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

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 youths development.1 The programs have been advertised
to be a solution for various problems currently affecting societys 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? Analysts 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

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, Julians 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 childs 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,

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 todays 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

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

in mentorship program feel less need to study schoolwork their own and gain academic
independence because they become reliant on the mentors 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

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 years 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
youths 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 childrens 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.

Appendix A1. State Legislation

Bill
No action
recorded
2015 AK H.B.
203
4/16/2015

Legislative Summary

Last Action

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 AUGUST 26, 2015;

2015 as Mentoring Month.
Resolution Chapter
No. 139
An act for making appropriations JUNE 4, 2015;
for youth mentoring.
Session Law
Chaptered. Chapter
No. 271

State
Alabama
Alaska

2015 CA H.B.
1367
4/20/2015
Colorado
Connecticut

Delaware

Florida

No action
recorded
2015 CT S.B.
1058
3/5/2015
2015 DE H.B.
230B
6/1/2015
2010 FL S.B.
2016
2/16/2015

2014 FL H.B.
7055

Concerning chronic absenteeism.

July 7, 2015; Public

Act No. 15-225

An act that makes appropriations

for grants in the fiscal year,
includes appropriations for
mentoring.
Establishes the Florida National
Guard Youth Challenge Program
for the purpose of training and
mentoring certain high school
dropouts.
Relates to juvenile justice;
relates to a secure detention

JULY 1, 2015;
Chapter Number 76

April 30, 2010; In

SENATE. Died in
committee.

June 17, 2014; Filed

as Chapter No. 2014-

2/13/2015

facility.

2014 FL S.B. 700

1/22/2014

Relates to Department of
Juvenile Justice.

Georgia

2015 GA H.B. 75
1/16/2015
2015 GA H.R.
187
2/2/2015

Hawaii

No action
recorded
2015 ID H.B. 233
3/9/2015

Idaho

162

APRIL 28, 2014; In

SENATE. Laid on
table, refer to H7055
A bill to make appropriations for February 19, 2015;
the Georgia REACH mentorship. Act No. 1
Commending REACH Georgia
February 2, 2015; In
for its contributions to education. HOUSE. Read third
time. Passed
HOUSE.

Illinois

2015 IL S.B. 1260

2/17/2015

Establishes additional provisions

for school counselors; provides
for academic and college or
career advisors and student
mentors.
Amends the State Budget Law,
includes mentorships.

Indiana

2015 IN H.B.
1001
1/15/2015

An ACT to amend the Indiana

Code concerning state offices
and administration.

2015 IL H.B.
4049
2/27/2015
2015 IA S.B. 505
5/4/2015

An act concerning people with

disabilities and mentorships.

JULY 27, 2015;

Public Act No. 143

Relates to making appropriations

for human services.

AUGUST 27, 2015;

Chapter No. 137

Issues the classroom learning

assuring student success act that
includes mentor teaching
programs along with other
programs such as parent
education programs.
2014 KY S.B. 200 Relates to the juvenile justice
3/5/2014
system.
2014 LA H.R. 110 Acknowledges the employees of
5/5/14
the Office of Juvenile Justice for
their work in mentoring and
provide youth with a new
direction in life.

June 1, 2015;
Chapter No. 2015-4

Iowa

Kansas

2015 KS S.B. 7

12/30/14

Kentucky
Louisiana

March 9, 2015; To
HOUSE Committee
on EDUCATION.

March 19, 2015; In

SENATE Committee
on EXECUTIVE: To
Special Issues (EX).
MAY 7, 2015;
Public Law No. 213

APRIL 25, 2014;

Act No. 132
MAY 5, 2014;
Passed HOUSE.

Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts

No action
recorded
No action
recorded
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.
To amend 1979 PA which makes July 1, 2015; In
appropriations for schools.
SENATE. Passed
SENATE.
An ACT to make, supplement,
June 17, 2015;
adjust, and consolidate
Public Act No. 84
appropriations.

Michigan

2015 MI
H.B. 4115
06/17/2015
2015 MI S.B. 133
2/17/2015

Minnesota

2015 MN H.B. 1A A bill for an act relating to state

6/12/2015
government; providing for
funding and policy in early
childhood, kindergarten through
grade 12, and adult education.
2015 MN H.B.
A bill for an act relating to
1591
education innovation.
3/9/2015

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

2014 MS
H.B. 288
1/13/2014
2014 MO
H.B. 2207
03/27/2014

An act that creates the

Mississippi Youthbuild Act.
Enacted sections relating to
subjecting tax credit programs.
Makes appropriations, including
to mentorships.

June 13, 2015; Filed

with Secretary of
State.

March 23, 2015;

Referred to HOUSE
Committee on
EDUCATION
FINANCE.
FEBRUARY 4,
2014; Died in
Committee.
March 27, 2014;
INTRODUCED.

No action
recorded

Nebraska
Nevada

015 NV A.B. 205

3/2/2015

New Hampshire

No action
recorded

Proposes guidelines and plans

for mentorship programs to
education and criminal justice,
and employment to by high-risk
students.

10

MAY 30, 2015;

Chaptered. Chapter
No. 292

New Jersey

2014 NJ
A.B. 940
10/09/2014

New Mexico

No action
recorded
2015 NY
A.B. 835
01/07/2015

New York

2015 NY
S.B. 4612
04/13/2015

North Carolina

2015 NC
H.B. 97
05/22/2015

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.

Amend the education law in

relation to enacting the New
York state Youthbuild Act.

January 7, 2015;
To ASSEMBLY
Committee on
EDUCATION.
An act to amend chapters of laws APRIL 13, 2015;
of 2015, enacting the aid to
Chapter No. 61
special education programs
relating to providing mentorship
and tutoring programs.
Makes appropriations for the
JULY 14, 2015; To
current operations of state
CONFERENCE
departments, which include
Committee.
providing funds for education
and mentorship.

North Dakota
Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

2014 OH
E.O. 5
11/03/2014
2015 OK
S.B. 831
04/10/2015

2015 OR H.B.
2408
1/12/2015
2015 PA S.B. 56

2015 RI H.B.
6016
4/1/15

Creates the Community

Connecter and Mentoring
Program Advisory Board.
Related to amending multiple
versions of statutes , which
include the provision of tutoring
and mentoring to students with
education deficiencies.
Relating to administration of
community colleges; creating
new provisions.
Provides the National Guard
Youth Challenge program

Establishes a transition plan for

all children who are mentally
delayed or emotionally
disturbed, which also addresses
education, mentors, and ongoing

11

NOVEMBER 3,
2014; Effective.
APRIL 10, 2015;
Chapter No. 54

June 15, 2015;

Chaptered. Chapter
No. 366
JANUARY 14,
2015; To SENATE
Committee on
VETERANS
AFFAIRS AND
EMERGENCY
PREPAREDNESS.
June 25, 2015;
Signed by Governor,
Public Law No.
2015-130

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

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

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.

Related to appropriations by the

Governor.

JUNE 23, 2014; Acts

of Assembly.
Chapter No. 2
June 28, 2015; By
Order of Resolution
Reintroduced and
retained in present
status.
MARCH 12, 2015;
Passed HOUSE.

South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas

No action
recorded
2015 TX H.B. 18
3/2/2015

2015 TX H.B.
1763
2/23/2015

Utah
Vermont
Virginia

Washington

No action
recorded
No action
recorded
2014 VA H.B.
5002A
3/24/2014
2015 WA H.B.
1982
2/3/2015

Enhances student completion

through advising, mentoring,
recapture initiatives, remedial
programs, and accelerated precollege instruction.

West Virginia

2015 WV S.C.R.
45
Wisconsin
No action
recorded
Wyoming
No action
recorded
Source: http://web.lexis-nexis.com/stcapuniv

A2. Federal Legislative History

Bill or Act
Legislative Summary

12

Last Action

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.
Youth Prison Reduction
through Opportunity,
Mentoring, Intervention,
Support and Education

12/22/2010; Committee on
Financial Services discharged.

2013 H.R.1318

2015 S.1169

Amends the Juvenile Justice

and Delinquency Prevention
Act of 1974

04/23/2013;
Referred to the Subcommittee
on Early Childhood,
Elementary, and Secondary
Education.
07/23/2015; Committee on the
Judiciary

Source: https://www.congress.gov/
A3. Federal Court Cases
Case
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

Year

Holding

2008

Courts terminated parental

rights and Julians mentor was
allowed to adopt Julian in
attempt to provide the child
with more stabilized life.

13

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): 3043. Web.

14

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): 3043. Web.

15

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): 22742. 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. GardnerWebb 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.

16