National Institute of Justice National Institute of Justice. Research. Development. Evaluation. Office of Justice Programs
Crime Solutions.gov
skip navigationHome  |  Help  |  Contact Us  |  Site Map   |  Glossary
Reliable Research. Real Results. skip navigation
skip navigation Additional Resources:

skip navigation

Practice Profile

Mentoring

Evidence Ratings for Outcomes:

Effective - One Meta-Analysis Crime & Delinquency - Multiple crime/offense types
Promising - More than one Meta-Analysis Drugs & Substance Abuse - Multiple substances
Promising - One Meta-Analysis Education - Multiple education outcomes
Promising - One Meta-Analysis Mental Health & Behavioral Health - Psychological functioning

Practice Description

Program Background/Target Populations
Mentoring is designed to promote healthy development and functioning. Although the exact nature of the mentor/mentee relationship varies from program to program and over time, it is generally defined as follows:

A relationship over a prolonged period of time between two or more people where an older, caring, more experienced individual provides help to the younger person as [he or she] goes through life (CSAP 2000, 2).
The use of mentoring to address the needs of at-risk populations has grown dramatically since early research found that mentored youth were less likely to skip school or engage in drinking, drugs, and violence (Werner 1995; Tierney, Grossman, and Resch 1995). Since then, 5,000 mentoring programs, or programs with mentoring as a component, have been developed and implemented to serve approximately 3 million youth (DuBois et al. 2011).

Mentoring programs can have a prevention or intervention focus and be designed to serve different at-risk populations, such as children living in high-poverty neighborhoods, children of incarcerated parents, children in foster care, abused and neglected youths, youths who have disabilities, pregnant and parenting adolescents, academically at-risk students, and adolescents involved in the juvenile justice system (Ahrens et al. 2008; Britner et al. 2006; Goode and Smith 2005).

Program Theory
The goal of mentoring programs is to provide a youth with positive adult or older peer contact and, thereby, reduce risk factors (e.g., early antisocial behavior, alienation, family management problems, lack of commitment to school) by enhancing protective factors (e.g., healthy beliefs, opportunities for involvement, and social and material reinforcement for appropriate behavior).

Key Personnel
Although some mentors are paid, most often mentors are volunteers who are matched with a mentee. Occasionally a mentor is matched with a group of mentees. Mentors are typically adults, but may also be older peers.

Program Settings and Models
Various mentoring settings and models are in use today:

Informal mentoring occurs whenever a youth has an ongoing relationship with an older person (e.g., a teacher, coach, or family friend) who provides guidance to the young person. These informal mentoring relationships result from frequent, unstructured contacts with the adult or older peer. Informal mentoring has been an important force in the life of young people for centuries.

Formal mentoring occurs when programs provide volunteer mentors for at-risk youth. The formal mentoring relationship between one or more youths and the volunteer is fostered through a structured program operated by community agencies, faith-based programs, schools, afterschool programs, and other youth-serving organizations. The organizations or agencies usually have a structured program that includes recruitment of youth and volunteers, training of volunteers, guidelines for matching volunteers and youth, and ongoing monitoring and training. Once a volunteer is matched with a youth, the pair agrees to meet over time to engage in various activities.

Community-based mentoring (CBM) matches a carefully screened volunteer with an at-risk youth. The pair agrees to meet regularly, usually for at least 4 hours per month. In many cases, the mentoring relationship endures beyond a year. The pair engages in a variety of activities (e.g., sports, games, movies, visiting a library or museum) within the community. Because of a dramatic increase in other formal mentoring programs, CBM programs now account for only about 50 percent of all structured mentoring programs (DuBois and Rhodes 2006).

School-based mentoring (SBM) has become a popular alternative to CBM. SBM also involves the pairing of a young person with a positive role model. In the case of SBM, however, the role model may be an adult or an older student. This model is sometimes called site-based mentoring, because unlike CBM, the mentor and mentee meet at a specific location rather than various places within the community (DuBois and Rhodes 2006). The SBM pair usually meets at school in a supervised setting for about 1 hour, once a week, during or after school. In a few cases, SBM is provided through a community agency, and the youth meets with his or her mentor at a community center. The mentoring activities tend to be concentrated on academics, along with social activities. The relationship usually lasts only about 9 months during 1 school year. In a few cases, the pair meets during the summer or even in the next school year (Herrera et al. 2007). Thus, youths in SBM programs meet with their mentors for considerably less time per month and for a shorter duration than do youths in CBM programs.

Other mentoring models include group mentoring, wherein one mentor meets with a group of youths; e-mentoring, in which the two individuals communicate over the Internet; and peer mentoring, wherein students are used as mentors (DuBois and Rhodes 2006).

For information on components that may impact the effectiveness of mentoring programs, please see "Other Information."

Meta-Analysis Outcomes

top border
Effective - One Meta-Analysis Crime & Delinquency - Multiple crime/offense types
Tolan et al. (2008) reviewed 20 studies of mentoring programs that included delinquency outcomes. There was considerable variance in the effect sizes recorded across these studies, ranging from standard mean difference (SMD) = 0.18 to SMD = 1.73. The mean effects size using a random effects model was calculated as 0.23, indicating a small, positive effect for participants in mentoring programs compared to youth in the control conditions.
Promising - More than one Meta-Analysis Drugs & Substance Abuse - Multiple substances
While there are mixed findings from the three meta-analyses, the preponderance of evidence suggests that mentoring programs are promising in reducing the use of alcohol and drugs among youth. Of the three meta-analyses that looked at this outcome, Thomas et al. (2011) found the strongest positive effect of mentoring on substance use. The authors analyzed the findings of two studies, deriving an effect size of 0.54, thus finding a moderate positive effect for participants of mentoring programs compared to adolescents in the control groups. Both programs included in the findings had the goal of deterring alcohol and drug use. In contrast, DuBois et al. (2011) assessed six samples to derive an effect size of 0.05, concluding that mentoring programs had no effect on substance use for treatment participants compared to control group participants. It is unclear whether the mentoring studies included in the calculation of the effect size were specifically designed to deter alcohol and drug use. The results of Tolan et al. (2008) fall somewhere between the other two meta-analyses. The authors evaluated six studies with reported drug use outcomes for a mean effect size of 0.13, which could indicate a small positive effect. However, this finding was not statistically significant because the confidence interval ranged from -0.02 to 0.28. Again, it was unclear whether the studies included in this analysis included only programs with the goal of deterring alcohol and drug use.
Promising - One Meta-Analysis Education - Multiple education outcomes
DuBois et al. (2011) analyzed 54 independent samples, and findings indicated that mentoring programs had a small positive effect (0.21) on multiple educational outcomes including school attendance, grades, and academic achievement test scores.
Promising - One Meta-Analysis Mental Health & Behavioral Health - Psychological functioning
DuBois et al. (2011) assessed the findings of 31 independent samples to determine the impact of mentoring programs on social skills and peer relationships. The authors calculated a mean effect size of 0.17, which indicated a small positive effect of mentoring programs on social skills and peer relationships for participants compared to control group participants.
bottom border

Meta-Analysis Methodology

top border
Meta-Analysis Snapshot
 Literature Coverage DatesNumber of StudiesNumber of Study Participants
Meta-Analysis 11970 - 2005399262
Meta-Analysis 21999 - 2010730
Meta-Analysis 31950 - 201141994

Meta-Analysis 1
Tolan and colleagues (2008) conducted a comprehensive search to identify studies of mentoring programs that focused on youth at risk for delinquency or engaged in delinquent behavior. Prevention and intervention programs were included if they could be classified as standalone mentoring programs or they included mentoring as a component. The outcomes of interest included delinquency, aggression, substance use, and academic achievement. The evaluation studies had to have a comparison group (this control condition could be no treatment, waiting list, treatment as usual, or placebo treatment). Studies were limited to programs in predominately English-speaking countries and had to be reported in English. The search covered the years 1970 to 2005.

The search yielded 39 studies that met the criteria for inclusion:  22 were randomized control trials (RCTs) and 17 were quasi-experimental designs (QEDs). Twenty-one studies reported delinquency outcomes, 19 reported academic achievement outcomes, 6 reported drug use outcomes, and 6 reported aggression as an outcome. Tolan and colleagues reported that the RCTs had larger effect sizes than QEDs (a finding that reverses the more typical finding that QEDs yield larger effect sizes than RCTs). The 39 studies included 9,262 participants (4,732 in the treatment groups, 4,530 in the control groups).

Four meta-analyses were conducted, one for each outcome of interest. A random effects model was used due to the heterogeneity across studies (for example, for delinquency, Q(19) = 71.2, p<.01, range: SMD = -0.18 to SMD = 1.73).

A moderator analysis was done to determine whether the effects of the intervention varied due to:
  • Selectivity in inclusion
  • Explicit attention to presence of four key processes (modeling/identification promotion, emotional support, advocacy, teaching)
  • Standalone mentoring or mentoring as a program component
  • Motivation of mentors to participate
  • Extent to which the quality of work and fidelity were assessed or emphasized.
The authors were unable to include all studies in their analysis of all five components, given the limited data included in some studies.

Meta-Analysis 2
DuBois and colleagues (2011) meta-analyzed the results of 83 samples included in 73 studies of mentoring programs. Studies were identified through a comprehensive search for published and unpublished studies produced between 1999 and 2010. Studies were included if they had a comparison group of non-mentored youth; thus, the meta-analysis included studies that used experimental and quasi-experimental designs. The following broad definition was used to identify candidate intervention studies:  “A program or intervention that is intended to promote positive youth outcomes via relationships between young persons (18-years-old and younger) and specific nonparental adults (or older youth) who are acting in a nonprofessional helping capacity.” Interventions that used mentoring as only a component of the program were excluded, and programs that targeted youth with deeply rooted problems were also excluded.

The researchers identified an aggregate effect size based on the standardized mean difference for each sample to derive an overall effect size of mentoring programs of 0.21 (95 percent CI, + or -0.05). When no effect size could be derived for an individual sample, it was conservatively set to 0 for the purposes of analysis.

The authors also conducted analyses of individual outcomes of interest. Thirty-two studies reported attitudinal/motivational outcomes; 31 studies reported social/relational outcomes; 41 studies reported psychological/emotional outcomes; 39 studies reported conduct problem outcomes; 54 studies reported academic/school outcomes; 6 reported on physical health and career/employment outcomes; and 6 reported on substance use outcomes. A group of six studies were assessed for longer-term effects of mentoring programs. The authors also conducted a moderator analysis to identify factors that accounted for the variability between effect sizes.

Meta-Analysis 3
Thomas and colleagues (2011) identified four randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated mentoring interventions to prevent drug and alcohol use in adolescents ages 13 to 18. The authors used the following definition of mentoring published by the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention to identify candidate studies:  “a supportive relationship in which one person offers support, guidance, and concrete assistance to the partner, based on the sharing of experience and expertise without expectation of personal gain by the mentor.” Counseling and parenting skill programs were excluded.

A comprehensive search was conducted for published and unpublished studies produced between 1950 and July 2011.  There were no language restrictions. The primary outcomes of interest included abstinence (never starting); monthly use; reduction in consumption; not progressing in use of drugs/alcohol; and not being involved in alcohol- or drug-related aggression or accidents.

The four identified RCTs were conducted in the U.S. and collectively included 1,994 adolescents; 839 were in the treatment group, 315 were in an intervention plus curriculum group, and 840 were in a no-intervention group. A fixed effects model was used during analysis. The authors were able to derive effect sizes for two outcomes: alcohol use (based on two studies) and substance use (also based on two studies).
bottom border

Cost

top border
There is no cost information available for this practice.
bottom border

Other Information

top border
A few meta-analyses included additional tests—called moderator analyses—to see if any factors strengthened the likelihood that mentoring improved outcomes. Results from the moderator analysis conducted by Tolan and colleagues (2008) suggested that program effects were moderated by the type of motivation of the mentor, as well as the program’s emphasis on emotional support. DuBois and colleagues (2011) also conducted a moderator analysis. This analysis found that stronger program effects were associated with programs having the following characteristics: there was a relatively high proportion of male youth participants; participating youth had a background of relatively high individual or environmental risk; the program included an advocacy role for mentors; the program included a teaching/information provision role for mentors; mentors and youth were matched together in the program based on similarity of interests; and, the program did not match mentors and youth based on similarity in race/ethnicity. They also noted that the positive effects of mentoring programs cut across age groups and settings and that programs could be effective whether they were psychosocial, instrumental, or both. They also found that brief interventions had positive effects, and that programs of brief durations which use both traditional and non-traditional models had positive effects.
bottom border

Evidence-Base (Meta-Analyses Reviewed)

top border
These sources were used in the development of the practice profile:

Meta-Analysis 1
Tolan, Patrick, David Henry, Michael Schoeny, and Arin Bass. 2008. “Mentoring Interventions to Affect Juvenile Delinquency and Associated Problems.” Campbell Systematic Reviews 16. Doi:10.4073/csr.2008.16.
http://campbellcollaboration.org/lib/project/48/

Meta-Analysis 2
David L. DuBois, Nelson Portillo, Jean E. Rhodes, Naida Silverthorn, and Jeffrey C. Valentine. 2011. “How Effective Are Mentoring Programs for Youth? A Systematic Assessment of the Evidence.” Psychological Science in the Public Interest 12(2):57–91.

Meta-Analysis 3
Thomas Roger E., Diane Lorenzetti, and Wendy Spragins. 2011. “Mentoring Adolescents to Prevent Drug and Alcohol Use.” Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Issue 11. Art. No.: CD007381. Doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007381.pub2.
bottom border

Additional References

top border
These sources were used in the development of the practice profile:

Ahrens, Kym R., David Lane DuBois, Laura P. Richardson, Ming–Yu Fan, and Paula Lozano. 2008. “Youth in Foster Care With Adult Mentors During Adolescence Have Improved Adult Outcomes.” Pediatrics 121(5):246–52.

Britner, Preston A., Fabricio E. Balcazar, Elaine A. Blechman, Lynn Blinn–Pike, and Simon Larose. 2006. “Mentoring Special Youth Populations.” Journal of Community Psychology 34(6):747–63.

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention. 2000. “Mentoring Initiatives: An Overview of Mentoring.” Rockville, Md.: Center for Substance Abuse Prevention, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

DuBois, David Lane, and Jean E. Rhodes. 2006. “Introduction to the Special Issue: Youth Mentoring: Bridging Science With Practice.” Journal of Community Psychology 34(6):647–55.

Goode, W. Wilson, and Thomas J. Smith. 2005. Building From the Ground Up: Creating Effective Programs to Mentor Children of Prisoners—The Amachi Model. Philadelphia, Pa.: Public/Private Ventures.

Herrera, Carla, Jean Baldwin Grossman, Tina J. Kauh, Amy F. Feldman, Jennifer McMaken, and Linda Z. Jucovy. 2007. “Making a Difference in Schools: The Big Brothers Big Sisters School-Based Mentoring Impact Study.” Philadelphia, Pa.: Public/Private Ventures.

Tierney, Joseph P., Jean Baldwin Grossman, and Nancy L. Resch. 1995. “Making a Difference: An Impact Study of Big Brothers/Big Sisters.” Philadelphia, Pa.: Public/Private Ventures.

Werner, Emmy E. 1995. “Overcoming the Odds.” Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics 15:131–36.
bottom border

Related Programs

top border
Following are CrimeSolutions.gov-rated programs that are related to this practice:

Boston (Massachusetts) Reentry Initiative (BRI) Promising - One study
An interagency public safety initiative to help incarcerated violent adult offenders transition back to their neighborhoods following release from jail through mentoring, social service assistance, and vocational development. The program is rated Promising. The study found participants, relative to the control group, had significantly lower failure rates, arrests for violent crime, or arrests for any crime. The differences between the two groups narrowed somewhat over time.

Big Brothers Big Sisters (BBBS) Community-Based Mentoring (CBM) Program Effective - One study
Offers one-to-one mentoring in a community setting for at-risk youth between the ages of 6 and 18. This program is rated Effective. It was associated with a significant reduction in initiating drug and alcohol use and antisocial behavior among mentored youth. Also, mentored youth had significantly better relationships with parents and emotional support among peers. The program, however, did not have a significant effect on youths’ academic performance (grades and absences) or self-worth.

Early Risers ‘Skills for Success’ Program Promising - One study
A multi-component, high-intensity, competency-enhancement prevention program that targeted elementary school children (ages 6 to 10) who were at high risk for early development of conduct problems. This program is rated Promising. The program had a significant, positive impact on youths’ academic achievement and the discipline practices of their parents. However, the program did not have a significant effect on children’s aggression.

Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care–Adolescents Effective - More than one study
A behavioral treatment alternative to residential placement for adolescents who have problems with chronic antisocial behavior, emotional disturbance, and delinquency. This program is rated Effective. It was associated with a significant drop in official criminal referral rates, involvement in criminal activities, and days spent in lock up among MTFC-A boys. Similarly, the program was associated with a significant reduction in delinquency and days spent in lock up among MTFC-A girls.

Harlem (NY) Children's Zone – Promise Academy Charter Middle School Effective - One study
A charter middle school that seeks to give students in grades 6–8 a well-rounded, high-quality education. The program is rated Effective. The results of the study showed that enrollment has the potential to eliminate racial gaps in both math and English Language Arts test scores between white and African American middle school students in New York City. There were improvements in math, ELA scores, and fewer absences.

Care, Assess, Respond, Empower (CARE) Promising - More than one study
A school-based, brief assessment and crisis intervention for youth at risk for suicide. The program is rated Promising. There were findings of attitudinal change not evidenced in behavioral change. In two studies, there was a reduction in suicide-risk behaviors and depression over the short and long-term.

SNAP® Under 12 Outreach Project Effective - More than one study
A multisystemic intervention for boys under age 12 displaying aggressive and antisocial behavior problems. This program is rated Effective. It was associated with a significant decrease in children’s delinquency and aggression scores as well as a significant reduction in children’s levels of behaviors such as rule-breaking, aggression, and conduct problems. However, there was no significant effect of the program on the total numbers of convictions.

Gang Reduction Program (Richmond, VA) No Effects - More than one study
A comprehensive, multiyear initiative to reduce gang crime and violence among youth through a combination of strategies. This program is rated No Effects. The program did not have a significant effect on drug-related incidents or offenses, serious violent incidents or offenses, or school dropout rates in the target area. Additionally, the program did not have a significant effect on gang-related incidents, school attendance, or graduation rates in the target area.

Operation New Hope Promising - One study
A curriculum-based aftercare treatment program (formerly called Lifeskills ’95) designed to help chronic, high-risk juvenile offenders reintegrate back into the community after they are released from confinement. The program is rated Promising. Participants were more successful at parole, less likely to be arrested or use drugs, displayed greater improvements in social behavior, and were more likely to be employed compared to the control group parolees.

Gang Reduction Program (Los Angeles, California) Promising - One study
A comprehensive, multiyear initiative to reduce youth gang crime and violence through a combination of strategies. This program is rated Promising. It was associated with a significant decrease in the number of calls reporting shots fired and gang-related incidents in the target area. However, it did not have a significant effect on the number of calls reporting vandalism or gang or non-gang related serious violence incidents or on attendance levels of elementary, middle, or high schools.

Across Ages Promising - One study
A mentoring initiative designed to delay or reduce substance use of at-risk middle school youth through a comprehensive intergenerational approach. This program is rated Promising. The program significantly reduced school absences and had a positive effect on measures of youths’ reactions to situations involving drug use and attitudes toward school, the future, and elders. However, the program did not impact youths’ frequency of substance use or well-being.

SCARE Program No Effects - One study
This is a school-based anger and aggression management program for adolescents, especially those at risk for academic and behavioral problems. The program is rated No Effects. The study found no statistically significant differences between the treatment and the comparison group in any of the three anger behavior measures.

School-Based Mentoring Program for At-Risk Middle School Youth Promising - One study
Offered one-to-one mentoring program to at-risk students in 7th to 9th grades in an urban middle school setting to reduce their discipline referrals and school absences and to improve their school connectedness. This program is rated Promising. The program was associated with a significant decline in the number of office disciplinary referrals and a significant increase in school connectedness. However, the program had no significant impact on unexcused absences.

National Guard ChalleNGe Program No Effects - One study
An intensive residential program that provides training and services, including structured one-on-one mentoring, to at-risk youth (ages 16 to 18 years). This program is rated No Effects. The program had a significant, positive impact on employment and GED attainment among participating youth as compared with control group youth. However, the program had no significant effect on youths’ frequency of arrests, marijuana or other illegal drug use, delinquent behavior, or psychological distress.

Rochester Resilience Project (RRP) Promising - One study
A school-based intervention to improve the social-emotional and behavioral skills of young children (K – 3rd grade) at risk for mental health disorders and substance abuse. This program is rated Promising. The program had a significant, positive effect on measures of children’s task orientation, behavior control, assertiveness, and peer social skills. The program was also associated with a significant decline in the average numbers of suspensions and office disciplinary referrals.

Youth-Nominated Support Team-Version II (YST-II) No Effects - One study
Standard treatments for suicidal adolescents (ages 13-17) were supplemented with social support from caring adults. The goal was to reduce youths’ suicidal ideations, depression severity, and feelings of hopelessness and to improve their mood-related adaptive functioning. This program is rated No Effects. The program had no significant impact on participants’ suicidal ideation, depression, negative attitudes about the future, or parent-reported functional impairment.

Brief Instrumental School-Based Mentoring Program No Effects - One study
A school-based intervention designed for at-risk middle school students that aims to improve academic performance, promote school connectedness, and life satisfaction and to decrease disciplinary actions. This program is rated as No Effects. The program did not significantly affect students’ English, reading, or science grades; measures of teacher or school connectedness; tardiness; or school absences. However, the program significantly increased students’ math grades and life satisfaction.

Achievement Mentoring Program (AMP) Promising - One study
An intervention for urban minority freshmen at risk of dropping out of high school. The goal was to enhance school-related cognitions and behaviors. The program is rated Promising. The program did not significantly impact students’ absences, grade point averages, or decision-making efficacy, but had significant effects on discipline referrals, negative school behavior, performance in mathematics and language arts, and other self-reported outcomes.

Peer Group Connection (PGC) Program No Effects - One study
A high school transition program that targets 9th-grade students in urban high schools who are at risk of dropping out. The goal is to improve high school graduation rates among participating youths by having junior and senior high school students serve as peer mentors. This program is rated No Effects since the program did not improve students’ high school graduation rates overall. However, a significant positive effect on the graduation rate among male students only was detected.

Fostering Healthy Futures Program Promising - One study
A preventative intervention for preadolescent youth recently placed in foster care due to child maltreatment, with an overall goal of improving child well-being. The program is rated Promising. Evaluation results suggest that the program significantly reduced mental health problems, and measures of dissociation. In addition, treatment group youths living in nonrelative foster homes at baseline were more likely to achieve permanency and experience fewer placements.

An E-mentoring Program for Secondary Students with Learning Disabilities Promising - One study
An e-mentoring program for high school students with mild learning disabilities to improve their ability to identify postsecondary career goals and the steps necessary to achieve them. This program is rated Promising. The program group showed significant improvement in transition competency, social connectedness, and self-determination. However, there were no significant differences on outcome measures of career/educational goals, academic connectedness, and familial connectedness.

Experience Corps Promising - One study
A tutoring and mentoring program to improve the literacy outcomes of elementary school-aged children at risk of academic failure. This program is rated Promising. Program participants made significantly greater gains in reading comprehension scores and teacher-assessed reading skills over an academic year, as compared with the control group. However, there were no significant differences in vocabulary and word attack scores from pre- to postintervention.

Cross-Age Peer Mentoring Program Promising - More than one study
The program is a school-based peer mentoring program in which high school students provide one-on-one mentoring to late elementary and early middle school students. This program is rated Promising. The mentored children showed significant improvement on measures of spelling achievement and connectedness to school and to parents compared with the control group. However, mentored and control group children did not significantly differ on connectedness to reading, future, or friends.

Sources of Strength Promising - One study
This is a school-based, suicide prevention program designed to build socioecological-protective influences across a full student population, using youth opinion leaders from diverse social cliques to develop and deliver, with adult mentoring, messaging aimed at changing the norms and behaviors of their peers. This program is rated Promising. Peer leaders in the intervention schools showed significant improvements on perceptions and behaviors pertaining to suicide and on social connectedness.

A Stop Smoking in Schools Trial (ASSIST) Program No Effects - One study
This in-school smoking prevention program was designed to spread and sustain norms of non-smoking behavior among 12–13 year olds, using influential peer opinion leaders. The program is rated No Effects. Youths who received the intervention did not differ significantly from youths who did not receive the intervention in their odds of smoking in the last week, at 2 years post-intervention.

Better Futures Program Effective - One study
A program designed to help young people in foster care with serious mental health challenges prepare for postsecondary education. The program is rated Effective. Youths who received the intervention had significant improvements on self-determination, mental health empowerment, transition planning, career self-efficacy, hope, barriers to education, postsecondary preparation, and transition planning, but not on quality of life or mental health recovery.

Home-Visiting Program for Adolescent Mothers Promising - One study
This is a community-based program in which adolescent mothers had regularly scheduled one-on-one meetings with trained home visitors, who delivered a parenting and an adolescent curriculum, created connections with primary care providers, and encouraged contraceptive use and school continuation. This program is rated Promising. The intervention was shown to promote positive parenting attitudes and school continuation, but did not affect mental health, contraceptive use, or repeat teen pregnancy.

Early Start to Emancipation Preparation – Tutoring Program No Effects - One study
This is a tutoring intervention designed to improve reading and math skills among 14- to 15-year old youths in foster care who were 1 to 3 years behind grade level in reading and/or math. The program also aimed to build a mentoring relationship between the youth and the tutor and provide access to independent living workshops. This program is rated No Effects. There were no significant differences between the intervention and control groups on any of the outcomes assessed.

Challenging Horizons Program – After-School Version (CHP-After School) No Effects - One study
This is an after-school intervention designed to help students with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) develop, practice, and generalize academic and social skills by using volunteer mentors to deliver skills training to students. This program is rated as No Effects. Academic functioning and parent/teacher ratings of student behavior reflecting ADHD symptoms did not differ significantly between youths in the intervention group and those in the control group.

Challenging Horizons Program – Mentoring Version (CHP-Mentoring) No Effects - One study
This is a school-based intervention designed to help students with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) develop, practice, and generalize academic and social skills by using volunteer mentors to deliver skills training to students. This program is rated as No Effects. Academic functioning and parent/teacher ratings of student behavior reflecting ADHD symptoms did not differ significantly for youths in the intervention group, compared with the control group.

Cognitive–Behavioral Intervention for Children with Emotional and Behavioral Disturbances Promising - One study
This cognitive–behavioral mentoring intervention was designed to improve child behavior and family functioning among 8- to 12-year olds with mental health disorders, and their primary caregivers. This program is rated Promising. There were significant differences between the intervention and control groups on measures of child behavior, parenting stress, perceived social support, and attachment to parents.

Cognitive–Behavioral, Group-Mentoring Intervention for Children with Emotional and Behavioral Disturbances Promising - One study
This cognitive–behavioral, group-mentoring intervention was designed to improve child behavior and family functioning among 8- to 12-year olds with mental health disorders, and their primary caregivers. This program is rated Promising. Although there were significant improvements on measures of social problem solving and behavior problems, there were no improvements on measures of attachment to parents and social skills among children in the intervention group, compared with the control group.
bottom border


Practice Snapshot

Age: 6 - 18

Gender: Both

Race/Ethnicity: American Indians/Alaska Native, Asian/Pacific Islander, Black, Hispanic, White

Settings: Other Community Setting, School

Practice Type: Academic Skills Enhancement, Afterschool/Recreation, Alcohol and Drug Prevention, Mentoring, Truancy Prevention, Violence Prevention

Unit of Analysis: Persons