Overview of Review Activities
The National Mentoring Resource Center Research Board reviews research regarding the effectiveness of specific mentoring programs, as well as different practices and resources for use in programs.
- Mentoring programs may be focused entirely on mentoring or may include mentoring as one of several program components.
- Mentoring practices are strategies or approaches that can be used in implementing one or more components of a mentoring program. Examples include youth-initiated mentoring and pre-match training of mentors. Such practices can often be implemented in a wide variety of program models and settings.
- Resources are materials developed by the mentoring field to support the implementation of programs and specific types of practices. These include guidebooks, curricula, handbooks, tools, and other materials that have been developed to support the implementation of quality mentoring services for youth.
- To learn more about how these reviews are conducted, click here.
Research Board
The National Mentoring Resource Center Research Board, chaired by Dr. David DuBois at the University of Illinois at Chicago, is comprised of prominent researchers who have expertise in areas that are representative of the diversity in youth mentoring practice with regard to program models, settings for implementation, and specific populations and outcomes of interest. In the future, a process will be in place to nominate additional members.
The Research Board’s primary role is to assess and report on the evidence that bears on the effectiveness of different mentoring programs, practices, and resources that are intended to promote positive youth outcomes, particularly those relating to prevention of delinquent behavior, victimization and juvenile justice system involvement.
The work of the Research Board is also supported by Kelly Stewart, Ph.D., Fasika Alem, Ph.D., and Naida Silverthorn, Ph.D., at the University of Illinois at Chicago.
The current Research Board members and their primary areas of expertise are as follows:
| Research Board Members |
|---|
| David DuBois, Ph.D. (University of Illinois at Chicago) Chair |
| Gabriel Kuperminc, Ph.D. (Georgia State University) Associate Chair |
| Amy Anderson, Ph.D. (University of North Texas) |
| Crystal S. Aschenbrener, DSW, MSW, APSW (Campbellsville University) |
| Edmond P. Bowers, Ph.D. (Clemson University) |
| Tim Brezina, PhD (Georgia State University) |
| Timothy Cavell, Ph.D. (University of Arkansas) |
| Molly Cory, Ph.D. (DePaul University) |
| Amanda L. Davis, M.A. (Elon University) |
| Nancy L. Deutsch, Ph.D. (University of Virginia) |
| Mark Eddy, Ph.D. (University of Texas Austin) |
| Katie Edwards, Ph.D. (University of Nebraska) |
| Chris Elledge, Ph.D. (University of Tennessee at Knoxville) |
| Gizem Erdem, Ph.D. (Koç University, Istanbul) |
| Joseph Gardella, Ph.D. (University of Michigan) |
| Grace Gowdy, PhD (Education Northwest) |
| Aisha Griffith, Ph.D. (University of Illinois-Chicago) |
| Matthew Hagler, Ph.D. (Francis Marion University) |
| Mary Agnes Hamilton, Ph.D. (Cornell University) |
| Stephen Hamilton, Ph.D. (Cornell University) |
| Stephanie Hawkins, Ph.D. (RTI International) |
| Carla Herrera, Ph.D (Independent consultant) |
| Noelle Hurd, Ph.D. (University of Virginia) |
| Roger Jarjoura, Ph.D. (Independent consultant) |
| Kristian Jones, Ph.D. (University of Washington) |
| Michael J. Karcher, Ed.D., Ph.D. (University of Texas at San Antonio) |
| Michelle R. Kaufman, Ph.D. (Johns Hopkins University) |
| Thomas E. Keller, Ph.D. (Portland State University) |
| Mariah Kornbluh, PhD (University of Oregon) |
| Sally Lindsay, Ph.D. (Bloorview Research Institute; University of Toronto) |
| Michael D. Lyons, Ph.D., NCSP (University of Virginia) |
| Sam McQuillin, Ph.D. (University of South Carolina) |
| Theresa Melton, PhD (Clemson University) |
| Lidia Monjaras-Gaytan, Ph.D. (Loyola University Chicago) |
| Liliokanaio Peaslee, Ph.D. (James Madison University) |
| Julia Pryce, Ph.D., LCSW (Loyola University Chicago) |
| Bernadette Sanchez, Ph.D. (DePaul University) |
| Christian Rummell, Ph.D. (Independent consultant) |
| Renee Spencer, Ed.D., LICSW (Boston University) |
| Rebecca Stelter, PhD (Innovation Research & Training) |
| Amy Syvertsen, Ph.D. (Independent consultant) |
| Manolya Tanyu, Ph.D. (Independent consultant) |
| Heather Taussig, Ph.D. (University of Denver) |
| Amanda Teye, Ph.D. (James Madison University) |
| Lindsey Weiler, Ph.D. (University of Minnesota) |
| Alexandra Werntz, Ph.D. (Center for Evidence-Based Mentoring, UMass-Boston) |
| Jonathan Zaff, Ph.D. (Northeastern University) |
Associate Research Board
| Associate Research Board |
|---|
| Westley Fallavollita, M.Ed. (University of Virginia) |
| Yesenia Garcia Murillo, M.A. (DePaul University) |
| Tyris L. Gillis, M.Ed. (University of North Carolina at Charlotte) |
| Yunqi He, M.A. (University of Minnesota) |
| Wendy de los Reyes, M.S.Ed. (University of Michigan) |
| Maritza Salsido, M.Ed. (Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nuremberg) |
| Savannah Simpson, M.S. (University of South Carolina) |
Reviews of Mentoring Programs
Reviews of mentoring programs are carried out in accordance with the established procedures of CrimeSolutions.gov. The National Mentoring Resource Center Research Board periodically searches the mentoring research literature to identify programs to be reviewed. To be reviewed, both the program and its evidence base must pass an initial screening based on CrimeSolutions.gov’s eligibility requirements. Eligible programs are then placed in a queue to be reviewed. Prioritization for review is based on a number of programmatic and methodological considerations. These include the extent to which a program’s aims and practices are aligned with areas of greatest identified need for the mentoring field. You can also nominate additional programs for review here.
CrimeSolutions.gov focuses on what works in criminal justice, juvenile justice, and crime victim services, emphasizing program outcomes in domains such as delinquency, anti-social behaviors, and substance abuse. Mentoring programs are reviewed by Research Board members and Post-Doctoral Research Associates of the National Mentoring Resource Center who have been trained and certified in CrimeSolutions.gov review procedures. The review process for each program is overseen by Dr. David DuBois, Chair of the Research Board, except in those instances where a conflict of interest exists.
The evidence base for each program is classified using the following key:
Effective
Program has strong evidence that it achieves justice-related goals when implemented with fidelity.
Promising
Program has some evidence that it achieves justice-related goals when implemented with fidelity.
No Effects
Program has strong evidence that it did not achieve justice-related goals (or had harmful effects).
Insufficient Research
Some relevant research may be available but is inconclusive. More research is needed to determine effectiveness.
A single study icon is used to identify programs that have been evaluated with only one study. A multiple studies icon is used to represent a greater extent of evidence supporting the evidence rating. The icon depicts programs that have more than one study demonstrating effects in a consistent direction.
The listing of each program on the National Mentoring Resource Center website includes this overall classification along with a link to the accompanying profile of the program and its evidence base on CrimeSolutions.gov. Also included are Insights for Practitioners. These commentaries highlight key takeaways, program design considerations, and implementation tips. For more information about the program review methodology, please visit CrimeSolutions.gov.
More detailed information about the procedures used by the Research Board to identify and review youth mentoring programs can be found here:
Reviews of Mentoring Practices
The National Mentoring Resource Center Research Board identifies practices to review based on periodic searches of the mentoring research literature as well as various forms of outreach to the mentoring field. To be reviewed, a practice must have been evaluated for effectiveness in one or more studies that meet established criteria for rigor. Eligible practices are then prioritized for review based on several considerations, including the extent to which the practice aligns with areas of greatest identified need for the mentoring field. You can nominate additional practices for review here.
The Research Board reviews the evidence base for each practice using a standardized protocol and scoring instrument. Based on this review, the evidence base for the practice’s effectiveness is classified according to the same categories as those described above for programs.
The listing for each practice provides information about the practice’s structure and implementation, the program settings where it has been used, the research that bears on its effectiveness, and information on how to access relevant resources and supporting materials.
More detailed information about the procedures used by the Research Board to identify and review practices, as well as the instrument that is used in the review process, can be found here:
Reviews of Mentoring Resources
The National Mentoring Resource Center relies primarily on nominations from the mentoring field to identify resources to review. You can nominate resources for review here.
- Tier 1 review is used when a resource has been evaluated for effectiveness in research that meets established criteria for rigor. This research is reviewed using a standard protocol and scoring instrument to arrive at a classification of the evidence base for the resource in a manner similar to programs and practices (see above). Only those resources classified as Promising or Effective are listed on the National Mentoring Resource Center website.
- Tier 2 review is used for any resource that has not yet been rigorously evaluated for effectiveness. The purpose of this review is to ensure that the resource does not conflict significantly with other relevant research. Only those resources that pass this screening are listed on the National Mentoring Resource Center website.
The listing for each resource includes a brief description, a summary of applicable research (Tier 1 reviewed resources only), and information for accessing and using the resource. Most resources are directly available for download from the National Mentoring Resource Center website or elsewhere online.
More detailed information about the procedures used by the Research Board to review resources can be found here: