Mentoring to reduce antisocial behaviour in childhood
BMJ 2004; 328 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.328.7438.512 (Published 26 February 2004) Cite this as: BMJ 2004;328:512
All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
Dear Sir,
Rey Carr suggests that we are ignoring significant studies which
contradict our conclusions. However, if one compares the studies we used
with those reviewed by Jekielek et al it will be clear that we are
looking at the same studies, but by using findings from the largest meta-
analysis on mentoring covering even wider ground.1 This analysis included
55 evaluations of mentoring programmes, which were assessed for
methodological quality, compared with the 10 studies used in the review by
Jekielek et al. We are not alone in questioning the uncritical endorsement
of mentoring,2;3 and want to make clear that far from being anti-
mentoring, we are pro-intervention and wish to support the development of
programmes on the basis of the best evidence we can muster.
Carr feels that we are ignoring the many organisations in North
America with stories to tell about the power and impact of mentoring. We
agree that the best way to understand the experience of mentoring is
through observations and accounts of peoples’ experiences, whether
positive or negative, and this information can help us deliver better
services. However, the best way to reliably assess whether or not an
intervention is doing more good than harm is by experimental studies which
compare progress of those who do and don’t receive mentoring, in a
randomised trial. Both the types of qualitative approaches suggested by
Carr and rigorously controlled outcome evaluations are equally important,
but tell us different things. Our focus on the latter is consistent with
our aims of addressing evidence of when mentoring does and does not “work”
under different conditions of implementation and for differing subgroups
of youth.
Our paper drew on evaluations of a large mentoring organisation in
the US and Europe4;5 which should be commended for its efforts in
evaluation. Their randomised controlled trial found evidence of positive
effects from mentoring, but also indicated that it may have harmful
effects that are concentrated among a sub-sample of particularly
vulnerable young people. This finding can alert mentoring organisations to
the possible harms to some groups of youngsters.
Our goal, like Carr’s, is to improve outcomes for young people. In
order to do so, and avoid doing harm, we need to aspire to a quality stamp
on every intervention that we put in place. The desire to do good is no
guarantee of ability to do good.
Kristin Liabo
David DuBois
Patricia Lucas
Trevor Sheldon
Helen Roberts
References:
1. DuBois DL, Holloway BE, Valentine JC, Cooper H. Effectiveness of
mentoring programs for youth: a meta-analytic review. Am J Community
Psychol 2002;30:157-97.
2. Hall JC. Mentoring and young people. A literature review. Glasgow: SCRE
Centre;2003
3. McCord J, Sptaz Wisdom C, Crowell NA. Juvenile crime. Juvenile justice.
Washington DC: National Academy Press; 2001
4. Grossman JB, Tierney JP. Does mentoring work? An impact study of the
Big Brothers Big Sisters program. Eval Rev 1998;22:403-26
5. Grossman JB, Rhodes JE. The test of time: predictors and effects of
duration in youth mentoring programs. Am J Community Psychol 2002;30:199-
206
Competing interests:
All the authors are involved in research on evidence-based services.
Competing interests: No competing interests
The authors of this article try to make a strong argument for the
idea that mentoring at-risk youth has considerable momentum, but
lacks any real foundation based on research.
However, their conclusions are not on solid ground. First, the
authors have ignored many significant studies (which actually
contradict most of their conclusions about the outcomes of
mentoring). One important paper they seem to have overlooked,
for example, is the 2002 report, Mentoring Programs and Youth
Development: A Synthesis by Susan Jekielek, Kirstin Moore, and
Elizabeth Hair.
The studies they do cite that appear to show negative outcomes
(one study that is 17 years old and another study which is 25
years old) actually place those outcomes in a specific context and
did in fact also show positive outcomes. Ironically an article that
appeared 15 years later in one of the same journals showed that
mentoring had played a significant role in reducing anti-social
behavior. (See: An Integrated Components Preventive
Intervention for Aggressive Elementary School Children: The Early
Risers Program by Gerald J. August, George M. Realmuto, Joel M.
Hektner, and Michael L. Bloomquist that appeared in the Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology. Vol. 69 (4) August 2001, pp.
614-626)
In addition to missing significant studies, the authors take a very
narrow view of research. Rather than recognizing the findings of
literally thousands of practitioners, the validity of anecdotal,
narrative, single-case studies, phenomenological, and other
qualitative methods, the authors think that the quantitative
research method they espouse ought to drive mentoring programs
and activities. True progress in science also comes from the other
way around: research that follows practice.
Another interesting aspect of their study is that one of the authors
is based in a university in a major US city that is the home of one
of the most prolific mentoring organizations in North America, yet
no mention is made in the article of any of the results consistently
demonstrated by this non-profit organization. As Mark Fulop of the
Mentoring Exchange has suggested this organization and
hundreds like it in North America have thousands of stories to tell
about the power and impact of mentoring.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
It is my hypothesis that human evolution is currently identifiable as
the "secular trend," the increase in size and earlier onset of puberty
occurring in our children. Based on my work, "Androgens in Human
Evolution," (Rivista di Biologia / Biology Forum 2001; 94: 345-362), the
secular trend represents a change in our population. That is, I suggest
the secular trend actually is an increase in the percentage of individuals
of higher testosterone. The increase in percentage of individuals of
higher testosterone brings with it an increase in the characteristics of
these individuals. I suggest one of these characteristics is the increase
in "antisocial behavior." Roberts, et al., would not be writing about
this if it were not increasing.
I suggest most of the negative behaviors that are increasing within
our population actually may be reducible to increased lack of impulse
control. I think this lack of impulse control results from reduced
development of the advanced prefrontal lobes, the part of the brain which
actually makes us different from other animals. "Antisocial behaviors"
are behaviors which are not controlled. High testosterone has been
connected with increased lack of impulse control.
A mentor may act as a source of impulse control for young people who
cannot control their impulses. When that mentor is absent, impulse
control wanes. Some individuals may "learn" to control impulses, if their
brains are sufficiently developed. The degree of effect of "mentoring,"
therefore, relies on brain development. If the brain is underdeveloped,
mentoring will have no effect in absentia. Therefore, mentoring should
sometimes works.
If my hypothesis is correct, mentoring will increasingly fail. I
agree with Helen Roberts, et al., that we must be careful of the use of
our precious time and treasure for programs that may not be working and,
of those that "work," may fail in the future.
It is also a part of my work that the secular trend will also
generate increases in "belief systems." Belief systems are acts of
impulse, that is, they are not based on consideration of evidence.
Without evidence, support of "mentoring" as a means to control increasing
antisocial behavior among our young is a "belief system." If my
hypothesis is correct, this will eventually affect the groups of
individuals who are elected to public office. More of our governmental
control will be based on belief systems and our taxes will be used
according to belief systems, not real evidence.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Limitations Not Adequately Addressed
Nowhere in my review of the authors' study did I imply that the group
held an
"anti-mentoring" viewpoint or attitude. My concern was that their
conclusions
do not account for the studies that contradict their findings. Their
response
shows that they still do not actually account for the contradictory
findings. In
addition, they make a weak case for why quantitative methods are superior
to
qualitative in determining whether anyone might be harmed or helped by
mentoring. Their rationale would barely receive a passing grade in a
research
seminar on methodology and I'm disappointed to see their out-of-date view
of qualitative methods repeated again in this forum. I'm glad to learn
that
they have an open mind regarding the outcomes of mentoring and they
support the importance of research in answering questions about mentoring.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests