How after-school mentoring programs and general after school programs work to prevent and reduce juvenile delinquency? “Mentoring programs for at-risk youth are growing at a rapid pace” in the United States (Keating et. al, 2002, p. 717). These programs are designed to provide support to at-risk youth who usually “come from single-parent homes, who show signs of emotional or behavioral problems, and who lack the support to navigate developmental tasks successfully” (Keating et. al, 2002, p. 717). Mentoring programs may have different curricula, but most accentuate “the relationship between a disadvantaged or troubled youngster and a caring adult” (Keating et. al, 2002, p. 717). The relationship usually requires for the youngster and the
…show more content…
719). This program matches “at-risk youth with adult mentors” to have mentees meet regularly with their mentors and participate in positive activities (e.g., sports) that can deter, guide, and support at-risk youths (Keating et al., 2002). Keating et al. (2002) noted that the Big Brother/Big Sister mentoring program had a positive outcome in a study conducted “during 1992-1993” (p. 719). In the same way, Frecknall and Luks (1992) reported a positive outcome from the “New York City Big Brothers/Big Sisters” mentoring program (Keating et al., 2002, p. 719 as cited in Frecknall and Luks, 1992). Nonetheless, Royse (1998) did not report a significant outcome from a “4-year mentoring project developed specifically for high-risk African American adolescents” (Keating et al., 2002, p. 719, as cited in Royse, 1998). Moreover, as Royse, Nelson and Valliant (1993) did not report a significant statistical difference in at-risk youth who participated in the mentoring program (Keating et al., 2002 as cited in Nelson and Valliant, 1993). The different outcomes of these mentoring programs drove Keating et al. (2002) to pursue a study to measure the effectiveness of mentoring programs on at-risk youth and explore the difficulties in studying such …show more content…
In particular, four studies will be analyzed in detailed to measure the effectiveness of these programs. The first study to be analyzed will be the research of Keating, Tomishima, Foster, and Alessandri (2002) to get a detailed insight on how mentoring programs support at-risk youth. The second research to be evaluated will be the study conducted by Coller and Kuo (2014). A detail analysis of this research will provide information on how a Los Angeles school-based mentorship program influenced a specific population (i.e., Latino Children). The third study to be scrutinized will be the research conducted by Stinson (2009). An in-depth analysis of this study will provide more information on how various art and cultural programs were utilized to assess at-risk youth and deter juveniles from engaging in criminal behavior. The forth research that will be thoroughly explored was conducted by Gottfredson, Gerstenblith, Soule, Womer , and Lu (2004). A careful analysis of this research will provide data on howan after school program that took place in Maryland influenced the rate of juvenile
719). This program matches “at-risk youth with adult mentors” to have mentees meet regularly with their mentors and participate in positive activities (e.g., sports) that can deter, guide, and support at-risk youths (Keating et al., 2002). Keating et al. (2002) noted that the Big Brother/Big Sister mentoring program had a positive outcome in a study conducted “during 1992-1993” (p. 719). In the same way, Frecknall and Luks (1992) reported a positive outcome from the “New York City Big Brothers/Big Sisters” mentoring program (Keating et al., 2002, p. 719 as cited in Frecknall and Luks, 1992). Nonetheless, Royse (1998) did not report a significant outcome from a “4-year mentoring project developed specifically for high-risk African American adolescents” (Keating et al., 2002, p. 719, as cited in Royse, 1998). Moreover, as Royse, Nelson and Valliant (1993) did not report a significant statistical difference in at-risk youth who participated in the mentoring program (Keating et al., 2002 as cited in Nelson and Valliant, 1993). The different outcomes of these mentoring programs drove Keating et al. (2002) to pursue a study to measure the effectiveness of mentoring programs on at-risk youth and explore the difficulties in studying such …show more content…
In particular, four studies will be analyzed in detailed to measure the effectiveness of these programs. The first study to be analyzed will be the research of Keating, Tomishima, Foster, and Alessandri (2002) to get a detailed insight on how mentoring programs support at-risk youth. The second research to be evaluated will be the study conducted by Coller and Kuo (2014). A detail analysis of this research will provide information on how a Los Angeles school-based mentorship program influenced a specific population (i.e., Latino Children). The third study to be scrutinized will be the research conducted by Stinson (2009). An in-depth analysis of this study will provide more information on how various art and cultural programs were utilized to assess at-risk youth and deter juveniles from engaging in criminal behavior. The forth research that will be thoroughly explored was conducted by Gottfredson, Gerstenblith, Soule, Womer , and Lu (2004). A careful analysis of this research will provide data on howan after school program that took place in Maryland influenced the rate of juvenile