Mentoring Relationships and Programs for Youth

Abstract

Mentoring is one of the most popular social interventions in American society, with an estimated three million youth in formal one-to-one relationships. Studies have revealed significant associations between youth involvement in mentoring relationships and positive developmental outcomes. These associations are modest, however, and depend on several intervening processes. Centrally important is the formation of close, enduring connections between mentors and youth that foster positive developmental change. Effects of mentoring programs likewise typically have been small in magnitude, but they increase systematically with the use of program practices likely to support relationship development. Gaps between research and practice are evident both in the indiscriminate use of the term mentoring in the prevention field and in a focus on the growth and efficiency of mentoring programs at the expense of quality. Continued expansion of effective mentoring will require a better alignment of research and practice.

Full text

Mentoring Relationships and
Programs for Youth
Jean E. Rhodes
1
and David L. DuBois
2
1
University of Massachusetts, Boston, and
2
University of Illinois at Chicago
ABSTRACT—Mentoring is one of the most popular social
interventions in American society, with an estimated three
million youth in formal one-to-one relationships. Studies
have revealed significant associations between youth
involvement in mentoring relationships and positive
developmental outcomes. These associations are modest,
however, and depend on several intervening processes.
Centrally important is the formation of close, enduring
connections between mentors and youth that foster positive
developmental change. Effects of mentoring programs
likewise typically have been small in magnitude, but they
increase systematically with the use of program practices
likely to support relationship development. Gaps between
research and practice are evident both in the indiscrimi-
nate use of the term mentoring in the prevention field and
in a focus on the growth and efficiency of mentoring pro-
grams at the expense of quality. Continued expansion
of effective mentoring will require a better alignment of
research and practice.
KEYWORDS—mentoring; preventive intervention; nonpar-
ent adults; youth
Organized approaches to mentoring youth in the United States
date back to reform-oriented initiatives in the juvenile court
system more than a century ago. These efforts gave rise to Big
Brothers Big Sisters of America (BBBSA), the largest and most
well-known program of its kind. The past decade has witnessed
a remarkable proliferation of similarly focused programs that
pair caring, adult volunteers with youth from at-risk back-
grounds. An estimated three million youth are in formal one-to-
one mentoring relationships in the United States, and funding
and growth imperatives continue to fuel program expansion
(MENTOR, 2006). Even larger numbers of youth report expe-
riencing mentoring relationships outside of these types of
programs with adults such as teachers, coaches, neighbors, and
extended family.
Anecdotal accounts of the protective qualities of mentoring re-
lationships and their life-transforming effects on young people
abound in the media. Youth mentoring has entered the American
lexicon, appearing on a U.S. postage stamp and in countless public
service announcements. Federal funding for mentoring programs
has increased substantially as well, with annual congressional
appropriations of $100 million since 2004. It is only relatively
recently, however, that social and behavioral scientists have fo-
cused their attention on a more rigorous examination of mentoring
for children and adolescents. In this article, we review the high-
lights of this research. We then critically examine recent trends in
practice and policy in view of current directions in research.
MENTORING RELATIONSHIPS AND YOUTH
OUTCOMES
Numerous studies have examined mentoring relationships and
their consequences for youth development. Illustratively, in a
longitudinal study of a nationally representative sample of young
adults, DuBois and Silverthorn (2005) found that those who re-
ported having had a mentoring relationship during adolescence
exhibited significantly better outcomes within the domains of
education and work (high-school completion, college atten-
dance, employment), mental health (self-esteem, life satisfac-
tion), problem behavior (gang membership, fighting, risk taking),
and health (exercise, birth control use). (They controlled where
possible for the same or related measures at the start of the study
as well as indices of individual and environmental risk.) The
magnitude of these associations, however, was fairly small, with
the reduction in risk for negative outcomes attributable to having
a mentor typically less than 10%. Similar findings have emerged
in evaluations of programs in which mentoring relationships are
arranged and supported by program staff. A meta-analysis of
55 mentoring program evaluations (DuBois, Holloway, Valen-
tine, & Cooper, 2002) found benefits of participation in the areas
of emotional/psychological well-being, involvement in problem
or high-risk behavior, and academic outcomes. Yet, in compar-
Address correspondence to Jean Rhodes, Department of Psychology,
University of Massachusetts, 100 Morrissey Blvd, Boston, MA 02125;
e-mail: jean.rhodes@umb.edu.
CURRENT DIRECTIONS IN PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE
254 Volume 17—Number 4Copyright r2008 Association for Psychological Science

ison to other prevention programs for children and adolescents
(Durlak & Wells, 1997), the effectiveness of mentoring programs
was found to be relatively small. The few studies that collected
follow-up assessments of mentoring programs revealed even
weaker effects, suggesting an eroding of benefits after youth left
programs and relationships with mentors ended.
More recently, Jolliffe and Farington (2007) explored the ef-
fects of youth mentoring on recidivism among juvenile offenders.
Their analyses, which were based on 18 evaluations, revealed a
somewhat smaller overall effect of mentoring than was reported
in the meta-analysis conducted by DuBois and colleagues. Still
another recent meta-analysis looked at a broader range of out-
comes associated with mentoring relationships for youth across
40 investigations (Eby, Allen, Evans, Ng, & DuBois, 2008).
Results indicated that youth experiencing mentoring fared sig-
nificantly better than those who did not, but the size of these
differences again was relatively small and below those associ-
ated with mentoring for college students and adults.
Findings in evaluations of individual mentoring programs
have also been mixed. This includes the BBBSA mentoring
program. This program has been widely touted as effective based
on the findings of a large, random-assignment evaluation of
the program (Grossman & Tierney, 1998). Yet the magnitude of
these effects was small and generally reflected a relative slowing
of negative trajectories rather than outright improvements
among those receiving mentoring (Rhodes, 2002). A recent large
random-assignment evaluation of BBBSA’s newer, school-based
mentoring program (Herrera, Grossman, Kauh, Feldman, &
McMaken, 2007) revealed similar findings. At the end of the
school year, there were significant improvements in participants’
academic performance, perceived scholastic efficacy, school
misconduct, and attendance relative to nonmentored youth.
These effects were again generally small in magnitude and, when
youth were reassessed a few months into the following school
year, they had for the most part eroded to nonsignificance.
Taken together, available research indicates that, although
mentoring relationships can indeed promote positive develop-
ment among young people, these benefits are modest in size.
Nevertheless, when all relationships are combined, as in most of
the analyses described above, notably more positive outcomes
for some youth may be masked by neutral and even negative
outcomes for youth involved in less effective mentoring rela-
tionships. For mentoring to fully realize its promise as a safe and
effective intervention for young persons, programs will need to
be informed by a deeper understanding of the processes that are
the root of these differences.
WHEN AND HOW DO MENTORING RELATIONSHIPS
WORK?
To this end, it is critically important to understand how men-
toring relationships affect youth. Based on empirical and theo-
retical literature, Rhodes (2005) has proposed a model that
delineates several processes and conditions presumed to be
important for understanding the effects of mentoring relation-
ships on youth (see Fig. 1). First and foremost, beneficial effects
are expected only to the extent that the mentor and youth forge a
strong connection that is characterized by mutuality, trust, and
empathy (component ain Fig. 1). For this type of bond to arise,
mentors and youth are likely to need to spend time together on a
consistent basis over some significant period of time (Spencer,
2007). Only then may youth derive significant benefits. In a re-
analysis of data from the previously noted evaluation of the
BBBSA program, for example, positive effects on youth outcomes
became progressively stronger as relationships persisted for
longer periods of time and were greatest when relationships
lasted at least 1 year (Grossman & Rhodes, 2002). For youth in
relationships that terminated prematurely within the first 6
months (i.e., less than half the 1-year commitment that volunteers
were asked to make), there were no clear benefits and, in at least
one instance (alcohol use), a significant increase in problems
relative to a randomly assigned control group. Beyond issues of
time, research indicates that the extent to which mentors and
youth establish a strong connection is influenced by the dynamics
of their interactions with each other. Langhout, Rhodes, and
Osborne (2004), for example, found that outcomes were most
favorable when youth reported experiencing not only support but
also some degree of structure in their relationships with their
mentors. In general, close and enduring ties appear to be fostered
when mentors adopt a flexible, youth-centered style in which the
young person’s interests and preferences are emphasized, rather
than when they focus predominantly on their own agendas or
expectations for the relationship (Morrow & Styles, 1995).
As shown in Figure 1, well-established mentoring relationships
may contribute to positive youth outcomes through three inter-
acting developmental processes: social-emotional, cognitive, and
identity-related. There are several ways in which the social-emo-
tional development of children and adolescents may be furthered
through mentoring (path bin Fig. 1). By serving as a sounding
board and providing a model of effective adult communication, for
example, mentors may help youth to better understand, express,
and regulate their emotions (Rhodes, Grossman, & Resch, 2000).
The model further assumes that positive socio-emotional ex-
periences with mentors can generalize, enabling youth to
interact with others more effectively (path c). In support of this
prediction, benefits of mentoring relationships have been indi-
cated to accrue in part through improvements in youths’ per-
ceptions of their parental relationships as well as their
relationships with peers and other adults in their social networks
(Rhodes, Reddy, & Grossman, 2005; Rhodes et al., 2000).
Mentoring relationships similarly may affect a range of cognitive
developmental processes (path d). This aspect of the model is
derived from theory and research that highlights the role of so-
cial support from adults in fostering cognitive gains during
development. In particular, through interactions with mentors,
children and adolescents may acquire and refine new thinking
Volume 17—Number 4 255
Jean E. Rhodes and David L. DuBois

skills, becoming more receptive to adult values, advice, and
perspectives. In support of these possibilities, close, enduring
ties with mentors have been found to predict improvements in
academic and vocational outcomes (e.g., Herrera et al., 2007;
Klaw, Fitzgerald, & Rhodes, 2003). Finally, as noted, mentoring
relationships also may facilitate identity development (path e).
Illustratively, mentors may help shift youths’ conceptions of both
their current and future identities. Markus and Nurius (1986)
have referred in this regard to ‘‘possible selves,’’ or individuals’
ideas of what they might become, what they would like to
become, and what they fear becoming. More generally, relation-
ships with mentors may open doors to activities, resources, and
educational or occupational opportunities on which youth can
draw to construct their sense of identity (Darling, Hamilton,
Toyokawa, & Matsuda, 2002). Findings regarding mentors’
protective influence on risk behavior (Beier, Rosenfeld, Spi-
talny, Zanksy, & Bontempo, 2000) and academic outcomes
(Rhodes et al., 2000) are suggestive of a more positive future
orientation in their identities. For this type of guidance and
support to be realized, however, mentors may need to model
appropriate behaviors and values. When youth perceive poten-
tial adult mentors to be involved in problem behavior, they are
more likely to engage in the same types of behavior themselves
(Beam, Gil-Rivas, Greenberger, & Chen, 2002).
In the theoretical model, both mentoring relationships and the
pathways linking them to youth outcomes may be conditioned by
a range of individual, family, and contextual influences (see
Fig. 1, garrows). Several findings are consistent with this as-
sumption. Youth who are overwhelmed by social and behavioral
problems, for example, appear to be less likely to experience
strong, enduring ties with their mentors and, perhaps conse-
quently, also receive fewer benefits (Rhodes, 2005). Environ-
mental adversities such as family instability and socioeconomic
disadvantage also frequently can pose challenges to the forma-
tion of mentoring relationships (Spencer, 2007). Yet, youth from
backgrounds of environmental risk have been found to be es-
pecially likely to benefit from mentoring (DuBois et al., 2002),
thus suggesting that the challenges presented by such circum-
stances need not form barriers to effective relationships.
Returning to the issue of mentoring program effectiveness, it is
noteworthy that significantly stronger positive effects on youth
have been found when programs have incorporated a range of
different practices that would be expected to promote the types
of close, enduring, and developmentally enriching relationships
that are highlighted as desirable by the preceding theory and
research. These practices include training and ongoing super-
vision of mentors, expectations of relatively frequent meetings
and long-lasting relationships between mentors and youth, pro-
gram-sponsored activities to enhance the development of mentor-
ing relationships, parent support and involvement, and the addition
of other programs and servic es to supplement mentoring (DuBois
et al., 2002; Herrera et al., 2007; Jolliffe & Farington, 2007). In
their analysis, DuBois et al. (2002) found that expected effects
for programs utilizing the full complement of evidence-based
Fig. 1. Model of youth mentoring (Rhodes, 2005). Close, enduring mentoring relationships influence youth
outcomes through social/emotional, cognitive, and identity development.
256 Volume 17—Number 4
Mentoring Relationships and Programs for Youth

practices that they identified were nearly three times as large as
the benefits found for youth in the typical program.
CONCLUSIONS
Recent research indicates that mentoring programs are likely to
be effective to the extent that they are successful in establishing
close, enduring connections that promote positive develop-
mental change. Policies that demand greater adherence to
evidence-based practice and the use of rigorous evaluations are
needed to ensure that quality receives as much attention as does
quantity. Models of successful program replication can help
guide such growth (see Box 1).
Practices and policies to cultivate greater availability of
mentoring relationships for youth are based on the assumption
that these ties can offer measurable benefits to young people.
Findings from recent research offer support for this viewpoint.
Yet there are equally important ways in which the available
evidence fails to support current trends in practice and policy.
One area of concern is the increasingly broad range of activi-
ties—such as tutoring, after-school, and service learning pro-
grams—that are argued to constitute mentoring. Underlying this
trend seems to be the perspective that any program in which
adults are brought into contact with young people may count as
providing mentoring regardless of the nature or time frame of the
relationships that are involved. Yet, because the processes in-
volved appear to be complex and, in some cases, entail funda-
mental changes in the ways that children and adolescents think
about themselves and their relationships, it should not be as-
sumed that all programs connecting youth with adults would tap
into relationship processes in a meaningful or beneficial way.
A second area of concern is that mentoring programs and
policies too often have been implemented with insufficient at-
tention to available research. Mentoring strikes deep emotional
chords and has attracted powerful constituents who, at some
level, have looked to research only to confirm what they
intuitively hold to be true. Many organizations and funding
sources have adopted aggressive growth goals to increase the
numbers of youth mentored. Consequently, largely untested
approaches to mentoring (e.g., group, peer, online) have been
championed, while existing models have relaxed minimum re-
quirements for volunteer screening, commitment, and training.
These approaches have been successful in reducing the burden
that is placed on agencies and volunteers yet seem to be directly
at odds with the types of practices that research indicates are
needed to establish and sustain high-quality mentoring rela-
tionships (Rhodes & DuBois, 2006). In effect, mentoring pro-
grams have moved in a direction that is in danger of trivializing
what research indicates is at the very heart of their intervention:
a caring adult–youth relationship. If youth mentoring relation-
ships are to offer optimal and sustained benefit to young people,
theory and research will need to assume a more central role in
the development and growth of interventions to cultivate and
support such caring relationships between adults and youth.
Recommended Reading
DuBois, D.L., & Karcher, M.J. (Eds.). (2005). Handbook of youth
mentoring. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. A well-organized collection
of rigorous, scholarly reviews of theory, research, and practice for
a wide range of topics pertaining to youth mentoring.
Hirsch, B.J. (2005). A place to call home: After-school programs for urban
youth. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association and
New York: Teachers College Press. An in-depth and informative
account of mentoring relationships between staff and youth in
after-school programs.
Rhodes, J.E. (2002). (See References). A comprehensive, highly ac-
cessible overview of what is known about youth mentoring.
Acknowledgments—Both authors are grateful for the support
they have received for their research on mentoring and its re-
BOX 1
The Across Ages Mentoring Program
One mentoring program, Across Ages, has achieved the status of ‘‘model program’’ on the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration’s National Registry of Evidence-based Programs and Practices. Even as Across Ages has expanded to over 75 sites nationwide, it
has continued to demonstrate adherence to its core set of practices, relatively low volunteer attrition, match durations that greatly exceed national
averages, and evidence of encouraging behavioral, academic, and psychosocial outcomes (Taylor, LoSciuto, & Porcellini, 2005). In this program,
10- to 13-year-olds are matched with volunteers aged 50 or older. Volunteers undergo a rigorous screening followed by 10 hours of preservice
training. Additional features of Across Ages include:
Pre-match training of youth
1-year commitment (mentors and youth)
Weekly face-to-face contact for a minimum of 2 hours
Monthly in-service meetings for mentors for supervision, training and support
Weekly phone calls to mentors/weekly meetings with youth
Community service projects
Structured activities and goal setting
Volume 17—Number 4 257
Jean E. Rhodes and David L. DuBois

lation to practice as Distinguished Fellows of the William T.
Grant Foundation.
REFERENCES
Beam, M.R., Gil-Rivas, V., Greenberger, E., & Chen, C. (2002). Ado-
lescent problem behavior and depressed mood: Risk and protec-
tion within and across social contexts. Journal of Youth &
Adolescence,31, 343–357.
Beier, S.R., Rosenfeld, W.D., Spitalny, K.C., Zansky, S.M.,& Bontempo,
A.N. (2000). The potential role of an adult mentor in influencing
high risk behaviors in adolescents. Archives of Pediatrics and
Adolescent Medicine,154, 327–331.
Darling, N., Hamilton, S., Toyokawa, T., & Matsuda, S. (2002). Naturally
occurring mentoring in Japan and the United States: Roles and
correlates. American Journal of Community Psychology,30,
245–270.
DuBois, D.L., Holloway, B.E., Valentine, J.C., & Cooper, H. (2002).
Effectiveness of mentoring programs for youth: A meta-analytic
review. American Journal of Community Psychology,30, 157–197.
DuBois, D.L., & Silverthorn, N. (2005). Natural mentoring relationships
and adolescent health: Evidence from a national study. American
Journal of Public Health,95, 518–524.
Durlak, J.A., & Wells, A.M. (1997). Primary prevention mental health
programs for children and adolescents: A meta-analytic review.
American Journal of Community Psychology,25, 115–152.
Eby, L.T., Allen, T.D., Evans, S.C., Ng, T.W.H., & DuBois, D.L. (2008).
Does mentoring matter? A multidisciplinary meta-analysis com-
paring mentored and non-mentored individuals. Journal of Voca-
tional Behavior,72, 254–267.
Grossman, J.B., & Rhodes, J.E. (2002). The test of time: Predictors and
effects of duration in youth mentoring relationships. American
Journal of Community Psychology,30, 199–219.
Grossman, J.B., & Tierney, J.P. (1998). Does mentoring work? An im-
pact study of the Big Brothers Big Sisters program. Evaluation
Review,22, 403–426.
Herrera, C., Grossman, J.B., Kauh, T.J., Feldman, A.F., & McMaken, J.
(2007). Making a difference in schools: The Big Brothers Big Sisters
school-based mentoring impact study. Philadelphia, PA: Public/
Private Ventures.
Jolliffe, D., & Farington, D.P. (2007). A rapid evidence assessment of
the impact of mentoring on re-offending: A summary. Cambridge
University: Home Office Online Report 11/07. http://www.
crimereduction.gov.uk/workingoffenders/workingoffenders069.htm
Klaw, E.L., Fitzgerald, L.F., & Rhodes, J.E. (2003). Natural mentors
in the lives of African American adolescent mothers: Tracking
relationships over time. Journal of Youth and Adolescence,32,
322–332.
Langhout, R.D., Rhodes, J.E., & Osborne, L.N. (2004). An exploratory
study of youth mentoring in an urban context: Adolescents’ per-
ceptions of relationship styles. Journal of Youth and Adolescence,
33, 293–306.
Markus, H., & Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves. American Psycholo-
gist,41, 954–969.
MENTOR. (2006). Mentoring in America 2005: A snapshot of the current
state of mentoring. Retrieved August 3, 2007, from http://www.
mentoring.org/downloads/mentoring_333.pdf
Morrow, K.V., & Styles, M.B. (1995). Building relationships with youth
in program settings: A study of Big Brothers/Big Sisters. Philadel-
phia, PA: Public/Private Ventures.
Rhodes, J.E. (2002). Stand by me: The risks and rewards of mentoring
today’s youth. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Rhodes, J.E. (2005). A model of youth mentoring. In D.L. DuBois & M.J.
Karcher (Eds.), Handbook of youth mentoring (pp. 30–43). Thou-
sand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Rhodes, J.E., & DuBois, D.L. (2006). Understanding and facilitating the
youth mentoring movement. Social Policy Report,20(3), 3–20.
Rhodes, J.E., Grossman, J.B., & Resch, N.R. (2000). Agents of change:
Pathways through which mentoring relationships influence ado-
lescents’ academic adjustment. Child Development,71, 1662–
1671.
Rhodes, J.E., Reddy, R., & Grossman, J.B. (2005). The protective in-
fluence of mentoring on adolescents’ substance use: Direct and
indirect pathways. Applied Developmental Science,9, 31–47.
Spencer, R. (2007). ‘‘It’s not what I expected’’: A qualitative study
of youth mentoring relationship failures. Journal of Adolescent
Research,22, 331–354.
258 Volume 17—Number 4
Mentoring Relationships and Programs for Youth