 50 United States 

and work “down” from there (i.e., randomly 

choosing counties within those states, then 

choosing cities within the chosen counties, then 
27

Due to the sampling strategy utilized for this project 

(outlined above), typical response rates would not 

provide an appropriate overview of the sample’s 

coverage or an indication of sampling efficacy. To 

be specific, recall there is no national register of 

mentoring programs (i.e., there is no sampling frame) 

from which a probability sample can be drawn. As a 

result, the most appropriate sampling strategy was 

one that would provide wide coverage of the United 

States and that would have a chance of reaching 

many known mentoring programs. Because of these 

features of the current study, conventional response 

rate data are incalculable. Instead, we provide 

several indicators of sampling efficacy according 

to sample coverage of the U.S. and information 

regarding completion rates.

Sample Coverage

Mentoring programs are not specific to one location, one region of the U.S. or one culture. As a 

result, a primary aim of the current study was to 

draw information from mentoring programs located 

across the U.S. and in different cultural settings. 

Table 1 presents statistics on the “spread” of the 

final sample across the 50 states. As can be seen, 

all 50 states were represented, as was Washington 

D.C. As expected, more populated states tended 

to provide more respondents as compared to less 

populated states. For example, California provided 

68 respondents, while Rhode Island only provided 

three respondents. An important point to take away 

from Table 1 is that no region of the country was 

overlooked and, therefore, there is little reason to 

suspect that the results from any quantitative analysis will be biased toward certain areas of the country. 

Another, perhaps more important, indicator of 

sample coverage gauges the types of communities 

from which the respondents hailed. These data 

can be found in Table 2, and several points warrant 

attention. First, note that the majority of the 

GYJ used its organizational membership database 

to reach juvenile justice professionals within several 

primary settings to include Teen Court/Youth Court 

Diversion Programs, Delinquency and Dependency 

Courts and Juvenile Probation Departments. The 

database included contact information for approximately 3,100 individuals in those settings.

NPJS used its organizational membership database 

to reach individuals and facilities that fall within the 

Juvenile Detention, Juvenile Corrections or Juvenile 

Probation settings. The database included contact 

information for approximately 1,000 individuals in 

those settings.

MENTOR’s distribution list covers a broad list of 

programs and mentoring practitioners. There are 

close to 12,000 contacts in the list, but the email 

correspondence made it clear who the target for 

the survey was, thereby limiting the proportion of 

ineligible respondents. 

Finally, OJJDP posted a call for participants to its 

JuvJust listserv. Thousands of practitioners are 

known to subscribe to this email list, representing a 

large number of potential eligible participants. A copy 

of the call for participants is included in Appendix B.

Sample Size, Response Rate and 

Sample Coverage

The final sample size was 1,197 respondents, which 

is more than sufficient to perform multivariate statistical analysis. It is important to note, however, that 

the analytic sample sizes varied from question to 

question due to built in skip patterns. These analytic 

sample sizes varied primarily as a function of the 

type of program the respondent represented and as 

a function of missing data (i.e., item non-response). 

Despite the variation in sample sizes across the 

different questions, small sample sizes were not a 

concern and were unlikely to have much impact on 

the results presented below.
28

Methodology

continued

† Although it is possible that these respondents were from Guam and Puerto Rico, it is more likely 

that the respondent from Guam was intending to select Georgia, and the two respondents from 

Puerto Rico intended to select Pennsylvania.

respondents indicated that their program was 

located in an urban or a suburban setting. Second, 

little more than 1 percent of the sampled programs 

were located in a tribal setting. Third, roughly onefourth of the sampled programs were located in a 

rural setting. While there is enough variance in the 

data to attain meaningful results, it will be important 

to control for the program’s community setting in 

any statistical analysis. Also, it is important to point 

out that any conclusions drawn from this study may 

not be equally applicable to all community settings.

Table 1. Sample Coverage

Alabama 15

Alaska 10

Arizona 13

Arkansas 4

California 68

Connecticut 15

Delaware 4

Florida 67

Georgia 30

Hawaii 9

Idaho 9

Illinois 38

Iowa 27

Indiana 26

Kansas 13

Kentucky 10

Louisiana 12

Maine 2

Massachusetts 23

Maryland 16

Michigan 42

Minnesota 20

Mississippi 7

Missouri 13

Montana 5

Nebraska 7

Nevada 9

New Hampshire 9

New Jersey 20

New Mexico 9

New York 58

North Carolina 31

North Dakota 8

Ohio 28

Oklahoma 8

Oregon 17

Pennsylvania 26

Rhode Island 3

South Carolina 7

South Dakota 9

Tennessee 18

Texas 39

Utah 4

Virginia 21

Vermont 6

Washington 13

Wisconsin 22

West Virginia 5

Wyoming 4

Washington, D.C. 8

† Guam 1

† Puerto Rico 2
29

Completion rate data are presented in Table 3. 

As shown, the completion rate was 64.22 percent. 

At this point, it is important to reiterate one feature 

of the sample design: the sampling logic was one 

of “saturation,” meaning that a nontrivial amount of 

respondents were expected to be ineligible for the 

survey. With that in mind, a completion rate of 64.22 

percent is well within the acceptable range.

Completion Rate

As mentioned above, conventional response rate 

data were inappropriate and uninformative for the 

current study. As an alternative, however, it may 

be useful to interpret the completion rate. The 

completion rate is a calculation of the percentage 

of respondents who successfully completed the 

questionnaire. In other words, the completion rate 

is an indicator of the success of the survey 

implementation strategy. The completion rate 

is calculated by carrying out the following formula: 

Table 2. Community Location of Respondents’ Programs

Community Type Frequency % Cumulative %

Rural 241 25.64 25.64

Suburban 176 18.72 44.36

Tribal 13 1.38 45.74

Urban 510 54.26 100.00

Completion Rate= Number of Respondents Who Completed Survey

Number of Respondents Who Started Survey*100
30

Methodology

continued

Basic information about the survey respondents and 

the programs they represented are analyzed first. 

These descriptive analyses will provide important 

insight on mentoring programs, their typical structure 

and the methods by which they operate. One of the 

key foci for the current study was to dissolve the 

mystique that has, to date, surrounded the referral 

process of mentoring. Why do certain programs refer 

youth to mentoring programs while others do not? 

Are certain juvenile justice settings more likely to refer 

youth to mentoring than others? Are youth who have 

been arrested more or less likely to receive a referral 

to mentoring? These questions have harbored social 

scientists thinking for many years and, unfortunately, 

there has been little research that can speak to these 

questions. A primary goal of this project, therefore, 

was to provide some insight into these and other 

issues surrounding the referral process. Thus, the 

second section of the descriptive analysis will focus 

on the mentoring referral process. 

After consulting data pertaining to the referral 

process, the analysis will then move to a descriptive 

overview of mentoring programs and how they tend 

to operate. This portion of the analysis will highlight 

Analysis Plan

The quantitative analysis proceeded in two steps, 

each with a series of subsections. The first step to 

the analysis utilized various descriptive statistical 

techniques in order to provide an overview of the 

sample and of certain features of mentoring that 

are frequently encountered (note that a copy of the 

survey instrument is included in Appendix C). The 

second step to the analysis utilized a wide range 

of inferential statistical techniques such as crosstabulation, analysis of variance (ANOVA), correlation 

and multivariate regression. Each of these steps to 

the analysis is discussed in more detail below.

Step 1: Descriptive Statistics

Descriptive statistics are an important first step to 

any empirical research. As a result, we began our 

analysis by consulting a variety of univariate descriptive statistics. For the most part, histograms, pie 

charts and bar charts will provide cogent visual 

overviews of the data, the median and modal 

response categories, and the variance within each 

measure. Step 1 of the analysis, therefore, will rely 

primarily on these visual analytic techniques.

Table 3. Completion Rate Data 

Frequency Rate

Respondents Who Started the Survey 1,864

Respondents Who Completed the Survey 1,197

Completion Rate 64.22%

Note: Completion rate data were obtained directly from the survey administration website, 

www.surveymonkey.com. 
31

many features of mentoring programs with an eye 

toward identifying elements that may be linked with 

program effectiveness. 

Step 2: Inferential Statistical Analysis

The second step of the analysis will rely exclusively 

on inferential statistical analysis. Generally speaking, 

inferential statistics can be conceptualized as a suite 

of analytic techniques that can uncover the underlying connections between two or more variables. For 

instance, it may turn out that mentoring programs 

that perform background checks on their mentors 

tend to be more successful (i.e., mentees meet 

their stated goals more often). Inferential statistical 

techniques such as cross-tabulation, correlation 

and regression will allow us to put a number on this 

relationship so that we may speak to the effect size 

(i.e., the importance or strength of the relationship) 

and whether that effect is distinguishable from zero 

(i.e., statistically significant). Moreover, it may turn 

out that mentor programs that perform background 

checks enjoy more success, but the relationship may 

not be causal. Instead, this connection (between the 

performance of background checks and program 

success) may be spurious due to other aspects of 

the program. The only way to account for possible 

spurious variables is to perform an analytic technique 

known as multivariate regression. 

Briefly, multivariate regression is a statistical 

technique that allows a research to observe the 

relationship between two variables while controlling 

for the confounding influences of k covariates (where 

k is the number of other covariates being controlled). 

To understand multivariate regression, however, 

it is first necessary to understand correlation 

analysis. A correlation analysis examines the relationship between two variables to determine whether 

they covary. Put differently, a correlation analysis tells 

the researcher whether individuals who score high 

(or low) on variable x also tend to score high 

(or low) on variable y. A correlation analysis results 

in a correlation coefficient (r) that can be analyzed 

for statistical significance. The correlation coefficient 

ranges between -1.00 and 1.00. A correlation 

coefficient of -1.00 indicates that the two variables 

are perfectly correlated (i.e., knowledge of a person’s 

score on one variable allows for the perfect 

prediction of that person’s score on the other 

variable) and that the correlation is negative. In this 

sense, the term negative is interpreted as meaning 

that higher scores on one of the variables predicts 

lower scores on the second variable. Similarly, a 

correlation coefficient of 1.00 indicates that the 

two variables are perfectly correlated and that the 

correlation is positive (higher scores on x predict 

higher scores on y — or—lower scores on x

predict lower scores on y). It should be noted that 

in practice, social scientists never observe a 

correlation of -1.00 or 1.00. Indeed, most variables 

of interest to social scientists correlate between 

-.20 and .20 (Weisburd & Piquero, 2008). 

The correlation coefficient (r

xy) takes the formulaic 

form:

where:

In the above equations, X represents the value on 

variable 1 and Y represents the value on variable 2. 

Thus, X = the mean value for variable 1 and Y = the 

mean value for variable 2. In words, the formula for 
32

Methodology

continued

Third, the regression coefficient B represents the 

effect of X on Y. Similar to a correlation coefficient, 

the regression coefficient can be a positive or a 

negative number, which indicates the direction of the 

relationship between X and Y. Fourth, and perhaps 

most important, the OLS regression model includes 

more than one variable in the model. The term 

BX1 + ...BXK indicates that anywhere between one 

and k (an unlimited number, theoretically) variables 

(often referred to as covariates) can be included in 

the model at the same time. The OLS regression 

model removes any covariation between the Xs prior 

to estimating the effect of each X on Y. Thus, the 

OLS model estimates the effect of X1

 on Y, after the 

effects of X2

...k have been removed or “partialled out.”

The mathematical formulas underlying the OLS 

regression model will not be presented here. Instead, 

it is only important that readers understand “how” 

the OLS regression model arrives at “partialled out” 

estimates of the effect of Xk

 on Y. Imagine, for this 

example, an OLS regression model that has one 

dependent variable (Y) and two independent variables (X1

, X2 ). The OLS regression model operates 

in three basic steps. First, the covariation between 

X1

 and X2 is assessed using correlation analysis (see 

above). The covariation between the two variables 

is removed first from X1

, and the residual variance 

is saved. The residual variance is the variance in X1

that is unaccounted for by X2

. Second, this process 

is repeated for X2

. At this point, both X1 and X2 reflect 

partialled values (i.e., neither shares variance with 

the other). Third, the correlation between Y and the 

partialled X1

 and the partialled X2 is analyzed.

Interpreting the coefficients (i.e., the B) from an OLS 

model is an important step in the analytic process. 

Briefly, the coefficient estimate represents the 

amount of change in the dependent variable that 

occurs for every one unit increase in the independent 

variable of interest (i.e., moving from a 0 to a 1 on 

the correlation coefficient shows that the covariance 

between X and Y (the numerator) is divided by the 

product of the standard deviation of X and the 

standard deviation of Y (the denominator). 

To determine whether an observed correlation is 

statistically significant, the researcher must calculate 

the degrees of freedom by subtracting 2 from the 

sample size (n – 2). Finally, the researcher must

compare the r and the df to a table of critical r 

values. If the observed r is greater than the critical

r value, the researcher can conclude that the 

correlation is statistically significant. 

Correlation analysis is a useful tool when a 

researcher wishes to examine the relationship 

between two variables. The primary limitation of 

correlation analysis is that the effects of confounding variables cannot be ruled out. In other words, 

the researcher is unable to account for the effects 

of a third (or fourth, or fifth, etc.) variable. In order to 

remedy this shortcoming, the ordinary least squares 

regression (OLS) model must be estimated. The 

OLS regression model builds on the logic and 

mathematics of correlation analysis, but it improves 

upon them in one important way: OLS regression 

allows the researcher to account for the effects of 

a third (or fourth, or fifth, etc.) variable on the 

relationship of interest. 

The OLS regression model takes the following form:

Y = a + BX1 +...BXk

Several points are important to take away from the 

OLS regression model. First, the OLS model is a

linear model. This means that the dependent variable 

(Y) is modeled as a linear combination of the effects 

of a, X1

...Xk, and E. Second, a is the intercept and is 

interpreted as the point at which the regression line 

crosses the y-axis. In general, the intercept reflects 

the mean of Y when all covariates are held at zero. 
33

relaxes many of the assumptions made by the 

OLS model and, therefore, provides efficient and 

unbiased results when certain conditions are present. For the present purposes, two conditions drove 

the decision to estimate the Poisson model: 1) the 

level of measurement of the dependent variables; 

and, 2) the distributional properties of the dependent 

variables. As for the levels of measurement issue, 

all of the dependent variables analyzed below are 

best described as ordinal level measures. Each of 

the variables is scaled with whole number integers 

that typically range from zero to three. The Poisson 

model is well-suited to dealing with variables that 

are measured in this way. As for the second condition that drove the decision to estimate the Poisson 

model (the distribution of the variables), the Poisson 

model does not assume that the dependent variable 

is normally distributed. Instead, the Poisson model 

assumes that the data were generated as a result 

of a random process. By definition, a random process will not generate normally distributed values 

(although it is interesting to note that randomly 

generated data will often “look” like they were generated with some ordered criteria). These two features 

of the Poisson model made it the ideal choice for 

the present analysis. Although certain algebraic features of the Poisson model make the interpretation 

of coefficient estimates more difficult, two features 

are unchanged. First, the coefficients produced by 

the Poisson model can still be interpreted for the 

direction of the effect (positive or negative) in the 

same way that OLS coefficients (or correlations) are 

interpreted. Second, coefficient estimates produced 

by the Poisson model are amenable to tests for 

statistical significance. Thus, we will obtain probability estimates that indicate whether the observed 

estimate is statistically distinguishable from zero.

X produces some amount of change in Y). If the X is 

a dichotomous variable — say, for example, gender 

— the coefficient estimate represents the difference 

between the two groups where the group labeled 

as zeros are the reference category. In other words, 

the coefficient shows how much more or less of Y 

category 1 has as compared to category 0. When 

X is a continuous variable, the OLS estimate tells 

how much Y changes as a function of X. Finally, 

the intercept, which is often ignored, is also

 interpretable. The intercept represents the average 

value on Y when all of the Xs are at zero. 

In many cases, the OLS model performs well and 

the researcher is justified in using it. In some cases, 

however, the OLS model does not perform well, 

and the researcher may generate biased results. 

Why the OLS model might produce biased results in 

some cases is beyond the scope of this discussion. 

For a discussion of these issues written for a social 

science audience, see Long (1997). For now, suffice 

it to say that the OLS model is an inappropriate tool 

when used under certain conditions. These conditions center, primarily, on the scale and the distribution of the dependent variable (Y). The OLS model 

assumes that the dependent variable is measured 

continuously (i.e., ratio level data) and that its cases 

are normally distributed.2

 When these conditions are 

not met, the OLS model will not generate efficient 

and accurate results. In order to perform multivariate 

statistical analyses on a dependent variable that is 

not measured continuously or that is non-normally 

distributed, a variant of the OLS model is necessary 

(i.e., a generalized linear model). 

Though there are many versions of the generalized 

linear model, the present study will rely mainly on 

the Poisson regression model. The Poisson model 

2 It is important to point out that the OLS model does not actually assume a normal distribution of the dependent variable. Instead, 

the OLS model assumes normally distributed residuals, which are a function of the dependent variable. If the dependent variable 

is skewed, it is likely, but not necessarily the case, that the residuals will be skewed as well. However, for the present purposes, 

we will refer to the normal distribution of the dependent variable rather than the normal distribution of the residuals. 
34

1 Qualitative Findings

Site Visit Descriptive Data

All site visits were guided by three data collection instruments: 1) a setting questionnaire, 

used at the six juvenile justice settings included in the current study (Delinquency Court, 

Dependency Court, Youth Court, Juvenile Detention, Juvenile Corrections, and Juvenile 

Probation), 2) a mentoring program questionnaire, used at the program identified by the 

individual setting site, and 3) the site demographic form which collected and organized 

basic information related to each of the visited sites. Tables 4-9 provide an overview of the 

descriptive data collected during the course of the site visits. These data are reflective of 

information provided by the juvenile justice settings and the mentoring programs which 

work with these settings. These tables offer a summary of key features of each of the sites 

selected for inclusion in the study, including location, number of youth served, number 

of current matches, number of youth currently in the referral process, time from identification to match, the age, race, and gender distribution of youth served, and the community 

designation of the site (i.e., urban, suburban, rural, tribal). Additional information presented 

includes the mentoring approach utilized, whether mentoring is voluntary and the type of 

youth focused on by the mentoring program. These types are delineated by juvenile justice 

setting (Delinquency Court, Dependency Court, Youth Court, Juvenile Detention, Juvenile 

Probation, Juvenile Corrections) and risk status (at-risk: youth is identified as having one or 

more risk factors for delinquency; high-risk currently involved: youth identified as high-risk 

and currently involved in the juvenile justice system; high-risk not currently involved; youth 

is identified as having several risk factors for delinquency but is not currently involved in the 

formal juvenile justice system).

3
35

Table 4. Descriptive Data for Juvenile Delinquency Court Sites

Juvenile Delinquency Courts

SITE LOCATION

Knoxville, TN Mississippi Las Vegas, NV Hartford, CT 

Number of 1,300+ 55 13,000 66

Youth Served (yearly estimate) (8 different sites)

Number of Not tracked 15 400 26

Current Matches

Number in Not tracked N/A 0 22

Referral

Time from ID Varies Immediately 1 Week 96 Days

to Match for Team Approach

Age Range 6-18 12-18 13-18 9-18

Gender Male=65% Male=5% Male=59% Male=66%

Female=35% Female=95% Female=41% Female=34%

Community Urban Tribal Urban Urban

Design Rural, Suburban

Region South South West Northeast

Race/Ethnic African American=6% Native American=100% African American=36% African American=42%

Breakdown Hispanic/Latino=2% Native American=1% Hispanic/Latino=56%

White=89% Hispanic/Latino=23% White=2%

Other=3% White=23% Other=17%

Focus of Delinquency Court Not Specified Juvenile Probation Delinquency Court

Mentoring At-Risk Delinquency Court At-Risk

Program High-Risk Currently Involved At-Risk High-Risk Currently 

High-Risk Currently Not Involved 

Not Involved

Time in 40 years 8 years 20+ years 2 Years

Operation

Mentoring Individual Team Individual Individual

Approach Group

 Team

Voluntary Voluntary Voluntary Both Voluntary

or Mandated
36

Qualitative Findings

continued

Table 5. Descriptive Data for Juvenile Dependency Court Sites

Juvenile DePENDENCY Courts

SITE LOCATION

Virginia Beach, VA San Diego, CA Saratoga, NY Burlington, VT 

Number of Several Thousand 39 32 56

Youth Served over 24 different programs 

Number of 40 15 21 6

Current Matches

Number in 14 6 21 6

Referral

Time from ID Males=3 Months 1 Month 2-6 Months 6 Weeks

to Match Females=4-6 Weeks

Age Range 6-17 14-18 6-15 6-21

Gender Male=50% Male=45% Male=30% Male=40%

Female=50% Female=55% Female=70% Female=60%

Community Urban Urban Suburban Urban

Design 

Region South West Northeast Northeast

Race/Ethnic Native American=.5% African American=7% African American=12% African American=21%

Breakdown Hispanic/Latino=6% Native American=1% Native American=4% Native American=2%

White=47% Hispanic/Latino=28% Hispanic/Latino=10% Hispanic/Latino=2%

White=58.9% White=72% White=75%

Other=33% Other=2%

Focus of Dependency Court Juvenile Probation Dependency Court Delinquency Court

Mentoring Dependency Court At-Risk At-Risk

Program At-Risk High-Risk Currently 

High-Risk Currently Involved 

Involved High-Risk Currently

High-Risk Currently Not Involved

Not Involved

Time in 2.5 Years 6 Years 19 Years 10 Years

Operation

Mentoring Individual Individual Individual Individual

Approach Group

Voluntary Voluntary Voluntary Voluntary Voluntary

or Mandated
37

Table 6. Descriptive Data for Juvenile Youth Court Sites

Juvenile Youth Courts

SITE LOCATION

Latham, NY New Bedford, MA Lawrenceville, IL

Number of 105 310 55 

Youth Served

Number of 14 25 6

Current Matches

Number in 3 0 0

Referral

Time from ID 6-8 Weeks 2 Months 30 Days

to Match 

Age Range 9-18 6-15 13-18

Gender Male=55% Male=71% Male=100%

Female=45% Female=29% 

Community Suburban Urban Rural

Design 

Region Northeast Northeast Midwest

Race/Ethnic African American=4% African American=27% White=100%

Breakdown Hispanic/Latino=1% Hispanic/Latino=30% 

White=90% White=31% 

Other=3% Other=12% 

Focus of Juvenile Probation Juvenile Probation Juvenile Probation

Mentoring Delinquency Court Youth Court/Teen Court Diversion Juvenile Corrections

Program Youth Court/Teen Court Diversion At-Risk Deliquency Court 

Dependency Court High-Risk Currently Involved Youth Court/Teen Court Diversion

At-Risk High-Risk Currently Not Involved Juvenile Corrections

High-Risk Currently Involved Dependency Court

High-Risk Currently Not Involved At-Risk

High-Risk Currently Involved 

High-Risk Currently Not Involved

Time in 20 Years 5 Years 40 Years

Operation

Mentoring Individual Individual Individual

Approach 

Voluntary Voluntary Voluntary Both

or Mandated
38

Qualitative Findings

continued

Table 7A. Descriptive Data for Juvenile Probations Sites

Juvenile PROBATIONS

SITE LOCATION

Knoxville, TN Claremont, NH Shreveport, LA

Number of 175 24 70 

Youth Served

Number of 78 6 49

Current Matches

Number in 5 0 20

Referral

Time from ID 24 Hours 30 Days 5-8 Weeks

to Match 

Age Range 13-18 13-18 13-18

Gender Male=64% Male=67% Male=90%

Female=36% Female=33% Female=10%

Community Urban Rural Urban

Design 

Region South Northeast South

Race/Ethnic African American=55% White=100% African American=85%

Breakdown White=41% White=15%

Other=4% 

 

Focus of Juvenile Probation Juvenile Probation Juvenile Probation

Mentoring Juvenile Corrections Juvenile Corrections Juvenile Corrections

Program Delinquency Court At-Risk Deliquency Court 

High-Risk Currently Involved High-Risk Currently Involved High-Risk Currently Involved 

High-Risk Currently Not Involved High-Risk Currently Not Involved

Time in 6 Years 2 Years 1.75 Years

Operation

Mentoring Individual Individual Individual

Approach Group

Team 

Voluntary Voluntary Both Voluntary

or Mandated
39

Table 7B. Descriptive Data for Juvenile Corrections Sites

Juvenile CORRECTIONS

SITE LOCATION

Sequin, TX Kalamazoo, MI 

Number of Approx. 75 0 

Youth Served

Number of 15 1 

Current Matches (31 total in 2010) (100% when mentors are available)

Number in 0 13 

Referral

Time from ID 4-6 Weeks 2 Months

to Match 

Age Range 15-18 16-21 

Gender Male=90% Male=67% 

Female=10% Female=33% 

Community Rural Urban 

Design 

Region South Midwest

Race/Ethnic African American=20% African American=79%

Breakdown White=60% Hispanic/Latino=60% 

Other=20% White=20% 

Focus of Juvenile Probation Juvenile Probation 

Mentoring Juvenile Corrections Juvenile Corrections

Program Delinquency Court At-Risk 

High-Risk Currently Involved High-Risk Currently Involved 

Time in 3.5 Years 5 Years 

Operation

Mentoring Individual Individual

Approach

Voluntary Voluntary Voluntary

or Mandated
40

Qualitative Findings

continued

Table 8A. Descriptive Data for Juvenile Detention Sites

Juvenile DETENTION

SITE LOCATION

Portland, ME Manchester, NH Goddard, KS

Number of 165 144 49 (42 due to 

Youth Served staff reductions)

Number of 12 27 40

Current Matches

Number in 0 0 0

Referral

Time from ID 4-8 Weeks 30 Days 1 Day

to Match 

Age Range 16-18 13-18 6-18

Gender Male=83% Male=87% Male=100%

Female=17% Female=13% 

Community Urban Urban Rural

Design Rural Rural

Suburban Suburban 

Region Northeast Northeast Midwest

Race/Ethnic White=98% African American=3% African American=28%

Breakdown Hispanic/Latino=1% Hispanic/Latino=3% Native American=4%

Native American=1% White=93% Hispanic/Latino=22%

Other=2% Other=46% 

Focus of Juvenile Probation Juvenile Probation Juvenile Corrections

Mentoring Juvenile Corrections Juvenile Corrections High-Risk Currently Involved

Program At-Risk At-Risk 

High-Risk Currently Involved High-Risk Currently Involved 

High-Risk Currently Not Involved High-Risk Currently Not Involved

Time in 1.5 Years 1 Year 4 Years

Operation

Mentoring Individual Individual Individual

Approach 

Voluntary Voluntary Voluntary Voluntary

or Mandated
41

Table 8B. Descriptive Data for Juvenile Detention Sites

Juvenile DETENTION

SITE LOCATION

Southbend, IN and Logansport, IN Anchorage, AK 

Number of 21 Beds=156 

Youth Served Treatment=96

 Detention=60

Number of 2 13 

Current Matches 

Number in 1 5 

Referral

Time from ID Immediately for Incarcerated youth/ 55 Days

to Match 2 Days-Post Release

Age Range 13-18 9-21 

Gender Male=100% Male=80% 

Female=20% 

Community Urban Urban 

Design Rural Rural

Suburban 

Region Midwest West

Race/Ethnic Hispanic/Latino=100% African American=17%

Breakdown Native American=17%

Hispanic/Latino=6% 

 White=39%

Other=21% 

Focus of Juvenile Corrections Juvenile Corrections 

Mentoring High-Risk Currently Involved 

Program 

Time in 1 Years 8 Years 

Operation

Mentoring Individual Individual

Approach Group

Voluntary Voluntary Group

or Mandated
42

Qualitative Findings

continued

Table 9. Descriptive Data for Juvenile Corrections Sites

Juvenile Corrections

SITE LOCATION

Knoxville, TN Buffalo, NY 

Number of 175 248 

Youth Served (Over past two years)

Number of 78 152 

Current Matches 

Number in 5 15 

Referral

Time from ID 24 Hours 2 Weeks

to Match 

Age Range 13-18 13-18 

Gender Male=64% Male=68% 

Female=36% Female=32% 

Community Urban Urban 

Design 

Region South Northeast

Race/Ethnic African American=55% African American=47%

Breakdown White=41% Native American=1%

Other=4% Hispanic/Latino=19% 

 White=21%

Other=12% 

Focus of Juvenile Probations Juvenile Probations 

Mentoring Juvenile Corrections Juvenile Corrections

Program Delinquency Court At-Risk

High-Risk Currently Involved High-Risk Currently Not Involved

High-Risk Currently Involved

Time in 6 Years 2 Years 

Operation

Mentoring Individual Individual

Approach Group Group

Team Team

Voluntary Voluntary Voluntary

or Mandated
43

Delinquency Court SITE VISITS

The Referral Process for 

Delinquency Court

Site visits were made to four locations primarily 

described as delinquency or juvenile courts. These 

Delinquency Courts are located in Hartford, CT, 

Clark County, NV, Knoxville, TN, and the Choctaw

Indian Reservation in Mississippi. The last of these 

four sites also housed a Youth Court which was 

integrated into the Tribal Court system on the 

reservation, along with the mentoring program. This 

site was also the only one featuring an embedded 

mentoring program. The Hartford court utilizes a 

partnership with a local program, the Youth Alive 

Mentoring Program, while the Nevada site refers 

youth to Boys and Girls Club of Las Vegas (BGCLV), 

which has significant capacity to provide mentoring 

services. The East Tennessee Delinquency Court in 

Knoxville works with Big Brothers Big Sisters of East 

Tennessee (BBBSET) for their mentoring needs. For 

all of these courts, mentoring is not court ordered, 

but voluntary. The referral process is slightly variant 

across the four sites, but most follow a trajectory in 

which the juvenile court instigates the initial referral 

steps. For example, in Clark County, where Juvenile 

Probation is subsumed under the juvenile court, 

referrals may be made from either juvenile court 

actors or probation officers. Referrals are then 

passed on to BGCLV for further screening. In 

Hartford, a Juvenile Review Board (JRB) serves as 

a buffer between youthful offenders and the actual 

juvenile court and acts as a diversion from formal 

appearance before the court. The JRB employs case 

managers and project coordinators who interview 

and screen youth and make the determination 

to refer for mentoring services to the Youth Alive 

program. The East Tennessee Delinquency Court is 

only one of several sources of mentoring referrals for 

system-involved youth. The court, law enforcement, 

Juvenile Probation, schools and community 

organizations all make referrals for mentoring 

services with BBBSET. BBBS then utilizes its own 

screening mechanisms to determine the suitability 

of mentoring for referred youth. 

The Choctaw Tribal Court procedure is perhaps the 

most divergent from the other sites in that the court 

is the sole source of referral in the community. The 

Tribal Court has the authority to hear all criminal or 

delinquent cases and makes all initial determinations 

related to the youth’s trajectory. Many youth will be 

referred to the embedded tribal Youth Court where 

they will be assessed by the intake diversion coordinator. It is this screening and assessment which 

evaluates youth’s suitability for mentoring services.

With the exception of the Tribal Court, all sites 

were bound to some extent by state statutes 

governing the timeframe within which juvenile cases 

must be processed. These time periods ranged 

from 90 days in Connecticut and Tennessee to 

four months (roughly 120 days) in Nevada. These 

statutes do not, however, appear to affect the

likelihood or ability of the sites to make referrals 

to mentoring programs as none reported problems 

stemming from this statutory requirement.

Similar to the findings from other juvenile justice 

settings, the Delinquency Court sites reported that 

the vast majority of youth are deemed suitable for 

mentoring. The percentage of youth identified as a 

“good fit” for mentoring ranged between 95 percent 

in Hartford and Knoxville and 99 percent in Clark 

County to 100 percent in the Choctaw Tribal Court. 

The mentoring programs associated with these sites 

also reported similarly high rates of suitability based 

on their own specific assessment criteria. 

In terms of actual match rates, Clark County Juvenile 

Court reported that 15 referrals had been made to 

BGCLV for mentoring services in the past six months 
44

and reported a 99 percent successful match rate. 

In Hartford, 22 youth had been referred to the Youth 

Alive Mentoring Program in the past six months, 

but only eight of 14 had been successfully matched 

with a mentor due to wait list issues. The discrepancy in these numbers (22 referred, only eight of 

14 matched) is likely due to the voluntary nature of 

the mentoring services. At each of the four sites, 

participation in mentoring is completely voluntary, 

and often, there is no official follow-up by the juvenile 

court to identify which youth have been successfully 

matched. The Knoxville site reported that 35 referrals had been made from a variety of juvenile justice 

sources (i.e., law enforcement, Juvenile Probation, 

juvenile court) in the past six months, of which 25 

had been successfully matched to a mentor by 

BBBSET. In the Choctaw Tribal Court/Youth Court, 

25 youth had been referred for mentoring in the past 

six months, all of whom were successfully matched. 

Program Capacity and Characteristics: 

Delinquency Court

The types of mentoring utilized across the four sites 

varied in terms of form and intensity. In Clark County, 

BGCLV requires a minimum 12-month match 

commitment from its mentoring relationships, as 

does the Youth Alive Mentoring Program in Hartford. 

Matches at the BBBS in east Tennessee are also 

required to be 12 months in length, though the 

intensity of these matches varies depending upon 

where the mentoring is based — school or the 

community. The match commitment for the 

Choctaw site was similarly set at 12 months. 

The Clark County site reported the use of a team 

mentoring approach based in the community. 

Mentors meet with mentees twice per week for 

approximately two hours each meeting. These 

meetings often occur within the daily program 

operation of the Boys & Girls Clubs and takes 

place at the club’s facility. The Choctaw site similarly 

utilizes team mentoring which takes place on the 

reservation at the Choctaw Justice Center. These 

meetings typically take place twice per month and 

last for approximately three hours per meeting. 

Conversely, both the Youth Alive program in Hartford 

and the BBBS program in Knoxville utilize oneto-one mentoring with referred youth. Youth Alive 

Mentors meet weekly with their mentees at various 

community locations throughout Hartford. These 

meetings typically last two hours. At the East 

Tennessee site, mentoring takes place at both 

school and in the community. Mentoring at school 

locations occurs weekly, with meeting time 

duration of one hour. Mentoring taking place at 

community locations occurs less frequently, but lasts 

for longer periods of time. Specifically, mentoring in 

the community takes place only between two and 

three times per month (compared with weekly 

mentoring at school locations) and lasts for 

approximately two to three hours per meeting.

The mentoring programs associated with the 

Delinquency Courts indicated that there are 

varying amounts of training that mentors receive 

across sites. For example, in Clark County, BGCLV 

provides specialized training for its mentors on 

a range of topics, including dealing with systeminvolved, delinquent youth. Youth Alive in Hartford 

also utilizes between six and eight hours of training 

for its mentors. BBBS of East Tennessee reported 

no special training for mentors related to addressing 

the specific needs of delinquent or system-involved 

youth, nor did the Choctaw program. 

Data also suggest inconsistencies across the 

sites with respect to the amount of individualized 

attention referred youth receive. At two of the four 

sites (Clark County and Choctaw), respondents 

indicated that mentoring services were designed 

Qualitative Findings

continued
45

from the other settings included in this study in that 

they deal primarily with children involved in the foster 

system but not necessarily involved in delinquency. 

Dependency Courts do, however, utilize mentoring 

as a service for the youth who appear before them 

at times and as such were included in the current 

study.

Referral processes varied somewhat across the 

four sites, although all had in common the voluntary 

nature of participation in mentoring services. None 

of the sites mandated that mentoring take place, 

regardless of who recommends it. For three of the 

four sites (San Diego, Saratoga and Burlington), 

referrals can come from a range of system actors 

who may deem mentoring appropriate for the youth 

with whom they come into contact. For example, in 

Saratoga, referrals for mentoring services may derive 

from the Dependency Court, Juvenile Court, Child 

Protective Services, parents or schools. Catholic 

Charities of Saratoga, which also serves as a referral 

source for mentoring for children involved in other 

services provided by the charity, offers the mentoring services for Dependency Court-involved youth 

through their Saratoga Mentoring Program. In San 

Diego, referrals may come from residential facilities 

where foster children are located, or they are made 

by Juvenile Probation for youth also involved in 

Delinquency Court. Referrals may also come from 

San Diego Youth Services, Transitional Living Plus 

(TLP), New Alternative Foster Agency and foster 

families. The mentoring program in San Diego, 

Foster Youth Mentoring Independence Program, 

is embedded in the Bridge Residential Home and 

services youth located at both the Bridge facility 

and the Fred Finch Youth Center.

Referrals for Dependency Court-involved youth in 

Burlington come from the court itself, child welfare 

agencies and community agencies that deal with 

foster youth and their families. More specifically, 

with the individualized issues of the referred youth in 

mind. For example, the Nevada site reported specific 

foci on substance abuse, gangs and graffiti for many 

of their mentored youth, while the Choctaw site 

also reported that mentoring is tailored for specific 

offenses. Similarly, the Choctaw site was the only 

one of the four which reported its mentors assist the 

youth with navigation of the juvenile justice system. 

Conversely, the Hartford and Knoxville sites indicated 

that mentoring is not designed or delivered with 

specific issues in mind.

Outcomes for Mentoring: 

Delinquency Court

All respondents interviewed were asked to discuss 

the types of goals and objectives that were intended 

for the mentoring relationship. These common 

goal categories included minimized contact with 

the criminal or juvenile justice system, reduced 

recidivism, improved school attendance and 

performance, prosocial engagement, and employment preparation. Across the four sites, both the 

Delinquency Court and the mentoring program

identified the vast majority of these as goals that 

are set for the mentoring match. The empirical 

question remains, however, how successful youth 

are in achieving these intended goals over the 

course of the 12-month match and during the 

time following the completion of the mentoring 

relationship. 

Dependency Court SITE VISITS

The Referral Process for Dependency Court

Site visits were conducted with four locations 

primarily described as Dependency Courts. These 

include Dependency Courts in San Diego, CA, 

Saratoga, NY, Burlington, VT, and Virginia Beach, 

VA. Dependency Courts are substantially different 
46

Qualitative Findings

continued

Ninety percent of youth at the Burlington site are 

deemed acceptable candidates for mentoring, and 

13 of 15 referrals in the previous six months have 

been successfully matched (87 percent). At the 

Virginia Beach site, MENTOR’s Elements of Effective 

Practice for Mentoring is also utilized to assess the 

suitability of youth referred for mentoring. Program 

staff also conducts an intake interview with youth 

and their guardians. The program supervisor reports 

that 53 percent of referred youth are deemed 

acceptable for mentoring with 41 of 77 referrals 

successfully matched. The Virginia Beach site 

reported that the main reasons for program 

exclusion included family or youth refusal to 

participate and criminal history of the youth (e.g., 

violent or sex offenses, serious psychological 

problems).

Program Capacity and Characteristics: 

Dependency Court

The four programs visited under the umbrella of 

Dependency Court also varied in terms of program 

capacity and characteristics. In particular, several 

of the sites reported challenges to securing enough 

mentors for referred youth (Saratoga, San Diego, 

Burlington). In terms of match success, the San 

Diego site reported that 11 of 15 youth referred in 

the prior six months had been successfully matched 

with an adult mentor for a match rate of 73 percent. 

Burlington reported 13 of 15 successfully matched in 

the past six months for a match rate of 87 percent. 

The Burlington program also reported that the 

reason two youth were not successfully matched 

was because of their refusal to participate in the 

mentoring services. Saratoga reported a 70 percent 

success rate in matching referred youth with adult 

mentors. In Virginia Beach, 15 referrals have been 

received in the previous six months, with 12 youth 

being successfully matched for a rate of 75 percent. 

Overall, these findings suggest that the vast majority 

residential services within the Spectrum Youth and 

Family Services agency are the primary referral 

source. The Burlington setting utilizes an embedded 

mentoring program for referred youth, the Spectrum 

Mentoring Program. In Virginia Beach, referrals 

for mentoring services come primarily from

Department of Human Services social workers. 

Unlike the Burlington or San Diego sites, the Virginia 

Beach Department of Human Services does not 

use an embedded mentoring program for the foster 

youth under its care and instead refers youth to 

the Team Up Foster Care Mentoring Program in 

Portsmouth, VA.

Once referred to a particular mentoring program, 

another assessment is undertaken by the individual 

programs to determine the suitability of youth for 

mentoring services. In Saratoga, the Catholic 

Charities’ Saratoga Mentoring Program evaluates 

referred youth by using the criteria set forth by 

MENTOR’s Elements of Effective Practice for 

MentoringTM. More specifically, the program director, 

a licensed social worker, assesses all referred youth 

and makes determinations regarding suitability. The 

Saratoga site reported that approximately 70 percent 

of youth referred from juvenile justice settings are 

deemed suitable for mentoring. In San Diego, almost 

all foster youth are referred for mentoring. Ninety-five 

percent of youth at the San Diego site are deemed 

good candidates for mentoring, although one in 

three (35 percent) is excluded due to a range of 

issues, including refusal to participate, family reunification plans and youth who have absconded.

The referral process in Burlington involves the 

completion of a referral form by the youth and their 

parent/guardian, as well as a formal intake interview 

completed by social workers or counselors. The 

Burlington site also reported using MENTOR’s 

Elements of Effective Practice for Mentoring in 

determining eligibility for mentoring services. 
47

In San Diego, mentors do receive training (16 hours), 

although this does not involve any specialized 

training for dealing with juvenile justice involved 

youth. Training in Burlington involves instruction 

provided by MOBIUS, the Vermont State Mentoring 

Partnership. This includes special training for dealing 

with foster-care involved youth and takes place 

four times per year. Finally, the Virginia Beach site 

also utilizes formal training for mentors, though 

it does not directly address dealing with foster 

care youth.

Only one of the four sites (Virginia Beach) reported 

that mentoring activities were specifically tailored 

for Dependency Court-involved youth. Catholic 

Charities of Saratoga did, however, report that while 

mentoring is not specifically tailored for individual 

youth, additional services can be provided to the 

referred youth and his/her family through the 

charity’s other services such as counseling, 

advocacy and parental support. When it comes 

to assisting youth in navigating the juvenile justice 

system, two of the four sites reported that mentors 

are responsible for this duty. Respondents in 

San Diego and Burlington indicated that mentors 

are expected to assist youth in dealing with the

juvenile justice system, while the Saratoga and 

Virginia Beach sites reported that this was not 

an expectation of mentors.

Outcomes for Mentoring: Dependency Court

Each of the six settings was asked to report on 

the intended goals or objectives of the mentoring 

match. Across all sites and settings, most 

respondents indicated that most of the goals listed 

were also those intended for the mentoring match. 

In particular, sites were asked to identify which of the 

following were considered specific goals: minimized 

contact with the criminal or juvenile justice system, 

reduced recidivism, improved school attendance and 

of youth referred for mentoring services from 

Dependency Court are able to be successfully 

matched with an adult mentor.

The type of mentoring utilized was also 

investigated during the site visits. All four sites 

reported utilizing one-to-one mentoring styles, 

although the Saratoga site also indicated that 

group mentoring was used. Group mentoring was 

described by that program as involving one mentor 

and multiple youth at the same time. Mentoring in 

the Saratoga program involves a 12-month match 

commitment, with interactions taking place weekly 

for approximately two hours per meeting. 

Mentoring activities take place in the community, 

typically at Skidmore College in Saratoga, but also 

at other community locations. The Foster Youth 

Mentoring Independence Program in San Diego 

also requires a 12-month match commitment from 

its mentoring matches, with meetings occurring 

twice per month. These meetings are typically two 

hours in duration and take place in the community 

or at the residential facilities where foster youth 

reside. A 12-month match commitment is required 

at the Spectrum Mentoring Program in Burlington, 

where mentors and youth meet in community 

locations at least twice per month. These meetings last for approximately three hours. Similarly, 

a 12-month match commitment is required at the 

Team Up Foster Care Mentoring Program in Virginia 

Beach. Mentors meet with youth weekly at community locations for about two hours per meeting. 

All sites were asked about the type of training 

mentors receive prior to being matched with referred 

youth. Similar to the findings derived from other 

juvenile justice settings, training for mentors is varied 

both prior to initial contact with youth and during 

the course of the match relationship. For example, 

in Saratoga, mentors are trained in several topics 

including “virtues training” and child sexual abuse. 
48

Qualitative Findings

continued

the use of the site visit questionnaire (see Appendix 

A), several findings were generated related to the 

specific elements of the referral process for 

mentoring services. 

For the Colonie Youth Court, located in Latham, 

NY, and the New Bedford Youth Court, located in 

New Bedford, MA, the referral process typically 

begins with police contact. In New York, local law 

enforcement conducts its own intake assessment 

of the youthful offender and determines whether the 

youth should be diverted from official juvenile court 

involvement to the Youth Court. In Massachusetts, 

youth are referred to the Youth Court if they are first 

time offenders willing to admit guilt. The Youth Court 

in New York also receives referrals from Juvenile 

Probation and the local juvenile court, which are 

common referral sources for most Youth Courts, 

both those described here and more generally as 

Youth Court practice. 

Once youth have been referred to Youth Court, there 

are two ways in which he or she may be referred to 

a mentoring program. First, mentoring may be used 

as part of the sentence dispensed by the peer jury. 

Second, the Youth Court director or case manager 

may determine that mentoring is appropriate for a 

particular youth. In New York and Massachusetts, 

these referrals must be made within 120 days of 

initial police contact, as the programs are bound 

by statutory authority to adhere to this timeframe. 

Conversely, there is no statutory timeframe for 

Illinois, though most cases are referred within 

30 days.

For all Youth Courts in the sample, participation 

in mentoring is voluntary. This presents one of the 

most significant challenges to potential matching 

success, as some families are not willing to 

participate or allow their children to participate in 

mentoring services. The other major obstacle to 

performance, prosocial engagement and 

employment preparation. For the Dependency 

Court sites, however, there was far greater 

variability with this response. In Saratoga, all goals 

except reduced recidivism and employment 

preparation were identified as intended objectives. 

The San Diego site reported that all goals were 

relevant for their youth, while the Burlington site 

indicated that only improved school attendance 

and performance and prosocial engagement were 

specific objectives for their matches. Finally, the 

site in Virginia Beach reported that all goals, with 

the exception of employment preparation, were 

considered objectives for the match relationship. 

This variability in goals and objectives is likely due 

to the novel clientele served by these sites. Youth 

involved in Dependency Court, unlike the other 

five juvenile justice settings, may be involved in the 

system through no fault of their own. Indeed, most 

youth involved in Dependency Court are those who 

have been abandoned, abused or otherwise victimized by their parents or guardians. These youth have 

not, however, necessarily engaged in delinquency or 

other problem behavior. As a result, the objectives 

intended for their matches differ somewhat from the 

other settings and sites.

Youth/Teen Court SITE VISITS

The Referral Process for Youth/Teen Court

Site visits were made to three programs primarily 

described as Youth Courts. These Youth Courts are 

located in Lawrenceville, IL, New Bedford, MA, and 

Latham, NY, and serve as diversionary programming 

for youthful offenders. Only one of the three sites 

(Illinois) featured an embedded mentoring program 

for youth, while the others utilize a partnership with 

local mentoring programs to serve their clients’ 

needs with respect to mentoring services. Based on 

the data obtained from these site visits and through 
49

four had been successfully matched, for a match 

rate of 67 percent. Overall, the evidence derived 

from the site visits suggests that while many youth 

are considered viable candidates for mentoring, in 

raw numbers few are actually referred to mentoring 

programs from Youth Courts as the result of juvenile 

justice system involvement.

Program Capacity and Characteristics: 

Youth/Teen Court

While all three sites utilize one-to-one mentoring for 

referred youth, the capacity and characteristics of 

the visited Youth Courts varied in several important 

ways. The Colonie Youth Court and its associated 

mentoring program require a 12-month match 

commitment for mentoring relationships. Mentoring 

takes place in both school and community-based 

locations. Mentoring that occurs at school-based 

locations typically occurs weekly, with a one hour 

duration in the meeting time. When mentoring takes 

place in the community, it is less frequent (2-3 times 

per month), but lasts for longer periods of time per 

meeting (approximately 2-3 hours per meeting).

For the New Bedford Youth Court, mentoring is 

also one-to-one, but is restricted to school-based 

interactions between mentors and mentees. 

Matches between mentors and youth typically 

occur over nine months to coincide with the 

academic school year. Mentoring takes place in 

weekly meetings lasting between approximately 

60 and 90 minutes. In Illinois, a 12-month match 

commitment is required. One-to-one mentoring 

takes place in community locations and occurs 

twice per week. These meetings last for 

approximately one hour.

For two of the three sites, interviewees reported 

that mentoring activities were not tailored around 

the specific needs of the referred youth, and none 

of the mentoring programs focused on a specific 

successful referral identified was that of the mental 

health status of the individual youth. In particular, 

the New Bedford site reported that youth are not 

deemed appropriate candidates for mentoring if they 

have been diagnosed or show evidence of serious 

mental health problems.

Across the Youth Court sites, the vast majority 

of youth are deemed appropriate for referral to 

mentoring services. Findings indicate that these 

numbers range between 90 and 100 percent, and 

that once referred to an actual mentoring program, 

most of these youth are able to be matched 

successfully with a mentor. While these numbers are 

quite high in terms of candidate suitability, findings 

also suggest that few youth are actually referred to 

mentoring over the course of a year. For example, 

in the Colonie Youth Court, only seven referrals have 

been made to the mentoring program in the past 

six months. Of these, only four of the seven had 

been successfully matched with a mentor, for a 

match rate of 57 percent. The mentoring program 

associated with this Youth Court (Big Brothers Big 

Sisters of the Capital Region) reported only eight 

current matches that were referred from the Youth 

Court. In the New Bedford Youth Court, 100 percent 

of youth are deemed appropriate for mentoring 

services, but only five had been referred to the 

mentoring program in the past six months. The 

mentoring program associated with this Youth 

Court (SMILES Mentoring Program) reported 25 

current matches referred from the court. 

For the Lawrence County Peer Jury, which utilizes 

an embedded mentoring program (Cra-Wa-La 

Volunteers in Probation), reports indicated that 

far fewer referred youth are deemed good 

candidates for mentoring. Interviews with program 

staff indicate that only 25 percent of referred youth 

meet the criteria for mentoring services, and of the 

six youth referred in the previous six months, only 
50

Qualitative Findings

continued

Juvenile Corrections SITE VISITS

The Referral Process for Juvenile 

Corrections 

Site visits were made to six locations primarily 

described as Juvenile Corrections. These corrections 

settings are located in Wichita, KS, South Bend, IN, 

Logansport, IN, South Portland, ME, Anchorage, 

AK, and Manchester, NH. The sites varied in terms 

of embedded mentoring programs with four of the 

five sites reporting that these types of arrangements 

were utilized. The Wichita site reported using an 

embedded mentoring program that is funded by 

state monies (Title I Neglected and Delinquent 

Funding) designed to assist incarcerated youth with 

their transition from the facility to their community 

and school. This embedded program utilizes the 

services of a “mentor specialist” to aid in this 

transition and in the development of educational 

goals. The South Bend and Logansport sites 

also utilize an embedded mentoring program, 

“Bienvenido Program,” which services Latino males. 

The South Portland, ME, site employs three distinct 

mentoring programs to deliver services to referred 

youth, one of which is embedded within the Long 

Creek Youth Development Center. Following release, 

youth may be serviced by either the Good Guides 

program, affiliated with Goodwill Industries, or the 

Seeds of Independence program, depending upon 

geographic location. Nearby Manchester, NH, also 

utilizes the services of Good Guides, which provides 

mentoring to referred youth with the assistance of 

OJJDP grant funding. Finally, the Anchorage site 

(McLaughlin Youth Center) reported a cooperative 

agreement with Big Brothers Big Sisters of Alaska 

to provide mentoring services for committed youth. 

These mentoring relationships are designed to 

begin while the youth is incarcerated and continue 

following release.

type of offender. Based on the data obtained from 

the interviews, it appears that mentoring tends to 

be engaged in a general manner in order to service 

the needs of a divergent client base. One exception 

to this was the Colonie Youth Court, which reported 

that mentoring practices were tailored toward 

individual youth based on their specific needs. For 

example, this site reported that mentoring practices 

were tailored for a range of circumstances including 

specific types of offenses such as property crime or 

gang involvement, individual youth history such as 

mental health or developmental issues, and specific 

juvenile justice settings. 

Outcomes for Mentoring: Youth/Teen Court

While the central focus of the current research is 

the referral process utilized to match youth with 

appropriate mentors, data were collected that 

addressed intermediate outcomes for the mentoring 

match. In particular, data were collected regarding 

the possible goals intended for the mentoring match. 

These common goal categories included minimized 

contact with the criminal or juvenile justice system, 

reduced recidivism, improved school attendance 

and performance, prosocial engagement and employment preparation. Across all three sites, both the 

Youth Court and the mentoring program identified 

the vast majority of these as goals or objectives that 

are set for the mentoring match. This is not entirely 

surprising since the population under study here 

includes youth who have become involved in 

mentoring primarily because of contact with the 

criminal or juvenile justice system. Only “employment 

preparation” was not identified as a common goal 

across the Youth Court and mentoring sites.
51

who will be referred for mentoring must be referred 

within that 14 day timeframe.

Similar to the other five juvenile justice settings, 

almost all youth were deemed suitable for referral 

to mentoring. In fact, of all six settings considered 

in the current study, the highest percentages of 

suitable youth were reported by the Juvenile 

Corrections sites. All but one of the sites (New 

Hampshire) reported that 100 percent of youth were 

considered good candidates for mentoring. At the 

New Hampshire site, this number was only slightly 

less, with between 90 and 95 percent of youth 

deemed acceptable for mentoring.

With respect to actual referrals and matches 

made, a fewer number of youth are serviced at these 

locations compared to other juvenile justice settings. 

The Wichita site reported that between 25 and 30 

referrals had been made in the past six months, with 

100 percent of these being successfully matched. 

In Maine, between 25 and 30 referrals had been 

made in the past six months, with 100 percent of 

these youth being successfully matched. The Alaska 

site reported that eight youth had been referred in 

the six months prior, with five of these successfully 

matched with a mentor. Reasons provided for those 

not matched included a lack of mentoring programs, 

lack of mentors within a program, lack of availability 

of suitable mentors, youth and/or family refusal to 

accept the match, and mentor program exclusions. 

The New Hampshire site reported a perfect record 

of matching referred youth with suitable mentors 

(100 percent match rate), with 30 youth referred and 

matched in the six months prior to the site visit.

Program Capacity and Characteristics: 

Juvenile Corrections

The Juvenile Corrections sites varied considerably 

in terms of the types and styles of mentoring utilized. 

The Wichita site uses one-to-one mentoring in the 

The referral process across all six sites was fairly 

consistent, with all reporting voluntary participation. 

In Wichita, referrals may be self-made or derive 

from the mentoring specialist who serves as the 

intermediary between the facility and the mentoring 

program. Unlike most locations, there is no 

official referral form or process per se, nor is parental 

permission sought for youth participation. In most 

instances, the mentoring specialist meets with the 

interested youth to determine the most appropriate 

course of action regarding mentoring services. At 

the South Bend site, referral is determined by the 

facility staff and is considered during intake and 

classification. The referral process is somewhat more 

formalized at the South Portland location, with all 

youth required to complete a referral form. Referrals 

may come from the volunteer coordinator, family 

or youth themselves. The unit treatment team, 

consisting of a psychologist, an educator, a direct 

care staffer and a social worker, also plays a role 

in the assessment process. 

Referral at the Alaska site begins with the facility 

treatment team, consisting of a counselor, a 

treatment supervisor, a reentry caseworker, a 

probation officer and case management supervisor, 

which determines youth suitability for mentoring. 

This process entails review of youths’ case files, 

collateral contact information, probation officer 

and family information, and opinions of reentry 

caseworkers. After consideration of this information, referral is made to BBBS. This process typically 

begins between 12 and 16 weeks prior to youths’ 

release from the facility in order to establish a 

working relationship between mentor and mentee. 

In New Hampshire, referrals are not court ordered 

but are made by the facility classification team. 

Unlike the other four sites included in the Juvenile 

Corrections setting, NH is bound by a 14-day 

classification deadline. Because the referral assessment begins at intake and classification, any youth 
52

Qualitative Findings

continued

Similar to reports from other BBBS programs, 

the Alaska site requires a 12-month match 

commitment consisting of weekly (or more 

frequent) interaction between mentors and mentees. 

Mentoring is one-to-one and takes place in the 

secured facility (McLaughlin Youth Center) prior to 

release and at community locations post-release. 

After release, mentoring interactions are limited to 

between two and four times per month. Finally, the 

New Hampshire site also reported the utilization 

of one-to-one mentoring which takes place at the 

secure facility (Sununu Youth Service Center) prior 

to release and at community locations post-release. 

For all five Juvenile Corrections sites visited,

interviewees reported that mentoring was tailored 

for the specific population of incarcerated 

youthful offenders. This is somewhat divergent 

from the other juvenile justice settings in that the 

youth referred from these settings tend to vary in 

terms of criminal history and current offense. 

However, all youth who are committed to a juvenile 

correctional facility are, by nature, more serious 

offenders with specific needs relative to youth who 

appear before Delinquency Court or Youth Court,

 for example. The five Juvenile Corrections sites 

reported that mentoring was tailored specifically 

for the individual youth based upon their individual 

characteristics or situations (e.g., gender or 

family issues), behavioral history or offense trajectory. 

Similarly, because the youth served by these settings 

are unique, all sites reported additional training for 

mentors on topics related to the juvenile justice 

system, safety in correctional facilities and dealing 

with system-involved, incarcerated youth.

Outcomes for Mentoring: Juvenile 

Corrections

All respondents interviewed were asked to discuss 

the types of goals and objectives that were intended 

secure juvenile facility during the time of the youth’s 

incarceration, but also conducts mentoring in community locations following release. This site 

also reported that mentoring may take place in 

the youth’s home after release, although this is 

discouraged by the program. A nine-to-12-month 

match commitment is required by the Wichita 

program, with weekly one-hour interactions 

comprising the mentoring relationship. 

At the South Bend and Logansport Juvenile 

Correctional Facilities in Indiana, the Bienvenidos 

Program utilizes an approach that is unlike any of 

the other Juvenile Corrections sites. This program 

is designed to take place over an eight week 

period and follows a specific curriculum driven by 

cognitive-behavioral treatment principles. Youth 

participate in this program in groups meeting weekly 

for between 1.5 and two hours. A nine-month match 

commitment is required at this site (for the postincarceration element of the program), then intermittent follow-up of youth after release. This 

program also utilizes elements of peer mentoring 

among the enrolled program participants. The 

process described possesses echoes of the 

therapeutic communities (TCs) found in adult 

correctional facilities delivering treatment and 

intervention programming.

Because the Maine site utilized the services of three 

mentoring programs for system-involved youth, 

virtually all types of mentoring styles are used across 

all locations. Respondents reported that one-to-one, 

group and team mentoring were employed and that 

mentors and mentees met at a variety of locations, 

including both secure and non-secure facilities, 

community locations and in youths’ homes. A

nine-to-12-month match commitment is required 

at this site, consisting of weekly interactions lasting 

approximately one hour. 
53

toward the goal of continued participation for 

12 months.

The Knoxville site also has an embedded BGC 

program in which all youth are eligible to participate 

while incarcerated. All participation is voluntary and 

a function of self-referral while in the facility 

or after release with post-release participation 

suitability determined by BGC program staff in a 

similar manner to the Buffalo site process. Because 

of the short duration typical of most juvenile detentions, the Knoxville site also emphasizes referral for 

continued services after release. Accordingly, all 

youth are considered referred for mentoring. Upon 

release from the Juvenile Services Center, all youth 

are referred to a BGC site for mentoring services 

within a 24-hour timeframe. Youth must volunteer, 

complete an intake interview and have family support 

after which either one-to-one, small group or team 

mentoring services (or some combination thereof) 

are available. Participation in mentoring services is 

a condition of Juvenile Probation for some youth. 

Program Capacity and Characteristics: 

Juvenile Detention

The Buffalo site has 64 beds that are allocated 

evenly between males and females. With one of 

the highest detention rates in the state of New York 

(575 admissions in 2010 alone), this location has 

both a pronounced need for services as well as the 

potential for significant impact. The program is 

comprised of an hour of group or team mentoring 

daily between Monday and Friday during which 

BGC curricula are utilized to emphasize character 

and leadership, educational needs, career aspiration, 

health, life skills, the arts and sports. Because 

mentoring services are delivered by professional 

BGC staff both during incarceration and after 

release, continuity of participation is a program 

feature.

for the mentoring relationship. These common goal 

categories included minimized contact with the 

criminal or juvenile justice system, reduced 

recidivism, improved school attendance and 

performance, prosocial engagement and 

employment preparation. Across the six sites, 

both the Juvenile Corrections locations and the 

mentoring program identified the vast majority of 

these as goals that are set for the mentoring match. 

All Juvenile Correction sites with the exception 

of the South Bend location reported all goals as 

those intended for the mentoring relationship. In 

South Bend, only “employment preparation” was 

not identified as a specific goal. The New Hampshire 

site also added that anything identified in the youth’s 

“Individualized Service Plan” (ISP) as a goal would 

also be considered an objective of the mentoring 

relationship. Not surprisingly, these sites were the 

most likely to identify legal outcomes (e.g., reduced 

recidivism) as an intended objective. 

Juvenile Detention SITE VISITS

The Referral Process for Juvenile Detention

Site visits were made to two locations described 

as Juvenile Detention facilities. These youth 

detention centers are located in Buffalo, NY 

(Erie County Detention Facility), and Knoxville, TN 

(Richard L. Bean Juvenile Services Center). The 

Buffalo site hosts a chartered Boys and Girls Club 

within the facility, and all detained youth are referred 

into programming as a condition of placement 

in the facility. Post-incarceration participation is 

voluntary and a condition of BGC staff discretion. 

The site director’s assessment of youths’ suitability 

for participation in the program is made in 

collaboration with detention facility social work staff 

during weekly conference meetings. Once identified 

as appropriate for referral to the program, the site 

director facilitates enrollment and obtains parental 

consent prior to the youth’s court or release date 
54

Qualitative Findings

continued

Juvenile Probation SITE VISITS

The Referral Process for Juvenile Probation

Site visits were made to five programs primarily 

described as Juvenile Probation, four of which 

currently refer delinquent youth for mentoring 

services3

. These sites were located in Knoxville, 

TN, Shreveport, LA, Seguin, TX, Kalamazoo, MI, 

and Claremont, NH. None of the Juvenile 

Probation sites reported the use of an embedded 

mentoring program. Instead, all utilized the services 

of an independent, community-based mentoring 

program. The Knoxville site reported cooperative agreements with several mentoring programs 

throughout Knox County and the surrounding areas, 

including Boy and Girls Clubs of the Tennessee 

Valley, Big Brothers Big Sisters of East Tennessee, 

Comparison Coalition, and the Emerald Youth 

Foundation. The focus of the site visit, however, 

included only the relationship with BGC. The 

Shreveport location reported using one primary 

mentoring program for referrals, the “We all Winn” 

program. Kalamazoo County refers suitable youth 

to the Youthful Offender Transition Program, while 

the Claremont, NH, location utilizes the same 

mentoring program as the Manchester, NH, 

Juvenile Corrections site, the Good Guides 

Mentoring Program in Concord. The program in 

Kalamazoo County is privately funded, but it is 

run by a Kalamazoo County probation officer.

Unlike the majority of other sites examined in this 

study, two of the four probation settings reported 

that mentoring was, under certain circumstances, 

court-ordered. Specifically, Knox County Juvenile 

Probation (TN and Claremont, NH, both indicated 

that some youth are court ordered to mentoring, 

while others are afforded the option to choose if 

The Knoxville site has a 120-bed capacity with 

approximately 80 beds allocated to males and 

40 to females between ages 12 and 17 detained 

for a variety of offenses. Upon release from the detention facility, youth are referred by the hosted BGC 

to one of 14 traditional community-based BGC in the 

Knoxville area. Again, youth are contacted within 24 

hours of release to instigate the mentoring process 

toward the objective of effecting a positive and 

successful facility-to-community transition. Because 

the staff within the facility refers youth to other 

BGCs in the community, there is an elevated degree 

of communication and continuity of services plans 

than with multiple involved agencies. During 

periods where the number of youth in need of 

mentoring services outnumbers BGC staff ability 

to meet demand, members of the community are 

recruited as mentors.

Outcomes for Mentoring: 

Juvenile Detention

As with the other specified juvenile justice settings, 

all respondents interviewed were queried regarding 

the types of goals and objectives intended from the 

mentoring relationships. Similar to other setting 

identified mentoring program goals, set outcomes 

for each of the Juvenile Detention facilities include 

minimized contact with the juvenile and criminal 

justice systems in general and specific recidivism 

reduction. Additional objectives include improved 

school attendance and academic performance, 

employment or employment preparedness and 

pro-social engagement. In that these sites were 

detention facilities, specified goals are primarily 

prospective with the exceptions of academic 

performance and prosocial behavior. For all 

matches made, BGC sets a goal of relationship 

duration of at least 12 months.

3 Data from the Guadalupe County Juvenile Probation in Seguin, TX, indicated that “the program that is the subject of this profile 

is no longer operational.” As such, current data for this site are unavailable.
55

for mentoring, with the exception of violent offenders. In Claremont, NH, all youth are considered 

suitable candidates for mentoring services, and 

only 10 percent end up being excluded from the 

program. The Kalamazoo site reported the 

lowest percentage of suitable candidates with only 

60 percent of probation youth referred for mentoring. 

Of these, between 5 and 10 percent are ultimately 

excluded from consideration.

The number of youth referred to and currently 

involved in mentoring services varied considerably 

across each of the four sites. Knox County Juvenile 

Probation reported that no youth were currently 

involved in mentoring, Shreveport reported 49 

current matches, Kalamazoo reported nine current 

matches, and New Hampshire reported six current 

matches. The Shreveport site also indicated that 20 

youth remained in the referral process, which can 

take between five and eight weeks. In Kalamazoo, 

approximately 35 youth have been referred to 

mentoring in the past six months with half of those 

successfully matched with a mentor. The New 

Hampshire site indicated that no youth had been 

referred for mentoring in the six months prior to 

the site visit.

Program Capacity and Characteristics: 

Juvenile Probation

All respondents were queried on the typical length of 

match commitments for the mentoring relationships. 

Match commitments across all four sites ranged 

between nine and 12 months, consistent with many 

other programs and settings included in the current 

study. Data derived from the site visit questionnaire 

indicate there is considerable variability in the length 

of time it takes for a mentoring match to occur 

across Juvenile Probation settings, ranging from 

between one and three days for the Knoxville setting 

to between 30 and 45 days for the Kalamazoo and 

they wish to participate). However, no sites reported 

that mentoring referrals were mandated by any 

statutory timeframe or dictate. At each of the sites, 

the primary referral source for probation-involved 

youth is the Juvenile Probation officers. A few of the 

associated mentoring programs also reported receiving referrals from family, school, law enforcement 

or community social service agencies in addition to 

the youth from Juvenile Probation. Most of the sites 

suggested that mentoring was viewed as a 

component of a larger holistic mission to 

reintegrate and rehabilitate delinquent youth.

Youth are referred by their probation officers after 

consideration of a variety of factors, including age, 

criminal history, nature of current offense and 

attitude toward the mentoring relationship. This last 

finding is particularly interesting and consistent with 

previous research on juvenile delinquency programming, which suggests that extra-legal factors such 

as demeanor play a significant role in access to 

services (Miller et al., 2007; Barnes et al., 2009). 

Most of the programs reported that the ultimate 

decision for referral was determined on a case-bycase basis, though some indicated that a more 

stringent process was employed. For example, 

the New Hampshire site revealed that the decision 

regarding referral was determined, in part, by a 

pre-disposition investigation designed to elucidate 

the particular needs of each individual youth.

As with the other sites visited in the current study, 

the majority of youth were deemed suitable 

for referral to mentoring services. At the Knoxville 

site, 100 percent of youth were assessed as good 

candidates for mentoring, although 75 percent of 

these were ultimately excluded from mentoring 

due to a range of reasons including youth or family 

refusal, serious mental health problems, aggression, 

violence or drug use. At the We all Winn program in 

Shreveport, nearly all youth are deemed appropriate 
56

Qualitative Findings

continued

Outcomes for Mentoring: 

Juvenile Probation

Each of the respondents interviewed during the 

site visits were asked to identify the types of goals 

and objectives that were intended as outcomes for 

the mentoring relationship. A number of response 

options were provided including minimized contact 

with the criminal or juvenile justice system, reduced 

recidivism, improved school attendance, improved 

academic performance, prosocial engagement and 

employment preparation. Across the four sites, the 

Juvenile Probation departments and the mentoring 

programs identified most of these as goals set for 

the mentoring relationship. Consistent with the other 

juvenile justice settings, employment preparation 

was the only objective repeatedly not identified as 

a specific goal. Based on the totality of the data, 

it appears that the vast majority of mentoring 

programs are designed and delivered with 

specific outcomes in mind. 

SITE VISITS SUMMARY BY SETTING

Juvenile Delinquency Courts:

The average number of youth served by the 

mentoring programs in the juvenile Delinquency 

Court sites was 3,605, with a range of 55 to 13,000. 

The average number of current matches was 147, 

with a range of 15 to 400. The average time from 

identification to match was about seven weeks, 

with a range from immediately to 96 days. The 

age range for these sites was between 6 and 18. 

The average percentage of youth served who are 

males was 48.75 percent, with a range from 5 to 66 

percent. The average percentage of youth served 

who are females was 51.25 percent, with a range 

from 34 to 95 percent. The regions for these sites 

include the South, West and Northeast. The average 

New Hampshire settings to a high of between five 

and eight weeks in Shreveport.

The forms or types of mentoring utilized by these 

programs were somewhat invariant across the sites 

with all reporting the use of individualized mentoring, 

where mentors and mentees interact on a one-onone basis. Group mentoring was also used by Knox 

County Juvenile Probation, the New Hampshire 

site and the Youthful Offender Transition Program in 

Michigan, which also reported the utilization of team 

mentoring. 

At the Knoxville site, mentoring interactions take 

place at community locations weekly for approximately two hours. In Shreveport, mentoring also 

occurs at community locations, similar to findings 

reported by the New Hampshire site. The program 

in Kalamazoo, which utilized the greatest range 

of mentoring forms (i.e., individualized, group and 

team), also reported that these interactions take 

place weekly and last for at least one hour. 

Mentoring is typically delivered in home, 

community and non-secure facility settings.

The topic of mentor assistance in juvenile justice 

system navigation was included in the site visit 

questionnaire in an effort to ascertain the level of 

mentor involvement in this aspect of youths’ lives. 

Across all four sites with operational mentoring 

programs, respondents indicated that mentors 

did not have a role in justice system navigation. 

Questions were also posed to the respondents 

about the tailoring of mentoring services for 

particular characteristics. Subjects indicated that, 

overall, the individual history and characteristics 

of the youth are taken into consideration when 

matching youth to mentors and in the delivery 

of mentoring services.
57

Youth/Teen Courts:

The average number of youth served in the Youth/

Teen Court sites was 156.7, with a range of 55 to 

310. The average number of current matches was 

15, with a range of 6 to 25. Only one out of the three 

sites reported three youths in the referral process. 

The time span from identification to match ranged 

from 30 days to eight weeks. The age range of youth 

served at these sites was between 6 and 18. The 

average number of youth served who are males was 

75.3 percent, with a range of 55 to 100 percent. The 

average number of youth served who are females 

was 24.7 percent, with a range of 0 to 45 percent. 

The regions for these sites include the Northeast 

and Midwest. The average number of youth served 

who are African-Americans was 10.3 percent, with 

a range of 0 to 27 percent. The average number of 

youth served who are Hispanic/Latino was 30 percent, reported by only one site. The average number 

of youth served who are white was 73.7 percent, 

with a range of 31 to 100 percent. The number 

of youth served who are Native Americans was 1 

percent, reported by only one site. The average time 

in operation was 21.7 years, with a range of five to 

40 years. Two sites used voluntary participation, 

while one site used both voluntary and mandatory 

participation.

Juvenile Corrections:

The average number of youth served in the Juvenile 

Corrections sites was 105.6, with a range of 21 

to 165. The average number of current matches 

was 18.8, with a range of 2 to 40. The average 

number of youth in the referral process was 1.2, 

with a range of 0 to 5. The time period from 

identification to match was one day to eight weeks. 

The age range for these sites was between 6 and 

21. The average number of youth served who are 

males was 90 percent, with a range of 80 to 100 

number of youth served who are African-Americans 

was 21 percent, with a range of 0 to 42 percent. The 

average number of youth served who are Hispanic/

Latino was 20.25 percent, with a range of 0 to 42 

percent. The average number of youth served who 

are white was 28.5 percent, with a range of 0 to 

89 percent. The average number of youth served 

who are Native Americans was 25.25 percent, with 

a range of 0 to 100 percent. The average time of 

program operation was 17.5 years, with a range of 

two to 40 years. Three of the sites used voluntary 

participation, while one utilized both voluntary and 

mandatory participation.

Juvenile Dependency Courts:

The average number of youth served in the juvenile 

Dependency Court sites was 42.3, with a range of 

32 to 56. The average number of current matches 

was 35.75, with a range of 15 to 36. The average 

number of youth in the referral process was 11.75, 

with a range of six to 21. The age range for these 

sites was between 6 and 21. The average number of 

youth served who are males was 41.25 percent, with 

a range of 30 to 50 percent. The average number of 

youth served who are females was 58.75 percent, 

with a range of 50 to 70 percent. The regions for 

these sites include the South, West and Northeast. 

The average number of youth served who are 

African-Americans was 20.75 percent, with a range 

of 7 to 43 percent. The average number of youth 

served who are Hispanic/Latino was 11.5 percent, 

with a range of 2 to 28 percent. The average number 

of youth served who are white was 63.23 percent, 

with a range of 47 to 75 percent. The average 

number of youth served who are Native Americans 

was 1.88 percent, with a range of .5 to 4 percent. 

The average time for program operation was 9.38 

years, with a range of 2.5 to 19 years. All sites used 

voluntary participation.
58

Qualitative Findings

continued

was 31 percent, with a range of 21 to 41 percent. 

The number of youth served who are Native 

Americans was .5 percent, with a range of 0 to 1 

percent. The average time of program operation was 

four years, with a range of two to six years. All sites 

used voluntary participation. 

Juvenile Probation:

The average number of youth served in the Juvenile 

Probation sites was 72, with a range of 15 to 175. 

The average number of current matches was 26.8, 

with a range of 0 to 78. The average number of 

youth in the referral process was 7.6, with a range of 

0 to 20. The time period from identification to match 

ranged between 24 hours and two months. The 

age range for these sites was 13 to 21. The average 

number of youth served who are males was 69.4 

percent, with a range of 36 to 90 percent. The 

average number of females youth served who are 

was 30.6 percent, with a range of 10 to 64 percent. 

The regions for these sites include the Northeast, 

South and Midwest. The average number of youth 

served who are African-Americans was 47.8 

percent, with a range of 0 to 85 percent. The 

average number of youth served who are Hispanic/

Latino was 13.4 percent, with a range of 0 to 60 

percent. The average number of youth served who 

are white was 38 percent, with a range of 14 to 100 

percent. No Native Americans were reported for 

these sites. The average time of program operation 

was 3.65 years, with a range of 1.75 to six years. 

Three sites used voluntary participation, while one 

utilized both voluntary and mandatory participation.

percent. The average number of youth served who 

are females was 10 percent, with a range of 0 to 

20 percent. The regions for these sites include the 

Northeast, Midwest and West. The average number 

of youth served who are African-Americans was 9.6 

percent, with a range of 0 to 28 percent. The 

average number of youth served who are Hispanic/

Latino was 26.2 percent, with a range of 1 to 100 

percent. The average number of youth served who 

are white was 55.2 percent, with a range of 0 to 98 

percent. The number of youth served who are Native 

Americans was 4.4 percent, with a range of 0 to 17 

percent. The average number of “other” youths was 

4.6 percent, with a range from 0 to 21 percent. The 

average time of program operation was 3.1 years, 

with a range of one to eight years. All sites used 

voluntary participation. 

Juvenile Detention:

The average number of youth served in the 

Juvenile Detention sites was 211.5, with a range of 

175 to 248. The average number of current matches 

was 115, with a range of 78 to 152. The average 

number of youth in the referral process was 10, with 

a range of 5 to 15. The time period from identification to match ranged from 24 hours to two weeks. 

The age range for these sites was between 13 and 

18. The average number of youth served who are 

males was 66 percent, with a range of 64 to 68 

percent. The average number of youth served who 

are females was 34 percent, with a range of 32 to 

36 percent. The regions for these sites include the 

Northeast and South. The average number of youth 

served who are African-Americans was 51 percent, 

with a range of 47 to 55 percent. The average 

number of youth served who are Hispanic/Latino 

was 9.5 percent, with a range of 0 to 19 percent. 

The average number of youth served who are white 
59

FINDINGS FROM STEP 1: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS

All findings presented in this section are drawn from data gleaned from the national survey 

data. First, univariate statistical analyses are presented. Univariate statistics are descriptive 

statistics that give a “snapshot” view of response patterns and variation for one variable/

item at a time. The descriptive statistics are presented in three parts. Presented first is 

descriptive information about the survey respondents and the programs they represented. 

Next, descriptive information specific to the referral stage of mentoring is considered. For 

these items, only respondents who identified themselves as working in a juvenile justice 

setting provided answers. Finally, the last part to the descriptive analysis focuses exclusively 

on respondents who represented mentoring programs. 

Quantitative Findings from 4 National Survey

Part 1: Basic Information on Survey 

Respondents and Their Programs

The next few figures present background information on the survey respondents and the types of 

programs which they represented. As can be seen, 

in Figure 1 and Figure 2, the majority of respondents 

(~60%) represented mentoring programs. This result 

was expected due to the sampling strategy utilized 

(i.e., contact list from MENTOR) and is reassuring 

that the sampling strategy netted information from 

eligible and appropriate respondents. The remainder 

of the respondents (~40%) represented one of the 

six designated juvenile justice settings (i.e., Juvenile 

Probation, Juvenile Detention, Juvenile Corrections, 

Delinquency Court, Youth Court/Teen Court diversion program and Dependency Court). 

There is a slight difference in the data presented in 

Figure 1 as compared to Figure 2. Figure 1 presents 

information on all survey respondents, regardless of 

whether they completed the survey. Figure 2 

presents the information for respondents who 

successfully completed the entire survey. There 

were two primary reasons the information in these 

two figures should differ. First, any respondent who 

indicated their program did not utilize mentoring was 

filtered out of the survey after Question 2. Thus, the 

information in Figure 2 represents programs that 

are confirmed to have offered mentoring. Second, 

it is inevitable with any survey that certain 

respondents will end the survey prior to the last 

question (i.e., break-off from the survey). It was 

important to consider whether respondents who 

broke-off from the survey differed from those who 

completed the survey. As can be seen, there was 

little evidence to suggest that respondents who 

completed the entire survey were systematically 

different from those who did not. 

Figure 3 and Figure 4 present information similar 

to that presented in Figures 1 and 2. The difference 

here, however, is that the Mentoring Program 
60

category has been omitted so that a closer 

examination of the spread of respondents across 

the six juvenile justice settings could be achieved. 

As before, Figure 3 presents information on all 

respondents and Figure 4 presents information for 

those who successfully completed the entire survey 

and are confirmed to have referred youth to 

mentoring (whether the mentoring program be 

housed internally or externally). There was little 

indication that successful completions differed 

systematically from break-offs.

Quantitative Findings from National Survey

continued

Figure 1. Programs Offering Mentoring and Not Offering Mentoring
61

Figure 2. Respondents Who Completed the Survey, Programs Offering Mentoring
62

Quantitative Findings from National Survey

continued

Figure 3. Programs Offering Mentoring and Not Offering Mentoring — 

Juvenile Justice Settings Only
63

Figure 4. Respondents Who Completed the Survey, Programs Offering Mentoring —

Juvenile Justice Settings Only
64

Figure 5. Programs Offering Mentoring — Juvenile Justice Settings Only

Figure 5 presents descriptive information pertaining 

to the primary “filter” question of the survey: “Does 

your program/organization utilize mentoring (do you 

offer internal mentoring services or refer youth to an 

external mentoring program)?” It is important to note 

that this question was only asked to respondents 

representing one of the six juvenile justice settings. 

As can be seen, the majority (~60%) of respondents indicated that their program did, in fact, utilize 

mentoring. The remainder (~40%) reported that 

their program does not utilize mentoring. For these 

respondents (i.e., those not offering mentoring), 

one additional question was asked prior to being 

routed to the end of the survey: “Why doesn’t your 

program/organization use or refer youth to mentoring?” The response breakdown for this question is 

presented in Figure 6. The most common response 

to this inquiry was that mentoring was not utilized 

because the program did not have access to a viable mentoring program. Respondents were also 

allowed to make their own comments (i.e., an openended question). These responses varied, but most 

indicated that lack of access to mentoring programs 

was the primary impediment.

Quantitative Findings from National Survey

continued

Note: Only respondents from juvenile justice settings were asked this question.
65

Figure 6. Reasons Programs Do Not Offer Mentoring — Juvenile Justice Settings Only

Note: Only respondents from juvenile justice settings were asked this question. Respondent was allowed to 

select more than one option; respondent was directed to the end of the survey after completing this question.

Respondents representing mentoring programs were asked whether they served youth from juvenile justice 

settings. As can be seen in Figure 7, about 40 percent of all mentoring respondents indicated that their program 

served youth who were referred from a juvenile justice setting. 
66

Quantitative Findings from National Survey

continued

Figure 7. Programs Serving Juvenile Justice System-involved Youth—Mentoring Programs Only

Note: Only respondents from mentoring programs were asked this question.
67

(i.e., they said “yes” to the question asking whether 

their program utilized mentoring). As shown in 

Figure 8, there was wide variation in the source of 

mentoring recommendations. For instance, many 

respondents indicated that youth were self-referred 

to mentoring (~22%), while others pointed out that 

mentoring was court ordered (~39%).

Part 2: Referral Stage Information from 

Juvenile Justice Settings Only

Information presented in the next few figures was 

drawn from questions directed only to the juvenile 

justice setting respondents (i.e., those respondents 

who represented one of the six juvenile justice 

settings) who indicated that they utilize mentoring 

Figure 8. Entities Mandating/Recommending Youth Receive Mentoring 

Note: Only respondents from juvenile justice settings were asked this question; respondent was allowed to 

select more than one option.
68

Figure 9 presents information regarding mentoring 

referral and match success. As can be seen, around 

39 percent of all respondents reported that between 

0 and 25 percent of all youth are ultimately placed 

into mentoring relationships. The remaining 61 

percent of respondents was spread across the other 

three response categories, with the majority of these 

respondents indicating that between 76 percent 

and 100 percent of youth are placed into mentoring 

relationships (~29% of respondents).

Quantitative Findings from National Survey

continued

Figure 9. Percentage of Referred Youth Placed into Mentoring Relationship 

Note: Only respondents from juvenile justice settings were asked this question.
69

Figure 10. Average Length of Time until Match is Made

Note: Only respondents from juvenile justice settings were asked this question.

The next few figures (Figure 10 – Figure 14) 

reference basic background operating procedures 

for juvenile justice settings that offer mentoring. 

Figure 10, for example, reports the responses to an 

inquiry regarding the average length of time needed 

to match a youth with a mentor. As can be seen, 

most programs match youth with a mentor in 90 

days or fewer. Only a handful (~17%) takes longer 

than 90 days. 

Figure 11 reveals that juvenile justice settings take 

different approaches to mentoring; many offer 

services internally while others offer services 

externally. Others still offer mentoring services both 

internally and externally. Programs that offer mentoring services internally were asked to indicate how 

they located mentors. Their responses are presented 

in Figure 12. Programs that offer mentoring services 

externally were asked to indicate how they located 

mentoring programs. These responses are 

presented in Figure 13.

Figure 14 reveals that the majority (~60%) of all 

juvenile justice settings assess the risk level of 

each youth prior to making a mentoring referral.
70

Quantitative Findings from National Survey

continued

Figure 11. Mentoring Services Delivery 

Note: Only respondents from juvenile justice settings were asked this question.
71

Figure 12. Mentor Location Techniques — Juvenile Justice Settings that Deliver 

Mentoring Internally Only 

Note: Only respondents from juvenile justice settings were asked this question; respondent was allowed 

to select more than one option.
72

Quantitative Findings from National Survey

continued

Figure 13. Mentoring Program Location Techniques — Juvenile Justice Settings that 

Deliver Mentoring Services Externally Only 

Note: Only respondents from juvenile justice settings were asked this question; respondent was allowed to 

select more than one option.
73

Figure 14. Youth Risk Assessment Prior to Mentoring Referral

Note: Only respondents from juvenile justice settings were asked this question.
74

Quantitative Findings from National Survey

continued

Figure 14. Youth Risk Assessment Prior to Mentoring Referral

Note: Only respondents from juvenile justice settings were asked this question.
75

Given that the respondents for this portion of the 

survey represented juvenile justice settings, it was 

important to gauge the frequency with which youth 

referred to mentoring were officially charged with 

a crime prior to referral. Thus, juvenile justice 

setting respondents were asked to indicate “what 

percentage of youth is typically charged with a 

crime, offense, and/or violation prior to referral to 

a mentoring program?” Responses to this question 

are presented graphically in Figure 15. As shown, 

more than 60 percent of respondents reported that 

between 76 percent and 100 percent of youth are 

charged with a crime prior to being referred to a 

mentoring program.

Figure 16 displays the answers given to a question 

asking about the frequency with which youth referred 

to mentoring are first-time offenders. Somewhat 

surprisingly, there was an equal split across the four 

response categories.

Finally, Figure 17 reveals that mentoring is not 

typically used as a diversionary tactic. Indeed, only 

41 percent of respondents indicated that mentoring 

was ever used as a diversionary tactic.

Figure 15. Criminal Charges Prior to Referral to Mentoring 

Note: Only respondents from juvenile justice settings were asked this question.
76

Quantitative Findings from National Survey

continued

Figure 16. Percentage of Referred Youth Who are First-time Offenders 

Note: Only respondents from juvenile justice settings were asked this question.
77

Figure 17. Mentoring as a Diversionary Tactic 

Note: Only respondents from juvenile justice settings were asked this question.
78

Part 3: Referral Stage Information from 

Mentoring Programs Only

The findings presented in this part of the descriptive 

statistical analysis were gleaned from respondents 

who represented mentoring programs. In other 

words, juvenile justice setting respondents were 

not asked these questions, only mentoring program 

respondents were given these queries. 

Figure 18 shows that mentoring referrals are 

received from a wide range of juvenile justice 

settings. The most common response was that 

mentoring referrals came from Juvenile Probation, 

but others indicated that Delinquency and Youth 

Court made referrals, and others still indicated 

that referrals came from Juvenile Corrections. 

Respondents selecting the “other” category were 

asked to elaborate further. Though responses 

varied, many indicated that mentoring referrals 

came from child mental health services or from 

the child’s school.

Quantitative Findings from National Survey

continued

Figure 18. Mentoring Program Referral Sources

Note: Only respondents from mentoring programs were asked this question; respondent was allowed 

to select more than one option.

78
79

Mentoring program respondents were asked to 

indicate the process through which referrals were 

typically received. As shown in Figure 19, many 

respondents noted that existing MOUs governed the 

referral process. Around 10 percent of 

mentoring programs indicated that they utilized 

MENTOR’s volunteer referral services. Respondents 

were asked to elaborate if they selected “other,” and 

many of these respondents noted that referrals were 

received through community centers, schools or 

faith-based institutions such as churches.

Figure 20 displays the responses given to the inquiry 

regarding the program’s approach to mentoring. 

As shown, the vast majority of programs utilized 

individually based mentoring strategies (>80%).

Figure 19. Processes through Which Referrals are Received

Note: Only respondents from mentoring programs were asked this question; respondent was allowed to 

select more than one option.
80

Quantitative Findings from National Survey

continued

Figure 20. Typical Approach to Mentoring 

Note: Only respondents from mentoring programs were asked this question.
81

The next two charts provide information about the 

frequency of contact between mentor and mentee 

(Figure 21) and the average length of time spent 

during each meeting (Figure 22). Figure 21 reveals 

that most mentoring relationships are defined by 

meetings that occur between three and four times 

per month. Some, around 18 percent, meet more 

often than four times per month. Figure 22 shows 

that these meetings tend to last anywhere between 

one and two hours (~50% of respondents indicated 

this category), but a good portion last longer; around 

12 percent of cases indicated that meetings last 

three hours or more.

Figure 21. Frequency of Contact between Mentor and Mentee

Note: Only respondents from mentoring programs were asked this question.
82

Quantitative Findings from National Survey

continued

Figure 22. Length of a Typical Meeting between Mentor and Mentee 

Note: Only respondents from mentoring programs were asked this question.
83

Although match commitments are not a universal 

feature of mentoring relationships (Figure 23 shows 

that about 25 percent of programs had no match 

commitment), many programs do rely on match 

commitments, and they tend to last between 10 

and 12 months or more (see Figure 23).

Figure 23. Match Commitments 

Note: Only respondents from mentoring programs were asked this question.
84

Figure 24 displays respondents’ answers to an 

inquiry about their perception of the efficacy of their 

program. As can be seen, the majority (~60%) felt 

that their program had sufficient capacity to meet the 

needs of mentees who were referred from juvenile 

justice settings. Respondents who said “no” to 

this question were asked a follow-up question (not 

presented in a figure). The most common response 

was that the program lacked the requisite resources 

to adequately handle all youth in need of mentoring 

services.

Quantitative Findings from National Survey

continued

84

Figure 24. Perceptions of Mentoring Program Efficacy Regarding Capacity

Note: Only respondents from mentoring programs were asked this question.
85

Figure 25 shows that the vast majority of programs 

screen potential mentors for criminal history before 

matching them with a mentee. Figure 26 indicates 

that mentors are often, though not always, required 

to assist youth through the juvenile justice system as 

part of their mentoring duties. 

Figure 25. Criminal Background Checks on Potential Mentors 

Note: Only respondents from mentoring programs were asked this question.
86

Quantitative Findings from National Survey

continued

86

Figure 26. Mentors Assisting Youth through Juvenile Justice System

Note: Only respondents from mentoring programs were asked this question.
87

The next few figures (Figure 27 – Figure 33) deal with 

the day-to-day process of mentoring. As shown in 

Figure 27, mentoring services are often tailored to 

the specific needs of the mentee. Figure 30 indicates 

that goals are often set for mentees, and Figure 

32 reveals that a majority of youth actually achieve 

these goals. Figure 33 reports, perhaps not surprisingly, that limited resources is one key factor for why 

youth fail to achieve their goals.

Figure 27. Mentor Services Tailored for Youth Needs 

Note: Only respondents from mentoring programs were asked this question.
88

Quantitative Findings from National Survey

continued

Figure 28. Mentor/Mentee Meet Prior to Matching

Note: Only respondents from mentoring programs were asked this question.
89

Figure 29. Location of Mentor Meetings

Note: Only respondents from mentoring programs were asked this question.
90

Quantitative Findings from National Survey

continued

Figure 30. Goals Set for Mentee

Note: Only respondents from mentoring programs were asked this question.
91

Figure 31. Goals Set for Mentee

Note: Only respondents from mentoring programs were asked this question.
92

Quantitative Findings from National Survey

continued

Figure 32. Percentage of Mentees who Meet or Exceed Goals

Note: Only respondents from mentoring programs were asked this question.
93

Figure 33. Common Reasons for No Match

Note: Only respondents from mentoring programs were asked this question.
94

Quantitative Findings from National Survey

continued

The last two figures in this section (Figure 34 and 

Figure 35) target mentor training. Figure 34 reveals 

that most programs do include special training for 

mentors dealing with juvenile justice involved youth. 

Figure 35 notes that this training varies from program 

to program.

94

Figure 34. Mentor Special Training

Note: Only respondents from mentoring programs were asked this question.
95

Figure 35. Sources of Training Services for Mentors

Note: Only respondents from mentoring programs were asked this question.
96

FINDINGS FROM STEP 2: INFERENTIAL

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Step 2 of the analysis utilized a wide range of 

inferential statistics to help uncover the associations 

between different variables/outcomes. Though 

the information presented in Step 1 is useful for 

many purposes, those analyses cannot identify 

relationships between different elements of 

mentoring. Only with inferential statistical analysis 

can we begin to speak to directional effects and 

effect sizes. 

The first part of this section will analyze the variation 

in mentoring practices across the six juvenile justice 

settings (i.e., Delinquency Court, Dependency Court, 

Juvenile Detention, Juvenile Corrections, Juvenile 

Probation, and Youth Court/Teen Court diversion 

program). The first analysis is presented in Table 10, 

where frequency data are reported and the results 

of an analysis of variance test (i.e., ANOVA) are 

reported in the bottom portion of the table. The 

numbers presented in the table are the actual 

number of respondents from each setting who 

reported a certain percentage of youth was placed 

into mentoring relationships. This analysis was 

important because it allowed us to determine 

whether certain juvenile justice settings were more 

successful at placing youth in mentoring as 

compared to others. As shown in the table, there 

was a fair amount of variation between the six 

settings, but the ANOVA results revealed that the 

variances across the six settings did not statistically 

differ (F = 1.70, p>.05). This is a promising outcome 

because it reveals that no one setting is likely to drive 

the findings presented in the remainder of 

this section.

Quantitative Findings from National Survey

continued

Table 10. Percentage of Youth Placed in Mentoring Relationship, by Juvenile Justice Setting

Percent of Youth Placed into Mentoring Relationship

0-25% 26-50% 51-75% 76-100% Total

Delinquency Court 7 1 4 2 14

Dependency Court 2 1 1 0 4

Juvenile Corrections 11 5 5 12 33

Juvenile Detention 10 2 2 9 23

Juvenile Probation 36 10 17 14 77

Youth Court/Teen Court 

 Diversion Program 29 13 18 33 93

Total 95 32 47 70 244

Analysis of Variance Results

• Variance between Settings = 13.38

• Variance within Settings = 373.93

 

• F = 1.70

• df = 5

• p-value = .13
97

Presented in Table 11 are frequency counts and 

ANOVA results for the frequency with which youth 

are assessed for their level of risk prior to referral to 

mentoring. As can be seen, the majority of programs 

reported that they “always” assess youth prior to 

referral, and the ANOVA results revealed that there 

was no statistically significant difference across 

the six settings in their propensity to conduct risk 

assessment (F = 2.01, p>.05).

• F = 2.01

• df = 5

• p-value = .08

Table 11. Frequency of Youth Risk Assessment Prior to Mentoring Referral, 

by Juvenile Justice Setting

Frequency of Youth Risk Assessment Prior to Referral

Never Sometimes Always Total

Delinquency Court 0 5 11 16

Dependency Court 1 1 2 4

Juvenile Corrections 0 9 25 34

Juvenile Detention 4 7 14 25

Juvenile Probation 1 32 51 84

Youth Court/Teen Court 

 Diversion Program 12 30 53 95

Total 18 84 156 258

Analysis of Variance Results

• Variance between Settings = 3.84

• Variance within Settings = 96.35

 
98

Quantitative Findings from National Survey

continued

Presented in Table 12 are frequency counts and 

ANOVA results for the percentage of youth charged 

with a crime prior to referral to mentoring. Overall, 

the majority of respondents indicated that youth 

were charged with a crime prior to referral, but 

there was some variation across the six settings. 

The ANOVA results indicated that the between 

group variance was statistically significant (F = 4.43, 

p<.05), but the Bartlett test for equal variances 

revealed that this assumption was violated (X2

 = 

27.66, p<.05), meaning that the results should be 

interpreted with caution. Though there are several 

“empty” cells, the ANOVA results do not appear to 

be sensitive to alternative specifications. Specifically, 

when “Dependency Court” was omitted from the 

analysis, the F = 4.02 and p =.003 (Bartlett’s X2

 = 

26.65, p<.05). Bonferroni post hoc mean difference 

tests revealed that the significant differences were 

being detected due to the mean differences between 

Juvenile Corrections and Dependency Court (mean 

difference = 2.01) and between Juvenile Corrections 

and Youth Court/Teen Court diversion programs 

(mean difference = -.85).

• F = 4.43

• df = 5

• p-value = .001

Table 12. Percentage of Youth Charged with a Crime Prior to Mentoring Referral, 

by Juvenile Justice Setting

Percent of Youth Charged with a Crime Prior to Referral

0-25% 26-50% 51-75% 76-100% Total

Delinquency Court 1 2 3 10 16

Dependency Court 3 0 0 1 4

Juvenile Corrections 0 2 4 28 34

Juvenile Detention 2 3 1 18 24

Juvenile Probation 15 8 9 49 81

Youth Court/Teen Court 

 Diversion Program 23 11 10 49 93

Total 44 26 27 155 252

Analysis of Variance Results

• Variance between Settings = 28.94

• Variance within Settings = 321.39

 
99

Presented in Table 13 is a series of bivariate 

zero-order correlation coefficients. All correlations 

statistically significant at the p<.05 (two-tailed tests) 

are highlighted with an asterisk (*). As can be seen, 

programs that are more successful at placing youth 

into mentoring programs (labeled “Successful 

Placement” in the tables and coded 0 = “0 – 25%” 

through 3 = “76 – 100%”) tended to use mentor 

programs that had shorter times until a match was 

made between mentor and mentee (r = -.26). In 

other words, juvenile justice programs that utilized 

mentoring programs with shorter waiting periods 

tended to be more successful in placing youth in 

mentoring relationships.

Table 13 also reveals that juvenile justice settings 

that utilize mentoring as a diversionary tactic tended 

to refer these youth to programs that had shorter 

waiting periods (r = -.16), and juvenile justice settings 

that utilized risk assessment for their youth were 

more likely to serve youth who had been charged 

with an offense (r = .15) and were more likely to 

utilize mentoring as a diversionary strategy (r = .16). 

Finally, of interest is that mentoring is more likely to 

be used as a diversionary tactic by programs that 

serve a larger portion of first-time offenders (r = .20).

Table 13. Zero-order Correlations – Juvenile Justice Settings Only

Successful Time Risk Charged First-time Mentor

Placement to Match Assessment with Crime Offender Diversion

Successful Placement -

Time to Match -.26* -

Risk Assessment -.06 .07 - 

Charged with Crime .02 -.09 .15 -

First-time Offender -.04 -.07 -.03 .18 -

Mentor Diversion -.07 -.16* .16 .03 .20 -

*p<.05, two-tailed tests
100

The remaining analyses were conducted using 

the answers provided by mentoring program 

respondents only. As shown in Table 14, there 

was a statistically significant difference between 

mentoring programs that used individualized mentoring and those that did not in terms of whether they 

performed background checks on their mentors. 

Reassuringly, mentoring programs that utilized individualized mentoring were significantly (X2

 = 10.67, 

p<.05) more likely to perform background checks on 

their mentors as compared to mentoring programs 

that did not rely on individualized mentoring.

Quantitative Findings from National Survey

continued

Table 14. Propensity to Perform Background Checks by Mentoring Strategy

Mentoring Strategy

Individualized Mentoring (i.e., one-on-one) Other

 

Background Checks for Mentors

Never 13 9

% 2.23 6.04

Rarely 6 4

% 1.03 2.68

Sometimes 18 8

% 3.08 5.37

Always 547 128

% 93.66 85.91

Total N = 733

 Pearson X2

 = 10.67

 p<.05

 
101

Presented in Table 15 are bivariate zero-order 

correlation coefficients between various aspects of 

mentoring practices and tactics used by mentoring 

programs. For the present purposes, the primary 

focus will be on the factors that correlated with 

individualized mentoring. As can be seen, programs 

using individualized mentoring tended to have more 

lengthy match commitments (r = .22), served youth 

who were more likely to meet their commitments 

(r = .14) and were more likely to serve juvenile justice 

involved youth (r = .12).

Though each of these correlations is interesting 

and points to an important conclusion, it is first 

necessary to re-examine these associations with 

a more appropriate statistical technique, multivariate 

Poisson regression.

Table 15. Zero-order Correlations—Mentoring Programs Only

Individualized Meeting Meeting Length of Mentee Fulfill Serve

Mentoring Frequency Length Match Commitment Commitment J.J. Youth

Individualized Mentoring -

Meeting Frequency .01 - 

Meeting Length -.01 .12* - 

Length of Match .22* -.04 .18* -

Commitment 

Mentee Fulfill .14* .13* .11* .07 -

Commitment

Serve J.J. Youth .12* .10* .00 -.14* -.09 -

*p<.05, two-tailed tests
102

Presented in Table 16 are three Poisson regression 

models where the Length of Match Commitment 

variable (coded 0 = “less than 3 months”, 1 = “3-6 

months”, 2 = “7-9 months”, 3 = “10-12 months”, 

and 4 = “more than 12 months”) served as the 

dependent variable. Model 1 reveals that programs 

utilizing individualized mentoring tended to have 

longer match commitments. This relationship is 

presented graphically in Figure 36, which indicates 

that the predicted average match commitment for 

non-individualized mentoring programs was 2.41 

(or, somewhere between seven and 12 months), 

and the predicted average match commitment for 

individualized mentoring programs was 3.04 (or, 

somewhere between 10 and 12 months).

Model 2 in Table 16 suggests that programs 

serving juvenile justice involved youth may have 

slightly shorter match commitments. Model 3

indicates that the relationship between length of 

match commitment and individualized mentoring 

was not sensitive to relevant control variables such 

as whether the program served juvenile justice 

involved youth, the age of the program, the 

percentage of youth who are male, the percentage 

of youth who are African-American and the type 

of community within which the program operates. 

Taken together, these results provide support for a 

link between mentoring strategy (i.e., individualized 

mentoring or not) and length of match commitment. 

Quantitative Findings from National Survey

continued

Table 16. Poisson Regression of Length of Match Commitment on Mentoring 

Strategy and Covariates

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

b SE b SE b SE

Key Independent Variables 

 Individualized Mentoring (no=0, yes=1) .23* .08 .24* .10

 Serve J.J. Youth (no=0, yes=1) -.10a .05 -.08 .06

Covariates

Years in Operation .002 .004

 Percent of Youth are Male -.001 .02

 Percent of Youth are African-American -.002 .02

 Community Type (Other=0, Urban=1) -.02 .07

*p<.05, a

p<.10, two-tailed tests

 
103

Figure 36. Predicted Level of Match Commitment by Mentoring Strategy
104

Arguably more important than the length of the average match commitment is the frequency with which 

mentors and mentees meet their match commitments. This variable (coded 0 = “fewer than 10%” 

to 4 = “76-100%”) served as the dependent variable 

in a series of Poisson regression models presented 

in Table 17. Model 1 suggested that individualized 

mentoring was related to the probability of a 

successful completion of the match commitment, 

but Model 3 indicates that this relationship was not 

robust to other relevant control variables. In short, 

there appears to be no relationship between mentoring strategy (i.e., individualized mentoring or not) 

and probability of successfully completing match 

commitments, a conclusion that is supported by 

the relatively small differences between mentoring 

strategies reported in Figure 37.

Quantitative Findings from National Survey

continued

Table 17. Poisson Regression of Percentage Completing Match Commitment 

on Mentoring Strategy and Covariates

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

b SE b SE b SE

Key Independent Variables

 Individualized Mentoring (no=0, yes=1) .16a .09 .07 .10

 Serve J.J. Youth (no=0, yes=1) -.06 .05 -.03 .06

Covariates

Years in Operation .003 .004

 Percent of Youth are Male .03 .02

 Percent of Youth are African-American -.01 .02

 Community Type (Other=0, Urban=1) -.06 .07

Mentoring Facility (no=0, yes=1) .07 .09

*p<.05, a

p<.10, two-tailed tests

 
105

Figure 37. Predicted Level of Match Commitment Fulfillment by Mentoring Strategy
106

Displayed in Table 18 are the bivariate zero-order 

correlations between a range of variables specific to 

the mentoring process. Several elements emerged 

as important and worthy of discussion. First, mentormentee meeting frequency appeared to be positively 

associated with the likelihood that mentees will meet 

any goals that are set for them (r = .23). At the same 

time, mentees were more likely to meet their goals 

when they were served by mentoring programs that 

were more likely to utilize training programs for their 

mentors (r = .27).

A second finding that emerged was that programs 

where mentors are required to assist youth in 

navigating the juvenile justice system were more 

likely to have mentors and mentees meet prior to 

matching (r = .25), tended to have mentor-mentee 

meetings more frequently (r = .17), had longer 

meeting lengths on average (r = .09), were more 

likely to train their mentors (r = .33), and were more 

likely to serve youth referred from juvenile justice 

settings (r = .30). Taken as a whole, these findings 

indicate that mentors who are required to assist 

youth in navigating the juvenile justice system tend 

to be affiliated with more professional and, perhaps, 

more successful mentoring programs.

Quantitative Findings from National Survey

continued

Table 18. Zero-order Correlations—Mentoring Programs Only

Meet Background Mentors Meet Prior Individualized Menting Meeting Mentor Serve

Goals Checks Assist in J.J. to Match Mentoring Frequency Length Training J.J. Youth

Meet Goals -

Background 

Checks .08* - 

Mentors 

Assist in J.J. .04 .06 -

Meet Prior 

to Match .02 .02 .25* -

Individualized 

Mentoring .08 12* -.04 .01 -

Meeting 

Frequency .23* .01 .17* .02 .01 -

Menting 

Length .18* .07 .09* -.03 -.01 .12*

Mentor 

Training .27* .09* .33* .21* .08* .12* .12* -

Serving

 J.J. Youth -.04 -.02 .30* .16* .12* .09* .00 .26* -

*p<.05, two-tailed tests

 
107

Table 18 suggests that programs more likely to perform background checks were more likely to have 

youth who successfully meet their goals (coded 0 = 

“fewer than 10%” to 4 = “76 – 100%”). Two Poisson regression models were analyzed in Table 13. 

The findings indicated that the bivariate correlation 

may have captured on the limited variance in both 

measures and, therefore, produced a false-positive 

effect. Indeed, Model 1 in Table 19 reveals no bivariate relationship between the two variables when 

analyzed with a Poisson regression model. Model 

2 in Table 19 did, however, produce one finding of 

interest: Older programs served youth who were 

more likely to meet their goals (b = .01). This finding 

is plotted graphically in Figure 38 in order to capture 

the full nature of the effect. As can be seen in the 

figure, programs that have been in operation for a 

longer period of time had youth who were predicted 

to achieve their goals at a higher rate. Programs in 

operation for one year or less had a predicted rate of 

youth achieving their goals of 2.38. Programs in operation for more than 20 years had a predicted rate 

of 2.79. It is important to point out that this difference is small but may be substantively meaningful. 

The “2” category stood for “26 – 50%” and the “3” 

category stood for “51 – 75%.” So, older programs 

were more likely to select “3,” and younger programs 

tended to select “2”.

Table 19. Poisson Regression of Percentage Level of Mentees Meeting/Exceeding Goals 

on Criminal Background Checks and Covariates

 Model 1 Model 2 

 b SE b SE

Key Independent Variables 

Background Checks .05 .07 .04 .05 

Covariates

Individualized Mentoring (no=0, yes=1) .05 .08

Years in Operation .01* .004

Percent of Youth are Male .02 .02

Percent of Youth are African-American -.01 .02 

 

Community Type (Other=0, Urban=1) -.07 .06 

 

Mentoring Facility (no=0, yes=1) -.05 .08

*p<.05, a

p<.10, two-tailed tests

Note: Dependent variable is coded 0=fewer than 10%, 1=11%-25%, 2=26%-50%, 3=51%-75%, 4=76%-100%.

 
108

Quantitative Findings from National Survey

continued

Figure 38. Predicted Level of Mentees Meeting/Exceeding Goals as a Function 

of Program Years in Operation

Note: Dependent variable is coded 0=fewer than 10%, 1=11%-25%, 2=26%-50%, 3=51%-75%, 4=76%-

100%.
109

Table 20 explores the relationship between mentormentee meeting frequency (coded 1 = “1-2 times 

a month”, 2 = “3-4 times a month”, 3 = “more than 

4 times a month”) and the rate at which mentees 

meet/exceed the goals set for them. As shown in 

both Model 1 and Model 2 of the table, meeting 

frequency is positively related to the rate of mentees 

expected to achieve their goals. This relationship is 

plotted graphically in Figure 39. 

A similar relationship was uncovered in Table 21 

between the average mentor-mentee meeting length 

and the rate at which mentees meet/exceed their 

goals. Figure 40 plots the relationship between 

meeting length and the predicted rate at which 

mentees achieve their goals.

Table 22 explores the relationship between mentor 

training (coded 0 = “never”, 1 = “rarely”, 2 = 

“sometimes”, 3 = “always”) and the rate at which 

mentees meet/exceed their goals. Once again, a 

positive relationship was found and the predicted 

rate at which mentees achieve their goals as a

function of mentor training frequency is plotted 

in Figure 41. 

The final Poisson regression model is presented 

in Table 23. This model includes all of the key 

independent variables analyzed in Tables 20 through 

22 along with the covariates. As shown, each of the 

key independent variables maintained their sign and 

level of statistical significance when entered into the 

model simultaneously. These findings indicate that 

each of these variables is a robust predictor of the 

rate at which mentees will meet/achieve their goals. 

Presented in Figure 42 are the predicted rates at 

which mentees will achieve their goals as a function 

of the three key independent variables being set to 

different levels. The first bar (labeled “Minimum”) 

displays the predicted rate of mentees achieving 

their goals when the key independent variables are 

set at their minimum values (i.e., when meeting 

frequency is low [between one and two times a 

month], when meeting lengths are short [less than 

one hour] and when mentor training is never used). 

The second bar (labeled “Maximum”) displays the 

predicted rate of mentees achieving their goals 

when the key independent variables are set at their 

maximum values (i.e., when meeting frequency

is high [more than four times a month], when 

meeting lengths are long [three hours or more] 

and when mentor training is always used). 

A large difference in the predicted rates emerged —

approximately a two-point difference.
110

Quantitative Findings from National Survey

continued

Table 20. Poisson Regression of Percentage Level of Mentees Meeting/Exceeding Goals 

on Mentor-Mentee Meeting Frequency and Covariates

 Model 1 Model 2 

 b SE b SE

Key Independent Variables 

Meeting Frequency .15* .04 .14* .04

 

Covariates

Individualized Mentoring (no=0, yes=1) .08 .08

Years in Operation .01a

 .004

Percent of Youth are Male .02 .02

Percent of Youth are African-American -.01 .02 

 

Community Type (Other=0, Urban=1) -.05 .06 

 

Mentoring Facility (no=0, yes=1) -.06 .08

*p<.05, a

p<.10, two-tailed tests

Note: Dependent variable is coded 0=fewer than 10%, 1=11%-25%, 2=26%-50%, 3=51%-75%, 4=76%-100%.

 
111

Figure 39. Predicted Level of Mentees Meeting/Exceeding Goals as a Function 

of Mentor-Mentee Meeting Frequency

Note: Dependent variable is coded 0=fewer than 10%, 1=11%-25%, 2=26%-50%, 3=51%-75%, 4=76%-100%.
112

Quantitative Findings from National Survey

continued

Table 21. Poisson Regression of Percentage Level of Mentees Meeting/Exceeding Goals 

on Length of Meeting between Mentor and Mentee and Covariates

 Model 1 Model 2 

 b SE b SE

Key Independent Variables 

Meeting Length .09* .03 .09* .03 

Covariates

Individualized Mentoring (no=0, yes=1) .06 .08

Years in Operation .01a

 .004

Percent of Youth are Male .02 .02

Percent of Youth are African-American -.01 .02 

 

Community Type (Other=0, Urban=1) -.06 .06 

 

Mentoring Facility (no=0, yes=1) -.03 .08

*p<.05, a

p<.10, two-tailed tests

Note: Dependent variable is coded 0=fewer than 10%, 1=11%-25%, 2=26%-50%, 3=51%-75%, 4=76%-100%.

 
113

Figure 40. Predicted Level of Mentees Meeting/Exceeding Goals as a Function of Length 

of Meeting between Mentor and Mentee

Note: Dependent variable is coded 0=fewer than 10%, 1=11%-25%, 2=26%-50%, 3=51%-75%, 4=76%-100%.
114

Quantitative Findings from National Survey

continued

Table 22. Poisson Regression of Percentage Level of Mentees Meeting/Exceeding Goals 

on Frequency Mentor Training and Covariates

 Model 1 Model 2 

 b SE b SE

Key Independent Variables 

Mentor Training .15* .03 .15* .04 

Covariates

Individualized Mentoring (no=0, yes=1) .07 .08

Years in Operation .01a

 .004

Percent of Youth are Male .01 .02

Percent of Youth are African-American -.01 .02 

 

Community Type (Other=0, Urban=1) -.08 .06 

 

Mentoring Facility (no=0, yes=1) -.06 .08

*p<.05, a

p<.10, two-tailed tests

Note: Dependent variable is coded 0=fewer than 10%, 1=11%-25%, 2=26%-50%, 3=51%-75%, 4=76%-100%.

 
115

Figure 41. Predicted Level of Mentees Meeting/Exceeding Goals as a Function 

of the Frequency of Mentor Training

Note: Dependent variable is coded 0=fewer than 10%, 1=11%-25%, 2=26%-50%, 3=51%-75%, 4=76%-100%.
116

Quantitative Findings from National Survey

continued

Table 23. Poisson Regression of Percentage Level of Mentees Meeting/Exceeding Goals 

on Key Independent Variables and Covariates

 Full Model 

 b SE

Key Independent Variables 

Meeting Frequency .10* .04

Length of Meeting .07* .03

Mentor Training .13* .04 

 

Covariates

Individualized Mentoring (no=0, yes=1) .10 .08

Years in Operation .01a

 .004

Percent of Youth are Male .01 .02

 

Percent of Youth are African-American -.02 .02 

 

Community Type (Other=0, Urban=1) -.06 .06

 

Mentoring Facility (no=0, yes=1) -.03 .08

 

*p<.05, a

p<.10, two-tailed tests

Note: Dependent variable is coded 0=fewer than 10%, 1=11%-25%, 2=26%-50%, 3=51%-75%, 4=76%-100%.

 
117

Figure 42. Two Predictions of Level of Mentees Meeting/Exceeding Goals 

Based on Different Conditions

Note: Minimum = key independent variables were set to their “minimum” category; Maximum = key 

independent variables were set to their “maximum” category; all other covariates were set to their means; 

Dependent variable is coded 0=fewer than 10%, 1=11%-25%, 2=26%-50%, 3=51%-75%, 4=76%-100%.
118

1

The second step of the process tends to revolve 

around a court proceeding/hearing (though some 

youth may bypass this step if they are referred 

directly to a mentoring program during the identification phase [step one]). In most cases, youth appear 

in court (whether it is a Youth Court, a Family Court, 

a Dependency Court or a Delinquency Court) and 

are judged based on their eligibility for mentoring 

(step three). Youth who are deemed eligible for a 

mentoring program by the court are then referred 

directly to the mentor program (step four). An interesting point to note is that most (but not all) mentoring programs are voluntary. Youth who do not wish 

to participate are not forced to do so and, therefore, 

may be subject to further scrutiny by the court. 

Presented in Diagram 1 is a conceptual model of a 

normative process by which youth are referred for 

mentoring. As can be seen, there are seven primary 

steps, but within each step are various processes 

that can and must unfold before proceeding to the 

next stage. In general, the referral process begins 

(step one) with a third party (e.g., law enforcement or 

school) identification of a potential mentee. It should 

be noted that programs within correctional facilities 

encourage self-referrals. In theory, schools and even 

families identify youth who may benefit from a mentoring relationship. In practice, however, mentees are 

also identified after official contact with police or 

probation officers. 

Referral to Mentoring for Juvenile JusticE-Involved Youth: 

Summary and Overview

Because the referral stage of the mentoring process is a primary focus of the current 

research, it was important to gain a clearer understanding of the myriad steps that typically 

define the referral process. Drawing on information from site visit data, the national survey 

and extant empirical literature, we have identified a series of seven steps that define the 

“typical” referral process. It is important to note that not all mentees follow this exact 

progression. Rather, the seven steps are those that appear to be most common across the 

various programs. There are, no doubt, idiosyncrasies between programs (i.e., programs will 

sometimes follow different paths) and within programs (i.e., each mentee is unique in some 

respects). While these differences are important from an analytic standpoint — for example, 

they may provide an explanation for why two programs differ on some observed outcome 

— they are less crucial to the current focus of painting a picture of the “average” or “typical” 

referral process and identifying related best practices.

5 Discussion, Conclusions and 

Implications
119

After an official referral is made (i.e., step four), youth 

are contacted by a mentoring services provider and 

invited to participate. Youth who accept the invitation 

to join are then assessed on a number of domains 

that may include personality characteristics, hobbies, 

general interests and special needs (step five). At 

this point, a potential mentor is identified and an 

introduction is arranged between mentee and 

mentor (step six). These preliminary meetings tend 

to occur within a short time period after the referral 

is received and, assuming the introductory meeting 

is a success, a match is made (step seven) and a 

mentoring relationship initiated (potential step eight). 

Diagram 1. Conceptual Model of the “Typical” Referral Process 
120

Discussion, Conclusions and Implications

continued

KEY FINDINGS FROM QUALITATIVE AND 

QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS

Based on the totality of the research evidence 

generated from the current study, several key 

findings emerged. The use of mentoring for juvenile 

justice-involved youth brings with it many advantages as well as several unique challenges. These 

advantages and challenges are discussed in greater 

detail below, as are a variety of recommendations 

gleaned from this analysis. While each of the six 

juvenile justice settings has its own experiences 

with the utilization of mentoring services, several key 

themes emerged across all settings.

First, the voluntary nature of the mentoring relationship was identified as both an advantage and a 

challenge by sites across the six settings. Because 

in most instances the ultimate decision of whether 

to accept a mentoring match belongs to the youth 

and his/her family, there are times when one or both 

are unwilling to participate in the recommended 

programming. This is also quite different from many 

situations in the juvenile justice system, where youth 

are mandated to programming and given very little 

choice in the matter (e.g., substance abuse treatment; drug court). On the other hand, by allowing 

youth to choose if they want to take advantage of 

mentoring, those who do agree to participate are, 

to a certain extent, already psychologically engaged 

and vested in the experience. This may make it less 

difficult for programs and potential mentors to keep 

youth engaged in mentoring services throughout 

the course of the match. This may be especially 

important in cases where the match is intended to 

last for an extended amount of time (e.g., beyond 

nine-12 months). 

Of course, not all sites visited reported that 

participation in mentoring services was voluntary. 

For example, Juvenile Detention sites indicated that 

all youth were, at the least, exposed to mentoring 

activities as a function of their detained status. In 

these instances, sites also utilized an embedded 

mentoring program which enables greater use of 

referral and match. Despite these few anomalies, 

however, the totality of evidence collected suggests 

that the overall nature of mentoring is voluntary. 

The use of embedded mentoring programs by 

several of the sites visited also raised some important issues and draws attention to several key 

findings. Overall, settings using embedded mentoring programs reported greater success in matching 

youth with mentors. These programs typically have 

a more seamless referral process, stemming from 

the fact that all aspects of the process are managed 

internally. The embedded programs have greater 

connectivity to the youth who are referred, and few 

reported difficulty in obtaining satisfactory matches 

for these youth. Additionally, by using an embedded 

mentoring program, settings are better able to track 

youth outcomes long-term, which is necessary for 

assessments of mentoring success. Despite these 

apparent advantages, few visited sites reported 

having embedded mentoring programs. Because 

of the success of these arrangements, it may be 

productive for sites and settings that outsource 

their mentoring services to consider developing 

embedded programs. 

Over the course of the setting site visits, two issues 

in particular emerged as significant challenges to 

successful mentoring matches. First, several sites 

reported that some youth are not considered viable 

candidates for matching due to serious mental 

health issues. This reality draws attention to and 

highlights the importance of appropriate screening mechanisms when dealing with juvenile justice 

populations. Youth involved in the juvenile justice 

system tend to be significantly different than the 

school-based populations that many mentoring 
121

programs typically serve. These youth are more 

likely to hail from non-intact families and often have 

experienced abuse and neglect in their homes and 

violence in their neighborhoods. As a result, they are 

significantly more likely to suffer from one or more 

diagnosed mental health disorders. Recognizing this 

fact and understanding the importance of proper 

screening and assessment can assist both mentoring programs and juvenile justice settings in making 

appropriate referrals for mentoring services.

A second common challenge identified by a variety 

of the sites was the unwillingness of family members 

to allow or support youth’s involvement with 

mentoring services. A number of sites across the 

six settings identified a lack of family willingness to 

accept matches as a primary factor in unsuccessful 

matches. This is consistent with research on other 

youth programs such as drug courts (Miller 

et al., 2007). While juvenile justice settings or 

mentoring programs can do very little to effect 

change in this respect, it does serve as a warning 

for those attempting to use mentoring services for 

system-involved youth. It also raises an important 

question of whether youth services such as mentoring should be court-ordered, thereby enabling

juvenile justice settings to bypass the potential 

roadblock of hostile or uncooperative parents. 

Scholars and practitioners should consider the 

costs and benefits of such an approach.

Data from the national survey also provides several 

key findings worthy of highlighting. First, it appears 

that the majority (60 percent) of juvenile justice 

settings surveyed utilizes some form of youth 

mentoring. Conversely, nearly 40 percent of mentoring programs surveyed report that these programs 

serve juvenile justice-involved youth. These findings 

indicate that mentoring is widespread in juvenile 

justice. Additional analyses of these settings reveal 

overall parity in mentoring referral success.

About half of all juvenile justice settings that utilize 

mentoring reported that more than 50 percent of 

referred youth are ultimately placed into mentoring 

relationships. While these numbers are encouraging, 

it does reveal that there is much room for the expansion of mentoring services across juvenile justice 

settings. For those youth who are successfully 

matched with an adult mentor, these matches are 

typically made in fewer than 90 days. Both quantitative and qualitative data indicate that the top reasons 

for match failure include youth or family refusal, 

mental health issues on the part of the youth or a 

lack of suitable adult mentors. Of these, the last factor appears to be the most manageable for settings 

and mentoring programs. Based on these findings, a 

central implication is the need for additional mentors. 

The majority of juvenile justice settings surveyed 

reported that between 76 percent and 100 percent 

of youth are charged with a crime prior to being 

referred to a mentoring program. Relatedly, the 

majority of settings surveyed reported that they 

always assess youth for their level of risk prior to 

making a referral to a mentoring program. It appears, 

then, that juvenile justice staff are prudent in their 

decision-making process as it relates to referring 

high-risk youth to mentoring programs.

Inferential analyses conducted with national survey 

data attempted to tease apart the relationship 

between program characteristics and mentoring 

match success. Several multivariate regression 

models were estimated in order to identify the most 

salient factors for match success. Results suggest 

that successful placement and time until a match is 

made are closely intertwined. Specifically, juvenile 

justice programs that are more successful at placing 

youth in mentoring relationships tend to refer youth 

to programs that have shorter waiting lists. The 

obvious implication here is that settings should strive 

to work with mentoring programs most capable of 
122

Discussion, Conclusions and Implications

continued

research is the examination of “hard outcomes” 

associated with mentoring: reduced delinquency 

and drug use, increased academic performance and 

development of self-efficacy. Because many issues 

remain unresolved with respect to the effectiveness of mentoring services, the topic will no doubt 

be afforded considerable empirical attention for the 

foreseeable future.

servicing youth within a reasonable amount of time. 

Alternatively, since the mentoring programs that 

reported the shortest wait lists were those that 

were embedded within the juvenile justice settings, 

decision makers may opt for the development of 

in-house programs to better serve referred youth.

Collectively, the data amassed through the various 

aspects of this research project reveal that mentoring is gaining traction throughout the juvenile justice 

system and that many settings look to mentoring 

to provide supplementary services for at-risk and 

delinquent youth. While mentoring is not used as 

a diversion from adjudication per se, it is, in many 

instances, viewed as one component of a holistic 

approach to delinquency prevention and intervention. Data suggest that juvenile justice settings 

utilize the services of both nationally recognized 

(e.g., BGC, BBBS) and local mentoring programs 

to deliver these services to troubled youth. Match 

success is closely linked with program capacity — 

that is, those referrals most likely to result in a match 

are related to the ability of the program to quickly 

handle referrals. Overall, the findings derived from 

the current analysis indicate that mentoring has a 

significant presence in the juvenile justice arena and 

that expansion of these services within this context 

may be warranted. 

As is the case with most research endeavors, the 

results from this project give rise to additional empirical questions related to mentoring. Though the 

findings from this study shed light on the important 

referral process, substantive questions remain about 

the quality of mentoring relationships and how these 

services are ultimately related to behavioral and 

educational outcomes. A possible next step for 

future research may be to explore the qualitative 

nature of mentoring services by collecting data from 

the subjects most capable of providing it — the 

mentors and mentees. Another avenue for future 
123

References

Baker, D. B., & McGuire, C. P. (2005). Mentoring in historical perspective. In D. L. DuBois & M. J. Karcher 

(Eds.), Handbook of Youth Mentoring (pp. 14-29).

Barnes, J. C., Miller, H. V., & Miller, J. M. (2009). Identifying leading characteristics associated with juvenile 

drug court admission and success: A research note. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 7(4), 

350-360.

Bazron, B. J., Brock, L., Read, N., & Segal, A. (2006). The mentoring tool-kit: Resources for developing 

programs for incarcerated youth (Unabridged version). Washington, D.C.: National Evaluation 

and Technical Assistance Center for the Education of Children and Youth who are Neglected, 

Delinquent and At-Risk, U.S. Department of Education.

Brame, R., Turner, M. G., Paternoster, R., & Bushway, S. D. (2012). Cumulative prevalence of arrest from ages 8 

to 23 in a National sample. Pediatrics, 129(1), 21-27.

Blechman, E. A., & Bopp, J. M. (2005). Juvenile offenders. In D. L. DuBois & M. J. Karcher (Eds.), Handbook 

of youth mentoring (pp. 454-466).

Bogat, G. A., & Liang, B. (2005). Gender in mentoring relationships. In D. L. DuBois & M. J. Karcher (Eds.), 

Handbook of Youth Mentoring (pp. 205-217).

Bouffard, J. A., & Bergseth, K. J. (2008). The impact of reentry services on juvenile offenders’ recidivism. Youth 

Violence and Juvenile Justice, 6(3), 295-318.

Cavell, T. A. & Smith, A. (2005). Mentoring children. In D. L. DuBois & M. J. Karcher (Eds.), Handbook of youth 

mentoring (pp. 160-176).

Coyne, S. M., Duffy, J. L., & Wandersman, A. (2005). Mentoring for results: Accountability at the individual, 

program, community, and policy levels. In D. L. DuBois & M. J. Karcher (Eds.), Handbook of Youth 

Mentoring (pp. 546-560). 

Dallos, R., & Comley-Ross, P. (2005). Young people’s experience of mentoring: Building trust and attachments. 

Clinical child psychology and psychiatry, 10(3), 369-383.

Dappen, L., & Isernhagen, J. C. (2006). Urban and nonurban schools: Examination of a statewide student 

mentoring program. Urban Education, 41(2), 151-168.

Darling, N. (2005). Mentoring adolescents. In D. L. DuBois & M. J. Karcher (Eds.), Handbook of youth 

mentoring (pp. 177-190).
124

References

continued

Day, A. (2006). The power of social support: Mentoring and resilience. Reclaiming Children and Youth,

14(4), 196-198.

Dondero, G. M. (1997). Mentors: Beacons of hope. Adolescence, 32(128), 881-886.

Dubberley, S. (2006). Mentoring for young people leaving care. Probation Journal, 53(2), 172-173.

DuBois, D. L., Holloway, B. E., Valentine, J. C., & Cooper, H. (2002). Effectiveness of 

mentoring programs: A meta-analytical review. American Journal of Community Psychology, 

30, 157– 197. doi:10.1023/A:1014628810714

DuBois, D. L., & Karcher, M. J. (2005). Youth mentoring: Theory, research and practice. In D. L. DuBois & M. J. 

Karcher (Eds.), Handbook of Youth Mentoring (pp. 2-11).

DuBois, D. L., Portillo, N., Rhodes, J. E., Silverthorn, N., & 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.

DuBois, D. L., & Rhodes, J. E. (2006). Youth mentoring: Bridging science with practice. Journal of Community 

Psychology, 34, 547–565. doi:10.1002/jcop.20121 

DuBois, D. L., & Silverthorn, N. (2005). Research methodology. In D. L. DuBois & M. J. Karcher (Eds.), 

Handbook of Youth Mentoring (pp. 44-64).

Enriquez, A. E. Jr. (2011). Juvenile system mentoring programs in Bexar county: Referrals and recidivism. 

(Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Texas at San Antonio.

Grossman, J. B., Chan, C. S., Schwartz, S. E., & Rhodes, J. E. (2011). The test of time in school-based 

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

Journal of Community Psychology, DOI 10.1007/s10464-011-9435-0

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

relationships. American Journal of Community Psychology, 30, 199-219.

Groves, R. M., Fowler, F. J., Couper, M. P., Lepkowski, J. M., Singer, E., & Tourangeau, R. (2009). Survey 

methodology (2nd Edition). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Hirsh, B. J., & Wong, V. (2005). After-school programs. In D. L. DuBois & M. J. Karcher (Eds.), Handbook 

of youth mentoring (pp. 364-375).

Jones-Brown, D. D., & Henriquez, Z. W. (1997). Promises and pitfalls of mentoring as a juvenile justice strategy. 

Social Justice, 24(4), 212-233.
125

Keating, L. M., Tomishima, M. A., Foster, S., & Alessandri, M. (2002). The effects of a mentoring program on 

at-risk youth. Adolescence, 37(148), 717-734.

Keller, T. E. (2005). The stages and development of mentoring relationships. In D. L. DuBois & M. J. Karcher 

(Eds.), Handbook of Youth Mentoring (pp. 82-99).

Krueger, R.A. (1988). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. Sage Publications: 

Newbury Park, CA.

Laakso, J., & Nygaard, J. (2007). Children of incarcerated parents project: How a mentoring program can 

make a difference. Unpublished final report prepared for Washington State Department of 

Corrections and Big Brothers Big Sisters of King/Pierce County.

Langhout, R. D., Rhodes, J. E., & Osborne, L. E. (2004). An exploratory study of youth mentoring in an urban 

context: Adolescents’ perceptions of relationship styles. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 33(4), 

293-306.

Lauver, S., Little, P., & Weiss, H. (2006). Moving beyond the barriers: Attracting and sustaining youth 

participation in out-of-school time programs. Opportunities in Out-of-School Time Evaluation, Harvard Family Research Project, vol. 6.

Long, J. S. (1997). Regression models for categorical and limited dependent variables. 

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

LoSciuto, L., Rajala, A. K., Townsend, T. N., & Taylor, A. S. (1996). An outcome evaluation of across ages: 

An intergenerational approach to drug prevention. Journal of Adolescent Research, 11(1), 

116-129.

Maton, K. I., Santo Domingo, M. R., & King, J. (2005) Faith-based organizations. In D. L. DuBois & M. J. 

Karcher (Eds.), Handbook of Youth Mentoring (pp.376-391).

Maxfield, M. G. & Babbie, E. (2008).  Research methods for criminal justice and criminology (5th Ed.). 

Thompson Wadsworth: Belmont, CA.

McCluskey, K. M., Noller, R. B., Lamoureux, K., & McCluskey, A. L. A. (2004). Unlocking hidden potential 

through mentoring. Reclaiming Children and Youth, 13(2), 85-93.

MENTOR/National Mentoring Partnership. (2006). Mentoring in America 2005: A snapshot of the current 

state of mentoring. Retrieved February 20, 2012, from http://www.mentoring.org/downloads/

mentoring_523.pdf

Miller, J.M., Koons-Witt, B.A., & Ventura, H.E. (2004). Barriers to evaluating drug treatment behind bars: 

A research note. Journal of Criminal Justice 32(1), 75-83.
126

References

continued

Miller, J.M., Miller, H.V., & J.C. Barnes. (2007). An Examination of Demeanor and Juvenile

Drug Court Admission. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 18(3), 246-259.

Morgan, D.L. (1988). Focus group as qualitative research. Sage Publications: Newbury Park, CA.

Morgan, D.L. (1996). Focus groups. Annual Review of Sociology, 22, 129-152.

Nakkula, M. J., & Harris, J. T. (2005). Assessment of mentoring relationships. In D. L. DuBois & M. J. Karcher 

(Eds.), Handbook of Youth Mentoring (pp. 100-117).

Newburn, T., & Shiner, M. (2006). Young people, mentoring and social inclusion. Youth Justice, 6(1), 23-41.

Office of Justice Programs. (2011). Fact sheet: Mentoring. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice. 

Retrieved February 20, 2012, from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/newsroom/factsheets/ojpfs_

mentoring.html

Portwood, S. G., & Ayers, P. M. (2005). Schools. In D. L. DuBois & M. J. Karcher (Eds.), 

Handbook of Youth Mentoring (pp. 336-347).

Pryce, J. M., & Keller, T. E. (2011). Interpersonal tone within school-based youth mentoring relationships. 

Youth & Society. Advance online publication. DOI: 10.1177/0044118X11409068

Rhodes, J. E. (2005). A model of youth mentoring. In D. L. DuBois & M. J. Karcher (Eds.), Handbook of youth 

mentoring (pp. 30-43).

Rhodes, J. E., & DuBois, D. L. (2008). Mentoring relationships and programs for youth. Current Directions 

in Psychological Science, 17(4), 254-258.

Sánchez, B., Esparza, P., & Colón, Y. (2008). Natural mentoring under the microscope: An investigation 

of mentoring relationships and Latino adolescents’ academic performance. Journal of Community

Psychology, 36, 468–482. doi:10.1002/jcop.20250

Shover, N. (1979). A sociology of American corrections. New York: Dorsey Press.

Sipe, C. L. (2005). Toward a typology of mentoring. In D. L. DuBois & M. J. Karcher (Eds.), Handbook of youth 

mentoring (pp. 65-80).

Smith, C. A., & Stormont, M. A. (2011). Building an effective school-based mentoring program. Intervention in 

School and Clinic, 47(1), 14-21.

Spencer, R. (2006). Understanding the mentoring process between adolescents and adults. Youth & Society, 

37(3), 287-315.

Spencer, R. (2007). “It’s not what I expected”: A qualitative study of youth mentoring relationship failures. 

Journal of Adolescent Research, 22(4), 331-354.
127

Thomas, R. E., Lorenzetti, D., & Spragins, W. (2011). Mentoring adolescents to prevent drug and alcohol use. 

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2011, 11, CD007381. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.

CD007381.pub2

Thomson, N. R., & Zand, D. H. (2010). Mentees’ perceptions of their interpersonal relationships:

The role of the mentor-youth bond. Youth & Society, 41, 434-445.

DOI:10.1177/0044118X09334806

Tolan, P., Henry, D., Schoeny, M., & Bass, A., (2008). Mentoring interventions to affect juvenile delinquency 

and associated problems. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 16. DOI: 10.4073/csr.2008.16

Walker, G. (2005). Youth mentoring and public policy. In D. L. DuBois & M. J. Karcher (Eds.), 

Handbook of youth mentoring (pp. 510-524).

Weinberger, S. G. (2005). Developing a mentoring program. In D. L. DuBois & M. J. Karcher (Eds.),

Handbook of Youth Mentoring (pp. 220-234).

Weisburd, D., & Piquero, A. R. (2008). How well do criminologists explain crime? Statistical modeling in 

published studies. Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, 37, 453-502.

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

and meta-analysis. Research on Social Work Practice. Advance online publication. 

DOI: 10.1177/1049731511430836
128

Appendix A: Qualitative Data Collection Instruments

Site Demographics Form

This form will provide information necessary to completing the site selection matrix, as well as additional 

information that will help inform the selection of sites for site visits. It will likely be completed prior to the visit. 

This completed form will also provide the basis for the individual profiles for each of the sites visited.

Interviewer Name: Date: 

Site Name: 

Organization/Agency Name (if different): 

Setting Type (youth court, etc.): 

Primary Contact: 

Title: 

Number of youth served by the setting: _______

Number identified for referral to mentoring: _______

Number currently matched with a mentor: ________

Number in the referral process: ________

Average length of time from identification to match (wait list): ______

Age range of the youth served by the setting:

6 -8

9-12

13-15

16-18

18-21* (if in this age category, explain circumstances that keep them involved in the JJ setting)

Percent male ____% and female _____%

Mentoring Program

Site Name: 

Organization/Agency Name: 

Primary Contact: 

Title: 

Age of Mentoring program (how long in existence): 
129

I. Geographic Distribution

Community Designation

Use either government classifications or judgment. Sites selected do not need to be evenly distributed across 

these but must be able to justify sufficient representation across several settings. For tribal, one site may be 

sufficient if they work with more than one setting but a second tribal site can also be justified to look at multiple 

settings.

Urban

Rural

Suburban

Tribal

Region

While the goal is to visit each of the six settings in all four U.S. regions, that is not practical. Do the best you can 

but each setting should be visited in a minimum of three regions in the country. Go to http://www.census.gov/

geo/www/us_regdiv.pdf for a U.S. census-based regional map.

Northeast

South

Midwest

West

Enrichment 

While not essential for the matrix, enrichment information will provide more context that may be helpful when 

deciding between several sites in the same geographic location or when balancing site characteristics across 

all sites.

Provide a narrative description of the location that further describes the urban, rural, suburban or tribal 

community and distinctive about the community.

Describe the unique role the setting plays within this environment; what community needs or issues do the 

setting address.
130

Appendix A

continued

II. Primary demographics

A. Race/Ethnic Breakdown

This section helps you complete the part of the matrix that ensures diverse race and ethnicities of the youth 

served by the six settings. If actual data are not available from the setting, they can estimate the percentage of 

youth served by race/ethnicity. Use the group with the highest percentage to complete the matrix. If two groups 

are fairly equally represented, the site can be placed in both places on the matrix.

___% African American

___% Native American/American Indian

___% Hispanic/Latino

___% White

___% Other

B. Enrichment 

Describe general characteristics of the youth population, such as significant issues or offenses.

III. Mentoring Program Characteristics

A. Focus of the mentoring program

For the matrix, determine whether the mentoring program associated with the setting is a general program 

recruiting mentors for at- risk and high-risk youth in general or a targeted program with a specialty in working 

with high-risk, delinquent/juvenile justice involved youth. Try to identify at least one setting that is working with 

youth re-entering the community from incarceration or residential care. An embedded program would count 

as a “targeted” program.

Juvenile Probation

Juvenile Detention

Delinquency Court

Youth court/teen court

Juvenile Corrections

Dependency Court

At-Risk

High-Risk currently involved

High-Risk not currently involved
131

Please give an overview of the mentoring program’s mission and target population.

B. Enrichments

Certain enrichment information about the mentoring programs may yield interesting findings on the relationship 

between these features and capacity to serve JJ youth. When selecting sites, document the following and attempt to get a mix of program characteristics.

1. How long has the mentoring program been in operation?

Mentoring program should be in operation for at least one year and can be an active or inactive program that 

previously served high-risk youth. 

________ years.

2. What is the mentoring approach?

individual

group (one mentor/multiple youth)

team (multiple mentors/multiple youth)

Please describe:

3. If mentoring program, what are your referral sources?

4. If JJ program, what are the mentoring programs that you have access to make referrals?

5. Is the referral process voluntary or mandated?

Please describe any other unique characteristics of the mentoring program.
132

Appendix A

continued

Setting Site Visit Cover Sheet

Date of Site Visit: Location:

Setting: Juvenile Detention Juvenile Corrections Juvenile Probation

Delinquency Court Youth/Teen Court Dependency Court

Respondent Information: 

Name:

Position:

Interviewer Name:

Interviewer Instructions:

1. Circle answers for multiple response queries.

2. Fill in all blanks (insert N/A if no answer or irrelevant to setting).

3. Provide narrative response from site visit notes on this sheet for all open-ended queries.

4. Pose questions in a neutral and value-free manner.

5. Listen more than you talk.

6. Follow up for clarification when necessary.

7. Obtain additional items such as MOUs, flowcharts, training materials, etc.

8. Make sure all notes are word processed following interviews using Times New Roman, 12-point font.

Suggested Documents for Request:

1. MOUs

2. Training Materials

3. Policy Statements

4. Program Criteria (Mentors or Mentees)

5. Outcome Data

6. Referral Flowcharts

7. Formal Selection/Participation Criteria Checklist
133

Section I: Mentoring Referral

Identify primary sources and mandatory timeframes for the referral of the young person to mentoring.

1. Is mentoring court-ordered? Yes No

If not court ordered, who makes the referral? (please check all that apply)

School Law Enforcement Juvenile Probation Family Other

2. What process or information is used to determine that mentoring might be an appropriate strategy?

3. Do you operate under any mandatory or statutory timeframe in terms of the referral process?

Yes No

If yes, how many days? ______ 

 If yes, what impact does this policy have on the referral process?

 Identify mentoring programs used. If the mentoring program is embedded, determine reasons and get some 

details about how they recruit mentors. Try to interview someone involved with the mentoring component of 

the setting and use questions from the mentoring program questionnaire.

4. Please list the name and location of mentoring programs to which youth are referred? 

5. If there is an embedded mentoring program in the JJ setting, please describe the reasons why and 

any challenges/successes in doing so?
134

Appendix A

continued

 Get details on criteria/processes used to decide whether or not individual youth are good candidates for mentoring, 

whether this process ends up excluding some youth, and on what basis most are excluded.

6. Please describe the selection referral criteria used to identify youth likely to benefit from mentoring services:

7. Please describe the referral criteria policies and procedures.

8. On average, what percentage of referred youth are good candidates for mentoring? _____

9. What are the primary reasons referred youth are excluded based on these criteria?

What percentage of youth end up being excluded? ____%

Determine how likely it is for youth, once identified as good candidates for mentoring, to be referred to a mentoring program.

10. How many youth from your setting have been going through the referral process to a mentoring program 

in the past six months? _____

11. Of these, how many were not successfully referred to a mentoring program? ______

Please identify the reasons prohibiting referral:

Lack of mentoring programs Not enough mentors within a program

Mentor program exclusions Lack of availability of suitable mentors

Youth or family refusal to accept referral or match Other:

12. Please describe the conditions most likely to result in a referral.
135

 

13. Please describe some of the most significant challenges for referrals and how you have overcome them. 

Determine how likely it is for youth referred to a mentoring program to actually be matched with a mentor.

14. What percentage of youth referred to mentoring programs for a mentor end up matched with a mentor? 

______%

 [Note to interviewer: The number referred to a mentoring program should be #10 above minus # 11. 

The percentage ending up with a mentor should be the number of actual matches divided by the 

actual number referred to a mentoring program.]

15. For those not successfully matched with a mentor, identify the reasons why a match was not made:

Lack of mentoring programs Not enough mentors within a program

Inadequate match Youth or family refusal to accept referral or match

16. How many youth are currently involved in a mentoring relationship? ______

17. Please describe the conditions most likely to result in a match.

18. Please describe some of the most significant challenges for successful matches and how you have 

overcome them.

19. On average, how long does it take referred youth to be matched with a mentor when there is no waiting 

list? ____ days

20. On average, how long does it take referred youth to be matched with a mentor when there is a waiting 

list (if applicable)? ____ days
136

 

Appendix A

continued

Section II: Capacity

 This section gets at how programs are staffed to either provide (with embedded programs) or support (for those 

who partner with mentoring programs) the youth throughout the mentoring relationship.

21. Does any juvenile justice staff in your facility have duties associated with making referrals for 

mentoring services? Yes No

If yes, how many FTE? _______

Which specific staff positions are involved in the referral process?

22. Does any juvenile justice staff in your facility have duties associated with supporting youth in 

mentoring relationships? Yes No

If yes, how many FTE? _______

Which specific staff positions are involved in the referral process?

23. How do you locate mentoring programs (or mentors for those with embedded programs) to work 

with your JJ setting? 

State Mentoring Partnership? (which one)

MENTOR national database? (VRS on mentoring.org)

Other

24. Please describe the selection criteria used to identify potential mentoring programs (or mentors for

 those with embedded programs). Note whether these are formal or informal criteria:
137

Section III: Program Characteristics

This section gets at the setting’s role in support of the mentoring program and the mentor. 

25. Are mentors required to assist youth in navigating any aspects of the juvenile justice process?

Yes No

If yes, please explain.

26. Do you provide any special training or guidance for mentors on assisting mentees with the JJ process?

The following questions address the mentoring strategy used and the frequency of interaction between mentors and youth. 

27. What type of mentoring strategy is used?

One-to-one Group (one mentor, multiple youth)

Team (more than one mentor; multiple youth) Other: ________________________

28. Where does mentoring take place?

Home Secure facility No-secure facility 

Community location Other: _____________________________________

29. Is there a mentor match commitment? If yes, how long:

School year (9 months) 

9-12 months

12 months or more

If no, please explain rationale and average length of commitment.
138

Appendix A

continued

30. How frequently do mentors and mentees meet?

Twice a week weekly twice a month monthly other

31. How long does each meeting typically last?

One hour two hours three hours other

This section addresses mentoring practices for specific populations.

32. Are mentoring practices tailored for any of the following unique circumstances? Please explain 

any “yes” answers.

 Specific types of offenses (e.g., property crime, violent crime, gang involvement,

substance use and abuse)

Individual youth history (mental health issues, developmental issues, anger issues)

Specific juvenile justice settings

Gender

Explain:
139

 

Section IV: Intermediate Outcomes

 Determine if and how goals are set for the youth in the mentoring relationship, how they are tracked, and what the 

most common goal categories are.

33. Are goals set for the mentor/mentee to achieve? Yes No

 If yes, what are most common goal categories for the mentee?

(Please check all that apply)

Minimized contact with juvenile/criminal system

Reduced recidivism 

Improved school attendance

Improved academic performance

Prosocial engagement (please describe)

Employment preparation

Other

Please describe:
140

Appendix A

continued

Section V: Setting Specific Questions

Juvenile Probation

1. What happens to mentor relationship with changes in jurisdiction or placement?

2. How are mentoring needs of juveniles with escalating risk/needs addressed?

3. Is more than one mentoring program available to meet the varying needs of diverse youth?

Delinquency Court

1. Is mentoring mandated or voluntary? 

2. Is Juvenile Probation under the auspices of the Delinquency Court?

3. What happens when there are dual adjudicatory issues?

4. Are there statutory time limits that impact referrals? 

5. What is the involvement of the Delinquency Court after referral?
141

6. Are there specific mentoring programs serving this population?

Youth Court / Teen Court

1. Identify school, juvenile justice, or community-based

2. Are youth volunteers involved in referral recommendations?

3. What staff role is responsible for mentoring service delivery? 

4. Is mentoring viewed as a wrap-around service?

Dependency Court

1. Who has legal authority to approve authority?

2. Is mentoring mandated or voluntary? 

3. What specific dependency hearings lend themselves to making a referral?
142

Appendix A

continued

4. Is there formal involvement with staff after a referral, if so when and how?

Juvenile Detention

1. State, County, Court, or Private-Operated

2. Is there a minimum length-of-stay for referral? If so, what is it?

3. Are mentoring services being provided by an established, independent mentoring agency?

Juvenile Corrections

1. When is referral made? During incarceration, at what point? After incarceration?

2. How is continuum of care in mentoring maintained through the changes in placement / jurisdiction?

3. Is consideration given to the appropriateness of mentoring agency to serve youth?
143

MENTORING PROGRAMS SITE VISIT COVER SHEET

Date of Site Visit: Location:

Program Name:

Program Location:

Respondent Information: 

Name:

Position:

Interviewer Name:

Interviewer Instructions:

1. Circle answers for multiple response queries.

2. Fill in all blanks (insert N/A if no answer or irrelevant to setting).

3. Provide narrative response from site visit notes on this sheet for all open-ended queries.

4. Pose questions in a neutral and value-free manner.

5. Listen more than you talk.

6. Follow up for clarification when necessary.

7. Obtain additional items such as MOUs, flowcharts, training materials, etc.

8. Make sure all notes are word processed following interviews using Times New Roman, 12-point font.

Suggested Documents for Request:

1. MOUs

2. Training Materials

3. Policy Statements

4. Program Criteria (Mentors or Mentees)

5. Outcome Data

6. Referral Flowcharts

7. Formal Selection/Participation Criteria Checklist
144

Appendix A

continued

MENTORING PROGRAMS SITE VISIT QUESTIONNAIRE

(FOR USE AT MENTORING PROGRAMS ONLY)

Describe mentoring program involvement with youth in JJ setting.

JJ Setting Specialize # of Years # of Current # Currently Avg. Length Avg. length Formal/ 

Yes/No Matching Matches in referral of time from of time Informal

this setting awaiting referral to on wait list

 match match

Juvenile 

Detention

Juvenile 

Corrections 

Juvenile 

Probation

Delinquency 

Court 

Youth/Teen 

Court 

Dependency 

Court-

 

Notes:
145

 Get details on criteria/processes used to decide whether or not individual youth are good candidates for mentoring, whether

this process ends up excluding some youth, and on what basis most are excluded.

1. Please describe the selection referral criteria used to identify youth likely to benefit from mentoring services:

2. Please describe the referral criteria policies and procedures.

3. Do these referral criteria distinguish among the six juvenile justice settings making the referral?

Yes No Comments:__________________________________________

4. On average, what percentage of youth referred from the JJ setting qualify for a mentor? _____

5. What are the primary reasons referred youth are excluded?

Determine the percentage of referred youth matched with a mentor and reasons why matches are not made.

6. What percentage of referrals results in youth being matched with a mentor? _____

7. For those not matched with a mentor, identify the reasons why a match is not made:

Not enough mentors within a program Lack of appropriately trained mentors

Inadequate match Youth or family refusal to accept referral or match
146

Appendix A

continued

8. Are there formal guidelines provided by the setting for accepting the referred youth? 

If yes, what do they include?

Describe responses of the mentoring program to challenges posed in working with youth in this particular JJ setting.

9. What specific challenges do working with youth from this JJ setting present? 

10. How does your mentoring program address these challenges?

11. Does your mentoring program provide or receive any specific training in working with youth 

from this setting? Explain.

12. Have safety concerns ever been an issue? If so, please explain the situations and how they 

were addressed.

The following questions address the mentoring strategy used and the frequency of interaction between mentors and youth. 
147

13. What type of mentoring strategy is used?

One-to-one Group (one mentor, multiple youth)

Team (more than one mentor; multiple youth) Other: ________________________

14. Where does mentoring take place?

Home Secure facility No-secure facility 

Community location Other

15. Is there a mentor match commitment? If yes, how long:

School year (9 months) 

9-12 months

12 months or more

If no, please explain rationale and average length of commitment.

16. How frequently do mentors and mentees meet?

Twice a week weekly twice a month monthly other

17. How long does each meeting typically last?

One hour two hours three hours other

 This section addresses the type of offenders that are referred to mentoring programs as well as the types of mentors 

that are recruited.
148

Appendix A

continued

18. Are mentoring practices tailored for 

 specific types of offenses (e.g., property crime, violent crime, gang involvement, substance 

use and abuse)? Please describe:

individual youth history (mental health issues, developmental issues, anger issues)?

by gender?

other?

19. What are the intended objectives or outcomes of the mentoring program?

(Please check all that apply)

 Minimized contact with juvenile/criminal system

 Reduced recidivism 

 Improved school attendance

 Improved academic performance

 Prosocial engagement (Please describe)

 Employment preparation

 Other

Please describe:

Additional comments or information.

20. Please note any additional comments or observations not covered by the questions in this document.
149

OJJDP National Survey on Mentoring Services for High-Risk Youth Seeks Participants

December 19, 2011

MENTOR/The National Mentoring Partnership, Global Youth Justice, and the National Partnership for 

Juvenile Services are conducting a SURVEY to improve the design and delivery of mentoring services for 

high-risk youth for purposes of reducing delinquency, alcohol and drug abuse, truancy and/or other problem 

behaviors.  Results will be included in a research report, training and technical assistance materials, and be 

available to the public for free.

The SURVEY is funded by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP).  Mentoring and 

Juvenile Justice professionals working in Detention, Corrections, Probation, Dependency Courts, Delinquency 

Courts and Teen Court/Youth Court diversion programs are encouraged to participate. The survey is available 

ONLINE, and takes 10 to 15 minutes to complete.

Take the Survey On-line: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/YouthMentoringSurvey

Appendix B: OJJDP JuvJust Call for Participants
150

Appendix C: Survey
151
152

Appendix C: Survey

continued
153
154

Appendix C: Survey

continued
155
156

Appendix C: Survey

continued
157
158

Appendix C: Survey

continued
159
160

Appendix C: Survey

continued
161
162

Appendix C: Survey

continued
163
164

Appendix C: Survey

continued
165
166

Appendix C: Survey

continued
167
168

Appendix C: Survey

continued
169
170

Appendix C: Survey

continued
171
172

Appendix C: Survey

continued
173
174

Appendix C: Survey

continued
175
176

Appendix C: Survey

continued
177
178

Appendix C: Survey

continued
179
180

Appendix C: Survey

continued

PROJECT PARTNERS

This project was supported by 

Grant #2010-JU-FX-0118 awarded 

by the Office of Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention, Office of 

Justice Programs, U.S. Department 

of Justice. The opinions, findings 

and conclusions or recommendations 

expressed in this publication/program/ 

exhibition are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect those 

of the Department of Justice.