Strengthening Mentoring Opportunities for At-Risk Youth

Full text

Strengthening Mentoring
Opportunities for At-Risk Youth
Bottom Line
 Mentoring programs for young people have proliferated rapidly in
recent years and now serve more than 2 million youth in the U.S.,
most of whom are from disadvantaged social and economic back-
grounds.
 The overall record of success for youth mentoring programs is
encouraging but uneven.
 Recommended next steps include:
– Measured expansion of programs with strong evidence of
effectiveness
– Careful evaluation of newer, innovative approaches that may
increase both the reach and the impact of services
– Federal leadership in the areas of quality assurance, evaluation,
and support for mentor recruitment and retention
What Do We Know?
Too many young people lack strong and sustained relationships
with caring adults, putting them at serious risk.
 An estimated 8.5 million youth (about 20%) do not have caring
adults in their lives. Those from disadvantaged homes and com-
munities are over-represented in this number.
 Young persons who lack a strong relationship with a caring adult
while growing up are much more vulnerable to a host of difficul-
ties, ranging from academic failure to involvement in serious risk
behaviors. Research finds that resilient youth—those who suc-
cessfully transition from risk-filled backgrounds to the adult world
of work and good citizenship—are consistently distinguished by
the presence of a caring adult in their lives.
About this Policy Brief...
Mentoring the next generation
of youth is critical to the future
health and prosperity of our nation.
Yet, millions of young people are
currently growing up without the
guidance and support from parents
or others that is needed to prepare
them to become well-adjusted and
contributing members of society.
Making progress in addressing this
need will require substantial com-
mitments of time and resources
at all levels—from individuals to
communities to government. These
investments must be made care-
fully and strategically.
For guidance, this brief summa-
rizes the latest research on youth
mentoring. Several new directions
for programs and policies aimed
at connecting young people with
caring adults are outlined that build
on current knowledge. We hope in
doing so to stimulate dialogue and,
ultimately, actions that strengthen
the foundation for success that we
provide to our nation’s youth.
by Timothy Cavell (University of Arkansas), David DuBois (University of Illinois at Chicago),
Michael Karcher (University of Texas at San Antonio), Thomas Keller (Portland State University),
and Jean Rhodes (University of Massachusetts, Boston)*
POLICY BRIEF:
* Authors are listed in alphabetical order as each contributed equally to the writing of this brief.
Please direct comments or requests for additional information to David DuBois at dldubois@uic.edu.
February 2009

More than a decade of research has revealed mentoring to be a viable intervention strategy that holds
considerable promise. Yet, programs face myriad challenges and appear to be well short of reaching
their potential.
 Mentoring programs are capable of making a positive difference in multiple domains of youth behavior
and development:
– Improvements in self-esteem
– Better relationships with parents and peers
– Greater school connectedness
– Improved academic performance
– Reductions in substance use, violence, and other risk behaviors
 Extrapolations from existing data indicate that high-quality mentoring programs have the potential
to produce a sizable monetary return on investment. Such analyses presume that mentoring has
long-term educational and vocational benefits for participating youth, however, an assumption that is
largely untested.
 Barriers to widespread effectiveness include:
– Inability to recruit, screen, and train sufficient
numbers of mentors to meet program demands
– Inconsistent benefits across programs
– Positive outcomes not being reliably sustained
after program participation ends
– Harmful effects for some youth because mentors
are unreliable, end relationships prematurely, or
model deviant behavior or authority-undermining
attitudes
Collectively, these trends underscore a need for great care when seeking to “go to scale” either by expand-
ing existing programs or by funding newer, start-up programs.
 The most successful programs incorporate evidence-based “best” practices, which include:
– Targeting youth most likely to benefit from mentoring
– Using rigorous approaches to screen and train mentors
– Clearly articulating program goals and expectations
– Arranging activities to facilitate mentor-youth relationship development
– Providing ongoing support for mentors to strengthen relationships and minimize early match
closures
Strengthening Mentoring Opportunities for At-Risk Youth 2

– Supporting and involving parents
– Coordinating linkages with other programs
and services
– Using systematic monitoring and evalu-
ation to engage in continuous quality
improvement
Good intentions and a ready corps of volunteers
are not enough to deliver an effective youth
mentoring program—a solid infrastructure is
essential.
 Initiatives to promote program quality are
occurring in many sectors of the mentoring
field. For example:
– MENTOR/National Mentoring Partnership has developed the Elements of Effective Practice and a
network of state and regional partnerships to support the adoption of these guidelines
– Big Brothers Big Sisters is piloting and evaluating an extensive set of evidence-based enhance-
ments to its school-based mentoring program
– Friends for Youth has published a resource, Screening Applicants for Effectiveness, that offers tools
designed to screen out potential child predators and prevent child molestation
Such initiatives require a professional, well-trained workforce to staff youth mentoring agencies. Sev-
eral new education and training opportunities are emerging to meet this need, but sustainable sup-
port is key.
 Innovation is also plentiful. Programs are experimenting with:
– Alternative delivery formats and structures, such as e-mentoring and peer, group, and team
models
– Embedding mentoring within specific community settings such as after-school programs and the
workplace
– Tailoring services to specific populations and cultural groups, such as children of prisoners
– Alternative sources of mentors, such as “natural” mentors from within youths’ own social net-
works as well as paid paraprofessionals
– Long-term commitments to youth from elementary school to high school graduation
– Integrating mentoring within larger programs that offer extensive arrays of other services and
supports
Strengthening Mentoring Opportunities for At-Risk Youth 3

Recommended Next Steps
Policies that strengthen families, schools, neighborhoods, and communities—especially those that cul-
tivate a strong ethic of collective responsibility for mentoring our next generation—are vital for ensuring
that young people receive guidance and support from caring adults. Yet, for many of our most vulnerable
youth, there is an urgent need for access to high-quality mentoring which is made possible through more
formal and targeted programs. Future priorities should include:
 Intensifying support for the most promising current mentoring programs and organizations,
including:
– Local, state, and regional programs that
demonstrate strong alignment with best
practices, with funding carefully structured
to ensure quality is maintained while pursu-
ing measured growth goals
– Intermediary organizations that can provide
the technical assistance needed to ensure
that essential elements of infrastructure are
in place across all programs
– National programs that have rigorous evi-
dence of positive impacts and capacity to
expand their reach to underserved commu-
nities and youth
 Investing in ground-breaking studies of mentoring young people, including:
– A long-term, in-depth investigation of the formal as well as informal mentoring experiences of a
large, nationally-representative sample of youth and how these may contribute to future success
– Comparative evaluation of differing program models, including newer, innovative approaches,
using a consortium of researchers working at multiple sites
 Mounting new strategic initiatives at the Federal level, including:
– Better systems of coordination to promote common standards of excellence and shared methods
of evaluation across the numerous agencies involved in supporting mentoring
– Policies to increase the supply of committed mentors for programs, such as college tuition reim-
bursement, employer partnerships and tax credits, and other incentives
Reference
Rhodes, J. E., & DuBois, D. L. (2006). Understanding and facilitating the youth mentoring movement.
Social Policy Report, 20(3). Available online at: http://www.srcd.org/documents/publications/spr/
spr20-3.pdf
Strengthening Mentoring Opportunities for At-Risk Youth 4