Exploring the Link between Mentoring Program Structure & Success Rates: Results from a National Survey
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Analyzing data from a national survey of mentoring programs for mentored youth referred from the juvenile justice system in the U.S. indicated positive associations between frequent interactions and meeting length with the program staff's success ratings.
“However, analyzing data drawn from a national survey of mentoring programs for mentored youth (referred from the juvenile justice system in the U.S.) indicated positive associations between frequent interactions and meeting length with the program staff’s success ratings [44].”
From Unpacking Community-Based Youth Mentoring Relationships: An Integrative Review (2021) · cites this paper as [44]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 47 · Cited by 20
- Authors
- Miller, J. M., Barnes, J. C., Miller, H. V., & McKinnon, L.
- Affiliations
- The University of Texas at San Antonio (US)
- Corresponding author
- Miller, J. Mitchell
- Venue
- American Journal of Criminal Justice
- Published
- 2012-10-19
- Volume
- 38
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 439-456
- ISSN
- 1066-2316 (ISSN-L)
- 1936-1351
- OpenAlex
- W1971441890
- Cited by
- 20
- References
- 47
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 2
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- American Journal of Criminal Justice (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mentoring and Academic Development
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Crime Patterns and Interventions
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Youth Development and Social Support
- Keywords
- youth mentoring, at-risk youth, juvenile justice, relationship duration, evidence-based practice
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
