Mentoring Siblings of Gang Members: A Template for Reaching Families of Gang Members?

Transcription

1 CHILDREN & SOCIETY (2010) DOI: /j x Mentoring Siblings of Gang Members: A Template for Reaching Families of Gang Members? Juanjo Meina*, Robert Ralphs an Juith Alrige School of Law, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK Mentoring has become a popular moel of intervention to reuce the risk of offening, an has been propose as an effective tool to tackle the risk of gang membership. This paper reviews the existing literature on mentoring an reports on a qualitative evaluation of a mentoring programme targete at young people at risk of gang membership in an English city. The stuy highlights important issues aroun these interventions. Although we foun it a useful way to engage otherwise har-to-reach families, important limitations remain: their potential labelling impact an their limite impact in isolation from other more ambitious measures. Ó 2010 The Author(s). Journal compilation Ó 2010 National Chilren s Bureau an Blackwell Publishing Limite. Keywors: crime, early prevention, gangs, mentoring, youth justice. Introuction In a context where the absence of positive male role moels continues to be blame for the situation of inner city youth, mentoring remains a popular intervention. In the Unite States programmes like Big Brothers, Big Sisters a Blueprint for Violence Prevention moel programme by the prestigious Center for Prevention an Stuy of Violence (University of Colorao) is supporte by more than 500 agencies, an the registry of mentoring organisation suggests that aroun 1700 offer mentoring schemes. Mentoring is seen as a way to promote healthy aolescent evelopment an as a useful tool for crime reuction. Mentoring is also being integrate within broaer comprehensive gang prevention initiatives (Cahill an others, 2008). In the UK the Youth Justice Boar has investe heavily in mentoring. From 2001 to 2004 the Youth Justice Boar spent over 10 million funing about 80 mentoring programmes. More recently, the National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers aske for the introuction of peer mentoring schemes involving vette ex-gang members, a measure backe by the Youth Crime Action Plan an the Centre for Social Justice. Despite popularity an support, acaemics question whether mentoring is the new supermarket tomato : something that can thrive uner goo circumstances but that, mass markete, oes not eliver quite the same quality (Durlak, 2006). In fact the literature evaluating mentoring initiatives offers a mixe picture, particularly for preventing offening (Jolliffe an Farrington, 2007). The first meta-analysis of US programmes suggeste that mentoring schemes have in general small positive effects for participating youth (DuBois an others, 2002). Most of these 55 stuies use weak quasi-experimental esigns an were internal evaluations. The meta- Ó 2010 The Author(s) Journal compilation Ó 2010 National Chilren s Bureau an Blackwell Publishing Limite

2 2 Juanjo Meina et al. analysis foun that mentoring ha stronger effects when (1) the programme ha a clear theory of change, (2) empirically base best practices were use, an (3) a strong relationship was forge between youth an mentors. It also suggeste that poorly implemente mentoring schemes may have averse effects on youth. Finally, the meta-analysis seeme to suggest that mentoring was more likely to have an effect when the clients selecte were youth atrisk, rather than more general populations of youth (DuBois an others, 2002). A more recent literature review (Rhoes an DuBois, 2006) reache five main conclusions: Mentoring relationships are more likely to be successful when they are close, enuring an consistent. Programmes have achieve only limite success in establishing an sustaining such relationships. An inconsistent pattern of finings remains, with some programmes showing moest improvements an others failing to achieve them or even aversely affecting young people. We know very little as to whether mentoring is cost-effective. Despite these uncertainties, mentoring schemes remain a highly popular among welfare specialists, community groups an policy makers. This popularity in a context of uncertainty is leaing to quality being reefine as quantity, with a growth in mentoring schemes that o not meet the criteria ientifie in the literature as being important in achieving success. Two more recent meta-analyses have stuie the impact of mentoring on offening. The first (Tolan an others, 2005), incluing results from 31 stuies, foun small effects on elinquency an aggression ( ) an smaller effects on rug use (0.08) an acaemic success (0.16). The secon consiere 18 primarily American evaluations of mentoring schemes measuring the impact on crime reuction (Jolliffe an Farrington, 2007). Of these, only seven showe a positive effect, both small an short-live. None of the more rigorous stuies showe a positive impact of mentoring. These stuies also suggeste that: Those programmes that are capable of sustaining a stronger mentorship were more effective, in particular those that require weekly meetings for longer perios of time per meeting. Mentoring was only successful in reucing re-offening when it was part of a broaer package of measures (e.g. behaviour moification, supplementary eucation an employment programmes). Jolliffe an Farrington (2007) conclue that although mentoring may be promising, we still nee more rigorous evaluations. In Englan an Wales, the national evaluation of mentoring schemes supporte by the Youth Justice Boar reache rather sombre conclusions (Tarling an others, 2004). Although programme staff reporte a positive outcome, the use of ata contrasting experimental an comparison groups was much less conclusive. In particular, the report foun that: Mentoring succeee in so far as the mentees tene to reuce their truanting an school exclusion an to increase their attenance at school an their participation in community activities. However, the stuy coul not ocument any changes in formally assesse Journal compilation Ó 2010 National Chilren s Bureau an Blackwell Publishing Limite

3 Mentoring Siblings of Gang Members 3 eucational achievements. This failure raise oubts as to whether the project-ientifie improvements were substantial enough to make a significant, lasting ifference to the mentees over the long term. The finings available i not provie convincing evience that mentor programmes prouce a reuction in offening uring the first year after the start of a programme. Mentor programmes prove to be more expensive than alternatives that prouce similar benefits, such as the Youth Justice Boar eucation training an employment schemes. In the light of this, the evaluators note that the evience available here oes not support a more wiesprea roll-out of mentor programmes as a means of preventing or tackling youth crime, although the finings have generate recommenations about some key features of mentoring which nee to be preserve an combine with features of other interventions (Professor Ian St Roberts, lea researcher, in an interview to The Guarian, 2006). Tarling an others (2004) also emphasise a moel of interventions that: relies on professional mentors rather than amateur community volunteers; allows other clinicians an experts to carry out appropriate assessments of the nees of the participants; takes account of young people s views; an allows for greater joine-up intervention both horizontally, across agencies, an vertically, across age groups. In summary, although mentoring schemes have been shown to have some success, their impact is not as strong as some assume. Also, some evaluations have ocumente negative effects, no effects or effects that issipate within a few months of termination (Rhoes, 2002). When one well mentoring can have small to (more rarely) moest positive effects on some people, but we still nee more research to clearly ientify the characteristics of successful programmes. There are still many black boxes with many unanswere questions about what specific forms of interventions are effective an uner which conitions (Roberts an others, 2004, p. 512). If this is true of mentoring in general, it is even truer of mentoring oriente to prevent offening or gang membership. In relation to mentoring schemes to reuce antisocial behaviour an offening, the conclusion of St James-Roberts an others (2005) summarises the state of knowlege: Our current state of knowlege on the effectiveness of mentoring is similar to that of a new rug that shows promise but remains in nee of further research an evelopment. There is no equivalent of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence or Foo an Drug Aministration for mentoring. If there were, no more than a hanful of programmes might have realistic hopes of qualifying. An even then, it woul have to be acknowlege that we lack full unerstaning of the safeguars neee to ensure that young people are not harme by participation. For some of the most vulnerable young people, mentoring programmes as currently implemente may fail to eliver on their promises. (p. 513) Yet, mentoring is now being eploye as a tool to eal with the new folk evils encapsulating the fears of the British public: gang members. This follows the US tren to incorporate, with ifferent egrees of success, a mentoring component within community comprehensive gang prevention schemes (Cahill an others, 2008). Here we provie feeback from one of these eveloping English programmes to illustrate some of the larger issues surrouning mentoring interventions with families of gang members. In particular, we highlight the problems raise by client selection, labelling an sustainability. Journal compilation Ó 2010 National Chilren s Bureau an Blackwell Publishing Limite

4 4 Juanjo Meina et al. The programme an its evaluation The Gang Mentoring pilot was a short (4 months, later extene for an aitional 4 months) but intensive an well resource mentoring scheme with the goal of builing resilience among young people consiere at elevate risk of gang membership. The mentoring scheme emerge in response to national funs mae available to tackle gang issues. The programme was elivere in a large English city with a gang problem recognise from the late 1980s an a linke gun an knife violence problem that is high by British stanars. For confientiality purposes we call it Research City (for rationale, see Alrige an Meina, 2008). These gangs emerge uring the late 1980s an early 1990s in areas of Research City linke to the rug trae an suffering from high levels of social exclusion. Research City ha create a multiagency forum with a carrots an sticks (Wyrick, 2006) approach to the prevention of gangs that matche the Eurogang efinitions an were involve in firearm violence. This approach inclue the use of police intelligence an suppression tactics an the provision of social opportunities (e.g. housing an employment training) to gang members ientifie by local agencies. This forum ha ientifie a gap in its services. It was perceive that younger siblings of ientifie gang members presente a higher risk for future gang involvement an that there was no mechanism to provie specific preventative services to these young chilren. The programme was also seen by staff as a way (1) to present local policies in a less punitive light to ameliorate straine community relations an arguably (2) to further cement the institutional presence of the local civil gang prevention team in a perio when the existing funing framework for this controversial multiagency approach was coming to an en. Specialist mentoring was selecte as the moel of intervention given its prominence in national policy for ealing with at-risk youth. The intervention was to focus on a small group of younger siblings of gang members ientifie as at risk of joining gangs, an to provie them with mentor service, offer support to their families, to promote social inclusion an to raise aspirations. In particular, the intervention aime to: Ensure that an ientifie group of younger siblings of gang members attene school on a regular basis an were therefore in a safer environment. Engage the group in positive activities particularly at peak times of risk in partnership with schools, an statutory an voluntary sector organisations. Provie information, avice an guiance to the young people, their parents an families. The five salarie an specially traine mentors were to engage with the mentees in a number of extracurricular activities an after school activities. Normally the mentors woul meet their mentees several times a week, amounting to roughly 5 h a week per mentee. The activities were to incorporate both play an, in theory though less often in practice, personalise learning (e.g. accessing junior youth provision, stuy support at school or attenance to a stuy centre linke to a local football club). In general, an unlike other gang prevention mentoring schemes, there was little effort on homework support an tutoring (Cahill an others, 2008) an there was a lesser focus at coorinating activities with the schools. The aims of the sessions were to buil confience an skills, as well as evelop resilience. The mentors were also expecte to provie support to the families, referring family members to services where appropriate. The group of young male siblings (age 5 11) of gang members was ientifie by the local multiagency gang prevention team first by checking the recors of a gang atabase constructe through police intelligence an share by others in this multiagency forum. As we have iscusse elsewhere (Ralphs an others, 2009), an others in the UK have also reporte Journal compilation Ó 2010 National Chilren s Bureau an Blackwell Publishing Limite

5 Mentoring Siblings of Gang Members 5 (Bullock an Tilley, 2008), these atabases seem to rely on questionable information that is not sufficiently upate an verifie an, therefore, lean towars over-ientification; that is, the inclusion of false positives. The initial list of potential clients was then complemente with aitional teacher-referre primary school chilren thought to be at risk of gang membership. These referrals were then assesse by programme staff using a hoc risk assessment criteria an, for the most part, rejecte. A final list of 18 chilren were selecte to receive the programme; with the criteria of living in areas (controversially) ientifie as having a gang problem (Alrige an Meina, 2008) an gang siblings having overshaowe any other criteria for selection. It must be note that many of the families targete ha contacte statutory agencies to get some form of intervention to aress these issues. When approache by the mentoring staff they all accepte the invitation to participate, thus suggesting the possibility that the sample may have been biase towars inclusion of those who were enthusiastic an intervention-positive. Staff from the mentoring programme approache our research team to provie some form of frugal evaluation (Maxfiel, 2001). As the intervention was alreay in place an the funing very limite, it was not feasible to obtain self-report baseline ata from participating youth or to raw a comparison group. The evaluation relie primarily on in-epth, semi-structure interviews of clients, school personnel an practitioners involve in the project an the use of case stuies. The assessment of the scheme relie on qualitative inicators incluing interviews with key personnel, systematic analysis of the case files of the mentors an the computerise ata about the mentees (incluing the log of the mentor mentee meetings, an feeback forms from parents an schools), an two in-epth case stuies on two of the mentees an their relevant network (mentor, parent an school officials) for more in-epth, qualitative interviews. The intervention was carrie out at one of the sites where we ha been conucting an ethnographic stuy of gangs fune by the ESRC (Economic an Social Research Council) (see Alrige an Meina, 2008; Alrige an others, 2010a,b; Meina an others, 2011). Some of the families an young people targete for this intervention were alreay familiar to us from our ethnographic stuy which allowe us to further contextualise the implementation an reach of this intervention. Results All the schools an the parents of the chilren involve were aske to provie feeback about the mentoring scheme. In general, school staff ha a positive view of the intervention. They thought that the programme helpe to improve aspects of the chilren s behaviour aroun school attenance an punctuality, an their communication an social skills. They also remarke how the mentors ha been helpful meiators between the families an the schools. This increase level of communication between parents an their chilren s schools was an important outcome. School staff also highlighte how the chilren seeme to have enjoye the activities they engage in an their relationships with their mentors. The project receive strong school support with the general view expresse that the project coul be wiene to benefit a broaer range of chilren. Yet, apart from some marginal improvements on attenance an punctuality, the programme i not have an impact on acaemic performance an, in a couple of instances, was followe by a worsening of behaviour as reporte by the teachers. Also, one of the schools raise problems regaring ientification of appropriate chilren for the intervention; they Journal compilation Ó 2010 National Chilren s Bureau an Blackwell Publishing Limite

6 6 Juanjo Meina et al. recommene a better process of communication between school staff an the project team. This fining also highlights the nee to protect mentees confientiality whilst ensuring that appropriate staff were aware of the scheme. To this en there was a concern that chilren may be single out by staff or classmates if it became known that they were taking part in a project relate to gangs. At least one of the parents recalle that a school staff member tol their chil: if you carry on like that you will en up a gang member like your brother. The parent believe that the school staff member hel a negative attitue towars their chil because they were now aware an oler sibling ha been gang active. This fining highlights the very real anger that ientifying young people as potential gang members may have long-term stigmatising effects. During our fielwork in Research City we ientifie a number of instances where young people, oler than those targete by this intervention, were ientifie in the local gang atabase as gang associates an exclue from schools, espite shaky evience of gang association an clean criminal recors. On the other han, it shoul be note that a lack of knowlege on the part of schools about the backgroun of these chilren may make it more ifficult to evelop appropriate strategies for them. A school staff member felt it was beneficial having more information about a stuent: I knew he ha at least three brothers, it turns out he s got six brothers. An I knew one of them ha been in trouble, I in t know what the trouble was but I knew he was in prison an I in t know other things. I knew [sibling s name] was at [name of area] but that s all I knew. But you know, poor [mentee s name], what that chil has seen an hear an its like he s very quiet an I m not surprise he s very quiet. This highlights the fine balance require to maintain appropriate communication channels with school staff an still ensure confientiality in relation to the mentee s family gang links; this kin of isclosure can lea to stigmatisation an labelling. All the feeback from the parents suggeste a generally positive view of the project. The parents perceive the programme as having ha a positive impact on their chilren. The chilren were sai to have enjoye the opportunities provie by the activities they engage in. The parents perceive the intervention as positive, an welcome it, noting the nee for more activities for young people to o. They cite a lack of services in the area an note that even if services were available, then a shortage of time an money prevente them from taking their chilren to them. Parents recognise the importance of keeping chilren occupie, an the nee for their chilren to have hobbies an interests that may prevent them from getting involve with the wrong crow or from committing crime through boreom. Parents also ha a generally positive view of the relationships maintaine with the mentors. The mentors approachability an capacity to listen were perceive as critical. They felt that they coul contact the mentors at any time an for whatever reason. All these factors combine to help establish trusting relationships. The project was perceive by the parents to have ha an impact on their chilren s attitues an communication, which in turn were sai to have ha a positive impact on family life. Some parents also talke about the way in which the mentors ha enable them to eal with problems relate to their chilren an their own relationships with school authorities. These positive feelings about the intervention resulte in some of them expressing the esire for it to continue an wonering whether this type of intervention coul have mae a ifference with their oler chilren. For some Journal compilation Ó 2010 National Chilren s Bureau an Blackwell Publishing Limite

7 Mentoring Siblings of Gang Members 7 families, having the mentor to turn to was useful in proviing a meiating function allowing better communication between the parents an the school. These results are in some ways quite extraorinary because these families all have a long recor of ifficult relationships with statutory agencies an a general mistrust of interventions. It was evient that the parents ha experience negative outcomes in previous interactions with services an the justice system. Often the parents we spoke with complaine of the lack of support receive from statutory agencies an schools in the past. In the parents views, these agencies fail to unerstan the nature of their problems an only respon late an often with a isheartening blaming approach of their parenting skills. Consequently it can be expecte that as a result of previous negative experiences with similar statutory agencies, there will be varying egrees of mistrust towars further intervention. The following testimony from one of the mentees parents is illustrative of this. They tol me about those parenting programmes an stuff like that. Eventually when I got help but I on t think, the problem, the issue isn t with me, I think I m bringing him up, I brought him up to the best of my ability. The problem is what goes on out there, I can t be with him, you know, 24 h of the ay. [ ] So I sai I ain t going on no parenting programme for him, for what? In this context, programmes which focus on helping their chilren, rather than blaming them as parents may be a way to engage with these families (Alrige an others, 2009). We also aske 12 of the 18 chilren about their experiences with the mentors. In general, the ata seem to suggest that the mentors manage to evelop a goo relationship with them. They all felt happy with their mentors an thought that the activities they engage in were fun an exciting. They viewe the project as giving them the chance to atten a range of primarily sporting an leisure activities that they woul otherwise not be able to. They also felt that the mentors were taking their views into account when planning their joint activities. Nevertheless, some of the chilren seem to have esire an even closer emotional relationship. Although the programme was intensive, perhaps the short length of the scheme hampere the possibility of a closer emotional relationship. Despite the overall positive tone of the feeback, some parents expresse concern about the future awaiting their chilren an the sustainability of any observe changes. A key component of the project involve after school engagement in activities. Whilst this was single out by mentees, parents an school staff as the most positive aspect of the project, there was some ifficulty in sourcing appropriate activities for this age group in Research City, particularly in the more immeiate vicinity where the young people resie. Consequently, the various afterschool activities that the young people attene were sprea across a wier geographical area than may have been expecte. The logistics of attening these activities was overcome by the use of taxis uring the project. This raises a more general problem in terms of highlighting a eficiency of appropriate activities for this age group (see also Auit Commission, 2009). The fact that mentors often ha to travel several miles from the area their mentees resie means that the potential for mentees to continue attening these activities after their involvement in the project is limite. The following iscussion with a mentor clearly illustrates the problems encountere in sourcing after school activities for this age group. Interviewer: In terms of fining solutions or fining activities, i you have any ifficulties there? Journal compilation Ó 2010 National Chilren s Bureau an Blackwell Publishing Limite

8 8 Juanjo Meina et al. Mentor: Massive, massive, massive, I really believe that chilren in inner Research City get a raw eal, they get such a raw eal as far as out of school activities are concerne, things to o within their community an their neighbourhoos they get a raw eal. I foun out because what we ha to o as mentors was to put a timetable together for them an, you know, some of it was suppose to be extene schools activities some was suppose to be free activities within the community that s afforable for the parents an honestly, even with all our resources... Interviewer: You struggle to fin activities? Mentor: Massively, massively, massively an its really sa because these are the chilren I o believe nee it, these are the chilren that nee to be occupie at the weeken, nee to be occupie in the evenings an there s just nothing for them. [...] Interviewer: What activities have you been oing with [mentee s name] after school? Mentor: He oes basketball an trampolining that was his choice but there was nothing in the area. The trampolining was one in Inner West I ve got to take him all the way there to o his trampolining an I ve got to take him all the way to Inner Southlan to o his basketball so from that point of view can you see where the ifficulties come? An then for the Mum to try an keep it up its awful. Interviewer: Are there any kins of financial support for them to carry on oing the activities? Mentor: This is the thing, no there isn t because that s quite sa because I know that [mentee s parent s name] won t keep up with the activities with him on her own. Well put it this way, if he in t get onto the programme again I on t think he woul continue those activities because it s not feasible for her to o that. Interviewer: An also just the practicalities because she s oing three jobs. [ ] Mentor: she s working so you can t even say she s selfish an she oesn t want to, she can t. It is clear that the lack of afforable an accessible after-school activities available in the immeiate local area will impact on the ability of parents to sustain engagement. There was a clear esire on behalf of the mentees an their parents to continue with the project an the new activities they ha been involve with, yet this was accompanie by an air of resignation that in reality, once the project ha ene the young people woul often not continue with these activities. Although parents have been encourage to access these activities with their chilren after the project ene, or to make cooperative arrangements with other mentees parents for this to occur, this was ifficult for many. Some of these families were interviewe only a few weeks after the project ha ene an attenance of the activities ha either stoppe or reuce. It is not surprising that parents felt the project was too short. Discussion an recommenations Our aim was to use this evaluation as an opportunity to reflect on the broaer policy rift towars using mentoring as a way to tackle gangs in Britain. The particular mentoring programme we examine succeee in forging goo relationships between the mentors an their clients. The young chilren an their families were very positive about the type of Journal compilation Ó 2010 National Chilren s Bureau an Blackwell Publishing Limite

9 Mentoring Siblings of Gang Members 9 services that were provie to them. The intensive frequency of contact, the quality of the mentors employe an the approachability of the mentors all seeme to have playe a role in achieving this success. Given the history of past negative experience that many of these families have ha with statutory agencies an schools, this was no small achievement. In fact, a first general lesson that can be learne is that mentoring, in so far as it oes not place blame on the families of gang members, may be a useful approach to enlist their support for participation in other interventions. Shoul we expect irect positive results of mentoring on gang membership or offening behaviour for younger siblings of gang members? Base on this intervention an our general knowlege about mentoring we are sceptical of the current British tren to strongly favour mentoring as a key tool in gang prevention. None of the chilren in this scheme was screene for conuct isorer an none ha an offening recor. Parents an school officials, for the most part, suggeste an attituinal change an marginal improvements in school reainess, although these were not translate into actual improvement in measure school performance. This fining is not too issimilar from the finings of the secon national evaluation of mentoring schemes supporte by the Youth Justice Boar. More worryingly, the nature of the funing that allowe this programme to be evelope meant that from the outset its sustainability was in oubt. This is an unfortunate common feature of many prevention schemes (Auit Commission, 2009). The literature suggests that short mentoring schemes may en up having averse effects on participants. The question What happens next? was inee aske by parents an officials from the schools of the mentees. There is a risk that any positive impact of the scheme on participating chilren may quickly ilute an that the programme may become yet another negative experience with statutory agencies for families. In short, from what we know about mentoring, it woul be reasonable to suspect that projects like these will not have a long-lasting sizable impact on offening or gang involvement. The family, iniviual, school or ecological risk factors for these outcomes are usually not remove by the intervention. An the irect buffering impact of mentoring is normally over once the scheme finishes. In aition, the potential buffering effect that new social bons that may have evelope as a consequence of networking an recreational activities carrie out are unlikely to be maintaine if families o not have the means, the time or the motivation to sustain these activities. As we encountere in this case, espite efforts at increase formal integration of preventative resources, serious problems remain in relation to access to after-school activities. As the Auit Commission (2009) recently highlighte, funing schemes that allow for sustainability an integrate approaches are critical to the prevention of antisocial behaviour. Our ata further reinforce this view. This is consistent with Jolliffe an Farrington s (2007) conclusion that successful mentoring schemes are part of broaer intervention packages. A secon lesson, then, is that short mentoring interventions like these on their own are unlikely to be effective tools for reucing gang activity. Unfortunately, the finings from US evaluations aime at integrating mentoring approaches within more comprehensive an integrate strategies still show mixe results (Cahill an others, 2008), although perhaps the reason for this is that they are not being integrate with the right kins of interventions (Gottfreson, 2001; J. Shute, unpublishe ata). In any case, coorinate prevention is not a panacea either. In practice it brings consierable problems of its own (Cahill an others, 2008). Journal compilation Ó 2010 National Chilren s Bureau an Blackwell Publishing Limite

10 10 Juanjo Meina et al. Finally, the anger an the negative consequences of labelling young people as potential gang members is very real (Ralphs an others, 2009) an it is not clear whether these interventions will aress these concerns in an aequate manner. In fact, by using being the sibling of a gang member or living in a gang area as the key or only criterion for intervention, inepenent of any conuct isorer, the risk of net wiening is high. In Britain, the gang member concept has been operationalise by interventions in a loose way that reinforces ethnic iscrimination (Ralphs an others, 2009). The broaer notion of youth at risk of gang membership is, therefore, an even more problematic criterion for justifying intervention. The national evaluation of Youth Justice Boar mentoring schemes emphasise the nee for a moel that allows clinicians an experts to carry out appropriate assessments of the nees an risk of participants. This screening is critical to the success an fairness of these interventions. The problems of net wiening can be attenuate if the risk assessment for gang involvement is not isassociate from the risk assessment for offening. There are a variety of instruments employe for elinquent risk assessment of young chilren (such as EARL-B20), many of which are not very long or ifficult to use in the context of client screening (see Howell, 2001). Given our current knowlege about risk factors for gang membership, it seems as if the more sensible approach for client selection woul be to use some of these tools for client screening, with the presence of members in the family, as friens, as schoolmates, an in the community as aitional markers for risk (Alrige an others, 2009). Future research shoul focus on assessing the usefulness an preictive accuracy of these moifie instruments. This, in any case, begs the question of who screens for behavioural problems an why. Shoul the younger siblings of known convicte gang members be routinely screene for behavioural problems as a rationale for intervention? Or shoul service-proviers working with chilren referre for serious behavioural problems prioritise support to those with known gang members in the family? Information sharing between agencies woul seem to be key either way but, as we illustrate, this will involve sharing of funamentally sensitive an controversial information, particularly with regar to gang affiliation. Thus, although it is well perceive by the parties involve an may be a useful tool to engage har-to-reach families, the real impact an efficiency of mentoring for gang prevention has yet to be clearly ocumente. There are some serious concerns in relation to labelling an net wiening impact (Cohen, 1985). In the light of this, it seems that great care shoul be taken when using mentoring, particularly in isolation from other measures, as a way of tackling the risk of gang membership. Yet, the fact that mentoring isturbs neither current political nor parental schema regaring causation an blame for youth isorer gang membership ( it s the lack of role moels an positive relationships that s the problem, not entrenche social exclusion or pressurise family processes ) has mae it a suitable caniate for political an social support espite weak evience to back its usefulness. Doing anything at all, even if it is tinkering aroun the eges, seems preferable to ealing with the issues of entrenche social exclusion that unerpin the evelopment of gangs. Acknowlegements We thank Julie Boyle for her capable an reliable assistance throughout this project an Jon Shute an Karen Clarke for feeback on earlier versions of this article. The research was supporte by the Economic an Social Research Council (RES ) an by a city council (unname, to retain the anonymity of the location of the research). Journal compilation Ó 2010 National Chilren s Bureau an Blackwell Publishing Limite

11 Mentoring Siblings of Gang Members 11 References Alrige J, Meina J Youth Gangs in an English City: Final Report. ESRC: Swinon. Alrige J, Ralphs R, Meina J. 2010a. Collateral amage: gang territory an policing in an English city. Youth in Crisis? Gangs, Territoriality an Violence. Golson B (e). Cullompton: Willan (forthcoming). Alrige J, Meina J, Ralphs R. 2010b. The problem of proliferation: guielines for improving the security of qualitative ata in a igital age. Research Ethics Review 6(1): 3 9. Alrige J, Shute J, Ralphs R, Meina J Blame the parents? Chilren an Society. DOI: / j x Auit Commission Tire of Hanging Out. Auit Commission: Lonon. Bullock K, Tilley N Unerstaning an tackling gang violence. Crime Prevention an Community Safety 10: Cahill M, Coggeshall M, Hayeslip D, Wolff D, Lagerson E, Scott M, Davies E, Rolan K, Decker S Community Collaboratives Aressing Youth Gangs. Urban Institute: Washington, DC. Cohen S Visions of Social Control. Polity Press: Cambrige. DuBois D, Holloway B, Valentine J, Cooper H Effectiveness of mentoring programs for youth. American Journal of Community Psychology 30: Durlak JA Will mentoring become the next supermarket tomato? Social Policy Report 20: 12. Gottfreson D Schools an Delinquency. Cambrige University Press: New York. Howell JC Risk nees assessment an screening evices. In Chil Delinquents. Loeber R, Farrington D (es). Sage: Thousan Oaks, CA: Jolliffe D, Farrington D A Rapi Evience Assessment of the Impact of Mentoring on Re-Offening. Home Office Online Report Maxfiel M Guie to Frugal Evaluation for Criminal Justice: Final Report. National Institute of Justice: Washington, DC. Meina J, Alrige J, Ralphs R Gang transformation, changes or emise: evience from an English city. Global Gangs: Comparative Perspectives. Hazen JM, Rogers D (es). University of Minnesota Press: Minneapolis (forthcoming). Ralphs R, Meina J, Alrige J Who nees enemies with friens like these? Journal of Youth Stuies 12: Rhoes JE Stan By Me: The Risks an Rewars of Mentoring Toay s Youth. Harvar University Press: Cambrige, Massachusetts. Rhoes JE, DuBois D Unerstaning an facilitating the youth mentoring movement. Social Policy Report 20: Roberts H, Liabo K, Lucas P, DuBois D, Shelon TA Mentoring to reuce antisocial behaviour in chilhoo. British Meical Journal 328: St James-Roberts I, Greenlaw G, Simon A, Hurry J National Evaluation of Youth Justice Boar Mentoring Schemes 2001 to Youth Justice Boar: Lonon. Tarling R, Davison T, Clarke A The National Evaluation of the Youth Justice Boar s Mentoring Projects. Youth Justice Boar: Lonon. Tolan P, Henry D, Shoeny M, Bass A What We Know About What Mentoring Can an Might Do For Youth Crime. Presente at the Fifth Annual Jerry Lee Crime Prevention Symposium, May 3, Aelphi, Marylan. Wyrick P Gang prevention: how to make the front en of your program work. US Attorneys Bulletin 54: *Corresponence to: Juanjo Meina, School of Law, University of Manchester, Williamson Blg, Oxfor Roa, Manchester M139PL, UK, Tel.: ; Fax: juanjo.meina@manchester.ac.uk Accepte for publication 4 March 2010 Journal compilation Ó 2010 National Chilren s Bureau an Blackwell Publishing Limite