An evaluation of a juvenile court volunteer program

Berger, Robert J.; Gold, Martin

doi:10.1002/1520-6629(197810)6:4<328::aid-jcop2290060409>3.0.co;2-k

Cited by 7 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…), Social Competence Training (26 weekly lessons include stress management, self-esteem, etc)., Family Activities (monthly weekend events for youth, their families, and their mentors). Barnoski (2002) Meet monthly during last 5-6 months of youth confinement in Juvenile facility None Berger & Gold (1978) One on one similar to Big Brothers/Big Sisters Some (number not specified) chose to participate in group counseling or tutoring. Carswell (2002) Group mentoring session 4-5 days/week after school.…”

Section: -16 Yearsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mentoring Interventions to Affect Juvenile Delinquency and Associated Problems

Tolan

Henry²,

Schoeny³

et al. 2008

Campbell Systematic Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mentoring is one of the most commonly‐used interventions to prevent, divert, and remediate youth engaged in, or thought to be at risk for delinquent behavior, school failure, aggression, or other antisocial behavior. We conducted a meta‐analytic review of selective and indicated mentoring interventions that have been evaluated for their effects on delinquency outcomes for youth (e.g., arrest or conviction as a delinquent, self‐reported involvement) and key associated outcomes (aggression, drug use, academic functioning). Of 112 identified studies reported published between 1970 and 2005, 39 met criteria for inclusion. Mean effects sizes were significant and positive for each outcome category. Effects were largest (still moderate by Cohen's differentiation) for delinquency and aggression. However, these categories also showed the most heterogeneity across studies. The obtained patterns of effects suggest mentoring may be valuable for those at‐risk or already involved in delinquency and for associated outcomes. Moderator analyses found stronger effects in randomised controlled trials compared to quasi‐experimental studies, for studies where emotional support was a key process involved in mentoring, and where professional development was a motivation for mentors. However, the collected set of studies are less informative than expected with quite limited detail in studies about what comprised mentoring activity and key implementation characteristics. This limitation encourages caution particularly in interpreting the moderated effects. These findings add to the longstanding calls for more careful design and testing of mentoring efforts to provide the needed specificity to guide effective practice of this popular approach. Abstract BackgroundIn recent years, mentoring has drawn substantial interest from policymakers, intervention theorists, and those interested in identifying promising and useful evidence‐based approaches to interventions for criminal justice and child welfare outcomes (Grossman & Tierney, 1998; Jekliek et al., 2002). Mentoring is one of the most commonly‐used interventions to prevent, divert, and remediate youth engaged in, or thought to be at risk for, delinquent behavior, school failure, aggression, or other antisocial behavior (DuBois, Holloway, Valentine, & Cooper, 2002). One account lists over 4500 organizations within the United States that use mentoring to promote youth wellbeing and reduce risk (Rhodes, 2002). Definitions of mentoring vary, but there are common elements. For the purpose of this review, mentoring was defined by the following 4 characteristics: 1) interaction between two individuals over an extended period of time, 2) inequality of experience, knowledge, or power between the mentor and mentee (recipient), with the mentor possessing the greater share, 3) the mentee is in a position to imitate and benefit from the knowledge, skill, ability, or experience of the mentor, 4) the absence of the role inequality that typifies other helping relationships and is marked by professional tr...

show abstract

Section: -16 Yearsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mentoring Interventions to Affect Juvenile Delinquency and Associated Problems

Tolan

Henry²,

Schoeny³

et al. 2008

Campbell Systematic Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The results indicated that youth who had assigned mentors had lower felony recidivism rates over 12 months than youth in a matched group who did not receive mentoring (Barnoski, 1998). Additional studies have also found that mentoring programs reduce recidivism in known juvenile offenders (Berger and Gold, 1978;Hanlon et al, 2002). Connecting known juvenile burglars to mentors could be an effective early intervention tool to prevent the development of burglary expertise among young offenders.…”

Section: The Importance Of Early Interventionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Improving responses to juvenile burglary offenders

Roth

Pierce

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to make evidence-based recommendations for improving the responses of criminal justice agencies to juvenile burglary offenders. Design/methodology/approach The paper first analyzes what is known about factors relevant to young offenders’ initiation into burglary and subsequent persistence in that offense. It then evaluates research regarding juvenile justice interventions that can mitigate those factors in order to prevent youth from becoming involved in burglary or to encourage desistance in juvenile burglars. Findings Effective early intervention with juvenile burglars is vital, as burglars often begin committing this crime in their early teens and quickly develop expertise in the offense. Evidence supports the importance of positive mentoring, substance abuse programs, some forms of restorative justice and multi-modal interventions with education and employment components, while waiving these youth to adult court appears to offer little benefit over less punitive approaches. Originality/value This work delivers an original contribution by providing an analysis of existing burglary and juvenile justice research that may be useful to policymakers, law enforcement and other justice practitioners.

show abstract

“…There seems to be general agreement that diversion services should be provided on a consensual basis and that pressure on youth to participate in diversion programs by agents of the juvenile justice system limits the effectiveness of such programming (Mullen, n.d.;Berger, 1975). Gibbons and Blake (n.d .…”

Section: As Noncoercivementioning

confidence: 99%

POLICE DIVERSION An Illusion?

Dunford¹

1977

Criminology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Diversion is defined on the basis of five restrictions that place important limitations on what should be considered “authentic” diversion. Each of the restrictions is reviewed in light of a number of current diversion programs known to the author. It is concluded that diversion as conceptualized by its proponents is not receiving a fair test and will be rejected on the basis of programs that have been operational zed in ways inconsistent with the original intent of its early advocates.

show abstract

An evaluation of a juvenile court volunteer program

Cited by 7 publications

References 2 publications

Mentoring Interventions to Affect Juvenile Delinquency and Associated Problems

Mentoring Interventions to Affect Juvenile Delinquency and Associated Problems

Improving responses to juvenile burglary offenders

POLICE DIVERSION An Illusion?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About