Ziming Spp PDF

1

A Policy Analysis of Youth Mentorship Programs for

the State of New Avery

By

Ziming Zhang

Report sent to Senator Chris Levine of New Avery

September 22, 2015

2

1. Problem definition: Background information: Youth mentorship and services alike are on the

rise in the United States.1 This influx of mentorship programs is fueled by the idea that such

programs in which there is supportive interaction between youth and a nonparental figure can

present positive outcomes vital to the youth’s development.1 The programs have been advertised

to be a solution for various problems currently affecting society’s youth. Such problems include

increased drug and alcohol use, poor academic achievement, and increased juvenile

delinquency.9 In essence, the rise of mentorship programs have largely been accredited to the rise

of at-risk youth. In this context, at-risk can be defined as an increased likelihood over the base

rate of the population that a particular negative consequence will occur to these youth.9 At-risk

youth are most inclined to skip school and engage in risky behaviors such as crime and drug

use.9 Youth mentoring has been a great interest to policy makers because they are promoting

mentoring as a delinquency prevention approach.7 Over 5,000 organizations are offering

mentoring programs and are serving approximately three million youths in the United States,

approximately $100 million was invested in federal support and research funds for youth

mentoring.7,10 Yet, even after serving three million youth, there is an estimated 14 million youth

in special need of mentors.12 Policy Problem: Would a policy requiring schools to provide

mentorship programs for their at-risk youth and or students with low academic performance be

both effective and cost effective at curtailing childhood delinquency and increasing academic

achievement? Analyst’s Problem: Determine how effective youth mentorship programs are at

curtailing childhood delinquency and increasing academic achievement. Examine effectiveness

of youth mentorship programs in other states in achieving these outcomes. Research and evaluate

alternative policies achieving decreased youth crime rates and increased academic achievements.

Consider costs and benefits of implementing youth mentoring policies. Identify externalities,

risks, and problems related to implementation of youth mentorship programs. Provide

recommendations regarding the benefits of generating a youth mentorship program for New

Avery. 2. Background Information: a) Legislative History: State Legislation: 35 states

generated legislation from 2010 to 2015 pertaining to youth mentorship programs. Enacted

policies includes establishing youth mentorship programs for at-risk youth and dropouts (5

states), and the erection of youth mentorship in high schools for children struggling academically

such as in Texas. A majority of legislative history involves appropriations to improve or to

continue the states existing mentorship programs (13 states). Thirteen states have no legislation

3

at the current time.A1 Federal Legislation: The Youth Promise Act, introduced in May 21, 2013,

provides mentoring for those involved in criminal gang activity to ensure that the youth lead

productive, law-abiding, gang-free lives. The act uses evidence from previous mentorship

programs to provide support for the establishment of such programs. The Graduation for All act,

introduced in 2009 and referred to subcommittee in 2010, supports high need, middle and high

schools in order to improve the students’ academic achievement, graduation rates, and

postsecondary readiness. Members of the graduation improvement team shall include nonprofit

mentoring organizations that will serve the young people. Introduced in 2007 is the Path to

Success: Gang Prevention through Community Partnerships Act. This act established a pilot

mentoring program for at-risk youth through various community partnerships to provide youth

with social and academic skills necessary to become a productive citizen.A2 Judicial Action:

The court of Appeals of California ruled that parental rights over 12-year-old Julian be

terminated in order to ensure his adoption. The child showed aggressive behavior towards his

younger brother, causing his mother to voluntarily place him into foster care. During the time

Julian was in foster care, he was provided weekly visits to a mentor assigned to him through

Foster Youth Mentor Services. His mentor, John K., provided Julian with engaging activities.

The agency reported that the child was making “significant strides” academically and

behaviorally. Ultimately, Julian’s mentor decided to adopt Julian, hoping it would provide the

youth with normalcy and stability.A3 b) Political Environment: Supporters: Supporters of

implementing youth mentorship programs at schools for high risk or children experiencing low

academic achievement see mentorship as essential. Such programs are leading players in

reducing absenteeism, and increasing academic standards.2 At its most basic level, mentorship

provides an irreplaceable resource for the child to fall back to and supporters report findings of

mentoring to be an effective method of boosting a child’s social gains in social acceptance,

academic attitudes, and grades.5 Supporters of youth mentoring programs would include, but is

not limited to, the 4-H National Mentoring Program, Big Brothers Big Sisters of America

(BBBS), and the non-profit organization Mentoring USA.6 Opponents: Opponents for

implementing youth mentorship programs claim that the supposed benefits for youth mentoring

are not significant enough to allocate funds towards the programs.13 They argue that the funds

that go towards mentorships can be better allocated towards other areas. Moreover, most

mentoring programs work only if the student forms a connection to their mentor. Unfortunately,

4

many students never form connections with caring adults.11 Opponents for implementing youth

mentorship would include politicians and committees in congress because they are fighting over

allocations and would prefer higher allocations for their cause. Other opponents would include

skeptical school administrations, because it would demand more resources from them. 3.

Research Design: a) Objectives and Methods I. Is there demand for youth mentorships? If

there is demand, what fuels the demand? To address this question, sources that show the

effectiveness of mentorship programs and the number of students in need of mentorship will be

examined. Sources: 12, 8, 7, 10. II. Is youth mentoring a cost effective way to improve

academic achievement and decrease juvenile delinquency? How effective has youth

mentoring been in other states? ? To address this question, sources that explain financial

solutions for youth programs will be examined. Research of the effectiveness of youth

mentorship that are already in implementation in the United States will also be used to address

this problem. Sources: 12, 5, 6, A1. III. What are other cost efficient alternatives and how

effective would these alternatives be? Sources that can be proposed as alternatives to

mentorship programs, in this case: after school programs, will be examined for this question.

Sources that also evaluate the costs of afterschool programs will be considered for this question.

Sources: 14, 13, 15, 16. IV. What are the costs and benefits of implementing youth

mentorship in schools in New Avery? Research conducted on mentorship programs will be

evaluated for this question because this will provide the answers to what the benefits for youth

mentorship will be. Sources: 17, 7, 10, A1, 12 19. V. What are possible externalities and

offsetting behavior that may follow the implementation of this policy? Sources that assess

the unintended consequences and offsetting behaviors of implementing a policy on mentorship

programs in schools will be used to answer this question. Sources: 18. VI. What possible risks

or problems might be associated with the implementation of this policy? The risks and

problems associated with the implementation of this policy will be examined by looking into the

possible negative effects of this policy. Sources: 13 4. Research Results and Analysis: a)

Reporting of Results: Demand for youth mentorships: Studies have shown that today’s youth

are presented with many complex challenges in their lives, some of which include large school

settings and changing community life.12 Therefore, communities nationwide are supporting

programs that can aid in bettering the development of youth by providing them with support and

help during their developmental ages.12 This pressure to increase students’ achievement and

5

enriching students’ time outside of the academic environment has fueled demand for quality

youth programs.12 Currently, there is an approximation of 17 million students in need of

mentors.12 The number of mentors available in the United States averages out to be

approximately 3 million, leaving ~82% of students who are in need of mentors.8,12 Costs,

benefits, and effectiveness of youth mentorship programs: Approximately $100 million have

been allocated to youth mentorship programs in the United States.7,10 Currently, leaders for youth

programs are experiencing difficulties in terms of finding funds to expand and enhance the

capacity of the youth programs. A sizable amount of funds for mentoring come from allocations

of fiscal budget.A1 However, even with the overall increase of general funds for mentorship

programs, the costs of running and maintaining said programs have made it challenging for the

program leader to maintain quality programs.12 Thompson, in her article, mentions a

longitudinal study conducted on 220 students.9 When the difference between students who were

effectively mentored versus students not mentored were compared, they found that students who

were effectively tutored had a lower dropout rate than students who were ineffectively

mentored.9 Research on mentoring provides evidence that students with mentors perform better

at school, because they have a better overall attendance than their classmates who do not have

mentors.8,9 Evidence also infer that mentoring has a significant impact on delinquency and

associated outcomes for youth at risk for delinquency.7 Alternatives: An alternative that would

present similar positive outcomes to those of youth mentorship would be the implementation and

funding of afterschool programs. The benefits of after school programs on low-income youth are

similar to the positive effects of youth mentoring.14 The Durlak meta-analysis observed that

students in afterschool programs demonstrated significant increases in their self-perceptions and

bonding to school, positive social behaviors, school grades and levels of academic achievement,

and significant reductions in problem behaviors.15 Externalities, offsetting behavior, risks: A

positive externality is economic stimulation, which can stem from the implementation of youth

mentorship policy. The children who were a part of the program may grow up to become more

productive and well-endowed adults. A study published in the American Journal of Community

Psychology proposes that mentors are shown to positively impact the educational and

psychological development of youth. The positive effects of mentorship are carried on into their

adult lives and their future careers, because of that, the kids can grow up and be a more vital part

of society as well as play a larger economic role in society. Offsetting behavior can be that youth

6

in mentorship program feel less need to study schoolwork their own and gain academic

independence because they become reliant on the mentor’s help. b) Analysis: Much of the

research around youth mentorship programs have resulted in positivity towards these programs.

Especially for youth who are classified as high-risk, a dependent mentorship program provides a

source of emotional support that has a significant impact on delinquency and associated

outcomes for youth at risk for delinquency.7 Mentorships are also huge players in the field of

increasing academic achievement. Students who are a part of mentorship programs have shown

to improve based on post-treatment on parent and teacher ratings when it came to externalizing

problems. They are also more confident in their scholastic abilities and the rates of absenteeism

decreased for students in mentorships. c) Cost Benefit Analysis: Proposed Policy: Social

Benefits: More job openings for mentors and because mentoring has shown to improve and

increase students’ confidence, there may be increase participation in class, leading to a more

stimulating learning environment. Private Benefits: Additional learning amenities for youth,

better behavior exhibited by youth, which increase positive social interactions between that child

and his or her family and peers.A4 Social Costs: Mentoring become an alternative for tutoring;

therefore, decrease need for paid tutoring, cutting the demand for paid tutors. Mentorships

become a cheaper form of counseling for at-risk and psychologically harmed youth, decreasing

need to pay for child psychologists and school counselors (indirect, social). Private costs: The

youth who are part of the mentorship programs become overly dependent of their tutors for help

on all problems, both academically and socially. Thereby, the youth become incapable of finding

the solutions by themselves (direct, private). Alternative Policy: Afterschool programs: Direct

Benefits: The academic achievement of youth increases as they spend more time in school and

are offered more resources for help. Direct Costs: Teachers may be unhappy to stay after school

hours to facilitate an afterschool program. Implementation of an afterschool program would also

lead to the expenditure of more school supplies, thereby increasing costs. Indirect Costs:

Companies that charge a fee for academic support will receive fewer customers as many mentor

ship programs are a cheaper form of academic support. Indirect Benefits: The schools that

implement afterschool programs have students with an overall average testing score that is high

than schools without afterschool programs. Thereby, they receive scholarships and grants for

their students’ high academic achievements. The real-estate value may also increase because the

schools in their district have better academic ratings. d) Policy Externalities and Implementation

7

Problems: Externalities include economic stimulation as the result for better-endowed students

after participation in youth mentorship programs. One reason why Big Brothers Big Sisters

(BBBS) has been effective is because BBBS carefully screens and train their volunteers and

maintain a constant degree of quality control.11, 3 Most BBBS programs require that their mentors

make a year’s commitment.11 The problem is that this extensive training and screening is nearly

impossible to implement for all mentorship programs.11 A survey of more than 7000 mentoring

programs found that 36% of volunteering receive less than two hours of training and 22%

received no train at all.11 Moreover, almost one-fifth of the volunteers have never talked to staff

people in their programs.11 Thorough quality control throughout mentorship programs becomes

increasingly more difficult as the number of mentorship programs increase. Conclusion:

Proposed Policy: When taking the mass amounts of research revolving around youth mentorship

programs into consideration, there is little doubt that the positive effects outweigh the negative

effects. The implementation of this policy, which would require New Avery to provide youth

mentorship programs in schools for high-risk children, would be beneficial of its youth

population and should be considered for implementation. Alternative Policy: Although

afterschool programs are shown to have similar positive results as youth mentorships, one crucial

proponent that plays a large role in the success of youth mentorships and that is not present in

afterschool programs is the connectedness between mentor and mentee.18 This connection

provides youth with a degree of support and trust that is irreplaceable and profoundly impacts the

youth’s positive development throughout the course of the mentorship.18,15 The interpersonal

relationship between mentor and mentee is key in the start positive impact the educational and

psychological development of youth.18 Recommendations: New Avery should implement youth

mentoring programs in its schools only if it can monitor mentors and maintain a higher degree of

quality control. The effectiveness of mentorship programs is dependent on the preparedness of

the mentors and their understanding of how to work with youth. BBBS is proof of the necessity

of mentor preparedness. Taxpayers, parents, and teachers are going to be more supportive of the

implementation of this policy if they believe that their children are going to benefit from a new

mentoring program rather than see it as a waste of their children’s time. Therefore, even though

the screening and training of mentors will be time consuming, the positive benefits the children

will experience will be more prominent. More prominent benefits will lead to increased support

of the youth mentorship programs.

8

Appendix A1. State Legislation

State Bill Legislative Summary Last Action

Alabama No action

recorded

Alaska 2015 AK H.B.

203

4/16/2015

Provides fellowships,

coordinating mentorships, or

providing scholarships for

vocational or higher education.

April 16, 2015;

Referred to HOUSE

Committee on

EDUCATION.

Arizona 2015 AZ S.B.

1469

3/5/2015

This bill makes appropriations

and budget reductions in regards

to mentorship programs.

MARCH 12, 2015;

Chapter No. 8

Arkansas No Legislation

California 2015 CA A.B.

1012

2/26/2015

Prohibits school districts from

assigning a pupil enrolled such

grades in a school to exclude

alternative schools, community

day schools, continuation

schools, and opportunity schools.

September 8, 2015;

In SENATE. Read

third time. Passed

SENATE.

To ASSEMBLY for

concurrence.

2015 CA S.C.R. 5

1/6/2015

Designates the month of January

2015 as Mentoring Month.

AUGUST 26, 2015;

Resolution Chapter

No. 139

2015 CA H.B.

1367

4/20/2015

An act for making appropriations

for youth mentoring.

JUNE 4, 2015;

Session Law

Chaptered. Chapter

No. 271

Colorado No action

recorded

Connecticut 2015 CT S.B.

1058

3/5/2015

Concerning chronic absenteeism. July 7, 2015; Public

Act No. 15-225

Delaware 2015 DE H.B.

230B

6/1/2015

An act that makes appropriations

for grants in the fiscal year,

includes appropriations for

mentoring.

JULY 1, 2015;

Chapter Number 76

Florida 2010 FL S.B.

2016

2/16/2015

Establishes the Florida National

Guard Youth Challenge Program

for the purpose of training and

mentoring certain high school

dropouts.

April 30, 2010; In

SENATE. Died in

committee.

2014 FL H.B.

7055

Relates to juvenile justice;

relates to a secure detention

June 17, 2014; Filed

as Chapter No. 2014-

9

2/13/2015 facility. 162

2014 FL S.B. 700

1/22/2014

Relates to Department of

Juvenile Justice.

APRIL 28, 2014; In

SENATE. Laid on

table, refer to H7055

Georgia 2015 GA H.B. 75

1/16/2015

A bill to make appropriations for

the Georgia REACH mentorship.

February 19, 2015;

Act No. 1

2015 GA H.R.

187

2/2/2015

Commending REACH Georgia

for its contributions to education.

February 2, 2015; In

HOUSE. Read third

time. Passed

HOUSE.

Hawaii No action

recorded

Idaho 2015 ID H.B. 233

3/9/2015

Establishes additional provisions

for school counselors; provides

for academic and college or

career advisors and student

mentors.

March 9, 2015; To

HOUSE Committee

on EDUCATION.

Illinois 2015 IL S.B. 1260

2/17/2015

Amends the State Budget Law,

includes mentorships.

March 19, 2015; In

SENATE Committee

on EXECUTIVE: To

Special Issues (EX).

Indiana 2015 IN H.B.

1001

1/15/2015

An ACT to amend the Indiana

Code concerning state offices

and administration.

MAY 7, 2015;

Public Law No. 213

2015 IL H.B.

4049

2/27/2015

An act concerning people with

disabilities and mentorships.

JULY 27, 2015;

Public Act No. 143

Iowa 2015 IA S.B. 505

5/4/2015

Relates to making appropriations

for human services.

AUGUST 27, 2015;

Chapter No. 137

Kansas 2015 KS S.B. 7

12/30/14

Issues the classroom learning

assuring student success act that

includes mentor teaching

programs along with other

programs such as parent

education programs.

June 1, 2015;

Chapter No. 2015-4

Kentucky 2014 KY S.B. 200

3/5/2014

Relates to the juvenile justice

system.

APRIL 25, 2014;

Act No. 132

Louisiana 2014 LA H.R. 110

5/5/14

Acknowledges the employees of

the Office of Juvenile Justice for

their work in mentoring and

provide youth with a new

direction in life.

MAY 5, 2014;

Passed HOUSE.

10

Maine No action

recorded

Maryland No action

recorded

Massachusetts 2015 MA

H.B. 3401

04/29/2015

An act that makes monetary

appropriations for the year of

2016, targeting mentorship

programs and to support schools.

JULY 7, 2015; A

part reported from

CONFERENCE

Committee by

substitution of New

Draft. See H 3651.

Michigan 2015 MI

H.B. 4115

06/17/2015

To amend 1979 PA which makes

appropriations for schools.

July 1, 2015; In

SENATE. Passed

SENATE.

2015 MI S.B. 133

2/17/2015

An ACT to make, supplement,

adjust, and consolidate

appropriations.

June 17, 2015;

Public Act No. 84

Minnesota 2015 MN H.B. 1A

6/12/2015

A bill for an act relating to state

government; providing for

funding and policy in early

childhood, kindergarten through

grade 12, and adult education.

June 13, 2015; Filed

with Secretary of

State.

2015 MN H.B.

1591

3/9/2015

A bill for an act relating to

education innovation.

March 23, 2015;

Referred to HOUSE

Committee on

EDUCATION

FINANCE.

Mississippi 2014 MS

H.B. 288

1/13/2014

An act that creates the

“Mississippi Youthbuild Act.”

FEBRUARY 4,

2014; Died in

Committee.

Missouri 2014 MO

H.B. 2207

03/27/2014

Enacted sections relating to

subjecting tax credit programs.

Makes appropriations, including

to mentorships.

March 27, 2014;

INTRODUCED.

Montana No action

recorded

Nebraska

Nevada 015 NV A.B. 205

3/2/2015

Proposes guidelines and plans

for mentorship programs to

education and criminal justice,

and employment to by high-risk

students.

MAY 30, 2015;

Chaptered. Chapter

No. 292

New Hampshire No action

recorded

11

New Jersey 2014 NJ

A.B. 940

10/09/2014

An act that establishes the “new

Jersey Innovation School Grant

Pilot Program” in the

Department of Education in

support of mentorships.

October 9, 2014;

From ASSEMBLY

Committee on

EDUCATION as

amended.

New Mexico No action

recorded

New York 2015 NY

A.B. 835

01/07/2015

Amend the education law in

relation to enacting the “New

York state Youthbuild Act.”

January 7, 2015;

To ASSEMBLY

Committee on

EDUCATION.

2015 NY

S.B. 4612

04/13/2015

An act to amend chapters of laws

of 2015, enacting the aid to

special education programs

relating to providing mentorship

and tutoring programs.

APRIL 13, 2015;

Chapter No. 61

North Carolina 2015 NC

H.B. 97

05/22/2015

Makes appropriations for the

current operations of state

departments, which include

providing funds for education

and mentorship.

JULY 14, 2015; To

CONFERENCE

Committee.

North Dakota

Ohio 2014 OH

E.O. 5

11/03/2014

Creates the Community

Connecter and Mentoring

Program Advisory Board.

NOVEMBER 3,

2014; Effective.

Oklahoma 2015 OK

S.B. 831

04/10/2015

Related to amending multiple

versions of statutes , which

include the provision of tutoring

and mentoring to students with

education deficiencies.

APRIL 10, 2015;

Chapter No. 54

Oregon 2015 OR H.B.

2408

1/12/2015

Relating to administration of

community colleges; creating

new provisions.

June 15, 2015;

Chaptered. Chapter

No. 366

Pennsylvania 2015 PA S.B. 56

Provides the National Guard

Youth Challenge program

JANUARY 14,

2015; To SENATE

Committee on

VETERANS

AFFAIRS AND

EMERGENCY

PREPAREDNESS.

Rhode Island 2015 RI H.B.

6016

4/1/15

Establishes a transition plan for

all children who are mentally

delayed or emotionally

disturbed, which also addresses

education, mentors, and ongoing

June 25, 2015;

Signed by Governor,

Public Law No.

2015-130

12

support services.

South Carolina 2015 SC H.B.

3701

3/3/2015

Makes appropriations and

provides revenues to meet the

ordinary expenses of state

government.

JULY 15, 2015; Act

No. 91

South Dakota

Tennessee No action

recorded

Texas 2015 TX H.B. 18

3/2/2015

Relates to measures to support

public school student academic

achievement and high school,

college, and career preparation.

July 31, 2015; Filed

with Secretary of

State

2015 TX H.B.

1763

2/23/2015

Relates to the continuation and

functions of the State Education

Agency and to the abolition of

the State Board for Educator

Certification

March 12, 2015; To

HOUSE Committee

on PUBLIC

EDUCATION.

Utah No action

recorded

Vermont No action

recorded

Virginia 2014 VA H.B.

5002A

3/24/2014

Related to appropriations by the

Governor.

JUNE 23, 2014; Acts

of Assembly.

Chapter No. 2

Washington 2015 WA H.B.

1982

2/3/2015

Enhances student completion

through advising, mentoring,

recapture initiatives, remedial

programs, and accelerated pre-

college instruction.

June 28, 2015; By

Order of Resolution

Reintroduced and

retained in present

status.

West Virginia 2015 WV S.C.R.

45

MARCH 12, 2015;

Passed HOUSE.

Wisconsin No action

recorded

Wyoming No action

recorded

Source: http://web.lexis-nexis.com/stcapuniv

A2. Federal Legislative History

Bill or Act Legislative Summary Last Action

13

101 Bill Profile H.R. 2614

A bill to establish a pilot

program to encourage college

students to serve as mentors for

disadvantaged youths.

9/13/1989; Cosponsors added.

104 Bill Profile S. 1205

A bill to provide for the

establishment of

a mentor school program, and

for other purposes.

9/6/1995; Referred to the

Senate Labor and Human

Resources Committee

H.R.3168

To establish a mentorship

program for at risk children.

9/19/2007 Referred to the

Subcommittee on Healthy

Families and Communities

H.R.4122 - Graduation for All

Act

To support high-need middle

and high schools in order to

improve students’ academic

achievement.

01/04/2010 Referred to the

Subcommittee on Early

Childhood, Elementary, and

Secondary Education.

H.R.1064

To provide for evidence-based

and promising practices related

to juvenile delinquency and

criminal street gang activity

prevention.

12/22/2010; Committee on

Financial Services discharged.

2013 H.R.1318

Youth Prison Reduction

through Opportunity,

Mentoring, Intervention,

Support and Education

04/23/2013;

Referred to the Subcommittee

on Early Childhood,

Elementary, and Secondary

Education.

2015 S.1169

Amends the Juvenile Justice

and Delinquency Prevention

Act of 1974

07/23/2015; Committee on the

Judiciary

Source: https://www.congress.gov/

A3. Federal Court Cases

Case Year Holding

In re JULIAN M., a Person

Coming Under the Juvenile

Court Law.

SAN DIEGO COUNTY

HEALTH AND HUMAN

SERVICES AGENCY,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

TERRY W., Defendant and

2008 Courts terminated parental

rights and Julian’s mentor was

allowed to adopt Julian in

attempt to provide the child

with more stabilized life.

14

Appellant.

Sources:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4213174110837866139&q=youth+mentor&hl=en&as_sdt=6,33

A4.

Model of Youth Mentoring

Rhodes, Jean E. "A Model of Youth Mentoring." Handbook of youth mentoring (2005): 30-

43. Web.

15

References

1) Anuszkiewizcz, B., et al. “Finding resources to support mentoring programs and services for

youth. The Finance Project.” Retrieved from

http://www.financeproject.org/publications/ FindingResources-MentoringPrograms.pdf

2) Bayer, Amanda, Jean Baldwin Grossman, and David L. DuBois. "Using Volunteer Mentors to

Improve the Academic Outcomes of Underserved Students: The Role of

Relationships." Journal of community psychology 43.4 (2015): 408-29. Print.

3) Cook, Clay R., et al. "Evaluation of the Courage and Confidence Mentor Program as a Tier 2

Intervention for Middle School Students with Identified Internalizing Problems." School

Mental Health 7.2 (2015): 132-46. Print.

4) DuBois, David L., et al. "How Effective are Mentoring Programs for Youth? A Systematic

Assessment of the Evidence." Psychological Science in the Public Interest 12.2 (2011):

57-91. Print.

5) DuBois, David L., et al. "Research Methodology and Youth Mentoring." Journal of

community psychology 34.6 (2006): 657-76. Print.

6) DuBois, David L., and Michael J. Karcher. "Youth Mentoring." Handbook of youth

mentoring (2005): 2-11. Print.

7) Durlak, Joseph A., Roger P. Weissberg, and Molly Pachan. "A Meta-Analysis of After-School

Programs that Seek to Promote Personal and Social Skills in Children and

Adolescents." American Journal of Community Psychology 45.3-4 (2010): 294-309.

Print.

8) Grossman, Jean Baldwin, Karen Walker, and Rebecca Raley. "Challenges and Opportunities

in After-School Programs: Lessons for Policymakers and Funders." (2001)Print.

9) Karcher, Michael J., Davis,Claytie, I.,II, and Brad Powell. "The Effects of Developmental

Mentoring on Connectedness and Academic Achievement." School Community

Journal 12.2 (2002): 35-50. ProQuest. Web. 15 Sep. 2015.

10) Leos-Urbel, Jacob. "What Works After School? the Relationship between After-School

Program Quality, Program Attendance, and Academic Outcomes." Youth & Society 47.5

(2015): 684-706. Print.

11) Pryce, Julia, et al. "Mentoring in the Social Context: Mentors' Experiences with Mentees'

Peers in a Site-Based Program." Children and Youth Services Review 56 (2015): 185-92.

Print.

12) Rhodes, Jean E. "A Model of Youth Mentoring." Handbook of youth mentoring (2005): 30-

43. Web.

16

13) Rhodes, Jean E., and David L. DuBois. "Understanding and Facilitating the Youth

Mentoring Movement. Social Policy Report. Volume 22, Number 3." Society for

Research in Child Development (2006)Print.

14) Thompson, Lynn A., and Lisa Kelly-Vance. "The Impact of Mentoring on Academic

Achievement of at-Risk Youth." Children and Youth Services Review 23.3 (2001): 227-

42. Print.

15) Timpe, Zach C., and Erika Lunkenheimer. "The Long-Term Economic Benefits of Natural

Mentoring Relationships for Youth." American Journal of Community Psychology 56.1-2

(2015): 12-24. Print.

16) Tolan, Patrick H., et al. "Mentoring Programs to Affect Delinquency and Associated

Outcomes of Youth at Risk: A Comprehensive Meta-Analytic Review." Journal of

Experimental Criminology 10.2 (2014): 179-206. Web.

17) Weatherman, Jodi L. Mentor Programs and the Impact on School Connectedness. Gardner-

Webb University, 2013. Web.

18) "Youth Mentoring in Perspective." Youth Mentoring in Perspective. Web. 24 Sept. 2015.

19) Zand, Debra H., et al. "The Mentor-Youth Alliance: The Role of Mentoring Relationships in

Promoting Youth Competence." Journal of adolescence 32.1 (2009): 1-17. Web.