Sharon D. Johnson
Associate Professor
School of Social Work
University of Missouri-St. Louis
1
 Mentoring as a prevention and intervention strategy
for at-risk youth is becoming increasingly popular.
 More specifically, it is gaining momentum in the field
of juvenile delinquency.
 Recent years have seen a spotlight on the positive
outcomes of mentoring for at-risk youth.
2
The Functionality of Mentoring
Limitations of Mentoring
Is Mentoring Appropriate for All Youth?
Implications
3
Responsible mentoring:
 Is a structured, one-to-one relationship or partnership that
focuses on the needs of mentored participants.
 Fosters caring and supportive relationships.
 Encourages individuals to develop to their fullest potential.
 Helps an individual to develop his or her own vision for the
future.
Rhodes, J.E. (2002).
4
Responsible mentoring
Can take many forms and take place in an array of settings:
Rhodes, J.E. (2002).





traditional mentoring
group mentoring
team mentoring
peer mentoring
e-mentoring
“…a mentor makes an individualized, personalized effort to
assist someone in achieving their goals, reaching their
objectives, and/or becoming successful”
(Landefield, 2010, p.11).
5
Pathways of mentor influence
mediator
Parental/peer
relationships
Social-emotional
development
Mutuality
Trust
Empathy
Identity
development
Positive
Outcomes
e.g., reduced
health risk,
better psych.
outcomes
Cognitive
development
Interpersonal history, social competencies, relationship duration,
developmental stage, family and community context
moderators
moderators
Rhodes, J. E. (2005)
6
Functionality of Mentoring
 Mentoring helps build and strengthen protective
factors in youth (La Vigne, et al, 2008).
 Mentoring has been shown to affect multiple domains
at one time including
 family bonding, relationships with adults, school
bonding and life skills (Thompson & Zand, 2010; Bazron et al.,
2006; King et al., 2002).
7
Functionality of Mentoring
 An evaluation of mentoring programs found that
youth experienced positive returns in
 academics, social attitudes and relationships, substance
abuse prevention, and reductions in some negative
behaviors (Jekielek et al., 2002).
 Mentoring also reduces risk
 Weapon carrying, illicit drug use, smoking behaviors,
frequency of sex partners (Bier et al, 2003)
8
Functionality of Mentoring
The higher functioning the mentor program
and mentoring relationship, is the greater
the gains seen by youth
(Goldner & Mayseless, 2009; Rhodes, 2008; Thompson & Zand, 2010).
9
Limitations of Mentoring
 Lack of continuity in the mentoring relationship
 One study indicated that only 64% of youth were still
meeting with their original mentor at 1st follow-up
(Schwartz et al, 2010).
 Youth experienced drops in self-worth and perceived
scholastic competence when in relationships that
terminated within 3 months (Grossman & Rhodes, 2002).
 Termination more likely among older adolescents, youth
with emotional, sexual or physical abuse (Grossman &
Rhodes, 2002).
10
Limitations of Mentoring
 E-mentoring
 Highly regarded by youth and youth centered, but few
“deep” connections between youth and mentor (Rhodes
et al, 2006).
 Mentoring can shield depression but can’t resolve
depression if already present (Bauldrey, 2006).
 Mentoring can slow onset of negative behaviors but
can’t prevent the occurrence of these behaviors
(Grossman & Rhodes, 2002).
11
Limitations of Mentoring
 Mentoring of Special Populations
 Have you mentored a youth in a unique situation and are
you willing to….?
100
80
81
78
74
67
60
Have Mentored
40
20
17
17
16
11
Willing to Mentor
0
Pregnant or Parent in
Parent
Prison
In Juvi
System
Foster Care
Mentoring in America, Survey of 1,000 US citizens in 2005-
12
Age & Possible
Developmental
Impact
Implications for Mentoring Relationships
0-2
Trust and
attachment
Quality and impact of mentoring relationships is
based on the closeness of the bond between mentor
and mentee. For mentees with trust and attachment
challenges, developing that bond may be difficult.
2-6
Separation anxiety
Mentees with separation anxiety may have difficulty
establishing appropriate boundaries in relationships.
This could manifest itself as being overly
needy/attached or, conversely, by remaining
detached and distant to prevent future
disappointment.
7-10
Poor self-concept,
developmental
regressions
Mentees with low self-esteem may not believe they
are worthy of “good” things, including their mentors.
This belief may cause them to act out or hold back
emotionally. It may also result in behavior that is not
age appropriate.
Bilchik, S. (2007). Mentoring: A Promising Intervention for Children of Prisoners. Research in Action Series
(10). http://www.mentoring.org/downloads/mentoring_391.pdf
13
Age & Possible
Developmental
Impact
Implications for Mentoring Relationships
11-14
Rejections of limits
on behavior
Mentees may have difficulty working w/others and
controlling emotions which can make forming a
close relationship difficult.
15-18
Premature
termination of
dependency
relationship
Mentees may have difficulty trusting and engaging
in relationships with adults which could lead to
rejection of the mentor or behavior that challenges
the mentor’s role to provide guidance and support.
Bilchik, S. (2007). Mentoring: A Promising Intervention for Children of Prisoners. Research in Action Series
(10). http://www.mentoring.org/downloads/mentoring_391.pdf
14
Is Mentoring For Everyone?
 Pre-mentoring relationship quality impacts external
reports of externalizing problems. (Schwartz et al 2010)
 Average
Greatest benefit
 Low
Modest benefit
 High
Least benefit
15
Confusing Results
 Youth at varying levels of risk benefit at varying levels
from mentoring.
 Youth who were most at-risk see the most gains from
mentoring (Jekielek et al., (2002).
BUT……
 Varying relationships by subgroups (Dubois et al, 2006)

Stronger effects for youth with environmental risk

Fewer/adverse effects for youth with substantial
personal problems
16
Confusing Results
 Role of Natural Mentors: Grandparents, adult relatives, cousins,
older friends, coaches, pastors, teachers (Zimmerman et al 2002; Kogan et al, 2011;
Hurd & Zimmerman, 2010)

Instrumental and emotional support and affectively positive
interaction
 Less anger, less rule-breaking behavior, less aggression,
nonviolent delinquent behavior
 Sustained relationship overtime predicts:
 Less depressive symptoms
 Less sexual risk behavior
But…….

Other research indicates that the relationship between
youth and non-familial mentors has more positive
outcomes in education and physical health (Dubois & Silverthorn,
2005).
17
So Where Does This Leave Us?
 Mentoring can be effective for some youth.
 It is not a “catch-all” approach for at-risk behavior
reduction.
 Mentoring needs to be structured:
 Youth evaluation for need/potential benefits
 Carefully selected and trained adults*
 Long-term commitments*
 Ongoing monitoring and support of relationships*
 Utilization of natural mentors when available
*Elements of Effective Practice for Mentoring, 3rd Edition
18
References
 Bauldrey, S. (2006). Positive support: Mentoring and depression among high-risk youth.
www.ppv.org/ppv/publications/assets/202_publications.pdf
 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; Arch
Pediatric Adolesc Med, 154.
 Bilchik, S. (2007). Mentoring: A Promising Intervention for Children of Prisoners. Research
in Action Series (10). http://www.mentoring.org/downloads/mentoring_391.pdf
 Cavell, TA, Elledge, C, Malco, KT, Faith, MA, Hughes, JN (2009). Relationship quality and
the mentoring of aggressive, high-risk children. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent
Psychology, 38, 185-198.
 Dubois, DL, Doolittle, f., Yates, B. T., Silverhorn, N. & Tebes, JK (2006). Research
methodology and youth mentoring. Journal of Community Psychology, 34, 657-676.
 DuBois, DL & Silverthorn, N (2005). Characteristics of Natural Mentoring Relationships and
Adolescent Adjustment: Evidence from a National Study. Journal of Primary Prevention,
26(2), 69-92.
 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(2), 199-219.
19
References, con’t.
 Hurd, N & Zimmerman, M. (2010). Natural mentors, mental health, and risk behaviors:
A longitudinal analysis of African American adolescents transitioning into adulthood.
Am J Community Psych, 46,36-48.
 Landefield, T (2010). Mentors and Mentoring. In Bell, J.E. (ed) Mentoring and Diversity.
New York: Springer.
 Kogan, SM, Brody, GH & Chen, Y (2011). Natural mentoring processes deter externalizing
problems among rural African American emerging adults: A prospective analysis. Am J
Community Psych, DOI 10.1007/s10464-011-9425-2.
 Mentor (2006). Mentoring in America 2005: A Snapshot of the Current State of
Mentoring. www.mentroing.org
 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 theoretical model of youth mentoring.” In D. L. DuBois & M. J.
Karcher (Eds.) Handbook of youth mentoring. (pp. 30-43).Thousand Oakes, CA: Sage
Press
 Rhodes, JE, Spencer, R, Saito, RN & Sipe, CL (2006). Online mentoring: Th e promise
and challenges of an emerging apporach to youth development. J of Primary Prevention,
27(5), 497-513.
 Schwartz, SE, Rhodes, JE, Chan, CS & Herrera, C. (2011). The impact of school-based
mentoring on youths with different relational profiles. Developmental Psychology, 47,
450-462.
 Zimmerman, M. A., Bingenheimer, J. B., & Notaro, P. C. (2002).Natural mentors and
adolescent resiliency: A study with urban youth. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 30,221–243.
 http://www.nationalmentoringmonth.org/video/#reelpeople
20