Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Mentoring Offending Youths
A discussion paper identifying successful mentoring elements and best practice to reduce re-offending
Kirsten Brielle Jones
2
Juvenile Justice New South Wales 2012
This report was complied with the assistance of previous research conducted within Juvenile Justice New
South Wales.
Suggested Citation:
Jones, K. B., 2012, Mentoring Offending Youths: A discussion paper identifying successful mentoring
elements and recommendations to reduce re-offending, Juvenile Justice New South Wales, Sydney
Contact Details
Kirsten Jones
Central Office
Level 24, 477 Pitt Street
Sydney NSW 2000
PO Box K399
Haymarket NSW 1240
Tel: (02) 9219 9400
Fax: (02) 9219 9500
Hours of Service:
8:30-5:00 Monday-Friday
Project Period: March-June 2012
Commissioned by Juvenile Justice New South Wales
Cover Photo: Anonymous - http://www.flickr.com/photos/55148177@N00/2568138841/
3
Abbreviations
AIM – Aftercare for Indiana through Mentoring
ATSI – Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander
AYMN – Australian Youth Mentoring Network
BBBS – Big Brothers Big Sisters Australia
JDC – Juvenile Detention Centre/s
JJNSW – Juvenile Justice New South Wales
4
Contents INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………………..………5 Background…………………………………………………………………………………………………………...5 Aim ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………6 Objectives ………………………………………………………………………………………………..................6 CONTEXT………………………………………………………………………………………..7 Australian Context.........................................................................................................................................7 NSW Government……………………………………………………………………………………………………7 Juvenile Justice NSW........................................................................................................................ ……...7 Other Jurisdictions…………………………………………………………………………………………………...8 LITERATURE REVIEW……………………………………………………………………….11 Literature Chosen...................................................................................................................................... 11 Literature Review and Evaluation Table.....................................................................................................12 Key Findings...............................................................................................................................................14 Literature Summary………………………………………………………………………………………………...14 Key Successful Elements to Reduce Re-offending……………………………………………………………..16 Common Additional Outcomes……………………………………………………………………………………17 Difficulties/Limitations Presented in the Literature………………………………………………………………17 Overall Conclusions………………………………………………………………………………………………..18 MENTORING MODELS….. ...........................................................................................20 Collaborative Model...................................................................................................................................20 Competency Model (Systematic Training).................................................................................................20 Reflective Model........................................................................................................................................20 One-to-one Mentoring……………………………………………………………………………………………..21 Group Mentoring…………………………………………………………………………………………………...21 Team Mentoring……………………………………………………………………………………………………21 Peer Mentoring…………………………………………………………………………………………………….22 Recommended Model…………………………………………………………………………………………….22 CASE STUDIES - MENTORING PROGRAMS………………........................................23 Overview...................................................................................................................................................23 Big Brothers Big Sisters Australia ............................................................................................................23 Kickstart....................................................................................................................................................23 INSPIRE……………………………………………………………………………………………………………24 ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIGHT ISLANDER CONSIDERATIONS................25 Background...................................................................................................................................................................25 Sample of Current ATSI Youth Programs ....................................................................................................................26 Program Recommendations..........................................................................................................................................27 RECOMMENDATIONS..................................................................................................28 Best Practice Program Features.................................................................................................................28 Best Practice for Finding and Employing Mentors......................................................................................29 Selecting Mentees and the Matching Process............................................................................................29 Program Activities…………………………………………………………………………………………………..30 Program Evaluations……………………………………………………………………………………………….30 Timeframe…………………………………………………………………………………………………………...31 Costs…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………32 Suggested Linked Agencies……………………………………………………………………………………….32 Suggested Program Overview…………………………………………………………………………………….33 RESOURCES…………...................................................................................................34
5
Introduction BACKGROUND Mentoring constitutes a method of preventing criminality and other destructive behaviours that is
becoming the focus of an increasing amount of attention1. Governments around the world are now putting
resources and research into the concept of mentoring as a key preventative strategy2. It is appropriate
that Juvenile Justice New South Wales (JJNSW) critically assesses the possibility of implementing the
successful elements of current mentoring programs into current or future programs.
“When mentoring happens in a natural, uncontrived fashion, and when mentoring involves a one-
on-one relationship with a mentee, there is good reason to believe that the mentor-mentee
relationship serves as a pivotal turning point in the life of a high-risk youth”.3
The concept of mentoring as reducing re-offending is relatively new, and therefore the appropriate
literature available and mentoring evaluations are informative, but most indicate further research is
needed. Mentoring evaluations have found that mentoring programs that are the most effective are used
as an early intervention strategy4. The Influence of Mentoring on Re-Offending by Joliffe (2008), found
that: “Results suggest that mentoring could be implemented as a valuable component of intervention
programmes with people who are at an early stage of their criminal careers5”. The success rate of such
programs has yet to be fully explored, particularly in terms of time frame, cost and overall success.
This paper aims to examine the available literature in order to provide a thorough insight into the key
elements that make mentoring programs successful in reducing re-offending, and provide the suitable
recommended action that JJNSW could take to implement these strategies.
1 Joliffee, D., Farrington, D. P., 2008, The Influence of Mentoring on Re-Offending, Swedish Council for Crime Prevention – Information and Publications, Stockholm, p.5 2 Quoted by the Chief Executive of the Mentoring and Befriending Foundation in an interview with ePolitix.com, 27 June 2008 3 Werner (1989) cited in Blechmann, E. A., Maurice, A., Beuker, B., Helberg, C., 2000, Can Mentoring or Skill Training Reduce Recidivism? Observational Study with Propensity Analysis, Prevention Science Vol. 1 No.3, ProQuest Central, pp.139-154 4 Joliffe, D., Farrington, D. P., 2008, The Influence of Mentoring on Re-offending, Swedish Council for Crime Prevention – Information and Publications, Stockholm, p.7 5 Joliffe, D., Farrington, D. P., 2008, The Influence of Mentoring on Re-offending, Swedish Council for Crime Prevention – Information and Publications, Stockholm, p.8
6
AIM
The aim of this paper is to place mentoring as an early intervention strategy to re-offending in context and
identify which elements of current mentoring programs are successful in reducing re-offending.
OBJECTIVES
• To place mentoring strategies into a suitable context within crime prevention that is relevant to
JJNSW
• To analyse and review current literature written on mentoring programs as a strategy to reduce
re-offending
• To identify the successful elements of mentoring programs in reducing re-offending that could be
implemented into JJNSW current or future mentoring programs
• To make recommendations based on the literature and evidence in regards to the implementation
of key mentoring elements and
• To recommend a suitable mentoring program that would have the most potential in the current
political and social context to reduce re-offending in high-risk and offending youths.
7
Context AUSTRALIAN CONTEXT The Australian Government recognises mentoring as an early intervention strategy and encourages the
implementation of successful mentoring programs across Australia. Australia’s peak mentoring body –
The Australian Youth Mentoring Network (AYMN) provides information about benchmarks, resources,
tools and guidance to mentoring programs, mentors and young people. The AYMN is supported by the
Australian Government Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations as a key partner
and tool to support the Australian Government’s educational attainment and engagement agenda6.
AYMN has provided a national mentoring benchmark – National Youth Mentoring Benchmarks, that
provides a minimum standard that all mentoring programs are encouraged to follow7.The Benchmarks
include standards on all aspects of mentoring programs including research, program design, evaluation,
recruitment and selection and supporting a match.
The Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research notes that the number of young people within the justice
system is rising and highlighted the importance of early intervention strategies, programs and services
that provide early childhood development, personal growth, schooling and employment opportunities for
young people. Director of the Bureau, Dr Don Weatherburn commented that: “Effective early intervention
programs are expensive but in the long run they pay for themselves through reduced rates of arrest and
incarceration8”.
A 2003 Australian Government report, Early Intervention: Youth Mentoring Programs: An overview of
mentoring programs for young people at risk of offending, found that while there were numerous
mentoring projects operating around Australia for 'at risk' young people, relatively few covered the specific
target group of young offenders or young people at risk of offending.9
NEW SOUTH WALES GOVERNMENT
The NSW Government supports mentoring programs within the community and offers the opportunity for
programs to apply for financial grants and support. Youth.NSW is the NSW Government’s youth website
that provides information and resources for young people and youth workers. The website includes links
to the types of financial grants available, information for young people, health issues and the Youth
6 Australian Youth Mentoring Network,< http://www.youthmentoring.org.au/about-us.html> 7 National Youth Mentoring Benchmarks, <http://www.youthmentoring.org.au/assets/pages/pdf/Benchmarks%202007.pdf> 8 NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Director Dr Don Weatherburn, <http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/pages/bocsar_mr_cjb103> 9 Australian Government Attorney General’s Department, 2003, Early Intervention: Youth Mentoring Programs – an overview of mentoring programs for young people at risk of offending, Australian Government, Canberra
8
Advisory Council. The website doesn’t have any information or discussion on mentoring programs
specifically, or information on youth criminal issues or the justice system.
There are currently a number of mentoring programs run specifically for the use of youths who have had
contact with the justice system. These programs are run within the AYMN and offered to young people
who are within or have recently been released from Juvenile Detention Centres (JDC).
Current mentoring programs that offer support and options to offending youths include:
• The Australian Youth Mentoring Network - aims to work with interested youth mentoring
organisations and practitioners to foster the growth and development of high quality mentoring
programs for young people in Australia by providing a national base of collaboration, support,
guidance and expertise. The Youth Mentoring Network is the result of a partnership of four
national organisations: The Smith Family, Job Futures, Big Brother Big Sister Australia, and the
Dusseldorp Skills Forum, which developed the initial proposal and having committed their own
funds to the project, invited the Australian Government to come on board as the fifth member of
the group,
• I.N.S.P.I.R.E - aims to provide one on one, individualised support and guidance to young people
(10-18 years) in the Sutherland Shire region
• Kickstart - a support program that is designed to provide individualised long term case
management plans for young people aged 12-25 with multiple high-risk needs
• The Mentor Marketplace Program - encourages the use of mentoring activities to improve
outcomes for young people, particularly those at greatest risk of disconnection from their families,
community, education and work
• Big Brothers Big Sisters Australia - a preventative program which provides young people aged
7 to 17 years with a caring adult mentor in their lives, someone to confide in and look up to.
These programs mainly aim to provide ‘at risk’ youths with support, life guidance and the necessary skills
to succeed and participate in the community. There is no NSW mentoring program that is directly aimed
at offending youths with the goal of reducing re-offending through mentoring.
JUVENILE JUSTICE NSW
JJNSW’s primary goal is to research and develop new strategies that can be used as prevention to crime
and as early-intervention tactics10. JJNSW has recognised the need for and potential benefits that
mentoring programs can have on offending and high-risk youths and currently operates a number of
mentoring programs across their JDC.
10 Juvenile Justice NSW research <http://www.djj.nsw.gov.au/research.htm>
9
JJNSW has implemented a number of programs, not limited to, but including at:
• Cobham,
• Reiby,
• Keelong,
• Frank Baxter,
• Acamena,
• Riverina,
• Orana, and
• Juniperina.
The scope of support and programs provided at these JDC include:
• Cultural sessions organised at various times of the year to coincide with significant events within
the cultural calendar including NAIDOC week, Chinese New Year, EID Celebrations following
Ramadan, Christmas, and Islander days,
• Religious weekly study groups and visits on significant holidays,
• Educational programs run by external visitors from private and non-government organisations,
such as the Homework Centre,
• Aboriginal elders visits provide spiritual support and positive role models in a number of ways,
including visits from the Local Aboriginal Elders Mentors Group, and
• Sporting sessions and visits from various sporting teams and identities to provide positive role
models, including National Rugby League teams the Canterbury Bulldogs, Parramatta Eels and
St George Illawarra Dragons.
JJNSW’s implemented programs at JDC aim to provide support and positive role models for youths while
in custody, however, there is no overarching or specific program aimed at using mentoring as a strategic
tool to reduce re-offending. The use of such a program could be extremely beneficial to the participants.
The implementation of an overarching or umbrella program designed to reduce re-offending could involve
all or some of JDC. This could also include an internal or external analysis of the current JJNSW
mentoring programs to provide the most successful and cost-effective strategies.
OTHER JURISDICTIONS
Across Australia there are a number of successful mentoring programs aimed at offending youths,
including:
• Whitelion Mentoring Victoria – has a number of Mentoring Programs to suit young people at
various levels of involvement with the Youth Justice or Out-of-Home Care Systems. These
10
include The Custodial Youth Justice Mentoring Program, The Northern Youth Justice Mentoring
Program, Leaving Care Mentoring, The RAMP Mentoring Program and The Ansaar Multicultural
Mentoring program,
• XLR8 Mentoring Program Victoria - provides positive role models to young people (aged 10-20
years) involved in the Youth Justice system, to assist them in accessing and maintaining
education, employment or training,
• Glendyne Mentoring Program Queensland – provides youths with basic life skills education,
basic trade and other real life experiences and works closely to strengthen ties between
parents/guardians on a long term basis, and
• Whitelion Mentoring Tasmania – provides positive role models, employment opportunities and
social inclusion to disconnected youths who have experienced abuse, neglect, drug addiction and
poverty.
11
Literature Review LITERATURE CHOSEN
A wide range of literature and papers were read to compile this paper, however a select 10 were chosen
to be reviewed in depth. Although most of the selected literature originates from the United States of
America, which was unintentional, this is a reflection on the research and interest in mentoring overseas.
Other papers originate from Australia, England and Sweden.
The papers were chosen to be the most relevant to the aim of this paper and mostly comprise of literature
reviews or studies examining the effects of mentoring on reducing re-offending, or another closely related
mentoring topic. Using mentoring as an intervention strategy has become popular recently and as a result
there is a plethora of literature discussing if mentoring works as an intervention strategy and what is the
best way to implement this into practice. The literature does recognise a need for further research and
evaluation to determine which mentoring elements make each program successful.
12
12
LITERATURE SUMMARY TABLE Figure 1
Research Paper Study Purpose Outcomes/Evidence Blechmann, E. A., Maurice, A., Beuker, B., Helberg, C., 2000, Can Mentoring or Skill Training Reduce Recidivism? Observational Study with Propensity Analysis, Prevention Science Vol. 1 No.3, ProQuest Central, pp.139-154
Observational Study Prevention Science • Average time to first arrest using mentoring was 638 days, which is longer than juvenile diversion (619 days)
• Best results of mentoring are achieved with a one-on-one mentor/mentee relationship and when that relationship is continued into adulthood
• Mentoring is more effective when coupled with other diversionary techniques, such as skill training
DuBois, D. L., Holloway, B., Valentine, J., Cooper, H., 2002, Effectiveness of Mentoring Programs for Youth: A Meta-Analytic Review, Vol.30, No.2, American Journal of Community Psychology, ProQuest Central, pp.157-197
Meta-Analytic Review American Journal of Community Psychology
• Youth ‘at risk’ or from disadvantaged background are most likely to benefit from mentoring
• Supports the effectiveness of youth mentoring programs • Cost of good mentors could prove difficult in implementing a
sustainable program • There is a strong linkage between benefits and the intensity and
quality of the relationship between mentor and mentee Grossman, J. B., Garry, E. M., 1998, Mentoring: A Proven Delinquency Prevention Strategy, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, <https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/164834.pdf>
Observational Study U.S. Department of Justice
• Strong positive outcomes for minority groups • Programs work best when the mentor is defined as a friend • Program case workers facilitated the mentor and mentee
relationship, which was effective • Overall positive outcomes for youth in mentoring program than the
control group involving drugs, violence, school attendance and academic grades
Hartley, R., 2004, Young People and Mentoring: Towards a National Strategy. A report prepared for Big Brothers Big Sisters Australia, Dusseldorp Skills Forum and The Smith Family. Sydney, <http://www.thesmithfamily.com.au/documents/tsf_mentor_May04_85540.pdf>
Report The Smith Family, Dusseldorp Skills Forum, Big Brothers Big Sisters Australia
• Short-term relationships have the potential to harm children • More evaluations and papers are needed to determine which
elements make mentoring successful in reducing re-offending • A national Australian strategy or program is needed to fill the gaps
in knowledge • Positive outcomes can be achieved in specific circumstances and
takes the whole participation of both mentor and mentee Jekielek, S. M., Moore, K. A., Hair, E. C., & Scarupa, H. J., 2002, Mentoring: A promising strategy for youth development, Child Trends Research Brief, Washington DC
Discussion Paper Child Trends • Youth must be kept interested in the program long enough to receive positive benefits
• Disadvantaged youth benefit the most • Programs need high-qualified staff and infrastructure • Programs that achieve positive outcomes could use their reports to
gain financial funding to find better mentors and staff Joliffe, D., Farrington, D. P., 2007, A Rapid Evidence Assessment of the Impact of Mentoring on Re-offending: a summary, Home Office Online Report, Cambridge University,
Meta-Analytic Review
Cambridge University
• Mentoring reduced offending by 4-11% • Mentoring found to be most effective when applied to those who
have been apprehended by police • More successful when mentor and mentee spend more time
13
<http://tna.europarchive.org/20100413151426/http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/rdsolr1107.pdf>
together • Benefits of mentoring only found to be substantial when continued
over a long period of time Joliffe, D., Farrington, D. P., 2008, The Impact of Mentoring on Re-offending, Swedish Council for Crime Prevention – Information and Publications, Stockholm,
Analysis/Report The Swedish National Council of Crime Prevention
• Programs where the mentor and mentee met for five hours or more at least once a week were found to be more successful
• Mentoring was only found to be successful in reducing re-offending when used as part of other strategies, not by itself
• Suggestive evidence that only successful in reducing recidivism when used with younger delinquents as part of an early intervention scheme
Keating, L. M., Tomishima, M. A., Foster, S., Alessandri, M., 2002, The Effects of a Mentoring Program on at-risk Youth, Adolescence, Vol.37, No.148, Libra Publishers, San Diego
Observational Study/Literature Review
Adolescence (Journals)
• Different outcomes for youth from different cultures • Mentoring can provide resilient youth with a healthy relationship • The length of time in a mentoring program correlates with its
success • No positive outcomes achieved for African Americans in the
mentoring program • Without intense contact mentoring is not effective • Mentoring is used for different reasons wanting different outcomes
– programs need to have specific outcomes and undergo constant evaluation
Rhodes, J. E., 2008, Improving Youth Mentoring Interventions Through Research-based Practice, Community Psychology, Springer Science+Business Media
Discussion Paper American Journal of Community Psychology
• Mentoring most effective when continued, effects of mentoring less significant over time
• More benefits are achieved from high-quality long-term relationships as opposed to shorter or weaker relationships
• Most positive effects on re-offending achieved through combining mentoring with other interventions such as skill training
Tolan, P., Henry, D., Schoeny, M., Bass, A., 2008, Mentoring Interventions to Affect Juvenile Delinquency and Associated Problems, Campbell Systematic Reviews, The Campbell Collaboration, Chicago
Systematic Review The Campbell Collaboration
• Mentoring for high-risk youth has a modest positive effect on delinquency, drug-use, aggression and achievement
• No specific mentoring details to draw successful elements from within the study
14
KEY FINDINGS
• “At-risk” youth are most likely to benefit from mentoring.
• Cases where youths who have been apprehended by police are the most successful when
using mentoring to reduce re-offending.
• Mentoring can reduce offending by 4-11%11.
• Programs are more successful as part of an early-intervention strategy to reduce re-offending.
• The best results are achieved with regular meetings over a longer period of time.
• Quality, long-term relationships make the program more effective.
• Mentoring is more effective when coupled with another diversionary tactic, such as skill training.
• Effects of mentoring most effective when continued into adulthood.
• Effects of mentoring debatable or no longer seen once the program is discontinued.
• Mentoring can have different outcomes for youth from different cultures.
• Cost of finding quality mentors can affect the programs outcomes, however mentoring as an
early intervention strategy is very cost-effective.
LITERATURE SUMMARY
Of the 10 papers chosen, two comprise of meta-analytic reviews, DuBois et al (2002) and Joliffe &
Farrington (2007), looking at 55 and 18 studies respectively. DuBois et al (2002), study varied the most,
with mixed results about the success of mentoring. This could be explained by the different aims of
each study, with the studies that were aimed at at-risk youths the most comprehensive and intense
controls. Joliffe (2007) found similar results in that the studies provided a range of outcomes, intended
and additional outcomes.
Interestingly, only one paper touches on the fact that one-on-one mentoring is successful opposed to
group mentoring, Rhodes (2008). The concept of group mentoring is not considered as an intervention
strategy, particularly among young offenders who benefit from a quality, healthy, one-on-one
relationship.
A strong trend appeared in the data between the correlation of the time spent in the mentoring program
and the success of mentoring on reducing re-offending. The time spent at each session between the
mentor and mentee and how frequently was also significant to the program’s success, with every piece
of literature supporting the idea that the longer and more intense the mentoring program can be to build
a quality relationship between mentor and mentee, the more positive and significant the outcomes.
11 Joliffe, D., Farrington, D. P., 2007, A Rapid Evidence Assessment of the Impact of Mentoring on Re-offending: a summary, Home Office Online Report, Cambridge University
15
“Those more successful in reducing re-offending were where the mentor and mentee spent more time
together at each meeting and met at least once a week12”.
The other observational studies and reports showed a positive correlation between mentoring and the
control group in almost all aspects. All papers chosen looked at the effects of mentoring on high-risk or
at-risk youths, with various aimed outcomes. “The term at-risk is generally used to describe youth who
come from single-parent homes, who show signs of emotional or behavioural problems, and who lack
support to navigate developmental tasks successfully13”. The proposed outcomes of mentoring on
these youths ranged from drug use, violence, truancy, academic achievements, trustworthiness and
reducing re-offending. While for the purpose of this paper all outcomes were examined and noted, the
papers that specifically looked at the effects on offending provided some of the most positive results.
“The overwhelming conclusion that can be drawn from the evidence is that mentoring programs can be
beneficial to at risk youth14”.
The effects of mentoring after the mentoring program has finished is debated. Some research shows
that the positive effects of mentoring are only significant while the mentoring program is still continuing.
Only one paper, Rhodes (2008), suggested that the effects of mentoring on the individual are extended
by a year or more after the program has finished: “Among the small number of studies that included
follow-up assessments, the benefits of mentoring appeared to extend a year or more beyond the end of
a youth’s participation in the program15”.
The more successful programs achieved their outcomes by combining mentoring with other forms of
diversionary or intervention techniques. Skill training was found to have the most significant effects on
the individual and provided the best outcomes16. This would also provide the mentor with ways of
bonding with the mentee and useful tasks that can be achieved together.
The research states that youths who are at-risk or even high-risk, have already engaged in delinquent
behaviour, are completing mentoring as a diversion from custody or come from disadvantaged
backgrounds benefit the most from mentoring. This research supports JJNSW implementing any
mentoring program within JDC or after custody as having the highest chance of making significant
outcomes for the individual and running a successful mentoring program.
12 Joliffe, D., Farrington, D. P., 2007, A Rapid Evidence Assessment of the Impact of Mentoring on Re-offending: a summary, Home Office Online Report, Cambridge University, p.3 13 Keating, L. M., Tomishima, M. A., Foster, S., Alessandri, M., 2002, The Effects of a Mentoring Program on at-risk Youth, Adolescence, Vol.37, No.148, Libra Publishers, San Diego, p.1 14 Jekielek, S. M., Moore, K. A., Hair, E. C., & Scarupa, H. J., 2002, Mentoring: A promising strategy for youth development, Child Trends Research Brief, Washington DC, p.6 15 Rhodes, J. E., 2008, Improving Youth Mentoring Interventions Through Research-based Practice, Community Psychology, Springer Science+Business Media 16 Blechmann, E. A., Maurice, A., Beuker, B., Helberg, C., 2000, Can Mentoring or Skill Training Reduce Recidivism? Observational Study with Propensity Analysis, Prevention Science Vol. 1 No.3, ProQuest Central, pp.139-154
16
KEY ELEMENTS TO REDUCE RE-OFFENDING
It is difficult to pinpoint any defining element in any mentoring program because of so many other
factors and because each individual is different. There are too many factors to attribute any one cause
to an individual’s success. “No single feature or characteristic of programs was indicated to be
responsible for the positive trends in outcomes17”.
The literature has shown however, that there are a few program elements that have ultimately led to
more successful outcomes compared to other programs. These are the elements that will be the most
crucial in forming a successful mentoring program, however simple they may seem. “Programs that
combined mentoring with other interventions, required weekly meetings for longer periods of time per
meeting, and had more enduring relationships had the most positive effects on re-offending18”.
• Quality Relationships. Every study stresses the importance of building a quality relationship
between the mentor and mentee. The success of this relationship is crucial to the overall
success of any mentoring program. Building a healthy, one-on-one relationship requires trust
and bonding between the participants and can be achieved through activities and tasks that
can be completed together.
• A Long-Term Program. The length of time in the program correlates with the programs
success with the individual. A longer program will provide more time for the mentor and mentee
to spend together, and a longer period of time for the mentee to receive the positive benefits of
the program.
• Frequency of Meetings. The more frequent the meetings between the mentor and mentee,
the more chances of building a quality relationship and reaping the benefits of the program. If
the mentor and mentee are meeting more frequently this could also subsequently reduce the
amount of time the mentee is spending with other delinquents and reduce these ties.
• Other Diversionary Techniques. The literature notes that mentoring programs that are
combined with other techniques have proved to be the most successful over time. Intervention
techniques and skill training particularly was shown to be effective in helping bond the mentor
and mentee while providing the mentee with real life training.
• Early Intervention Strategy. Mentoring evaluations found that the most effective programs
were participated in as an early intervention strategy technique. This suggests that younger
youths who have just begun their criminal career can be more easily diverted and would benefit
the most from participating in a mentoring program.
17 Blechmann, E. A., Maurice, A., Beuker, B., Helberg, C., 2000, Can Mentoring or Skill Training Reduce Recidivism? Observational Study with Propensity Analysis, Prevention Science Vol. 1 No.3, ProQuest Central, p.187 18 Lerner, R. M., Steinberg, L.(eds.), 2009, Handbook of Adolescent Psychology, Third Edition, Vol. 2, John Wiley & Sons Inc., New Jersey
17
COMMON ADDITIONAL OUTCOMES
Mentoring evaluations showed that the benefits of mentoring are not restricted to reducing re-offending
but can help the individual in a number of additional areas, even with programs that are focusing solely
on reducing re-offending. The associated outcomes with mentoring particularly involve academic
achievement and drug use (Tolan 2008). Grossman & Garry (1998) also explored the additional
benefits of mentoring, finding that truancy and academic achievement were both improved.
Additional Benefits are not restricted to, but include:
• Reduced truancy,
• Improved academic achievement,
• Decreased instances of violent behaviour,
• Reduced drug use,
• Reduced alcohol use, and
• Improved parent/guardian relationships.
DIFFICULTIES/LIMITATIONS PRESENTED IN THE LITERATURE
The literature supports longer-term mentoring programs and high-quality relationships. It could prove
difficult to find quality mentors, and more difficult to find quality mentors who will be able to facilitate
their mentee for an extended period of time.
It is suggested by the National Youth Mentoring Benchmarks that programs undergo constant
evaluation to add to their success. Finding an internal or external source for these evaluations could
take time and cost money.
Following on from the successful elements of mentoring programs, finding a suitable skill training
institute to provide the mentee with real life skills could also cost money. Dusseldorp Skills Forum could
be contacted as a possible resource as a member of the Australian Youth Mentoring Network who is
committed to providing youth with the necessary skills to succeed.
18
OVERALL CONCLUSIONS
“The overwhelming conclusion that can be drawn from the evidence is that mentoring programs can be
beneficial to at-risk youth19”. The literature has proved that there are various benefits that can be
achieved from mentoring programs and that they can be successful as a strategy to reduce re-
offending. DuBois et al (2002) supports the statement that mentoring offers the greatest potential
benefits to at-risk youth.
Blechmann (2000) and Joliffe (2007) both found through their program analyses that the effectiveness
of mentoring in reducing re-offending was still unclear. Some studies indicated a reverse intended
outcome by the program that led to a higher number of rearrests or less time until first arrest. This can
be seen in Figure 2, a table from Joliffe (2007).
The contrasting outcomes can be explained however, through the different program intentions, length of
time and frequency of meetings. Another conclusion could be drawn from the paper, Young People and
Mentoring: Towards a National Strategy by Hartley (2004): “Short-term relationships have the potential
to harm children. Inadequate support for both mentors and young people can lead to the breakdown of
mentoring relationships, leaving already vulnerable young people feeling abandoned20”. Short-term
mentoring programs have been proven to be unsuccessful, and this again stresses the importance and
benefits of a long-term mentoring program.
Mentoring at-risk youth could become a significant key early intervention strategy. Despite the lack of
evaluations that go beyond the mentoring program to examine the effects on the individual in the time
after participating in the program, the given evidence in the literature concludes that mentoring will
provide benefits in some form to the mentee. The literature concludes that mentoring is beneficial and
can be successful in reducing re-offending. By how long is still questionable, however evaluations and
continuing research should soon answer this question.
Doubts about mentoring programs success in reducing re-offending is driven by this lack of research
into its lasting effects and the ways in which researchers methodically collect and analyse their data. As
discussed earlier, it is impossible to point out one given factor that has been the cause for an action by
an individual. Control groups were used in almost all of the studies to try and compensate for this;
however this is still a flaw in the literature.
19 Jekielek, S. M., Moore, K. A., Hair, E. C., & Scarupa, H. J., 2002, Mentoring: A promising strategy for youth development, Child Trends Research Brief, Washington DC 20 Hartley, R., 2004, Young People and Mentoring: Towards a National Strategy. A report prepared for Big Brothers Big Sisters Australia, Dusseldorp Skills Forum and The Smith Family. Sydney, <http://www.thesmithfamily.com.au/documents/ts f_mentor_May04_85540.pdf>
19
The literature hints at the cost-effective reasons behind mentoring, given that many mentors are
volunteers and various programs are entirely run on volunteer work. Any benefits that can be seen
through cost-effective measures should be considered seriously. Mentoring provides a cost-effective
strategy that may help an individual reconnect with society and divert them from a life of crime, which
too will save the state money.
Figure 2 A Meta-Analysis of Mentoring Programs Aimed at Recidivism
Joliffe (2007).
20
Mentoring Models
There are numerous mentoring models, both formal and informal that are suitable for a range of
settings and outcomes. While mentoring usually has a general similar outcome, each model provides a
more specific overview that can be implemented into a program. Choosing a mentoring model is
necessary when establishing a mentoring program for a specific purpose.
THE COLLABORATIVE MODEL
• Formal/Informal mentoring model.
• Mentor and mentee work through challenges and tasks collaboratively.
• Allows the trainee to take some responsibility for learning through the mentor/mentee
relationship.
• Works best in a school or institutional setting.
• Relies upon expertise of mentor.
Common Outcomes
• Identification of personal short and long term goals.
• Education and learning improvements.
• Best for students in early schooling career that are ‘at-risk’.
THE COMPETENCY MODEL (SYSTEMATIC TRAINING)21
• Informal mentoring model.
• Mentor observes mentee and provides feedback.
• Mentor uses observations to help mentee make their own decisions.
• Works best in a home or community setting.
Common Outcomes
• Mentee becomes accustomed to and benefits from a routine.
• Mentee learns to control their own life and make valued decisions.
• Best for early-intervention.
THE REFLECTIVE MODEL22
• Informal mentoring model.
• Emphasis on mentor as ‘reflective teacher’.
• Focus to improve the mentoring process for the mentor. 21 Taylor, K., Mayes, A., S. (eds.), 1995, ‘Learning to Teach and Models of Mentoring’, Issues in Mentoring, Routledge, London 22 Taylor, K., Mayes, A., S. (eds.), 1995, Issues in Mentoring, Routledge, London
21
• After observing mentor then takes pro-active role in advising and teaching.
Common Outcomes
• Mentor gets the most out of mentoring practice by constantly reflecting on process and
improving procedures.
• Best for institutional setting.
ONE-TO-ONE MENTORING
• Formal mentoring model.
• Traditional view of mentoring where focus is on building the mentor/mentee relationship.
• Mentor/mentee participate in activities chosen together.
• High level of commitment and time required by mentor.
• Model requires extensive training and planning.
• Relationship requires mutual respect and participation by both mentor and mentee.
Common Outcomes
• Mentee benefits from valuable, strong relationship.
• Mentee is able to connect to mentor and thus share problems and issues which can be worked
through together.
• Best suited for ‘high-risk’ youths in community or institutional setting.
GROUP MENTORING
• Formal mentoring model.
• Focus is on group dynamics.
• Model is more cost and time effective than one-to-one.
• Best for mentees who prefer group setting or feel awkward about the ‘intimacy’ of a one-to-one
relationship.
Common Outcomes
• Provides improved social skills.
• Mentee has more mentor interactions and can form relationships with a number of mentors.
• Mentee has more mentors to provide a larger skill base.
• Best for ‘at-risk’ youths in institutional setting.
TEAM MENTORING
• Informal mentoring model.
• Similar to group mentoring, but focuses primarily on interaction between mentees.
22
• Focus on ‘team’ building tasks and activities that must be completed together.
• Works best in an institutional setting where there is one common goal.
Common Outcomes
• Mentee learns to participate as a part of a team.
• Team members learn to rely and communicate with each other.
• Best for youths with social issues and only in an institutional or community setting where there
is one main goal.
PEER MENTORING23
• Formal/informal mentoring model.
• Mentee may feel more comfortable sharing issues with a peer who is in a similar stage of life.
• Requires mutual participation and respect.
• Peers rely on each other to navigate issues.
• Can be suitable for small or isolated settings where an experienced mentor is not appropriate
or available.
Common Outcomes
• Mentee benefits from mutual friendship and relationship.
• Mentee has improved social skills.
• Best for youths who are socially awkward or need support.
RECOMMENDED MODEL
For JJNSW’s purpose of building a mentoring program that would facilitate ‘high-risk’ youths in an
institutional and community setting, the one-to-one mentoring model would be the most appropriate.
The one-to-one model would provide the mentee with the suitable guidance and valuable relationship
that is needed. A group, peer or team mentoring program would only serve to facilitate risky
relationships and behaviour. The one-to-one model is also the most suitable for ‘high-risk’ youths, with
the relationship formed providing routine, guidance, valuable skills and helping the youth to break the
bonds and routine of delinquency. 23 Welsh, S. C., 2004, Mentoring the Future: A Guide to Building Mentoring Programs that Work, Momentum Learning Inc., Cochrane
23
Case Studies - Mentoring Programs OVERVIEW For the purpose of this paper, exploring literature is not sufficient to gain a thorough grasp of how a
future mentoring program should take place. In order to place the theory into practice, three case
studies have been chosen and examined in order to determine which practices are the most effective in
a mentoring program. Big Brothers Big Sisters Australia was chosen because it is a branch of the
biggest mentoring program in the world and arguably the most recognisable program. Kickstart was
chosen because it focuses on the mentoring of offending youths and I.N.S.P.I.R.E. was chosen
because it too focuses on reducing offending and JJNSW has a vested interest in this program.
BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS AUSTRALIA Mission: To realise the potential of our young people, through the provision of the highest quality
mentoring programs24.
Big Brothers Big Sisters Australia (BBBS) aims to provide vulnerable young people with a supporting,
long-term role model in a one-to-one mentoring model within the community. The mentor undergoes
extensive training and BBBS highlights that their mentors are constantly supported throughout the
mentoring process, through regular mentor meetings with BBBS and their affiliated agencies. The
mentee can expect to see their mentor at least once a week, for a minimum of five hours a week, for a
minimum of 12 months. The longevity of BBBS is one of their best features, highlighting that the
benefits of mentoring occur over a longer period of time. BBBS caters for youths who are socially and
economically disadvantaged between the ages of 7-17. BBBS aims to provide a healthy, stable
relationship to these youths. BBBS does not take delinquent youths or youths with a criminal history
and therefore does not have any strategies in place to deal with these issues.
KICKSTART
Kickstart is run through Streetworks, which aims to address youth issues involving crime, violence,
destructive family relationships and isolation and provides support to youths aged 10-25 who are high-
risk25. Kickstart is a charity, works closely with churches and receives government funding. These
young people experience pressures such as disjointed or destructive family relationships, rejection and
isolation, poverty, violence or abuse, drug and alcohol abuse, homelessness, learning difficulties and
poor employment opportunities. Kickstart is their most requested service that works on a mentoring
one-to-one model within the community. The program aims to provide mentoring, counselling, legal
24 Big Brothers Big Sisters Australia, 2012, ‘Mission’, Big Brothers Big Sisters Australia, <http://www.bigbrothersbigsisters.com.au/index.php?page=vision-mission-guiding-principles> 25 Streetwork, 2012, ‘About’, Kickstart, <http://www.streetwork.org.au/our-services/>
24
advice, relationship advice and drug and alcohol abuse help. Kickstart runs for a minimum of three
months with mentors and mentees meeting at least twice a week.
INSPIRE26 INSPIRE (Innovative, Non-judge-mental Support Program Intended to Re-Engage), works with youths
aged BLAH who have had contact with the juvenile justice system. INSPIRE is run through Shire Wide
Youth Services. The program provides a one-to-one mentoring program within the community that aims
to reduce re-offending by engaging youths with a responsible adult. The mentor and mentee meet at
least once a week for a minimum of 12 months. Youths are encouraged to engage with education and
employment to reduce the risk of delinquent behaviour and becoming ‘high-risk’.
26 Shire Wide Youth Services, 2012, ‘INSPIRE’, Shire Wide Youth Services, <http://www.shirewideyouth.org.au/mentoring-program/>
25
Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander Considerations BACKGROUND
Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander (ATSI) youths are disproportionately overrepresented within the
juvenile justice system. In the 2009 Young People in Custody Health Survey where N=361 young
people participated in the survey which represented 80% of all young people in custody, the sample
was 48% of Aboriginal origin27. Nearly half (48%) of all young people in custody are of Aboriginal or
Torres Straight Islander origin, which is up on 42% on the same survey conducted in 200328.
Figure 3
Aboriginal and/or Torres Straight Islander origin
NSW Government (2011)
As Indigenous juveniles are more likely than non-Indigenous juveniles to begin offending early and
belong to the group of offenders that has long-term contact with the criminal justice system, primary
crime prevention strategies are critical for Indigenous communities29. Mentoring programs that are
specifically designed to help ATSI reintegrate successfully into society or to reduce re-offending need to
27 NSW Government, Human Services, 2011, 2009 NSW Young People in Custody Health Survey: Full Report, Justice Health, Matraville, p.13 28 NSW Government, Human Services, 2011, 2009 NSW Young People in Custody Health Survey: Full Report, Justice Health, Matraville, p.29 29 Richards, K., Roseveor, L., Gilbert, R., 2011, Promising Interventions for Reducing Indigenous Juvenile Offending, Indigenous Justice Clearinghouse, Brief 10 March 2011, Department of Justice and Attorney General, <http://www.indigenousjustice.gov.au/briefs/brief010.pdf>
26
be considered as this group is increasingly represented in custody. “There is a relatively widespread
view that mentoring is likely to be particularly effective for Indigenous young people30”. The literature
stated that mentoring can have different impacts for youth from different cultures, with one study in
particular by Keating et al (2002), showing that the program had no effect at all on African Americans31.
Despite a range of programs aimed at ATSI in the community, there are currently no mentoring
programs aimed at ATSI within the justice system.
SAMPLE OF CURRENT YOUTH ATSI PROGRAMS
Figure 4
Program Name Situational
Setting
Program Aims Additional Information
AIME – Aboriginal Indigenous Mentoring Experience
Community • Helps mentees realise potential
• Partners high school students with university students
http://aimementoring.com/about/program/
Balunu – Youth Healing Program
Three day camp • Early Intervention to strengthen family healing
• Develop a family life plan • Break the cycle of violence
and crime
http://www.balunu.org.au/programs.html
Panyappi Community • Reduce high-risk behaviour • Inclusion of family • Mentoring to reduce offending
behaviour
http://www.noviolence.com.au/public/forum2008/lisakambouris.pdf
Tribal Warrior Indigenous Mentoring Program
Community • To reduce recidivism rates in jail
• Keep youth off streets • Simple program structure
focusing on group training every morning
http://tribalwarrior.org/training/indigenous-mentoring.html
True Blue Dreaming
Community • Youth development in rural and remote areas
• Helping youths reach their potential through group social activities
http://truebluedreaming.org.au/past-programs-activities/
The above mentioned programs are but a sample of ATSI mentoring programs. While these programs
have measured success, Panyappi reporting an 85% decrease in behaviour and offending patterns by
clients32, there have been few formal evaluations and those that have been conduced reported that
30 Australian Government Attorney General’s Department, 2003, Early Intervention: Youth Mentoring Programs – an overview of mentoring programs for young people at risk of offending, Australian Government, Canberra 31 Keating, L. M., Tomishima, M. A., Foster, S., Alessandri, M., 2002, The Effects of a Mentoring Program on at-risk Youth, Adolescence, Vol.37, No.148, Libra Publishers, San Diego 32 Panyappi, 2012, ‘Indigenous Youth Mentoring Project’, Panyappi, <http://www.noviolence.com.au/public/forum2008/lisakambouris.pdf>
27
there was no conclusive evidence that linked the program to reduce re-offending33. Each program did
mention however, the importance of reengaging ATSI youth with their cultural heritage, as is the focus
of several programs. This feature should therefore be included into the mentoring program.
It can be concluded from research that there are far too few ATSI mentoring programs, particularly
within NSW, and although most are aimed at reducing high-risk and offending behaviour, there is no
program that extends to within JDC. A separate ATSI mentoring program could be formed with further
research, however for the sake of this paper ATSI considerations should be built into the suggested
program recommendations.
ATSI PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS
• It is not always appropriate for an Indigenous person to have an Indigenous mentor; however
projects have found that it is more beneficial to match Indigenous people together.
• Mentoring programs should continue to engage with the community throughout the duration of
the program.
• Family engagement is critical.
• Program features should include culturally relevant activities.
• Other linked agencies should focus on reengagement with ATSI culture, with suggested linked
agencies being:
o Local Aboriginal Elders Group
o AYMN
33 Dawes, G., Dawes, C., 2003, Mentoring as a Program for Reducing Recidivism Among Young Offenders, IFECSA Conference, <http://www.acea.org.au/Content/2003%20papers/Paper%20Dawes.pdf>
28
Recommendations Mentoring young offenders appears to be more intensive and complex than other young people at risk.
Such programs need to carefully consider the implications of the young offender target group and
develop program elements and strategies accordingly. In particular, such programs need to take into
account the need for increased resources in order to meet the needs of young offenders, the greater
demands which may be placed on mentors, and the increased likelihood that such mentees may need
to be linked in to other community support services. Research suggests that participation in mentor
programs should be voluntary, not mandated, irrespective of whether a young person is subject to a
court-imposed order. Programs where the mentor and mentee meet for at least five hours a week have
proven to be the most successful, as well as longer running programs. A program needs to be planned
with specific targets to meet and thorough data collection to ensure that continuous evaluation can
occur. This section aims to provide the best practices for mentoring programs or a new program as
determined through research, academic literature and practice.
BEST PRACTICE PROGRAM FEATURES
• A tightly defined target group. The program should be aimed at offending youths who are at-
risk.
• Well defined program objectives and operating principles that maintain a degree of flexibility to
respond to program changes. Program objectives should focus on how the mentor/mentee
relationship is going to benefit the mentee and reduce re-offending.
• Clear guidelines relating to the recruitment and screening of mentors. Mentors with a history in
the criminal justice system should not necessarily be discluded, but the offending crime/s itself
disclosed to the program coordinator and judged individually. Strict guidelines will also pertain
to the mentor in terms of working with youths/children and should fall under the Working With
Children Check NSW.
• Appropriately skilled staff, with clear job descriptions, to coordinate and drive the program.
• Well developed links with a range of local agencies who can support the work of the program.
• Program continuity and length. The mentoring relationship should be sustained for a minimum
of six months, with an ideal length of 12 months.
• Mentor / Mentee contact should be regular and consistent, with the ideal being once per week.
• Projects should work to engage and inform parents or guardians of the mentee wherever
possible.
• Mentors should undergo at least 20 hours of training prior to being matched with a young
person, with training to be provided by people with appropriate qualifications, and include an
overview of the program, clarification of commitment requirements, boundaries and limitations,
crisis management and problem solving skills, communication skills, information on ending a
relationship and a summary of program policies and guidelines.
29
• The matching process should be based on a clear and consistent policy in which primary
consideration is given to the interests, needs and goals of the young person. Secondary
considerations should include sex, race and ethnicity.
• ABORIGINAL
• The cultural background of both the mentor and mentee should also be a matching
consideration, particularly for Indigenous people.
• The provision of ongoing support for mentors, such as consistent, timely and regular
supervision and feedback by project staff, in the form of group meetings, telephone contact or
face-to-face interviews. The frequency of such contacts should be at least once per month (in
the early stages of the relationship).
BEST PRACTICE FOR FINDING AND EMPLOYING MENTORS
• A project should provide a clear and realistic idea of the benefits and expectations of
mentoring, including the level of commitment required of mentors.
• Desired mentor characteristics include ‘personality’, an ability to listen, a non-judgmental
attitude, flexibility, respect, an ability to relate to young people and reliability/consistency.
• Mentors should be rigorously screened.
• A criminal record should not necessarily preclude someone from being a mentor.
• A 2009 study of US mentoring programs identified that mentors with a professional background
were the most successful, being better at focusing on the development of a personal
relationship with the mentee and at handling difficult situations.34
• There is no clear evidence to indicate whether it is preferable to employ paid or volunteer
mentors. However, payment may be particularly important where there is an attempt to include
specific groups of people (such as Indigenous people) who are likely to fall within a lower socio-
economic bracket.
SELECTING MENTEES AND THE MATCHING PROCESS
• Projects need to have the linkages and networks to provide a regular and adequate source of
appropriate mentee referrals.
• Young people should be carefully screened to assess their suitability for the program.
• Young people with a history of violence should be very carefully vetted to ensure the safety of
the mentor.
• Young people with mental health problems should also be carefully considered.
34 The Campbell Collaboration, 2009, A ‘Professional Friend’ can reduce juvenile delinquency, The Campbell Collaboration, < www.campbellcollaboration.org/lib/download/660/>
30
• Generally, younger people (in their early teens) are more receptive to mentoring approaches
than older youths.
• There is some limited UK evidence which suggests that mentoring may reduce offending more
effectively in girls than in boys.
• Young people with a history of offending behaviour who are at-risk of re-offending are the prime
candidates for this program.
• ‘Matching’ can be undertaken in a number of ways. Some programs choose to introduce
mentees and mentors via a series of structured group activities, and allow pairs to self-select.
Other programs designate matches based upon considerations such as interests, cultural
background etc.
PROGRAM ACTIVITIES
• There is generally a need for programs to ‘sell’ themselves to young people.
• Programs need to focus upon activities which are appealing to young people.
• High profile mentors or coordinators can be particularly appealing to young people.
• Where activities are not designated, it is generally recommended that the young person play a
significant role in determining the activities that the pair engage in, that they be fun,
developmentally useful and low-cost.
• There should also be recognition of the need for differences in activities for young men and
young women.
PROGRAM EVALUATIONS Although the literature and mentoring programs have both indicated the need for program evaluation,
very little evaluations have been completed, with even less external evaluations. Compounding this lack
of independent evaluation is the fact that researchers commonly experience difficulties in assessing
program outcomes due to the very different and frequently poorly specified processes in comparable
mentoring schemes.
A 2006 Australian Institute of Criminology report stated that:
“Little evidence of the long-term impact of mentoring programs exists as there are so few
evaluations. However, some positive short-term outcomes have been identified, including
reductions in offending behaviour, completion of juvenile justice orders, reductions in substance
misuse, and increased participation in education, training and employment”. 35
The Aftercare for Indiana through Mentoring (AIM) is mentoring program in Indiana that is aimed at
providing incarcerated youths with support before, during and after their release from juvenile detention. 35 Australian Institute of Criminology, 2006, Mentoring and Crime Prevention – What is Good Practice?, Australian Institute of Criminology, Canberra
31
AIM collects data on all participants as well as controls and has successfully externally evaluated their
program several times. An added benefit for doing this is that AIM can now use their data to receive
more government funding because their program has proved to be successful. A mentoring program
based in this same way in NSW could follow their lead.
There is a clear need to build evaluation processes and mechanisms into any mentoring project from its
very inception. The following elements should be considered by both program planners and funding
bodies alike, to allow the effectiveness of projects to be determined:
• Projects should engage in thorough data collection and be subject to regular external
evaluation.
• Data collection should include personal data for all participants, administrative information,
program data, output measures and outcome measures.
• Adequate funding would need to be made available to enable ongoing project evaluation.
• Where possible external evaluations should regularly be made.
TIMEFRAME The most effective time to reach offending youths is around the time of their release from incarceration.
AIM broke their program into three sections, which proved to be the most successful course of action.
This also helps the youth reintegrate into society and provides a healthy, structured return to their life.
The first stage occurs as pre-release preparation, where a mentor/mentee match can be made. The
first few meetings should also occur within the JDC, meeting for at least five hours each week.
The second stage takes place within the community and the mentor and mentee are
encouraged to participate in various activities. During the first month after the youth’s release from
detention it is encouraged that the mentor makes regular phone calls and attends weekly meetings with
the program facilitators to discuss their progress and troubleshoot any issues with other mentors. Skill
training and preparing for either education or entering the workforce can occur in this stage, further
preparing the youth for life.
After the first three months of contact the mentor and mentee are encouraged to continue their
progress and open dialogue around phone calls and/or text messaging should be occurring. The
mentee should feel as though their mentor can provide them with guidance and can be trusted.
The recommended program should be in place for 12 months to capitalise on the positive benefits of
mentoring and ensure that the mentee is well-adjusted to life after their release. This will also help to
reduce the time to rearrest and reduce re-offending.
32
BUDGET/COSTS Fountain & Arbreton, 1999, endeavoured to overcome the lack of data on mentoring program costs by
sampling 52 different mentoring programs. They highlighted the difficulty of establishing cost
measurement accurately because most mentoring programs rely on donated resources in addition to or
outside the funded budget. The study found that mentoring programs leveraged the equivalent of about
$1 for every $1 in their budget. The average program budget (across the 52 programs) of AUD
$262,651 was augmented by donated goods and services (including volunteer time) to the value of
AUD $267,515, giving a total average program cost of AUD $530,165. In a given year, the average
program spent a total cost of AUD $1,856 per young person served (median AUD $1,248).
In accordance to the research conducted by the Big Brothers, Big Sisters program Melbourne; if the
program serviced 2,208 of the most vulnerable young people in Melbourne, it would cost AUD $39.5 M.
Assuming 50% were high-risk, the associated costs of their adult criminality would be AUD $3.3 billion.
To break even, the program would need to avert high-risk behaviours in only 1.3% (14 of 1,104) of participants.
Despite research limitations on mentoring costing, even modest reductions in the prevalence rates of
high-risk behaviour were shown to be sufficient to make mentoring programs a "dominant" intervention.
A 1999 cost benefit study of mentoring programs determined that such programs "break-even" when
they avert or "save" around 2% of high-risk youth participants. It concluded that mentoring programs
offer excellent value-for-money and are a highly cost-effective use of public welfare resources.36
SUGGESTED LINKED AGENCIES
36 Fountain, D. L., Arbreton, A., 1999, The Cost of Mentoring, ‘Contemporary Issues in Mentoring’, Private/Public ventures, Philadelphia
33
SUGGESTED PROGRAM OVERVIEW
• One-to-one mentoring,
• Program aimed at youths in JDC beginning at pre-release and lasting at least 12 months,
• Mentors to undergo rigorous screening and must be committed to long-term relationships,
• Matching process to occur within JDC,
• Mentor and mentee to meet at least twice a week for the first month, and at least weekly for the
remaining 11 months,
• ATSI to be matched to fellow ATSI mentors,
• Mentors are not to be discluded on the premise of a criminal history,
• Thorough data collection will ensure that program can be evaluated,
• Program aimed at donation collection or gaining full government funding, which will add to the
cost effectiveness,
• Skill training and other agencies to have close links to program to provide mentees with the
best opportunities to reintegrate into society and be diverted from a criminal life,
• Activities are to be chosen collectively by mentor and mentee,
• Mentors to receive support from linked agencies and facilitator through regular meetings with
the facilitator and other mentors throughout the duration of the program,
• Program focuses on reducing re-offending in youths, but also focuses to re-engage youths with
education or employment,
• Program to undergo bi-yearly external evaluation to ensure program meets guidelines, adheres
to the National Youth Mentoring Network and is effective in reducing re-offending,
• Evaluation to continue for the first year after the program has finished to determine the
program’s success rate.
34
Resources Australian Government Attorney General’s Department, 2003, Early Intervention: Youth
Mentoring Programs – an overview of mentoring programs for young people at risk of
offending, Australian Government, Canberra
Australian Institute of Criminology, 2006, Mentoring and Crime Prevention – What is Good
Practice?, Australian Institute of Criminology, Canberra
Balunu, 2011, ‘Indigenous Youth Healing’, Balunu, <http://www.balunu.org.au/programs.html>
Blechmann, E. A., Maurice, A., Beuker, B., Helberg, C., 2000, Can Mentoring or Skill Training
Reduce Recidivism? Observational Study with Propensity Analysis, Prevention Science Vol. 1
No.3, ProQuest Central, pp.139-154
Chief Executive of the Mentoring and Befriending Foundation (MBF) in an interview with
ePolitix.com, 27 June 2008, ePolitix.com
Dawes, G., Dawes, C., 2003, Mentoring as a Program for Reducing Recidivism Among Young
Offenders, IFECSA Conference,
<http://www.acea.org.au/Content/2003%20papers/Paper%20Dawes.pdf>
DuBois, D. L., Holloway, B., Valentine, J., Cooper, H., 2002, Effectiveness of Mentoring
Programs for Youth: A Meta-Analytic Review, Vol.30, No.2, American Journal of Community
Psychology, ProQuest Central, pp.157-197
Fountain, D. L., Arbreton, A., 1999, The Cost of Mentoring, ‘Contemporary Issues in
Mentoring’, Private/Public ventures, Philadelphia
Grossman, J. B., Garry, E. M., 1998, Mentoring: A Proven Delinquency Prevention Strategy,
Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Programs, U.S.
Department of Justice, <https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/164834.pdf>
Hartley, R., 2004, Young People and Mentoring: Towards a National Strategy. A report
prepared for Big Brothers Big Sisters Australia, Dusseldorp Skills Forum and The Smith Family.
Sydney, <http://www.thesmithfamily.com.au/documents/tsf_mentor_May04_85540.pdf>
Jekielek, S. M., Moore, K. A., Hair, E. C., & Scarupa, H. J., 2002, Mentoring: A promising
strategy for youth development, Child Trends Research Brief, Washington DC
35
Juvenile Justice NSW, 2012, ‘Research’, Juvenile Justice NSW,
<http://www.djj.nsw.gov.au/research.htm>
Joliffe, D., Farrington, D. P., 2007, A Rapid Evidence Assessment of the Impact of Mentoring
on Re-offending: a summary, Home Office Online Report, Cambridge University,
<http://tna.europarchive.org/20100413151426/http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/rdsolr1
107.pdf>
Joliffee, D., Farrington, D. P., 2008, The Influence of Mentoring on Re-Offending, Swedish
Council for Crime Prevention – Information and Publications, Stockholm
Keating, L. M., Tomishima, M. A., Foster, S., Alessandri, M., 2002, The Effects of a Mentoring
Program on at-risk Youth, Adolescence, Vol.37, No.148, Libra Publishers, San Diego
Lerner, R. M., Steinberg, L.(eds.), 2009, Handbook of Adolescent Psychology, Third Edition,
Vol. 2, John Wiley & Sons Inc., New Jersey
National Youth Mentoring Benchmarks, 2012, ‘Benchmarks’, National Youth Mentoring
Benchmarks, <http://www.youthmentoring.org.au/assets/pages/pdf/Benchmarks%202007.pdf>
NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, 2012, Director Dr Don Weatherburn,
<http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/pages/bocsar_mr_cjb103 >
NSW Government, Human Services, 2011, 2009 NSW Young People in Custody Health
Survey: Full Report, Justice Health, Matraville
Panyappi, 2012, ‘Indigenous Youth Mentoring Project’, Panyappi,
<http://www.noviolence.com.au/public/forum2008/lisakambouris.pdf>
Richards, K., Roseveor, L., Gilbert, R., 2011, Promising Interventions for Reducing
Indigenous Juvenile Offending, Indigenous Justice Clearinghouse, Brief 10 March 2011,
Department of Justice and Attorney General,
<http://www.indigenousjustice.gov.au/briefs/brief010.pdf>
Rhodes, J. E., 2008, Improving Youth Mentoring Interventions Through
Research-based Practice, Community Psychology, Springer Science+Business Media Shire Wide Youth Services, 2012, ‘INSPIRE’, Shire Wide Youth Services,
<http://www.shirewideyouth.org.au/mentoring-program/>
Taylor, K., Mayes, A., S. (eds.), 1995, Issues in Mentoring, Routledge, London
36
Taylor, K., Mayes, A., S. (eds.), 1995, ‘Learning to Teach and Models of Mentoring’, Issues in
Mentoring, Routledge, London
The Australian Youth Mentoring Network, 2012, ‘About Us’, The Australian Youth Mentoring
Network, < http://www.youthmentoring.org.au/about-us.html>
The Campbell Collaboration, 2009, A ‘Professional Friend’ can Reduce Juvenile Delinquency,
The Campbell Collaboration, <www.campbellcollaboration.org/lib/download/660/>
Tribal Warrior, 2012, ‘Tribal Warrior Indigenous Healing Program’, Tribal Warrior, <http://tribalwarrior.org/training/indigenous-mentoring.html>
Tolan, P., Henry, D., Schoeny, M., Bass, A., 2008, Mentoring Interventions to Affect Juvenile
Delinquency and Associated Problems, Campbell Systematic Reviews, The Campbell
Collaboration, Chicago
Werner (1989) cited in Blechmann, E. A., Maurice, A., Beuker, B., Helberg, C., 2000, Can
Mentoring or Skill Training Reduce Recidivism? Observational Study with Propensity Analysis,
Prevention Science Vol. 1 No.3, ProQuest Central, pp.139-154
Welsh, S. C., 2004, Mentoring the Future: A Guide to Building Mentoring Programs
that Work, Momentum Learning Inc., Cochrane
