Youth Mentoring OVERVIEW EVIDENCE BRIEF SUMMARY

Transcription

1 Yuth Mentring EVIDENCE BRIEF There is cnsistent internatinal evidence that yuth mentring reduces crime, particularly when prfessinally delivered. OVERVIEW This evidence brief fcuses n yuth mentring. Mentring is a well-knwn cmmunity-based crime preventin methd. Mentring is ne f the mst cmmnly used interventins t help yuth engaged in, r thught t be at risk fr, delinquent behaviur and ther negative utcmes. i Definitins f mentring vary. Hwever, fur central elements include: Interactin between tw individuals ver an extended perid f time. Inequality f experience, knwledge, r pwer between the mentr and mentee (with the mentr having the greater share). The mentee is in a psitin t imitate and benefit frm the knwledge, skill, ability r experience f the mentr. The absence f the rle inequality that is typical f ther helping relatinships and is marked by prfessinal training, certificatin, r predetermined status differences. ii Thugh the use f mentring in New Zealand has been steadily grwing since the 1990s, a thrugh assessment f mentring in New Zealand has yet t be cnducted. In 2016, wrk is expected t better understand Gvernment-funded yuth mentring. The internatinal meta-analytic literature shws that mentring is mderately effective in reducing ffending and reffending. Mentring is mst effective when: prgrammes have a higher prprtin f male yuth participants; prfessinal develpment is a mtivatin fr mentrs and a high degree f training is prvided; mentrs prvide emtinal supprt and advcacy, mentrs and yuth are matched based n similarity f interests, mentrs and mentees spend a reasnable length f time tgether and meet frequently. EVIDENCE BRIEF SUMMARY Evidence rating: Unit cst: Effect size (number needed t treat): Current justice sectr spend: Unmet demand: Prmising Unknwn Fr every 12 yung peple given mentring, n average, ne fewer will ffend. iii Nne: Wider gvernment spent apprximately $5 millin in 2015 n gvernment develped mentring prgrammes. Yes

2 DOES YOUTH MENTORING REDUCE CRIME? Internatinal evidence Internatinally, mentring has a lng histry as a scial interventin. Over the past twenty years, mentring has attracted significant interest frm plicymakers, interventin therists, and thse interested in identifying prmising and useful evidence-based appraches t interventins fr criminal justice and child welfare utcmes. Mentring has been extensively studied, particularly in the United States. Meta-analyses f the research find that mentring is smewhat effective in reducing ffending and reffending. In general meta-analyses als shw that mentring is mderately effective at imprving a number f ther utcmes related t reducing crime and reffending, such as attitudinal/mtivatinal, scial/relatinal, psychlgical/emtinal, cnduct prblems, academic, and physical health utcmes. The mst cmmn effect size fr mentring acrss the internatinal meta-analytic literature is This means that if mentring is given t a high risk grup f yung peple, then fr every 12 yung peple given mentring, n average, ne less will ffend. n reffending suggested that mentring significantly reduced subsequent ffending by 4 t 11 percent. Hwever, better quality studies did nt suggest that mentring caused a statistically significant reductin in reffending. v Anther widely cited meta-analysis fund that the average recidivism reductins fr mentring were greater than 20%, and ranked near the tp fr effectiveness f the interventins examined in the meta-analysis. vi Much remains t be understd cncerning effrts t supprt mentring relatinships in the lives f yuth and the circumstances in which such effrts can mst reliably make a meaningful and enduring difference. vii NZ evidence Only a small prprtin f knwn, active mentring prgrammes in New Zealand have had any evaluatins f the effectiveness f their prgrammes fr mentees, and research cnducted t date in New Zealand has been f varying quality. viii This means we are currently unable t cnclude whether mentring is effective, nt effective, r has a harmful effect in New Zealand. One meta-analysis, frm the Campbell Cllabratin, invlving 25 studies with a delinquency utcme, fund that mentring had a significant psitive effect n reducing delinquency. This same meta-analysis als fund that mentring wrked t reduce aggressin. Results were mdest (with an average effect size f Standardised Mean Difference =.21), thugh statistically significant. iv Results frm a rapid evidence assessment fr the UK Hme Office f the impact f mentring YOUTH MENTORING: EVIDENCE BRIEF FEBRUARY PAGE 2 f 9

3 WHAT MAKES YOUTH MENTORING EFFECTIVE? What factrs increase success in reducing crime? Meta-analyses have highlighted the fllwing characteristics f mentring as being key t making the delivery f mentring mre successful (mderating variables). Mderatr effects related t participant characteristics Individual/envirnmental risk levels: There is sme indicatin the effects might be greater fr high risk yuth, althugh the results are nt cnsistent. ix Evidence indicates that mentring is mre effective where prgrammes serve yuth wh have been invlved in prblem behaviurs. x Male yuth: Mentring was fund t be mre effective where prgrammes were assciated with a larger prprtin f male yuth. xi Yuth nt residing in single parent husehlds: Evidence indicates that mentring prgrammes are mre effective when yuth d nt reside in single parent husehlds. xii Mderatr effects related t the design and delivery f mentring prgrammes Prfessinal develpment: Evidence shws that mentring is mre effective when prfessinal develpment is a mtive fr becming a mentr. xiii Additinally, nging training f mentrs is cited as a factr assciated with effective mentring prgrammes. xiv Emtinal supprt: Mentring prgrammes that emphasise emtinal supprt and friendliness t prmte mentees belief in their wn ability t succeed, cnfidence, and a sense f mattering, are indicated t be mre effective. Results suggest mentring prgrammes shuld ensure emtinal supprt frm the mentr is emphasised. xv Advcacy: When mentrs were given an advcacy rle, mentring was mre effective. xvi Mentr-yuth matching based n interests: When yuth and mentrs are matched based n what interests they share, this has a significant assciatin with study effect size. xvii It appears that this imprves the likelihd f a gd relatinship. xviii Educatin/ccupatinal backgrunds f mentrs and the prgram s gals: That there is greater effectiveness f prgrammes in which mentrs educatinal r ccupatinal backgrunds are well matched t prgram gals. xix Duratin f each meeting: A rapid evidence assessment shwed that interventins where the mentee and mentr spent mre time tgether per meeting were mre effective in reducing ffending than interventins in which mentrs and mentees spent less time tgether, r interventins where the average interventin length was nt set ut. xx Frequency f each meeting: A rapid evidence assessment fund that where mentrs and mentees met nce a week r mre, this ften reduced ffending mre than interventins with less frequent meetings, r where the meeting frequency was nt set ut. xxi Frequent cntact is als cited as a factr assciated with effective mentring prgrammes. xxii Mentring wrks best as part f a multimdal treatment: Thse studies in which mentring was the sle interventin were less effective. When mentring was part f a multimdal treatment including behaviur mdificatin, supplementary educatin and emplyment prgrammes, significant reductins in ffending ccurred. xxiii YOUTH MENTORING: EVIDENCE BRIEF FEBRUARY PAGE 3 f 9

4 Maintaining fidelity: Achieving gd utcmes is dependent n maintaining cmmitment t the principles identified and represented in mst f the evidence-based mdels f mentring. New Zealand is perceived, in sme quarters, as having a pr track recrd f investing in the training, supervisin, cntinuus feedback lps, fidelity mnitring technlgies and especially the evaluatin f mentring interventins. This means a significant risk f failure may exist within the current New Zealand apprach. Hw des yuth mentring reduce crime? Evidence is thin n what exactly abut mentring may wrk t reduce ffending and imprve ther utcmes. Hwever, the theretical basis fr mentring invlves Differential Assciatin Thery (Sutherland, 1947), Scial Learning Thery (Akers, 1973), and Scial Cntrl Thery (Hirschi, 1969) all f which suggest that criminal behaviur is mre r less likely depending n with whm we share the immediate envirnment, and the value we place n the relatinships that are shared. This suggests that mentring may help balance ut the effect f having anti-scial peers by creating a psitive scial bnd with a mre encuraging peer (mentr). xxiv WHAT OTHER BENEFITS DOES YOUTH MENTORING HAVE? A number f meta-analyses fund that mentring imprved attitudinal/mtivatinal, scial/relatinal, psychlgical/emtinal, cnduct prblems, academic, and physical health utcmes. xxvii One meta-analytic study fund that n an analysis f 46 studies n fur utcmes measuring delinquency r clsely related utcmes f aggressin, drug use, and academic functining, mentring fr high risk yuth has a mdest psitive effect fr delinquency and academic functining, with trends suggesting similar benefits fr aggressin and drug use. xxviii Anther meta-analysis fund psitive effect sizes fr utcmes including achievement mtivatin and scial attitudes, scial skills and peer relatinships, depressive symptms and self esteem, drug use and bullying, and standardised test scres and absences. xxix Mentring aims t strengthen attachment, imprve scial cmpetence and increase scial capital by intrducing new cnnectins. Several studies have fund that scial supprt predicts healthy behaviur and academic achievement, xxv psitive utcmes which lgically crrelate with keeping individuals ut f the justice system. In additin, there is evidence t shw that a scial-cgnitive interventin (such as mentring) can imprve bth schling and delinquency utcmes fr disadvantaged yuth. xxvi YOUTH MENTORING: EVIDENCE BRIEF FEBRUARY PAGE 4 f 9

5 CURRENT INVESTMENT IN NEW ZEALAND Current Gvernment investment in New Zealand is abut $5 millin per year, fr prgrammes develped thrugh the Ministry f Scial Develpment (MSD), Child Yuth and Family, and the Ministry f Educatin. Prgrammes funded by these three agencies include: Fresh Start Therapeutic Yuth Mentring (Yuth Justice - MSD), Check and Cnnect (Yuth Wrkers in Schls - MSD), and the Natinal Māri and Pasifika Mentring Service (Educatin). Nt a lt is knwn abut hw effective mentring is in New Zealand. Agencies tend t evaluate the effectiveness and quality f prgrammes they fund n an individual basis. xxx In 2016, further Gvernment wrk is expected, and required, t: Imprve cnsistency in data cllectin. Reprt n mentring acrss Gvernment t help priritise funding and purchasing f mentring. Evaluate Gvernment s investment in yuth mentring. xxxi EVIDENCE RATING AND RECOMMENDATIONS Each Evidence Brief prvides an evidence rating between Harmful and Strng. Harmful Pr Incnclusive Fair Prmising Strng Rbust evidence that interventin increases crime Rbust evidence that interventin tends t have n effect Cnflicting evidence that interventin can reduce crime Sme evidence that interventin can reduce crime Rbust internatinal r lcal evidence that interventin tends t reduce crime Rbust internatinal and lcal evidence that interventin tends t reduce crime Accrding t the standard criteria fr all evidence briefs, 1 the apprpriate evidence categry fr yuth mentring is: Prmising. Accrding t the standard interpretatin f the Prmising rating, this means that: There is rbust internatinal r lcal evidence that interventins tend t reduce crime. Interventins may well reduce crime if implemented well. Further evaluatin is desirable t cnfirm interventins are reducing crime and t supprt fine-tuning f its design. This result is encuraging, especially given the imprtance f addressing the needs f vulnerable yuth and prviding scial supprt as a key prtective factr. xxxii There remains mre t be dne t imprve understanding f hw effective mentring is in New Zealand. Further wrk in this space is expected t help supprt enhanced safety and 1 Available at YOUTH MENTORING: EVIDENCE BRIEF FEBRUARY PAGE 5 f 9

6 efficacy f Gvernment funded yuth mentring, and enhanced crdinatin acrss gvernment fr yuth mentring. First editin cmpleted: April 2016 Primary authr: Rebecca Lampe Psychlgical Science in the Public Interest Tlan, P. H., Henry, D. B., Scheny, M. S., Lvegrve, P., & Nichls, E. Mentring prgrams t affect delinquency and assciated utcmes f yuth at risk: A cmprehensive meta-analytic review (2014) Jurnal f Experimental Criminlgy 10: FIND OUT MORE G t the website whatwrks@justice.gvt.nz Recmmended reading Jlliffe, D., & Farringtn, D. P. (2007) A Rapid Evidence Assessment f the Impact f Mentring n Re-ffending: A Summary. Cambridge University: The Hme Office. Tlan P., Henry D., Scheny M., Bass A., Lvegrve P., &Nichls E. Mentring Interventins t Affect Juvenile Delinquency and Assciated Prblems: A Systematic Review. Campbell Systematic Reviews 2013:10. DOI: /csr Farrugia, S., Bullen, P., Dunphy, A., Slmn, F., Cllins, E. (2010) The Effectiveness f Yuth Mentring Prgrammes in New Zealand. Auckland: Yuth Mentring Netwrk. Sullivan, C. J., & Jlliffe, D. Peer Influence, Mentring, and the Preventin f Crime in Welsh, B. C., & Farringtn, D. P. (Eds.) (2012) The Oxfrd Handbk f Crime Preventin. New Yrk: Oxfrd University Press. DuBis, D.L., Prtill, N., Rhdes, J.E., Silverthrn, N., & Valentine, J.C. (2011) Hw Effective are Mentring Prgrams fr Yuth? A systematic assessment f the evidence, YOUTH MENTORING: EVIDENCE BRIEF FEBRUARY PAGE 6 f 9

7 REFERENCES i Sullivan, C. J., & Jlliffe, D. Peer Influence, Mentring, and the Preventin f Crime in Welsh, B. C., & Farringtn, D. P. (Eds.) (2012) The Oxfrd Handbk f Crime Preventin. New Yrk: Oxfrd University Press. ii Sullivan, C. J., & Jlliffe, D. Peer Influence, Mentring, and the Preventin f Crime in Welsh, B. C., & Farringtn, D. P. (Eds.) (2012) The Oxfrd Handbk f Crime Preventin. New Yrk: Oxfrd University Press. iii Summary f Effect Sizes frm Meta-Analyses table, page 8 f this evidence brief. iv Tlan P., Henry D., Scheny M., Bass A., Lvegrve P., & Nichls E. (2013) Mentring Interventins t Affect Juvenile Delinquency and Assciated Prblems: A 2013:10. DOI: /csr v Jlliffe, D., & Farringtn, D. P. (2007) A Rapid Evidence Assessment f the Impact f Mentring n Re-ffending: A Summary. Cambridge University: The Hme Office. vi Lipsey M W. (2009) The Primary Factrs that Characterise Effective Interventins with Juvenile Offenders: A Meta-Analytic Overview. Peabdy Research Institute, Vanderbilt University: Nashville, Tennessee. vii Du Bis et al (2002) Effectiveness f mentring prgrammes fr yuth: a meta-analytic review American Jurnal f Cmmunity Psychlgy, Vl. 30, N. 2, April 2002 pp ; Tlan P., Henry D., Scheny M., Bass A., Lvegrve P., & Nichls E. (2013) Mentring Interventins t Affect Juvenile Delinquency and Assciated Prblems: A Systematic Review. Campbell Systematic Reviews 2013:10. DOI: /csr viii Farrugia, S., Bullen, P., Dunphy, A., Slmn, F., Cllins, E. (2010) The Effectiveness f Yuth Mentring Prgrammes in New Zealand. Auckland: Yuth Mentring Netwrk. ix Tlan P., Henry D., Scheny M., Bass A., Lvegrve P., & Nichls E. (2013) Mentring Interventins t Affect Juvenile Delinquency and Assciated Prblems: A 2013:10. DOI: /csr ; DuBis, D.L., Prtill, N., Rhdes, J.E., Silverthrn, N., & Valentine, J.C. (2011) Hw Effective are Mentring Prgrams fr Yuth? A systematic assessment f the evidence, Psychlgical Science in the Public Interest x DuBis, D.L., Prtill, N., Rhdes, J.E., Silverthrn, N., & Valentine, J.C. (2011) Hw Effective are Mentring Prgrams fr Yuth? A systematic assessment f the evidence, Psychlgical Science in the Public Interest xi DuBis, D.L., Prtill, N., Rhdes, J.E., Silverthrn, N., & Valentine, J.C. (2011) Hw Effective are Mentring Prgrams fr Yuth? A systematic assessment f the evidence, Psychlgical Science in the Public Interest xii DuBis, D.L., Prtill, N., Rhdes, J.E., Silverthrn, N., & Valentine, J.C. (2011) Hw Effective are Mentring Prgrams fr Yuth? A systematic assessment f the evidence, Psychlgical Science in the Public Interest xiii Tlan P., Henry D., Scheny M., Bass A., Lvegrve P., & Nichls E. (2013) Mentring Interventins t Affect Juvenile Delinquency and Assciated Prblems: A 2013:10. DOI: /csr xiv Du Bis et al (2002) Effectiveness f mentring prgrammes fr yuth: a meta-analytic review American Jurnal f Cmmunity Psychlgy, Vl. 30, N. 2, April 2002 pp ; Thmas RE, Lrenzetti, D., Spragins W., (2011) Mentring adlescents t prevent drug and alchl use (Review) The Cchrane Cllabratin, Jhn Wiley and Sns. xv Tlan P., Henry D., Scheny M., Bass A., Lvegrve P., & Nichls E. (2013) Mentring Interventins t Affect Juvenile Delinquency and Assciated Prblems: A 2013:10. DOI: /csr xvi Tlan P., Henry D., Scheny M., Bass A., Lvegrve P., & Nichls E. (2013) Mentring Interventins t Affect Juvenile Delinquency and Assciated Prblems: A 2013:10. DOI: /csr xvii DuBis, D.L., Prtill, N., Rhdes, J.E., Silverthrn, N., & Valentine, J.C. (2011) Hw Effective are Mentring Prgrams fr Yuth? A systematic assessment f the evidence, Psychlgical Science in the Public Interest xviii Tlan P., Henry D., Scheny M., Bass A., Lvegrve P., & Nichls E. (2013) Mentring Interventins t Affect Juvenile Delinquency and Assciated Prblems: A 2013:10. DOI: /csr xix DuBis, D.L., Prtill, N., Rhdes, J.E., Silverthrn, N., & Valentine, J.C. (2011) Hw Effective are Mentring Prgrams fr Yuth? A systematic assessment f the evidence, Psychlgical Science in the Public Interest xx Jlliffe, D., & Farringtn, D. P. (2007) A Rapid Evidence Assessment f the Impact f Mentring n Re-ffending: A Summary. Cambridge University: The Hme Office. xxi Jlliffe, D., & Farringtn, D. P. (2007) A Rapid Evidence Assessment f the Impact f Mentring n Re-ffending: A Summary. Cambridge University: The Hme Office. xxii Du Bis et al (2002) Effectiveness f mentring prgrammes fr yuth: a meta-analytic review American Jurnal f Cmmunity Psychlgy, Vl. 30, N. 2, April 2002 pp ; Thmas RE, Lrenzetti, D., Spragins W., (2011) Mentring adlescents t prevent drug and alchl use (Review) The Cchrane Cllabratin, Jhn Wiley and Sns. xxiii Jlliffe, D., & Farringtn, D. P. (2007) A Rapid Evidence Assessment f the Impact f Mentring n Re-ffending: A Summary. Cambridge University: The Hme Office. xxiv Sullivan, C. J., & Jlliffe, D. Peer Influence, Mentring, and the Preventin f Crime in Welsh, B. C., & Farringtn, D. P. (Eds.) (2012) The Oxfrd Handbk f Crime Preventin. New Yrk: Oxfrd University Press. xxv Wd S., & May-Wilsn E. (2012) Schl-Based Mentring fr Adlescents: A Systematic Review and Meta- Analysis. Research n Scial Wrk Practice 22(3) xxvi Crime Lab, BAM - Sprts Editin, University f Chicag Crime Lab Research and Plicy Brief, July 2012; and the references cntained in the Internatinal Evidence sectin f this evidence brief. xxvii DuBis, D.L., Prtill, N., Rhdes, J.E., Silverthrn, N., & Valentine, J.C. (2011) Hw Effective are Mentring Prgrams fr Yuth? A systematic assessment f the evidence, Psychlgical Science in the Public Interest 12(2) 57 91; Wd S., & May-Wilsn E. (2012) Schl- Based Mentring fr Adlescents: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Research n Scial Wrk Practice 22(3) ; Tlan et al. (2014) Mentring Prgrams t YOUTH MENTORING: EVIDENCE BRIEF FEBRUARY PAGE 7 f 9

8 affect delinquency and assciated utcmes f yuth at risk: A cmprehensive meta-analytic review. J Exp Criminlgy 10: DOI /s xxviii Tlan P., Henry D., Scheny M., Bass A., Lvegrve P., & Nichls E. (2013) Mentring Interventins t Affect Juvenile Delinquency and Assciated Prblems: A 2013:10. DOI: /csr xxix DuBis, D.L., Prtill, N., Rhdes, J.E., Silverthrn, N., & Valentine, J.C. (2011) Hw Effective are Mentring Prgrams fr Yuth? A systematic assessment f the evidence, Psychlgical Science in the Public Interest 12(2) xxx Farrugia, S., Bullen, P., Dunphy, A., Slmn, F., Cllins, E. (2010) The Effectiveness f Yuth Mentring Prgrammes in New Zealand. Auckland: Yuth Mentring Netwrk. xxxii Farrugia, S., Bullen, P., Dunphy, A., Slmn, F., Cllins, E. (2010) The Effectiveness f Yuth Mentring Prgrammes in New Zealand. Auckland: Yuth Mentring Netwrk. YOUTH MENTORING: EVIDENCE BRIEF FEBRUARY PAGE 8 f 9

9 SUMMARY OF EFFECT SIZES FROM META-ANALYSES Treatment type At risk yuth Yuth Schlbased Yuth Yuth Yuth Yuth d=chen s d r variant (standardised mean difference) Φ=phi cefficient (variant f crrelatin cefficient) g = Hedges' g (variant f standardised mean difference) NS: Nt significant Outcme measure Delinquency Cnduct prblems Behaviur Recidivism Recidivism Prblem/highrisk behaviur Aggressin Metaanalysis Tlan et al September, 2013 DuBis et al, 2011 Wd & May- Wilsn, 2012 Lipsey, 2009 Jliffe & Farringtn, 2007 DuBis et al, 2002 Tlan et al 2014 Reprted average effect size n crime Number f estimates metaanalysis based n Assuming 50% untreated recidivism Percentage pint Number reductin in needed t ffending treat (t (t prevent prevent ne ne persn persn frm frm reffending) reffending) g = % 12 d= % 12 g = 0.03 (NS) Φ =0.108 Assuming 20% untreated recidivism Percentage pint reductin in ffending 5% 19 5% % 74 1% % 10 6% 18 d = % 12 d = % 12 5% 19 5% 19 d = % 8 7% 14 Number needed t treat YOUTH MENTORING: EVIDENCE BRIEF FEBRUARY PAGE 9 f 9