38 VOL. 104 ■ NO. 2 ■ 2012 J FCS Youth Mentoring: Program and Mentor Best Practices SCHOLARSHIP Mentoring is defined here as the pairing of a youth to a non- parental adult figure who can serve as a role model and provide support for that youth. Lerner (2007) contends “...the presence of adult mentors in the commu- nity is the most important devel- opmental asset associated with positive youth development” (p. 217). In the United States, approximately 25% of all youth and 50% of minority youth live in single-parent households (Tier- ney, Grossman, & Resch, 2000). Tierney et al. (2000) argued that this rise in single-parent families, coupled with the breakdown of neighborhood socialization, and a growing need for parents, espe- cially single parents, to work long hours outside the home, has left an increasing number of youth isolated from adults. This isola- tion may lead to a decrease in positive contact opportunities between youth and adults, a situ- ation that fuels the increasing interest and research into men- toring programs. Handy, Rodgers, and Schwi- eterman (2011) highlighted ways in which positive partnerships between youth and adults can be most beneficial. In accordance with their efforts, we reviewed the literature concerning mentor- ing relationships to identify the best practices in terms of produc- ing positive outcomes for youth mentees. Mentoring success, in the con- text of formal assessment and how to measure it, is a matter of some debate (Rhodes, 2008). Success in mentoring relationships is often measured on scales developed for psychology research and designed to test particular psychological outcomes (Langhout, Rhodes, & Osborne, 2004). Most commonly, a researcher gathers pre- and post- data from mentees in one or more programs to look at improvements in a variety of areas that are per- ceived to reflect the mentees’ well- being. Researchers who reviewed studies that used this type of broad evidence base have con- cluded that mentoring programs produce a range of positive youth outcomes such as improvement in self-perception, academic per- formance, parent-child interac- tions, peer support, social acceptance, and reductions in drug and alcohol use (Hansen, 2007; Grossman & Rhodes, 2002; Langhout et al., 2004). However, the lack of clearly defined best practices can lead to inconsistency in implementation and in out- comes. Therefore, clarification of best practices for programs and for mentors is critical if we are to reach the potential outcomes sys- tematically. Implementation of these best practices will empower program organizers to achieve positive outcomes more consis- tently and will allow researchers to measure change in a more rigor- ous manner. To establish a consistent set of outcomes, an understanding of Youth mentoring programs have been on the rise for the past few decades, yet little has been done to synthesize best practices, as identi- fied in existing research, for programs or mentors to follow. In a review of the literature on mentoring, eight different types of mentoring rela- tionships were identified along with four program best practices and six mentor best practices.Youth success outcomes and measures also are shared. Adhering to these practices will strengthen programs, lay the groundwork for more formal measurement, and provide the best possi- ble mentoring for youth. Note: This work was made possible by the Wyoming Department of Health, Behavioral Health Division. The lack of clearly defined best practices can lead to inconsistency in implementation and in outcomes. JFCS-104-2-15-Anastasia_Scholarship#5_120030.qxp 7/14/12 12:01 PM Page 38
Transcript
3 8 V O L . 1 0 4 ■ N O . 2 ■ 2 0 1 2 J F C S
Youth Mentoring: Programand Mentor Best Practices
SC
HO
LA
RS
HI
P
Mentoring is defined here as the pairing of a youth to a non-parental adult figure who canserve as a role model and providesupport for that youth. Lerner(2007) contends “...the presenceof adult mentors in the commu-nity is the most important devel-opmental asset associated withpositive youth development” (p. 217). In the United States,approximately 25% of all youthand 50% of minority youth livein single-parent households (Tier-ney, Grossman, & Resch, 2000).Tierney et al. (2000) argued thatthis rise in single-parent families,coupled with the breakdown ofneighborhood socialization, anda growing need for parents, espe-cially single parents, to work longhours outside the home, has leftan increasing number of youthisolated from adults. This isola-tion may lead to a decrease inpositive contact opportunitiesbetween youth and adults, a situ-ation that fuels the increasing
interest and research into men-toring programs.
Handy, Rodgers, and Schwi-eterman (2011) highlighted waysin which positive partnershipsbetween youth and adults can bemost beneficial. In accordancewith their efforts, we reviewedthe literature concerning mentor-ing relationships to identify thebest practices in terms of produc-ing positive outcomes for youthmentees.
Mentoring success, in the con-text of formal assessment and howto measure it, is a matter of somedebate (Rhodes, 2008). Success inmentoring relationships is oftenmeasured on scales developed forpsychology research and designedto test particular psychologicaloutcomes (Langhout, Rhodes, &Osborne, 2004). Most commonly,
a researcher gathers pre- and post-data from mentees in one or moreprograms to look at improvementsin a variety of areas that are per-ceived to reflect the mentees’ well-being. Researchers who reviewedstudies that used this type ofbroad evidence base have con-cluded that mentoring programsproduce a range of positive youthoutcomes such as improvement in self-perception, academic per-formance, parent-child interac-tions, peer support, socialacceptance, and reductions indrug and alcohol use (Hansen,2007; Grossman & Rhodes, 2002;Langhout et al., 2004). However,the lack of clearly defined bestpractices can lead to inconsistencyin implementation and in out-comes. Therefore, clarification ofbest practices for programs andfor mentors is critical if we are toreach the potential outcomes sys-tematically. Implementation ofthese best practices will empowerprogram organizers to achievepositive outcomes more consis-tently and will allow researchers tomeasure change in a more rigor-ous manner.
To establish a consistent set ofoutcomes, an understanding of
Youth mentoring programs have been on the rise for the past fewdecades, yet little has been done to synthesize best practices, as identi-fied in existing research, for programs or mentors to follow. In a reviewof the literature on mentoring, eight different types of mentoring rela-tionships were identified along with four program best practices and sixmentor best practices.Youth success outcomes and measures also areshared. Adhering to these practices will strengthen programs, lay thegroundwork for more formal measurement, and provide the best possi-ble mentoring for youth.
Note: This work was made possible by the Wyoming Department of Health, Behavioral Health Division.
The lack of clearly defined best practices can lead to
All are at Wyoming Survey & AnalysisCenter, University of Wyoming,Laramie,WY
the various types of formal and informal mentoring relationshipsis necessary. Understanding the connection, setting, and purposeof the relationship helps to clarify and narrow program goals.Knowing this information empowers practitioners to focus onprogram types that often target youth populations most in needof positive mentoring relationships.
METHODThe content of this article was distilled from a study that theWyoming Survey & Analysis Center (Anastasia & Drever, 2010)conducted for the Wyoming Department of Health, MentalHealth and Substance Abuse Services Division, which includedreviewing the literature on youth mentoring program types andbest practices for implementation in the state of Wyoming.Because the research for this article consisted of interviews withprofessionals who are not quoted and a secondary review of theliterature, no approval for human subject review was required.By reviewing secondary data and supplementing findings withpractitioner interviews, eight central mentoring types were iden-tified, four program best practices, and six mentor best prac-tices that support the central youth success outcomes identifiedin the literature (Anastasia & Drever, 2010).
Mentoring TypesVarious types of mentoring derive from combinations of threeprimary component pairings: the connection (natural/assigned),setting (school-based/community-based), and purpose or intentof the mentoring relationship (developmental/prescriptive)(Anastasia & Drever, 2010).
Connection—Natural or Assigned MentoringNatural mentoring relationships evolve organically. Mentors and mentees are not assigned by a community group, school,church, or other organization (Rhodes, Bogat, Roffman, Edel-man, & Galasso, 2002). The relationship develops sponta-neously and the mentor and mentee are the primary agents inthe relationship. In contrast, assigned relationships have anorganization to match mentors with mentees, and often providetraining and other support to mentors.
Setting—Community-Based or School-BasedCommunity-based programs tend to focus broadly on cognitive,social-emotional, and identity development outcomes. School-based mentoring programs are geared toward improving grades,school attendance and behavior, interest in learning, and plansto pursue higher education (Rhodes, 2008). The articulatedgoals of the two types may be contrasting, but there is evidencethat when conducted with fidelity, either type of setting can
produce broadly equivalent improvement (Karcher& Herrera, 2007; Pedersen, Woolum, Gagne, &Coleman, 2009) and using a combination of thesesettings for activities is a best practice for any men-toring program (DuBois, Holloway, Valentine, &Cooper, 2002).
Intent—Developmental or PrescriptiveDevelopmental mentoring relationships tend to be youth-driven and activity-focused (Langhout et al., 2004; Pedersen et al., 2009). Prescriptivementoring is characterized by direct emphasis onbehavioral and attitudinal goals that the mentor orprogram considers positive. Although the devel-opmental approach is more effective at improvingyouth outcomes (DuBois et al., 2002; White,2009), there are documented instances of pre-scriptive mentoring achieving desired outcomes(Rhodes, 2007; Spencer, 2007).
By selecting one component from each of thepairings (natural/assigned, school-based/commu-nity-based, and developmental/prescriptive), eightpossible mentoring type-permutations emerge.And, although portions of all six components maybe present in any mentoring relationship, the pri-mary mode in each of the three component pair-ings serves to further clarify the type of mentoring.The eight types of permutations are presentedbelow, with examples.
The most commonly studied of these permuta-tions are the ACD and the non-familial NCDmentoring relationships. These types are both eas-ier to monitor and measure and most mentoringsources accept outside donations and grants, whichoften requires a degree of program accountability.In most cases, it is easier to track and observe anassigned relationship due to the controlled envi-ronment and pre-established goals. The naturalmentoring that comes in NCD clubs is not usuallyintended to be individual mentoring, although thisfocused attention often happens when an adulttakes on an authority role in the life of a youth.Although the best practices shared here areframed around programs that are ACD, each canbe adapted to fit any of the permutations des-cribed in this article and have particular applica-tion for any assigned program or NCD. Othernatural relationships where an official is involvedin requiring youth self-selection (NSDs and NSPs)also could benefit from adhering to these bestpractices.
Program Best PracticesAssigned mentoring programs for youth are suc-cessful when they create an environment that sup-ports and sustains individual success (DuBois et al.,2002). This success is initially established andreestablished with the acquisition of each mentorinto a professional environment that provides aformal program structure, clear expectations formentors, ongoing training and support, and regu-lar self-monitoring (see Figure 1).
The best practice of formal structure is charac-terized by the establishment of a policy and proce-dures manual and the use of a variety of schooland community settings for activities (DuBois et al.,2002). This manual should outline all aspects ofhiring, training, and retaining staff in order to aidin clarification of expectations and establish pro-tocols that lead to fidelity of implementation(Keller, 2006).
When recruiting a mentor, the organizationshould adhere to the best practice of developingclear expectations, even if there is no pay involved.These expectations include a job description andinterview protocols that address the specific compe-tencies required for the position (Keller, 2006).Although not essential to successful mentoring,prior helper training can be beneficial. The practiceof identifying the level of prior helper training andproviding supplemental support in pedagogicalinstruction and youth development theory andpractice can be beneficial. Pairing mentors whohave not been formally trained with mentoringpeers who have been trained may be one way to
address this disparity, and should be studied fur-ther. The organization should perform back-ground and safety screenings for all employees(DuBois et al., 2002).
Once hired, each mentor should be given anorientation (DuBois et al., 2002; Keller, 2006). Inaddition to orientation, the organization shouldprovide access to ongoing support and training formentors throughout their association with theprogram (DuBois et al., 2002; Pedersen et al.,2009; Rhodes, 2007). Ongoing training, althoughessential, has been shown to be more effective incombination with preparatory training; mentoringorganizations should make both meaningful
V O L . 1 0 4 ■ N O . 2 ■ 2 0 1 2 J F C S 4 1
Figure 1. Mentoring Program Practices, Mentor Practices, and Youth Success Factors (Anastasia & Drever,
orientation (i.e., 6 or more hours) and ongoingtraining available to their mentors (DuBois, 2007).
Regular organizational self-monitoring to evalu-ate staff training, review the organizational cul-ture, and revise staff retention efforts is essentialto ensure fidelity and targeting of goals. In addi-tion, a regular assessment to identify barriers thatcan limit staff success also is beneficial (Keller,2006).
Mentor Best PracticesPositive outcomes occur when the mentor-menteerelationship lasts for 1 year or longer and when thementor understands what approaches, practices,and attitudes work (Grossman & Rhodes, 2002;Rhodes, 2008). Best practices can serve to increasethe rate of success in formal mentoring programsand can reduce negative impacts, such as early rela-tionship termination. Regardless of the reason fortermination, it can be perceived by the mentee asintentional rejection (Downey & Feldman, 1996;Downey, Lebolt, Rincorn, & Freitas, 1998; DuBoiset al., 2002; Grossman & Rhodes, 2002) and canlead to negative self-perception and lowered aca-demic performance. The literature identifies sixbest practices for individual mentors: (a) training,(b) commitment to the relationship, (c) respect forthe mentee’s background, (d) respect for the indi-vidual, (e) mutual activities, and (f) use of support(see Figure 1). Each of these is discussed below.
Although those in “helping professions” (e.g.,teachers, counselors) who have received formaltraining have greater predictive success as mentors,training and support provided to lay persons canproduce similar results (DuBois et al., 2002). Men-tors should avail themselves of those opportunities(DuBois et al., 2002, Liang & West, 2007).
In addition to formal training, commitment tothe relationship is critical. Committed mentorsmeet with mentees regularly (once per week ormore) and over a long (1 year or more) period oftime (Grossman & Rhodes, 2002; Jolliffe & Far-rington, 2007; Parra, DuBois, Neville, Pugh-Lilly,& Povinelli, 2002; Styles & Morrow, 1992; Tolan,Henry, Shoeny, & Bass, 2005).
When respect for family, class, and culture isestablished, the relationship can build trust andstart to grow. A lack of respect for the mentee’s
background in mixed race, class, and gender rela-tionships can lead to early termination (Flaxman,Ascher, & Harrington, 1988). Mentoring can suc-ceed regardless of social and economic contrasts,but only if the mentee feels comfortable that thementor respects his or her background (Liang &West, 2007). This best practice should not seek toassimilate the mentee into the mentor’s culture(Hirsch, Mickus, & Boerger, 2002); rather thementor should foster existing positive behaviorswithin the youth’s culture and backgroundthrough support and modeling.
With the knowledge that young people are notyet adults, mentors should have respect for individ-ual outlook and attitudes. Youth learn and grow in age-appropriate ways. Mentors should respecttheir mentees’ youthful perspectives and their needto have fun and engage in challenging activities; itis also important that each youth mentoring planbe designed based on goals and needs as definedby the mentee (Langhout et al., 2004).
Mentor respect for the mentee’s perspectiveincludes being open to engaging in relationshipbuilding through activities, meaning that mentorsshould engage mentees through shared activities,which will allow the mentor-mentee relationshipto grow on its own. This approach works betterthan simply sitting and discussing problems andissues (Langhout et al., 2004; Lerner, Brittian, &Fay, 2007).
Mentoring can be challenging. A strong sup-port system for the mentor is essential to main-taining a long-term relationship. Mentors shouldbe open to seeking support as needed (DuBois et al., 2002). The sponsoring organization shouldprovide access to support, but support also maycome from the mentor’s peers, family, or profes-sionals outside the organization.
Youth Success OutcomesThe ultimate goal of mentoring is achieving suc-cessful outcomes for youth. This broad concept ofsuccess can be summarized in four major goals:(a) becoming a long-term contributing member ofsociety, (b) improving self-worth, (c) increasingpotential for success, and (d) improving commu-nication skills (see Figure 1).
The mentoring organization should strive toempower youth to become long-term, contributingmembers of society. This citizenship developmentincludes creating a positive environment thatencourages a strong work ethic and civic engage-ment in a way that increases mentee knowledge,improves pro-social behavior, and increases socialcapital (Karcher, 2007; Langhout et al., 2004).Related to citizenship is the goal of improved self-worth, which includes improved skills for personaldevelopment, increased resiliency, and improvedhappiness and emotional wellbeing (DuBois & Silverthorn, 2005).
Mentoring can help improve potential for success through enhanced skills and behaviors,improved academic performance, awareness ofpersonal potential, and awareness of resources(Rhodes et al., 2002). Success also comes in theform of improved communication skills, which areapparent in a variety of ways including strength-ened youth-adult relationships, positive peer rela-tionships, skills for improved interactions in theworkplace and other social settings (Karcher,2007; Langhout et al., 2004).
DISCUSSION AND FUTURE RESEARCHReviewing the literature raises awareness of thegaps in research around mentoring and mentoringprograms. If we can better establish the goals andneeds of each mentee at the beginning of his orher introduction into a mentoring program, thenwe can establish measureable outcomes for thosegoals and use this information to create strongermatches and potentially increase the success rateamong assigned relationships.
Research opportunities also exist to measurechange in the youth over the life of the relation-ship using pre-post measurement designs. Becausethe current research has focused on desired pro-grammatic outcomes, assumptions are often made
around the infusion of trust, mutuality, respect,and empathy (TMRE) somewhere in the relation-ship building process. However, implications thatsomehow TMRE must be present, or must developin the relationship, to achieve individual and pro-grammatic outcomes have not been clarified.Thus, research to better understand the relation-ship of TMRE to mentoring success would behelpful. Practitioners and researchers agree thatTMRE must be present to achieve successful out-comes; therefore, there is potential to use TMREas a measurement of predicting persistence of thementoring relationship, which subsequently holdspotential to be used to increase matching successrates. If researchers can identify and measureTMRE unique to the individual mentee and thementor in a pre-post instrument, shifts in TMREfrom the mentor to the mentee (or vice versa)could demonstrate measurable change.
Having reviewed the research and defined bestpractices for programs and mentors, our currentunderstanding of what matters most in the suc-cess of youth mentoring is the level of commit-ment and respect brought into the relationship by the mentor as well as the level of professional-ism with which the program is run. In particular,professionalism is necessary in informing, evaluat-ing, and above all, supporting mentors. Adheringto these effective best practices for mentoringorganizations and mentors will strengthen pro-grams, lay the groundwork for more formal meas-urement of outcomes, empower programs toidentify gaps in service, improve delivery meth-ods, and ultimately provide the best possible sup-port for youth.
REFERENCESAnastasia, T. T., & Drever, A. I. (2010) A review of youth men-
toring research and practice: Lessons for adoption andadaptation (WYSAC Technical Report No. CHES-1019).Laramie, WY: Wyoming Survey & Analysis Center, Uni-versity of Wyoming.
Downey, G., & Feldman, S. (1996). Implications of rejectionsensitivity for intimate relationships. Journal of Personal-ity and Social Psychology, 70(6), 1327–1343.
Downey, G., Lebolt, A., Rincon, C., & Freitas, A. L. (1998).Rejection sensitivity and children’s interpersonal difficul-ties. Child Development, 69(4), 1074–1091.
DuBois, D. L. (2007). Effectiveness of mentoring program prac-tices. Research in Action Series. Alexandria, VA: MENTOR/National Mentoring Partnership.
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 CommunityPsychology, 30(2), 157–197.
DuBois, D. L., & Silverthorn, N. (2005). Natural mentoringrelationships and adolescent health: Evidence from anational study. American Journal of Public Health, 95(3),518–524.
Flaxman, E., Ascher, C., & Harrington, C. (1988). Youth men-toring: Programs and practices (Urban Diversity SeriesNo. 97). New York: Teachers College, Columbia Univer-sity. (ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED308257).
Grossman, J. B., & Rhodes, J. E. (2002). The test of time: Pre-dictors and effects of duration in youth mentoring rela-tionships. American Journal of Community Psychology,30(2), 199–219.
Handy, D. J., Rodgers, K. B., & Schwieterman, T. A. (2011).Youth asset mapping: Showcasing youth empowermentand positive youth-adult partnerships. Journal of Family& Consumer Sciences, 103(1), 9–15.
Hansen, K. (2007). One-to-one mentoring: Literature review.Philadelphia, PA: Big Brothers Big Sisters of America.
Hirsch, B. J., Mickus, M., & Boerger, R. (2002). Ties to influ-ential adults among black and white adolescents: Cul-ture, social class, and family networks. American Journalof Community Psychology, 30(2), 289–303.
Jolliffe, D., & Farrington, D. P. (2007). A rapid evidence assess-ment of mentoring. Cambridge University. Home OfficeOnline Report. Retrieved from http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds
Karcher, M. (2007). Cross-age peer mentoring:. Research inAction Series. Alexandria, VA: MENTOR/National Men-toring Partnership.
Karcher, M., & Herrera, C. (2007). School-based mentoring:Research in Action Series. Alexandria, VA: MENTOR/National Mentoring Partnership.
Keller, T. E. (2006). Program staff in youth mentoring programs:Qualifications, training, and retention: Research in ActionSeries. Alexandria, VA: MENTOR/National MentoringPartnership.
Langhout, D., Rhodes, J. E., & Osborne, L. (2004). Anexploratory study of youth mentoring in an urban con-text: Adolescents’ perceptions of relationship styles. Jour-nal of Youth and Adolescence, 33(4), 293–306.
Lerner, R. M. (2007). The good teen: Rescuing adolescence fromthe myths of the storm and stress years. New York, NY:Stonesong Press.
Lerner, R., Brittian, A. S., & Fay, K. E. (2007). Mentoring: Akey resource for promoting positive youth development.Research in Action Series. Alexandria, VA: MENTOR/National Mentoring Partnership.
Liang, B., & West, J. (2007). Youth mentoring: Do race and eth-nicity really matter? Research in Action Series. Alexan-dria, VA: MENTOR/ National Mentoring Partnership.
Parra, G. R., DuBois, D. L., Neville, H. A., Pugh-Lilly, A. O.,& Povinelli, N. (2002). Mentoring relationships foryouth: Investigation of a process-oriented model. Journalof Community Psychology, 30(4), 367–388.
Pedersen, P. J., Woolum, S., Gagne, B., & Coleman, M. (2009).Beyond the norm: Extraordinary relationships in youthmentoring. Children and Youth Services Review, 31(12),1307–1313.
Rhodes, J. (2007). Fostering close and effective relationships inyouth mentoring programs. Research in Action Series.Alexandria, VA: MENTOR/National Mentoring Part-nership.
Rhodes, J. (2008). Improving youth mentoring throughresearch-based practice. American Journal of CommunityPsychology, 41, 35–42.
Rhodes, J. E., Bogat, G. A., Roffman, J., Edelman, P., &Galasso, L. (2002). Youth mentoring in perspective:Introduction to the special issue. American Journal ofCommunity Psychology, 30(2), 149–156.
Spencer, R. (2007). Why youth mentoring relationships end.Research in Action Series. Alexandria, VA: MENTOR/National Mentoring Partnership.
Styles, M. B., & Morrow, K. V. (1992). Understanding howyouth and elders form relationships: A study of four Link-ing Lifetimes programs. Philadelphia, PA: Public/PrivateVentures.
Tierney, J. P., Grossman, J. B., & Resch, N. L. (2000). Makinga difference: An impact study of Big Brothers/Big Sisters.Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private Ventures.
Tolan, P., Henry, D., Shoeny, M., & Bass, A. (2005, May). Whatwe know about what mentoring can and might do foryouth crime. Presented at The Fifth Annual Jerry LeeCrime Prevention Symposium: Systematic Evidence onWhat Works in Crime and Justice: Raising Questions andPresenting Findings, Adelphi, MD.
White, D. J. (2009). The effect of youth participatory evaluationand youth community action training on positive youthdevelopment (Doctoral dissertation, Oregon State Uni-versity). Retrieved from ScholarsArchive@OSU http://hdl.handle.net/1957/13732
