Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hcap20

Back to the Future: Mentoring as Means and End

in Promoting Child Mental Health

Timothy A. Cavell, Renée Spencer & Samuel D. McQuillin

To cite this article: Timothy A. Cavell, Renée Spencer & Samuel D. McQuillin (2021) Back to the
Future: Mentoring as Means and End in Promoting Child Mental Health, Journal of Clinical Child &
Adolescent Psychology, 50:2, 281-299, DOI: 10.1080/15374416.2021.1875327

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15374416.2021.1875327

Published online: 09 Mar 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 54

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hcap20
Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 50(2), 281–299, 2021
© 2021 Society of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology
ISSN: 1537-4416 print/1537-4424 online
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15374416.2021.1875327

Back to the Future: Mentoring as Means and End in

Promoting Child Mental Health
Timothy A. Cavell
Department of Psychological Science, University of Arkansas

Renée Spencer
School of Social Work, Boston University

Samuel D. McQuillin
Department of Psychology, University of South Carolina

Youth mentoring is a potentially powerful tool for prevention and intervention, but it has
garnered little attention from clinical child and adolescent psychologists. For decades, the
practice of youth mentoring has out-paced its underlying science, and meta-analytic studies
consistently reveal modest outcomes. The field is now at an important crossroads: Continue
to endorse traditional, widely used models of mentoring or shift to alternative models that are
more in line with the tenets of prevention science. Presented here is a bilateral framework to
guide the science and practice of mentoring going forward. Our premise is that mentoring
relationships can serve as both means to a targeted end and as a valued end unto itself. We
present a functional typology of current mentoring programs (supportive, problem-focused,
& transitional) and call for greater specification of both the process and expected outcomes
of mentoring. Finally, we argue that efforts to leverage mentoring relationships in service of
youth development and the promotion of child and adolescent mental health will likely
require disrupting the science, practice, and policy that surrounds youth mentoring.

In 2007, the first author was asked to share findings from make mentoring appealing but inert. At that time, conceptual
a randomized controlled trial (RCT) examining mentor- models of youth mentoring placed heavy emphasis on the
based interventions for highly aggressive elementary school relationship as a key mechanism of change and matches that
children (Cavell et al., 2009; Hughes et al., 2005). Audience were not close or that lasted less than 12 months were
members were directors of mentoring programs from across thought to have little impact (Rhodes, 2005). Thus, it seemed
the U.S. and Canada attending the inaugural Summer reasonable to begin this presentation with the following
Institute on Youth Mentoring (https://www.pdx.edu/youth- question: How might mentoring produce positive outcomes
mentoring/). Importantly, positive outcomes from the RCT when the relationship is weakened? However, what ensued
favored the control condition – a standalone, three-semester was 30 minutes of confusion, debate, and finally, the realiza­
mentoring program in which the mentoring relationship was tion that for these audience members this question made no
intentionally weakened by limiting its strength (e.g., quality sense: For them, the relationship was the outcome.
of interaction) and length (e.g., number of months): Mentors
visited during school lunch and sat with their mentee and
non-mentored peers at the lunch table, and each semester, Overview
mentors were replaced with a new mentor. The goal was to Youth mentoring is an umbrella term used to describe the
involvement of children and adolescents in supportive rela­
Address correspondence to Timothy A. Cavell, Department of
tionships with non-parental adults. The form and purpose
Psychological Science, University of Arkansas, Memorial Hall, of these relationships can vary widely, but some are formed
Fayetteville, AR 72701. E-mail: [email protected] and used intentionally to address various issues affecting
282 CAVELL ET AL.

the health and development of children and adolescents. In Brothers Big Sisters of America (BBBS-America), which
this paper, we briefly review the history and science of began in 1904, has nearly 280 affiliate agencies (Big
youth mentoring and then note both contextual and theore­ Brothers Big Sisters of America, 2018). Thus, to the extent
tical factors contributing to consistently modest outcomes. youth mentoring is a viable strategy for addressing the
We describe recent efforts to improve those outcomes and mental health needs of developing youth, considerable
present an agenda to guide future research and practice, infrastructure has already been brought to scale. At this
paying particular attention to how mentoring can be used to time, however, the notion that mentoring can be used to
promote healthy development and address the mental increase youth access to evidence-based mental health care
health needs of children and adolescents. A key theme in is more promise than proof.
our suggested agenda is the paradoxical notion that mentor­ Encouraging, however, is recent work within implemen­
ing relationships can be both a means and an end when tation science on the use of lay health workers and task
supporting youth living in under resourced environments or sharing as a way to increase youth access to needed mental
exposed to cumulative risks. As is detailed in the forth­ health services (Kazdin, 2019). It is estimated that the vast
coming sections, mentoring as end is most akin to how majority of children and adolescents in need of mental
youth mentoring has been traditionally conceptualized, health services in the United States and worldwide receive
with mentoring relationships considered to be among the no treatment (Kazdin, 2019). Kazdin pointed to the prevail­
types of relationships that offer basic conditions for human ing model for delivering psychosocial interventions as
development (e.g., Li & Julian, 2012) and, as such, having a key barrier to access. This model, which relies heavily
the potential to promote healthy development in a variety on specialty mental health care provided by licensed pro­
of domains over time. In contrast, when mentoring serves fessionals, is limited in several areas including scalability,
as a means to an end, it offers a context or tool that can be reach, affordability, feasibility, flexibility, and acceptability.
leveraged to achieve more specified near-term youth out­ Kazdin and others (e.g., Barnett et al., 2018) see merit in
comes (Cavell & Elledge, 2014). Both approaches can be borrowing innovative models from outside of traditional
powerful tools for the promotion of healthy development care to address the mental health-care needs of children
but in different ways and realizing their potential calls for and adolescents. To date, most of these models have been
significant change in mentoring science, practice, and applied to physical health care, often in low resource coun­
policy. tries (Sam-Agudu et al., 2018; Viola et al., 2020; Wiemann
et al., 2020), but there have also been efforts to fit mental
health care within these newer delivery models (e.g.,
Why Youth Mentoring?
Murray et al., 2105; Singla et al., 2017).
It is fair to ask why youth mentoring should matter to Importantly, these newer models often emphasize the
clinical child and adolescent psychologists who develop, work of nonprofessionals trained to support or share tasks
evaluate, deliver, and supervise interventions designed to typically performed by professional health-care providers.
promote the mental health and emotional wellbeing of These tasks can include education or supportive counseling
youth. These interventions might involve other adults surrounding patients’ health condition or training and
such as parents, but not typically mentors. Also, mentors coaching in adaptive forms of coping (e.g., Sam-Agudu
are not paid mental health-care providers but often volun­ et al., 2018; Singla et al., 2017). But also relevant to the
teers recruited by organizations that rarely have improved current paper is that these tasks are delivered by nonprofes­
mental health for children and adolescents as part of their sionals who come from the same community or who have
mission. Still, there are mentoring programs designed spe­ the same lived experience as that of the patients they serve.
cifically for youth with diagnosable mental health condi­ Lay health workers, mentor mothers, and peer mentors with
tions (e.g., DuBois et al., 2018; Johnson & Pryce, 2013; similar chronic health conditions are a few examples of
Kerr & King, 2013; Utsey et al., 2003), and a recent study how innovative health-care delivery is as much about rela­
found that 25% of parents identified their child’s disability tional touch points as it is a vehicle for delivering evidence-
or psychiatric illness as a primary reason for enrolling their based care (Viola et al., 2020; Wiemann et al., 2020). This
child in a mentoring program (Sourk et al., 2019). work raises the possibility that youth mentoring programs
One could also make the case that youth mentoring has could also move into the health promotion and health care
the potential to address a glaring and recurring problem delivery space, helping to lower barriers to much needed
central to the work of clinical child and adolescent psychol­ care.
ogists and implementation scientists: Lack of access to Part of what makes mentoring an attractive delivery
effective mental health care (e.g., Rhodes, 2020; Sourk option is that it is widely accepted as a form of youth
et al., 2019; Vázquez & Villodas, 2019). Most youth men­ prevention and it relies mainly on a volunteer workforce
toring programs operate under the auspices of a national (e.g., Hagler et al., 2019). These attributes are especially
organization with affiliates in multiple cities, and Big appealing when the goal is to address mental health issues
 MENTORING AS MEANS AND END IN PROMOTING CHILD MENTAL HEALTH 283

that can carry significant stigma. Indeed, there is evidence with a child. Traditional formal mentoring is said to be
that parents and caregivers from underserved groups tend to community-based, with visits at regular intervals (e.g.,
view mentors and mentoring more favorably than mental weekly or bi-weekly) outside of school. In contrast, school-
health care and its providers (e.g., Vázquez & Villodas, based mentoring involves visits restricted to the school
2019). Vázquez and Villodas found that Black caregivers setting.
perceived mentoring programs as a less stigmatizing and
more culturally congruent support service than mental
health counseling. History, Early Studies, and the Popularization of Youth
An important caveat to the prospect of mentors sharing Mentoring Programs
in the delivery of evidence-based mental health care is the
The history of formal mentoring programs is essentially the
fact that youth mentors are generally unpaid volunteers
story of BBBS-America, which began as a charity that
with limited available time. As a consequence, mentoring
aimed to offer positive adult role models to disadvantaged
programs rarely expect more than four hours of visitation/
youth thought to have none (Baker & Maguire, 2005). The
month over a typical one-year match period and volunteers
notion that adult mentors could help (and not harm) youth
are seldom provided more than two hours of training
from under-resourced environments was considered self-
(Garringer et al., 2015). In contrast, published studies of
evident (cf. McCord, 1978). Of course, the goal of provid­
efforts to use lay health workers or peer mentors in health-
ing positive role models to youth in high-risk, under
care delivery reveal that training can take up to two months
resourced environments was not without scholarly support.
(e.g., Barnett et al., 2018). Singla et al. (2017) reviewed
Hirschi’s (1969) social control theory posited that delin­
studies of nonspecialist providers (NSPs) of mental health
quency is curtailed when youth have strong connections to
care in low- and middle-income countries and found that
prosocial individuals and institutions. Also, early studies on
training averaged nearly 80 hours. The training of NSPs
the interplay between risk and resilience (Garmezy &
also tends to be supported by regular supervision and use of
Masten, 1986; Werner, 1995) added to the conceptual foun­
highly structured, evidence-based strategies and techniques
dation of youth mentoring. Indeed, Werner’s (1986) finding
(Barnett et al., 2018; Murray et al., 2015; Sam-Agudu et al.,
that resilient youth tend to have at least one supportive
2018). In the field of youth mentoring, close supervision
adult in their lives has been an important and abiding
and structured protocols are less commonly used to guide
assumption in the field of mentoring (DuBois & Karcher,
the work of volunteers (Karcher et al., 2010). Not surpris­
2014).
ingly, scholars who call for mentors’ involvement in task
shifting activities have also emphasized the need for better In 1995, roughly 90 years after it began, BBBS-America
training and supervision as well as the use of structured took a leap forward when it released findings from an RCT
interventions, some of which can be delivered via mobile of its community-based mentoring program (Tierney et al.,
phone apps (McQuillin et al., 2019; Rhodes, 2020). 1995). At the time, the field lacked evidence that program
sponsored mentoring benefited youth or that funding to
support mentoring was money well spent (Boyle, 2007).
The study by Tierney and colleagues yield promising find­
Mentoring Relationships and Mentoring Programs ings (i.e., mentored youth were 46% less likely to start
Mentoring relationships come in many shapes and sizes, but using drugs, 27% less likely to start using alcohol, and
the field of youth mentoring tends to distinguish between 33% less likely to hit someone) that became the source of
what have been called informal or natural mentoring rela­ oft-repeated claims (https://www.bbbs.org/research/) for the
tionships and formal mentoring relationships. Informal men­ “proven” effects of mentoring (Grossman & Garry, 1997).
toring relationships are those that arise naturally from Tierney et al. (1995) described their findings as “surpris­
youths’ interactions with adults in their social network ingly robust” (p. 31) and called for greater expansion and
(Darling et al., 1994; Greenberger et al., 1998; Scales & funding of mentoring programs.
Gibbons, 1996). Examples include extended family mem­ Not surprisingly, the Tierney et al. (1995) “impact
bers, family friends, neighbors, teachers, coaches, after- study,” as it is often called, had its own impact on public
school program staff, and religious group leaders (Hurd & perceptions of mentoring, greatly accelerating its growth
Sellers, 2013; Sánchez et al., 2008). Scholars who study and leading to increased funding for and government invol­
informal mentoring relationships tend to ask whether youth vement in mentoring (Rhodes & DuBois, 2006). Findings
have an adult they “can go to for support and guidance if you from this early study also influenced the science of mentor­
need to make an important decision or who inspires you to ing. Release of the report was followed by strong state­
do your best” (Zimmerman, Bingenheimer, & Notaro, 2002, ments about the benefits of mentoring (Grossman & Garry,
p. 226). Formal mentoring relationships, on the other hand, 1997; Rhodes, 2002) as well as a comprehensive theoretical
are sponsored by a specific organization or program, with model (Rhodes, 2005). A key feature of Rhodes’ model
volunteers recruited, screened, trained, and then matched was the assertion that mentoring derived its benefits from
284 CAVELL ET AL.

the quality of the relationship, which was often examined hindsight, this coupling of the mentoring movement with
by reports from mentors and mentees about whether the the evidence-based practice movement was perhaps prema­
match was emotionally close and satisfying or whether the ture and portended a rude awakening for the field.
match endured or ended prematurely. In fact, Grossman and A series of randomized evaluations in the early 2010s
Rhodes (2002) used data from this early impact study to led researchers and policy makers to question the slogan of
show that youth in matches lasting at least 12 months the National Mentoring Partnership’s annual summit.
exhibited the most gains and youth in matches that ended Perhaps the most consequential of these evaluations was
prematurely experienced decrements in functioning. a randomized trial of the federally funded SMP (Bernstein
Findings from this correlational study were widely disse­ et al., 2009). This is the largest evaluation of youth mentor­
minated and viewed as clear evidence that strong matches ing ever conducted (N = 2,570), and despite examining 17
lasting at least 12 months were needed to produce signifi­ different outcomes, the final report indicated children did
cant outcomes (e.g., Hansen et al., 2011). These findings, in not benefit when randomly assigned to a mentor instead of
turn, greatly influenced policies used by mentoring organi­ a non-mentoring control condition. As a result of this
zations (Garringer et al., 2015). evaluation, the Obama Administration cut funding to the
Enthusiasm generated by release of the Tierney et al. SMP, representing the heaviest federal budget cut to youth
(1995) study also led to repeated calls to close “the mentor­ mentoring services since the original influx of funding in
ing gap”, said to be the difference in the number of youth the late 1990s. Around the same time, researchers evaluated
who might benefit from mentoring and the number who BBBS-America’s school-based program (N = 1,139) and
lacked a mentor (see MENTOR, 2006b). The U.S. found similarly disappointing results (Herrera et al., 2007;
Department of Education answered that call by launching Herrera et al., 2011). Of 31 outcomes tested, only 3 were
the Student Mentoring Program (SMP; Bernstein et al., statistically significant, sans any correction for inflated
2009), a funding initiative designed to grow school-based Type I error rates. The average effect across all outcomes
mentoring in America’s schools. Through its involvement was small (~d = .05), with the largest effect for youths’
in school-based mentoring, BBBS-America greatly report of the presence of a special adult in their life (d =
expanded during this time. In fact, the number of school- .29). Thus, despite school-based mentoring increasing
based mentoring matches within BBBS-America quad­ youth perceptions of a special adult in their life, assignment
rupled (from 27,000 to 126,000) between 1999 and 2006. to the mentoring program did not produce significant ben­
efits on expected outcomes. Synthesizing these results, as
well as those from another randomized trial (Karcher,
Current State of the Science in Youth Mentoring 2008), Wheeler, Keller, and DuBois (2010) wrote that
“Arguments seemingly could be made for or against con­
As enthusiasm for the youth mentoring movement grew in tinued investments in school based mentoring as a strategy
the early 2000s, so too did the demand for rigorous evalua­ for promoting resilience among at-risk youth”. (p. 6).
tions. This demand was driven in part by calls from the The field also had to grapple with meta-analytic findings
scientific community and subsequent federal legislation that consistently suggested mentoring produces, on aver­
(e.g., No Child Left Behind Act) focused on increasing age, rather modest effects for participating youth (DuBois
the methodological rigor used to evaluate programs. The et al., 2002, 2011; Raposa et al., 2019). Recently, Rhodes
goal of these efforts was to reduce the research-to-practice (2020) offered this rather sobering account of the field:
gap in education and other helping intuitions. One approach
to achieving this goal was the use of online registries that Overall, youth mentoring programs are not nearly as effec­
provided information on the state of evidence for various tive as most people assume, particularly when compared to
programs and practices, including the now defunct other interventions with youth. Findings from large-scale
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services randomized control trials, meta-analyses, and recent cost-
Administration’s National Registry of Evidence-Based benefit studies present a disappointing bottom line, with
Programs and Practices and the U.S. Department of relatively weak effects that have not budged in decades.
Education’s What Works Clearinghouse. As the evidence- (p. 5)
based movement became status quo, so too did the eco­
nomic and institutional pressures to be labeled as a service The fields’ reckoning with these disappointing findings
that “works”. Signaling these pressures, the National led also to reconsidering findings from the 1995 impact
Mentoring Partnership (mentoring.org) in 2010 branded study. Researchers questioned whether findings from that
their annual summit “Mentoring Works!”. Eager to prove study justified proclamations that mentoring was
that mentoring did in fact work, nonprofit organizations and a “proven” delinquency prevention strategy (Grossman &
government-supported mentoring initiatives led researchers Garry, 1997, p. 1) or that empirical research supported the
to partner with programs and use the gold-standard of benefits of mentoring (e.g., Cavell & Elledge, 2014;
evidence-based practice – the randomized evaluation. In DuBois & Rhodes, 2008). Some scholars noted concerns
 MENTORING AS MEANS AND END IN PROMOTING CHILD MENTAL HEALTH 285

about use of problematic research practices in youth men­ incentives for modifying and testing established programs.
toring (Lyons & McQuillin, 2019). One glaring example With limited staff dedicated to maintaining current opera­
was the failure to account for Type I errors in the Tierney tions, there is also little bandwidth to take on and test
et al. (1995) study: The authors tested 44 outcomes using additional research-driven programs, however promising
an uncorrected alpha of p < .10. It is difficult, in light of these might be.
these concerns, to view findings from this landmark study It is also important to recognize that volunteer mentors
as clear support for mentoring as an evidence-based are a limited resource (Rhodes, 2020). Unlike parents and
strategy. teachers, both of whom are available, in some form, to all
or nearly all youth by virtue of family membership or
government-funded programs, there are limits to the avail­
The Culture and Business of Youth Mentoring ability of volunteers for programs such as BBBS (Raposa
et al., 2017). Thus, efforts to grow the science of mentoring
Carl Rogers (1967) once wrote, “The facts are always and promote healthy mentor–mentee relationships are unli­
friendly” (p. 25), which is a reminder that it helps to under­ kely to have the broad impact we might expect from the
stand the weight or complexity of a problem before trying science and practice of improving parent-child or teacher–
to tackle it. To make sense of how the field of youth student relationships. An additional aspect to the limited
mentoring responded to persistently modest outcomes, it availability of mentors is that many individuals in indus­
is important to appreciate the culture and context in which trialized Western societies believe caregiving is the sole
mentoring operates. As a youth-focused prevention strat­ responsibility of parents (Kesselring et al., 2012; Scales
egy, mentoring offers several advantages, including et al., 2004). Unfortunately, this belief appears to have
a network of service delivery that is broadly scaled and contributed to what has been described as a deficit view
well positioned to reach youth living in less advantaged of parents who seek the support of formal mentoring pro­
communities. Youth mentoring, and BBBS more specifi­ grams (Scafe & Cavell, 2020; Spencer & Basualdo-
cally, also enjoy wide public support and are viewed posi­ Delmonico, 2014). From this deficit lens, it is assumed
tively by folks from diverse and even opposing political that mentors fill a void for children who lack
backgrounds (Hagler et al., 2019). But mentoring is also a responsible, positive adult role model in the home and
constrained in ways that are not insignificant. In addition to that parents are likely to disrupt or impede the work of
relying on the benevolence of unpaid volunteers (cf. Eddy mentors. Finally, it is important to note that mentors are
et al., 2017; Taussig & Culhane, 2010), mentoring pro­ neither trained nor paid to provide mental health care to
grams almost always operate as nonprofit organizations youth. Mentoring organizations must be realistic about
perennially challenged by precarious funding, limited infra­ what can be expected of volunteers, whether it is their
structure, and staff turnover (Rhodes, 2020). This combina­ availability for training, their commitment to a long-term
tion of a) a broad footprint, b) an appealing “brand” name relationship, or the particular talent they bring to mentoring
(e.g., Big Brothers Big Sisters of America), c) but a shallow (Rhodes, 2020).
and ever-shifting infrastructure, d) that relies on unpaid
volunteers and charitable donations (e.g., United Way) or
short-term government funding has important implications Pivoting from Modest Outcomes
for whether youth mentoring can reach its potential as Understandably, lackluster findings from randomized trials
a viable, youth-serving prevention strategy. of youth mentoring led to significant handwringing in the
Perhaps the most important implication is that thinly field (Cavell & Elledge, 2014; Rhodes, 2020). Before pre­
funded mentoring organizations are compelled to make senting our agenda for the future of youth mentoring, we
program decisions that optimize the likelihood of continued think it is instructive to consider various ways that practi­
and future funding. The emphasis is on maintaining market tioners and scholars responded to studies that pointed con­
share in the nonprofit space, preserving brand recognition, sistently to modest outcomes.
reducing risk, and sometimes reaching into new markets or
launching innovative but untested programs designed to
Enhance Existing Programs
pull in additional or new sources of revenue. There is little
capacity for and considerable costs associated with invest­ One response was to enhance existing program models.
ing in prolonged research and development efforts. More BBBS-America, for example, concerned about disappoint­
appealing is collaborating periodically with researchers to ing findings from its large trial of school-based mentoring
evaluate an existing program (Grossman & Tierney, 1998; (Herrera et al., 2007), slowed the growth of new school-
Herrera et al., 2011) or to test efforts to enhance the service based matches and quickly mobilized an internal team to
delivery of existing programs (DuBois et al., 2020). refashion its program model (Hansen et al., 2011). A key
Limited infrastructure and the need to preserve revenue feature of this enhanced model was ensuring that matches
streams also means that mentoring organizations have few were “longer and stronger than they have been in the past”
286 CAVELL ET AL.

(p. 15), which meant that BBBS-America’s school-based while maintaining the essential components of those pro­
mentoring was now “more like BBBS’s community-based grams, led to greater outcomes (e.g., Keller et al., 2019;
model than perhaps was anticipated” (p. 15). A pilot test of Kupersmidt et al., 2017).
the enhanced model (Hansen et al., 2011) showed an One recent approach to improved service delivery is
increase in the proportion of matches lasting for one youth-initiated mentoring (YIM), developed for programs
full year (56% versus 40%); however, the impact on that support adolescents not expected to complete high
youth outcomes was never reported. The direction of this school or involved in the juvenile justice system
pivot suggests BBBS-America was strongly influenced by (Millenky et al., 2014). In YIM, adolescents (and not pro­
findings from its earlier study of community-based mentor­ gram staff) are tasked with recruiting potential mentors
ing (Tierney et al., 1995) and by the notion that a long, from their own social network as a way to find
strong bond between mentor and mentee was the essential a supportive adult with whom they share important char­
mechanism of change (e.g., Grossman & Rhodes, 2002; acteristics and beliefs (Schwartz et al., 2013; Van Dam
Rhodes, 2005). Absent from this enhancement effort was et al., 2017). YIM offers organizations a strategy by
consideration of work challenging this supposition or evi­ which they can seek to improve outcomes without altering
dence for more focused, short-term approaches that fit the the fundamental model of mentoring. Van Dam and
school calendar and context (e.g., Cavell et al., 2009; Schwartz (2020) theorized that because YIM mentors are
Karcher, 2008). drawn from youths’ social network, the alliance is poten­
Additional efforts to enhance rather than change or tially stronger and youth are more motivated to pursue self-
replace existing programs involved significant findings concordant goals compared to mentoring as usual. Research
from meta-analytic studies of mentoring outcomes. For on this approach is still emerging, but studies to date
example, affiliate agencies from BBBS-America were suggest youth who choose their own mentor have more
involved in two separate trials driven by findings suggest­ enduring relationships, which predicts better outcomes
ing programs were stronger when mentors engaged in (Schwartz et al., 2013; Spencer et al., 2016).
teaching and advocacy (DuBois et al., 2002, 2011). In one
trial (DuBois & Keller, 2017), BBBS community-based Shift Expectations about Youth Mentoring
mentors were trained to incorporate practices derived
from research on positive youth development, including Some scholars pivoted by asserting that modest out­
promoting growth mind-set, encouraging youth to find comes are to be expected when mentors are matched with
and pursue a “spark”, and setting goals. Yet this evaluation youth who vary widely in what they need (e.g., DuBois
found “no evidence of effects of the thriving promotion et al., 2011). The strategy of lowering expectations about
condition on youth outcomes” (p. 1486). In a second, sepa­ mentoring was evident in a large trial of community-based
rate trial, Jarjoura et al. (2018) examined the impact of mentoring funded by the Gates Foundation (Herrera et al.,
providing mentors with enhanced training and support on 2013). This project was an effort to examine whether level
mentors’ use of advocacy and teaching in their mentoring and type of risk altered the benefits youth derived from
activities, but similar to DuBois and Keller (2017), found mentoring. Programs had little trouble enrolling and match­
no statistically significant difference between youth in the ing youth facing more cumulative risk than average youth
enhanced versus control groups on any outcome. in the U.S., but nearly half of the matches ended before
outcomes were assessed at the 13-month mark. Researchers
also found that match length and strength did not vary
Enhance Service Delivery
significantly by type or level of risk, although mentors
A different type of response to modest outcomes matched with the lowest-risk youth were more likely to
involved efforts to improve the service delivery of estab­ report relationships ending “due to a lack of youth interest
lished programs. Formal mentoring programs are guided by or the youth not seeming to need a mentor” (p. 4). In
the Elements of Effective Practice (Garringer et al., 2015), contrast, mentors matched with higher risk youth reported
which include screening and training of volunteers, match­ greater challenges due to difficulty in mentees’ behavior or
ing mentors with mentees, supporting ongoing matches, lack of support from mentees’ family. In comparing out­
and overseeing match closure. Keller, Drew et al. (2020), comes for mentored versus non-mentored youth across 22
for example, found that the amount of time program staff different measures, Herrera and colleagues found evidence
devoted to supporting mentors was positively linked to for significant program effects on only 2 variables. One was
mentors’ satisfaction with the match and with their rating a self-report measure of depression and the other was an
of youth outcomes. These findings were seen as evidence aggregate score that assumed mentoring is not an interven­
that outcomes from mentoring are likely to be limited if tion with one or two specific targeted goals but rather “a
program staff do not provide meaningful support and super­ broad-based intervention that is believed to improve
vision to mentors. This prompted efforts to test whether youth’s lives by addressing the specific and differing
improving the delivery of established mentoring programs, needs of participating youth across a wide range of areas“
 MENTORING AS MEANS AND END IN PROMOTING CHILD MENTAL HEALTH 287

(p. 52). Thus, the score reflected the number of outcomes prevention-focused experience was a long-term, supportive
a given youth had that represented reliable change from mentoring relationship.
baseline.

Develop New Mentoring Programs THE FUTURE OF YOUTH MENTORING:

A BILATERAL FRAMEWORK TO GUIDE SCIENCE
Given that youth mentoring operated as a form of char­
AND PRACTICE
ity before being evaluated, Cavell and Elledge (2014)
argued that youth mentoring would benefit from adhering
The field of youth mentoring is at a critical juncture: Its
to the tenets of prevention science (Coie et al., 1993) and its
broad appeal faces substantial challenges from research
standards of evidence (Flay et al., 2005). Effective preven­
indicating limited effectiveness (Cavell & Elledge, 2014;
tion requires understanding risk and protective factors oper­
McQuillin, Lyons et al., 2020; Rhodes, 2020). Our argu­
ating to determine key outcomes and a clear conceptual
ment is that youth mentoring has lacked a framework that
basis for how interventions can alter those risk and protec­
captures the many ways these relationships can be lever­
tive factors. A number of mentoring researchers have
aged in service of youth development and the promotion of
moved in this direction. One example is a program
child and adolescent mental health. Therefore, we offer
designed specifically for youth in foster care (Taussig,
a bilateral framework that recognizes the potential for
Culhane, & Hettleman, 2007). Taussig and colleagues
mentoring to function as both a means and an end.
developed their program to address the complex needs of
Though somewhat paradoxical, this view has important
youth affected by maltreatment who are placed in foster
implications for the field of mentoring and moves beyond
care. Other researchers have also developed and tested
more conventional distinctions based on setting (i.e., com­
focused, theory-informed models of mentoring designed
munity vs. school) or whether mentoring relationships are
to provide targeted support for youth facing specific chal­
youth- or mentor-driven (e.g., Hamilton & Hamilton, 1992;
lenges. The emphasis in these programs varies and includes
Morrow & Styles, 1995). First, and in line with Cavell and
academic problems, aggressive behavior, peer victimiza­
Elledge (2014), mentoring has the potential to be a means
tion, and risk for delinquency (Cavell et al., 2009; Elledge
to an end, a context or tool that provides youth with a fairly
et al., 2010; Johnson et al., 2008; McQuillin et al., 2015;
circumscribed set of experiences designed to achieve spe­
Weiler et al., 2015). Studies of these programs have been
cified outcomes. But mentoring can also be an end unto
encouraging, but all were developed within the context of
itself, a broad-based provision for healthy development and
external research teams who work outside the broad orga­
a protective force against mental health problems (e.g.,
nizational structure that supports established mentoring
Keller, Perry et al., 2020; Scardera et al., 2020). Enduring
programs such as BBBS-America. Therefore, moving
and supportive relationships are a basic condition for
these programs to scale, if found to be effective, could be
human development (e.g., Li & Julian, 2012), but youth
problematic if implementation exceeds program capacity.
living in under-resourced environments often face critical
gaps in this basic need (Putnam, 2015). As means to an
Redefine Youth Mentoring end, the mentoring relationship operates as a vehicle by
A final and perhaps more extreme response to modest which specific tools are delivered in service of achieving
outcomes was to question the very definition of mentoring. a particular outcome; as an end to itself, the mentoring
Cavell and Elledge (2014) challenged the dominant mentor­ relationship moves to the foreground and is valued, offered,
ing-as-relationship perspective and its guiding assumption and supported as a primary goal of prevention.
that the quality of the relationship – its strength and dura­
tion – is the key determent of whether youth benefit from
Mentoring as an End
mentoring. Cavell and Elledge (2014) argued that mentoring
viewed solely from a relationship lens was needlessly restric­ We begin with the end. It is a truism that relationships
tive. They offered instead the following definition: “Youth matter; a statement so obvious and foundational to our
mentoring is the practice of using program-sponsored rela­ understanding of the human condition it hardly seems
tionships between identified youth and older volunteers (or worth making (Li & Julian, 2012; Phillips & Shonkoff,
paraprofessionals) as a context for prevention-focused activ­ 2000). Yet, that which is obvious can be easily overlooked,
ities and experiences” (p. 37). In this mentoring-as-a-context and recent studies of youth mentoring have tended to look
definition, Cavell and Elledge acknowledged that relation­ past relationships when searching for near-term, individual-
ships are a critical component of youth mentoring but cast level youth outcomes. But if the relationship is the out­
the relationship as a context for the provision of prevention come, what are the implications? This question harkens
focused activities and experiences. Importantly, this defini­ back to the beginnings of the mentoring movement.
tion also left room for mentoring in which the intended BBBS-America programs began over a century ago when
288 CAVELL ET AL.

a court clerk asked men to befriend boys in the community indicates that safe, stable, nurturing relationship (SSNRs)
who were involved in the juvenile court system are a powerful PCE that should be promoted more broadly
(Beiswinger, 1985). The premise was that youth could be (Bethell et al., 2019; Jaffee et al., 2013; Mercy & Saul, 2009;
kept out of trouble and set on a more productive path by Sege & Linkenbach, 2014; Sege & Browne, 2017). SSNRs
men willing to be their “Big Brother”. These notions were provide young people a feeling of being safe and cared for,
further bolstered by research on risk, resilience, and the and are not limited to relationships with parents or adults in
search for characteristics of the so-called invulnerable child the home. Studies of child maltreatment indicate even the
(Anthony & Cohler, 1987; Masten, 2013, 2001). A key perception of support from significant adults contributes
finding was that supportive relationships with at least one positively to children’s health and well-being (Berlin et al.,
adult, not necessarily a parent, could provide significant 2011; Crouch et al., 2000).
psychological protection in the face of adverse circum­
stances (Resnick et al., 1993; Werner & Smith, 1992).
This became a rallying cry for proponents of youth mentor­ Mentoring as Means to an End
ing who saw themselves as championing the business of We also assert that mentoring relationships can be used to
providing these relationships. address more narrowly defined developmental issues (e.g.,
As the mentoring movement began to expand, programs academic achievement) or the needs of a specific popula­
strived to engineer the kind of growth-promoting relation­ tion of youth (i.e., depressed adolescents). In line with the
ships that arose organically in the lives of resilient children. mentoring-as-context perspective proposed by Cavell and
Too often, however, programs fell down on the job and Elledge (2014), mentoring used as a means to an end does
failed to deliver this outcome, as shown by data indicating not singularly tie its success to the quality of the relation­
a high percentage of premature match endings (Bernstein ship. This point alone represents a tremendous advantage
et al., 2009; Grossman et al., 2012; Grossman & Rhodes, given that a significant proportion of mentor-mentee
2002). When researchers entered the scene, the emphasis matches end prematurely (Grossman & Rhodes, 2002). As
shifted from relationships as an end goal to proving pro­ Cavell and Elledge (2014) suggested, “It seems wise to
gram effectiveness, testing for significant outcomes, and design mentoring programs that accommodate to these
estimating return on investment from youth mentoring less-than-ideal relationships” (p. 37). An additional advan­
(Rhodes, 2020). Left unfinished was the work of develop­ tage is that “programs have the flexibility to adapt mentor­
ing a coherent understanding of what formal mentoring ing to meet diverse goals and achieve important prevention
programs needed to do if they were to replicate the natural goals” (p. 37). The concept of mentoring as-means-to-an-
mentoring relationships observed by Werner and others. In end also parallels much of the work in evidence-based
other words, as the field rushed to document the “proven” psychosocial treatments for child and adolescent mental
effectiveness of youth mentoring programs, the notion that health problems. That work documents the importance of
mentoring relationships are one way to fill a basic, human the therapeutic alliance (e.g., Shirk et al., 2011) but also the
developmental need faded in the rearview mirror. importance of strategies that target specific change mechan­
Meanwhile, evidence for the importance of these relation­ isms (Weisz & Kazdin, 2010).
ships continues to mount. Neuroscientists have shown that
we are hard-wired to connect to others (Banks, 2015; Siegel,
A Functional Typology of Mentoring Programs
2015) and burgeoning attention to the ravages of loneliness
and social isolation highlight the health-promoting power of At first glance, the assertion that mentoring should be
social connections (e.g., Murthy, 2020). Indeed, a lack of viewed from a bilateral lens seems rather straightforward
social relationships is a risk factor for mortality among and limited in its import. But the idea that all of mentoring –
adults on par with that of smoking (Holt-Lunstad et al., whether formal or informal, community-or school-based –
2017, 2010), and longitudinal studies have linked social can be understood from a single theoretical model has long
isolation in childhood with poorer health outcomes among been the prevailing view in the field (Cavell & Elledge,
adults (e.g., Caspi et al., 2006; Lacey et al., 2014). Social 2014). Indeed, for nearly eight decades, mentoring operated
connections are now a focus of research on adverse child­ without any guiding theory; instead, scholars offered post
hood experiences (ACEs; Felitti et al., 1998; Shonkoff et al., hoc explanations (e.g., social control theory, social role
2012), and scholars have begun to consider the counter- theory, resiliency theory) for how mentoring might benefit
corollary of positive childhood experiences (PCEs; Bethell youth. The radical nature of our bilateral framework
et al., 2019; Crandall et al., 2019; Narayan et al., 2018). This becomes more obvious when one also considers that for
is in accord with a larger shift in mental health care toward the past two decades youth mentoring has relied on a single
promoting factors that support optimal development and the theoretical model. Rhodes (2002; 2005; Rhodes et al.,
pursuit of positive, healthy outcomes versus a reduction in 2006) model posited that mentoring affects processes
symptomatology (Sege & Linkenbach, 2014). Evidence involved in emotional, cognitive, and identity development
 MENTORING AS MEANS AND END IN PROMOTING CHILD MENTAL HEALTH 289

and emphasized that the impact of mentoring on these “webs of support” (Varga & Zaff, 2018) to grow and thrive,
processes depends on the strength and length of the rela­ and formal mentoring can be one source of that support.
tionship. This model has been used consistently as the The mentoring relationship is not intended as a targeted
theoretical lens by which practitioners and researchers intervention designed to produce a specific set of outcomes;
view mentoring (e.g., DuBois et al., 2011). rather, the relationship is a supplemental, prevention- or
But if mentoring can be both means and end, then promotion-focused form of support for young people’s
a single, overarching model is no longer workable. Our overall growth and development. Done well, supportive
bilateral framework calls for program practitioners and mentors should become part of the young person’s convoy
researchers to specify in greater detail how time spent of support (Antonucci et al., 2014).
with a mentor might benefit youth: What exactly is We assume that supportive mentors would adapt to the
expected of mentors and of mentoring relationships? To changing needs and interests of mentored youth. Thus,
guide that specification, we offer a typology of youth men­ mentors might function as companions who create oppor­
toring that can be used to identify the intended purpose or tunities for fun and recreation or as trusted confidants who
functionality of the major approaches currently operating in lend an ear and offer a perspective separate from that of
the field (see Table 1). In our view, the field of youth parents or teachers. The marker of success in supportive
mentoring is optimally sorted into three relatively distinct mentoring would be the continued supportive presence of
but not mutually exclusive categories. The classic or tradi­ the mentor in the life of the young person, indexed by the
tional type of formal mentoring, which we call supportive quality and durability of the relationship. Specific, desired
mentoring, involves the use of mentoring relationships as outcomes are secondary and include those expected of any
an end unto itself. Under the rubric of mentoring as means developing youth. Near-term gains or transformational
to an end are problem-focused and transitional mentoring. experiences are eschewed in favor of aims that are more
Importantly, both of these approaches can also be incorpo­ ordinary but no less important: healthy development and
rated and applied, as needed, into the work of supportive the meeting of expected developmental outcomes.
mentoring. Our hope is that this typology will encourage Supportive mentoring is, in essence, a public health strat­
practitioners and scholars to specify and test the hypothe­ egy, a form of prevention used ideally to serve the largest
sized mechanisms by which mentoring serves to promote number of youth who experience gaps in this essential
youth development and address their social and emotional ingredient for healthy development. Supportive mentoring
needs. also represents a return to the early spirit of the mentoring
movement, albeit with a more strengths-based orientation
than that used originally. One of the more intriguing exam­
Supportive Mentoring ples of supportive mentoring is Friends of the Children. In
We use this term to describe what some view as traditional this program, mentors earn a salary for mentoring a small
mentoring but which is more precisely viewed as mentoring group of children, and the program commits to mentoring
in which the relationship is the end goal. Supportive men­ children from kindergarten till the end of high school. The
tors provide safe, supportive nurturing relationships program has shown promise, despite its costs (Eddy et al.,
(SSNRs) that supplement or enhance the relational 2017).
resources in a young person’s life. Presumably, mentors in
these programs are invested in promoting the psychosocial
Problem-focused Mentoring
development of the young person and are committed to
a relationship that spans more than a few months. As noted earlier, the research community has begun to
Supportive mentoring is based on research that identifies develop and test ways that mentoring can be more problem-
the kinds of relationships that are foundational to the health or need-focused (Rhodes, 2020). This type of mentoring
and wellbeing of children and adolescents (Li & Julian, qualifies as means to an end and is line with Cavell and
2012). Supportive mentoring recognizes that youth need Elledge (2014) notion that mentoring can be a context for

TABLE 1
A Functional Typology of Youth Mentoring Programs

Mentoring Relationships as an End Mentoring Relationships as a Means

Type Supportive Problem-Focused Transitional

Estimated length Often one year or more Less than a year Dictated by the transition
Goals Normative developmental Reductions in specific problems; improved health for Successful transitions for specific groups
achievements & milestones specific groups
Putative change Safe, supportive, nurturing Shift in risk/protective factors specific to the Shift in risk/protective factors specific to
mechanisms relationship problem or germane to the group the group’s transition
290 CAVELL ET AL.

prevention focused activities designed to alter putative risk after engaging in suicidal behavior (King et al., 2019).
or protective factors. Problem-focused mentoring is char­ Other examples include programs for youth aging out of
acterized by its reliance on specific practices designed to foster care (Geenen et al., 2015), programs assisting min­
prevent or treat specific problems or improve youth well­ ority youth transitioning from school to work (Sánchez
being. Researchers have begun to test programs designed to et al., 2011), aftercare for delinquent youth post-incarcera­
target specific problems (e.g., aggression; academic failure) tion (James et al., 2013), school-based mentoring for
or are intended for specific subgroups (e.g., children with chronically bullied children before they transition to middle
developmental disabilities), Problem-focused programs school (e.g., Elledge et al., 2010; S. J. Gregus et al., 2015),
often integrate into mentoring science-informed practices and mentoring to help children with chronic medical con­
designed to match the needs of the targeted population ditions transition from pediatric to adult care (Viola et al.,
(Cavell & Elledge, 2014; McQuillin, Hagler, et al., 2020). 2020; Wiemann et al., 2020).
Christensen et al. (2020) used a similar term, targeted Transitional mentoring offers a way to take advantage of
mentoring, to describe mentoring that serves as a “context the most workable and reliable strengths of mentoring.
for intentional, targeted skills development, in which men­ Program-sponsored mentoring matches often end prema­
tors employ targeted skills designed to match the presenting turely and few last more than one year or two, which
concerns of mentees” (p. 959). means the dream of a long term, transformative relationship
is seldom realized. But if mentors were trained to support
youth going through a specific, time-limited transition, and
Transitional Mentoring these same mentors were re-deployed to support children
going through similar transitions, then reliance on volunteer
Another example of mentoring as a means to an end is
mentors and limited resources that constrain nonprofit pro­
transitional mentoring, which is mentoring that supports
grams can be optimized. A helpful analogy for transitional
youth who are facing a specific challenging transition in
mentoring is the work of Court-Appointed Special
their life. Transitional mentoring generally involves four
Advocates (CASAs), adult volunteers trained and deployed
key features. The first is support. At minimum, transitional
(repeatedly) to support and advocate for children as they
mentors should interact in ways that give mentees a feeling
are entering the foster care system.
of being safe and supported. Said differently, these mentors
are consistent and the relationship is positive in tone and
absent the damaging impact of unexpected endings, nega­
tive interactions, or recurring conflict (Cavell & Henrie, NEEDED DISRUPTIONS IN YOUTH MENTORING
2010). The second feature is tactical, which implies that
transitional mentors are trained to perform a narrow set of The term disruptive innovation was used by Bower and
tasks over a limited period of time. This is in contrast to Christensen (1995) to describe a process whereby smaller
supportive mentoring that assumes mentors will likely businesses with fewer resources are able to successfully
encounter a wide array of issues in their effort to support challenge established incumbent businesses. These authors
youth over time. The third feature is availability, which noted a tendency for incumbent businesses to shy away
implies that transitional mentors can be deployed (and re- from innovation and overlook certain segments of the mar­
deployed) in a fairly expeditious manner to youth at critical ket, thereby creating opportunities for smaller companies to
junctures. Thus, time to match for transitional mentoring address unmet market needs. In our agenda for the future of
must be kept to a minimum. The final feature is a focus on mentoring, we see a need to disrupt science, practice, and
transitions, which means it is designed to support youth as policy that surrounds mentoring.
they navigate specific changes in their life. These changes
could involve moving to the next school-level (e.g., into
Disrupting the Science of Youth Mentoring
middle school or high school), adjusting to newly diag­
nosed health conditions (e.g., diabetes), leaving The science that underlies mental health care for children
a treatment setting or a system of care (e.g., inpatient and adolescents is generally more advanced yet often sits
hospitalization, juvenile justice, foster care), coming out apart from what is practiced. In the field of youth mentor­
as a member of the LGBTQ community, or adjusting to ing, the circumstances are somewhat different: A case
changing family circumstances (e.g., parental divorce, could be made that researchers have generally lagged
incarceration, or death). It is not difficult to find examples behind in their effort to inform and guide practitioners.
of transitional mentoring. One of the better examples of As such, we offer two important disruptions to the science
transitional mentoring is the Youth-Nominated Support of mentoring that could reduce the odds of additional
Team (YST) program for teens released from the hospital missed opportunities going foward.
 MENTORING AS MEANS AND END IN PROMOTING CHILD MENTAL HEALTH 291

Develop and Test Microtheories of Mentoring parent-child or teacher–student relationships (e.g., Cavell,
2014). Research has identified interactional components
Kurt Lewin (1951) once offered, “There is nothing so
and specific skills that promote or undermine adaptive
practical as a good theory” (p. 169), and that is certainly
relationships that involve children and their parents or
true for the field of youth mentoring. Instead of a single
teachers (e.g., Patterson et al., 1992; Pianta et al., 2003).
mega-theory, the field needs more narrowly specified con­
Findings from this work have been used to develop inter­
ceptual models to guide development and testing of differ­
ventions to help parents and teachers form and sustain
ent types of mentoring. For example, Cavell and colleagues
healthy relationships with children, and many of these
offered a conceptual frame to explain how twice weekly
interventions are designed to be brief and highly accessible
visits by mentors to the school lunch table could benefit
(e.g., Cook et al., 2018; Dishion et al., 2012; Hamre &
elementary school children who are chronically bullied by
Pianta, 2006; Havighurst et al., 2013; Kjobli & Ogden,
peers (Cavell & Henrie, 2010; Elledge et al., 2010;
2012; Morrison & Helker, 2010; Ralph & Sanders, 2004;
J. T. Gregus et al., 2020). These investigators drew from
Sabol & Pianta, 2012; Sanders, 2008).
previous research on processes that contribute to chronic
Programs would also benefit from ways to assess and
peer victimization, including studies that point to the role of
monitor whether mentors were meeting the conditions of
socially constructed narratives that cast victims as out-
a “good enough” mentor. The tendency has been to assess
group members and allow peers to disengage from the
mentees’ perceptions of the more positive and affirming
usual moral prohibitions against bullying (e.g., Thornberg,
actions of mentors, but it could be more useful to track
2015). Cavell and colleagues have also attempted to eluci­
those behaviors that push mentees away or cause them to
date the mechanisms by which lunchtime mentoring can
drift out of disinterest (Cavell & Henrie, 2010; Cavell et al.,
shift peers’ attitudes and behaviors about victims of school
2009; Karcher, 2005; Spencer, 2007). Determining which
bullying (Craig et al., 2015, 2016).
youth to serve is also an important line of inquiry for
programs dedicated to the use of supportive mentoring.
Advance the Science of Mentoring Relationships Which youth are most likely to benefit from
a supplemental and supportive relationship? Is there
If a supportive, supplemental relationship is in fact a developmental period in which these relationships are
a viable prevention goal, then there is a need to grow the especially critical? Few mentoring programs serve youth
science of mentoring relationships and not solely the prac­ under the age of six years, but it is unclear whether that
tice of mentoring. After 100+ years of formal youth men­ position is justified by developmental science (Varga &
toring, a number of critical questions remain unanswered. Zaff, 2018).
For example, what malleable factors distinguish a stable,
growth-promoting mentoring relationship from one that
Test and Compare Specific Program Practices and
ends abruptly or fails to matter to either party? What
Not Just Whole Programs
distinguishes mentors who form positive, affirming rela­
tionships from those who struggle to keep youth engaged We suggest researchers and practitioners move beyond
and invested (Cavell et al., 2020)? Can programs use infor­ global, program-focused evaluations of mentoring and
mation about factors that predict relationship quality and toward practice-focused evaluations of what mentors do
maintenance to train volunteers, especially in light of the with mentees or what programs do with mentors. This
very real constraints under which most mentoring programs kind of research is long overdue (Lyons et al., 2019). Few
operate? These rather obvious questions have not been published studies of mentoring include assessment of the
adequately addressed in previous studies of youth mentor­ types of activities or experiences that occur during
ing. Recent qualitative studies provide important ground­ a mentoring visit (McQuillin et al., 2019). The seemingly
work (Pryce, 2012; Spencer, 2006; Spencer et al., 2020), obvious importance of these issues has been largely over­
but scholars have not systematically examined what men­ shadowed by pressures to “prove” that programs work.
tors actually do when interacting with mentees over the There is also value in emulating the study of micro-pro­
course of their relationships. This basic, foundational cesses that predict successful counseling outcomes. For
knowledge is critical to identifying matches at risk of end­ example, studies of Motivational Interviewing (Miller &
ing prematurely and mentors who will struggle to provide Rollnick, 2012) often involve assessment of specific verba­
a safe, stable, nurturing relationship (SSNR). This informa­ lizations by counselors as well as clients’ responses to
tion can also guide programs in selecting and training those verbalizations and any subsequent change in beha­
volunteers who provide high-quality, lasting relationships. vior. This work has led to continued improvements in the
Researchers who study relational processes in youth practice of motivational interviewing, which has also influ­
mentoring tend to draw from research on psychotherapy enced how mental health counselors are trained (Magill
(e.g., Pryce, 2012; Spencer & Rhodes, 2005), but we see et al., 2018). Implementing a formal mentoring program
more instructive examples in scholarship focused on involves several specific practice elements (Garringer et al.,
292 CAVELL ET AL.

2015), all of which are open to experimental evaluation, for increasing the quality of mentoring and not simply the
including but not limited to how mentors are matched, number of youth mentored. Here we offer the added call for
trained, and supervised as well as the benefits of using the intentional and explicit use of more diverse forms of
specific curricula or structured activities (e.g., McQuilin mentoring.
et al., 2019). By evaluating discrete practices rather than
whole programs, the pace at which mentoring organizations Structure Program Practices to Match the Type of
learn and benefit from research can be greatly expedited. Mentoring
Programs that use supportive mentoring need structures
Disrupting the Practice of Youth Mentoring and practices that effectively engineer mentors’ attempts to
A bilateral framework for youth mentoring means disrupt­ form and maintain positive relationships. This can include,
ing the practice of mentoring. Likely shifts include broad­ for example, policies that govern the expected length of
ening and diversifying the mission of youth mentoring matches, incentives to recognize the work of successful
organizations, being more intentional and explicit about mentors, training that builds on studies of interactional
the type of mentoring offered, and structuring program processes in youth mentoring, greater use of progress mon­
practices to match the type of mentoring delivered. itoring to discern which matches are having difficulty, and
the use of psychometric instruments that aid in mentor
selection (e.g., Cavell et al., 2020). For programs that use
Broaden and Diversify the Mission of Youth a more problem-focused or transitional approach to men­
Mentoring toring, there should also be an emphasis on practices that
Most mentoring organizations are in the business of promote the impact of mentoring on proximal, putative
“selling” a single promise: That parents who enroll their mechanisms of change.
children can anticipate a safe, relatively long-term match Recent innovations in program structure and practice
that has the potential to be protective or transformative. include use of embedded mentors and technology-mediated
Less attention is given to possible risks, including having mentoring. Embedded mentoring involves placing mentors
a child wait for months to be matched, the match ending into existing systems of care as a way to expand services
early, or significant limits to what can be expected of while strengthening the effectiveness of mentoring and
mentors working with youth at risk for significant, negative better aligning program infrastructure with the kinds of
developmental outcomes. It is now time to expand and support mentors need (Rhodes, 2020). Across the United
diversify this single view of mentoring, including exploring States, over half of youth served by mentoring programs
ways to incorporate the different types of mentoring out­ are considered “academically at-risk”, and close to a fourth
lined earlier. Currently, few mentoring organizations oper­ have serious mental health needs including depression,
ate from a vision that involves serving youth via problem- anxiety, or attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder
focused or transitional types of mentoring. These more (Garringer et al., 2017; Jarjoura et al., 2018). Most mentor­
circumscribed strategies are often theory-driven and ing programs provide less than two hours of pre-match
empirically supported, but do not readily align with the training and little substantive ongoing support (Garringer
existing structure and aims of most established mentoring et al., 2017). Program staff have limited time to train and
organizations. However, national mentoring organizations support mentors, and few have professional training in
also have the capacity to distribute policy changes across mental health care or education (Keller & Spencer, 2018;
affiliated agencies, which should greatly advantage any Kupersmidt et al., 2017; Spencer et al., 2019). And yet,
effort to broaden and diversify the mission of youth emerging research documents the importance of mentor
mentoring. training and support (McQuillin et al., 2019; S. McQuillin
et al., 2015). Thus, embedding mentors to work alongside
helping professionals (e.g., psychologists, school counse­
Be Intentional and Explicit about the Type of
lors) could also enhance the training experience for mentors
Mentoring Offered
in ways that closely align with the needs of children served
To the extent mentoring organizations can flexibly shift (Mcquillin et al., 2020).
to include diverse types of mentoring, there is the added Another key aspect of embedded mentoring is task-shift­
requirement of being explicit and transparent about which ing, the redistribution of some tasks typically provided by
youth are optimally served and which youth are less of a fit professionals to individuals with less professional training
for programs offered. In trying to serve all youth who might (McQuillin et al., 2019). Shifting services typically pro­
benefit from having a mentor, some mentoring organiza­ vided by hard-to-access mental health professionals (e.g.,
tions run the risk of diluting their potential impact and counselors, psychologists) to volunteer or paraprofessional
limiting what is effectively offered to participating youth. mentors could dramatically increase access to care, espe­
More than a decade ago, Rhodes and DuBois (2008) called cially for youth in communities where the need and
 MENTORING AS MEANS AND END IN PROMOTING CHILD MENTAL HEALTH 293

demand for services greatly exceeds the supply of avail­ scientific knowledge base” (DuBois et al., 2011, pp.
able, accessible helping professionals (McQuillin et al., 78–79). Funding initiatives have tended to emphasize inno­
2019; Rhodes, 2020). For example, if only 5% of the vation and growth of mentoring rather than critical tests of
estimated 2,500,000 to 3,000,000 active volunteer mentors whether mentoring works, for whom, and by what means
offered a limited form of mental health-care service, they (DuBois et al., 2011). At least two important disruptions
would rival the total number of licensed psychologists in are needed for policy involving youth mentoring. The first
the US (US, Bureau and Labor Statistics, 2019). There are is greater funding to advance the science and not just the
legitimate concerns surrounding the training and supervi­ practice of mentoring. The second is use of policy initia­
sion of volunteer mentors to whom such tasks are shifted, tives to fund programs designed to provide children and
but we believe the challenges are surmountable and worthy adolescents from under-resourced environments with sup­
of further investigation and policy consideration. plemental adult relationships that are safe and supportive.
Technology-mediated mentoring is the strategic use of
mobile mental health (MHapps) and educational support Funding
applications to transfer traditional helping practices from An interesting byproduct of policy and funding patterns
professionals to mentors (Rhodes, 2020). The aim is to in youth mentoring is the close and recurring collaboration
increase youth access to evidence-based strategies for between mentoring practitioners and researchers. Indeed,
improving mental, behavioral, and academic functioning. some of the largest and most prominent studies in this
When these apps are used routinely, outcomes are often field have involved partnerships between BBBS-America
similar to those found for professionally delivered services. and research teams tasked with evaluating the impact of an
Meta-analytic studies reveal effect sizes ranging from g = established program, such as BBBS-America’s community-
.28 to .58 for anxiety, from g = .38 to .56 for depressive or school-based mentoring program (e.g., Grossman &
symptoms, and from g = .35 to .44 for general quality of Tierney, 1998; Herrera et al., 2007; Herrera et al., 2013).
life and affect (Firth et al., 2017; Linardon et al., 2019), The impetus for these trials is often a funding initiative that
though research on MHapp use by youth is more limited seeks to demonstrate policy-linked benefits (Grossman &
(Temkin et al., 2020). A significant barrier to widespread Tierney, 1998) or the delivery of mentoring to specific
adoption of MHapps and related technology is that most groups targeted by the funding agency (e.g., DuBois
youth do not use the apps beyond initial installation. et al., 2020). This close collaboration carries the potential
However, there is research suggesting that support and to benefit both researchers and practitioners: Researchers
coaching (e.g., regular check-ins, trouble shooting), often need not create and implement a mentoring program before
titled supportive accountability, can improve use of studying it, and practitioners have a chance to learn what is
MHapps and their outcomes (Conley, 2016). Rhodes or is not working with their program.
(2020) suggests mentors are well suited to offer supportive
But meta-analytic studies documenting persistently
accountability to youth using these apps.
modest outcomes (e.g., Raposa et al., 2019) suggest close
collaboration between researchers and practitioners has yet
to narrow the research-to-practice gap in youth mentoring
Disrupting Policy Related to Youth Mentoring
(Henderson et al., 2006). In fact, it seems more accurate to
The field of youth mentoring offers unique lessons to those say that practice, linked as it has been to key policy and
who view child and adolescent mental health from a policy funding decisions, has had a stronger influence on the
perspective or through the lens of dissemination and imple­ science of youth mentoring than vice versa. Rarely do
mentation science (Beidas & Kendall, 2014). Youth men­ funding initiatives include monies to support the science
toring was brought to scale long before there were of youth mentoring or earnest tests of whether mentoring
empirical tests of its effectiveness. Typically, widespread actually works, for whom, and by what means (Fernandes,
adoption, utilization, and sustainability of a prevention pro­ 2019). Instead, these trials are designed to estimate gains
gram occurs after its efficacy, effectiveness, and mechanism for youth who did and did not participate in an established
of action have been established. (Flay, 1986; Mrazek & program or to compare mentored youth who did and did not
Haggerty, 1994). Cavell and Elledge (2014) suggested this have a high-quality match (e.g., Bayer et al., 2015; Herrera
departure from the prevention research cycle likely et al., 2013). The field of youth mentoring would benefit
impeded development of effective mentoring programs. from funding that supports testing and refining innovative
Paradoxically, early enthusiasm for mentoring and for its models of mentoring (e.g., McQuillin et al., 2013). Efforts
rapid expansion might have also slowed its progress. to grow the science of mentoring need not limit researchers
DuBois et al. (2011) noted the disconnect between research working closely with practitioners or with established men­
and policy in youth mentoring: “Public policy in this area toring organizations. However, the goal of these initiatives
has in many respects tended to run on a separate track, with should include learning what does and does not work in
enthusiasm for new approaches often outpacing the youth mentoring.
294 CAVELL ET AL.

Funding to Provide Children and Adolescents Living mentoring, and it makes explicit potential differences in
in Under-resourced Environments with Supplemental types and goals of mentoring. In so doing, we return to
Safe and Supportive Adult Relationships the roots of mentoring, centering the connection with pro­
social adults in young people’s lives, but this time with
A key premise in our bilateral framework is that healthy
a call for researchers to take these relationships seriously
development occurs in the context of safe, supportive,
and invest in understanding what makes them work and
nurturing relationships (Li & Julian, 2012). But not all
how programs can effectively promote and sustain them.
children have sufficient access to these kinds of relation­
We also recognize that mentoring can take another impor­
ships, despite systems of care designed to provide children
tant form, embedded within larger contexts and utilized in
with various forms of support over the course of their
more circumscribed ways that are intentionally focused on
development (e.g., Head Start, K-12 schooling, foster
the promotion of more specified and near-term outcomes.
care). Formal mentoring programs aim to provide children
In both cases, if mentoring is to become a viable strategy
with supplemental support from a caring adult, but mentor­
for promoting youth development and addressing mental
ing programs cannot serve all you in need (Rhodes, 2020)
health needs of children and adolescents, significant disrup­
and youth living in economically disadvantaged homes and
tion in the current science, practice, and policy surrounding
isolated communities have limited access to mentoring
mentoring is required.
relationships (Snellman et al., 2015).
One of the more interesting but unfortunate aspects of
formal mentoring is that organized programs are unlikely to DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
assist parents pursuing, on their own, supportive connec­
tions for their children with adults in their network (Scafe No potential conflict of interest was reported by the
& Cavell, 2020; Weiler et al., 2020). Mentoring organiza­ authors.
tions work diligently to protect children from potentially
harmful and exploitive mentors (Rhodes et al., 2009), and
because of potential risks and liability for that risk, these ORCID
organizations cannot promote relationships that do not
involve the careful screening and training of volunteers Timothy A. Cavell http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5576-
by program staff. One promising avenue by which mentor­ 1622
ing organizations could provide assistance to parents is Renée Spencer http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2876-2918
CareGiver-Initiated Mentoring (CG-IM). With this strat­ Samuel D. McQuillin http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6880-
egy, parents of children waiting to be matched with 5871
a mentor are trained to assist in identifying and recruiting
potential mentors from their community (Scafe & Cavell,
2020; Weiler et al., 2020). The supposition is that CG-IM REFERENCES
will not only expedite the matching process but also equip
those parents who choose, at some later point, to seek the Anthony, E. J., & Cohler, B. J. (Eds.). (1987). The invulnerable child.
support of informal mentors for their children. CG-IM has Guilford Press.
Antonucci, T. C., Ajrouch, K. J., & Birditt, K. S. (2014). The convoy
yet to be formally evaluated and it is unlikely to have the model: Explaining social relations from a multidisciplinary perspective.
broad, preventative impact ideally suited for supportive The Gerontologist, 54(1), 82–92. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnt118
mentoring. Therefore, policy initiatives and funding pro­ Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor (2021).
grams that invest in the healthy development of children Occupational Outlook Handbook, Psychologists, Retrieved January 20,
and adolescents should include other ways to increase 2021 from https://www.bls.gov/ooh/life-physical-and-social-science/psy
chologists.htm.
youth access to supportive mentoring relationships. Banks, A., & Hirschman, L. A. (2016). Wired to connect: The surprising
link between brain science and strong, healthy relationships. Tarcher/
Penguin.
CONCLUSION Barnett, M. L., Lau, A. S., & Miranda, J. (2018). Lay health worker
involvement in evidence-based treatment delivery: A conceptual
model to address disparities in care. Annual Review of Clinical
The field of youth mentoring sits apart from most of what is Psychology, 14(1), 185–208. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-
studied and practiced by clinical child and adolescent psy­ 050817-084825
chologists. But areas of overlap offer intriguing opportu­ Baker, D. B., & Maguire, C. P. (2005). Mentoring in historical perspective.
nities for both practitioners and scholars. In this paper, we In D. L. DuBois & M. J. Karcher (Eds), Handbook of youth mentoring,
called attention to persistently modest outcomes from stu­ (pp. 14–29). Sage Publications.
Bayer, A., Grossman, J. B., & DuBois, D. L. (2015). Using volunteer
dies of youth mentoring and offered a bilateral framework mentors to improve the academic outcomes of underserved students:
as a path forward. This framework calls for researchers and The role of relationships. Journal of Community Psychology, 43(4),
practitioners to consider both the means and ends of 408–429. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.21693
 MENTORING AS MEANS AND END IN PROMOTING CHILD MENTAL HEALTH 295

Beiswinger, G. L. (1985). One to one: The story of the Big Brothers/Big a national research program. American Psychologist, 48(10),
Sisters movement in America. Philadelphia: Big Brothers/Big Sisters of 1013–1022. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.48.10.1013
America. Conley, C. S., Durlak, J. A., Shapiro, J. B., Kirsch, A. C., & Zahniser, E.
Beidas, R. S., & Kendall, P. C. (Eds.). (2014). Dissemination and imple­ (2016). A Meta-Analysis of the Impact of Universal and Indicated
mentation of evidence-based practices in child and adolescent mental Preventive Technology-Delivered Interventions for Higher Education
health. Oxford University Press. Students. Prevention Science, 17(6), 659–78.10.1007/s11121-016-
Berlin, L. J., Appleyard, K., & Dodge, K. A. (2011). Intergenerational 0662-3
continuity in child maltreatment: Mediating mechanisms and implica­ Cook, C. R., Fiat, A., Larson, M., Daikos, C., Slemrod, T., Holland, E. A.,
tions for prevention. Child Development, 82(1), 162–176. https://doi. Thayer, A. J., & Renshaw, T. (2018). Positive Greetings at the Door:
org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01547.x Evaluation of a Low-Cost, High-Yield Proactive Classroom
Bernstein, L., Rappaport, C. D., Olsho, L., Hunt, D., & Levin, M. (2009). Management Strategy. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 20
Impact evaluation of the US department of education’s student mentor­ (3), 149–159. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300717753831
ing program. Final report (NCEE 2009-4047). National Center for Craig, J. T., Gregus, S. J., Burton, A., Hernandez Rodriguez, J., Blue, M.,
Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. Faith, M. A., & Cavell, T. A. (2015). Exploring change processes in
Bethell, C., Jones, J., Gombojav, N., Linkenbach, J., & Sege, R. (2019). school-based mentoring for bullied children. Journal of Primary
Positive childhood experiences and adult mental and relational health in Prevention, 37(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10935-015-0412-5
a statewide sample: Associations across adverse childhood experiences Craig, J. T., Gregus, S. J., Elledge, L. C., Pastrana, F. A., & Cavell, T. A.
levels. JAMA Pediatrics, 173(11), e193007–e193007. https://doi.org/10. (2016). Preliminary investigation of the relation between lunchroom
1001/jamapediatrics.2019.3007 peer acceptance and peer victimization. Journal of Applied
Big Brothers Big Sisters of America. (2018, July). Big brothers big sisters Developmental Psychology, 43, 101–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.app
of America announces local agencies and boards of the year. https:// dev.2016.01.005
www.bbbs.org/news-item/2018/07/big-brothers-big-sisters-america- Crandall, A., Miller, J. R., Cheung, A., Novilla, L. K., Glade, R.,
announces-local-agencies-boards-year/ Novilla, M. L. B., … Hanson, C. L. (2019). ACEs and counter-ACEs:
Boyle, F. M., Donald, M., Dean, J. H., Conrad, S., & Mutch, A. J. (2007). How positive and negative childhood experiences influence adult health.
Mental health promotion and non-profit health organisations. Health & Child Abuse & Neglect, 96, 104089. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.
social care in the community, 15(6), 553–560. https://doi.org/10.1111/j. 2019.104089
1365-2524.2007.00712.x Crouch, J. A., Milner, J. S., & Thonsen, C. (2000). Childhood physical
Bower, J. L., & Christensen, C. M. (1995). Disruptive innovation: abuse, early social support, and maltreatment: Current social support as
Catching the wave. Harvard Business Review, 73(1), 43–45. Retrieved a mediator of physical abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect, 25(1), 93–107.
on February 9, 2021 from https://hbr.org/1995/01/disruptive-technolo https://doi.org/10.1016/S0145-2134(00)00230-1
gies-catching-the-wave Darling, N., Hamilton, S. F., & Niego, S. (1994). Adolescents’ relations
Caspi, A., Harrington, H., Moffitt, T., Milne, B., & Poulton, R. (2006). with adults outside the family. In R. Montemayor, G. R. Adams, &
Socially isolated children 20 years later: Risk of cardiovascular disease. T. P. Gullotta (Eds.), Personal relationships during adolescence (pp.
Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 160(8), 805–811. https:// 216–235). Sage Publications.
doi.org/10.1001/archpedi.160.8.805 Dishion, T. J., Stormshak, E. A., & Kavanagh, K. A. (2012). Everyday
Cavell, T. A. (2014, April). Lunch Buddy mentoring for bullied children. parenting: A professional’s guide to building family management skills.
Keynote address, Texas Mentoring Summit, University of Texas–San Research Press.
Antonio. DuBois, D. L., & Karcher, M. J. (2014). Youth mentoring: Progress and
Cavell, T. A., & Elledge, L. C. (2014). Mentoring and prevention science. prospects for the 21st century. In D. L. DuBois & M. J. Karcher
In D. L. DuBois & M. J. Karcher (Eds.), Handbook of youth mentoring (Eds), The handbook of youth mentoring (pp. 525–534). Sage
(2nd ed., pp. 29–41). Sage Publications. Publications.
Cavell, T. A., Elledge, L. C., Malcolm, K. T., Faith, M. A., & DuBois, D. L., Alem, F., Silverthorn, N., & Stewart, K. (2020). Synthesis
Hughes, J. N. (2009). Relationship quality and the mentoring of aggres­ of OJJDP-sponsored mentoring research: 2019 update. Office of
sive, high-risk children. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Justice Programs’ National Criminal Justice Reference Service.
P s y c h o l o g y, 3 8 ( 2 ) , 1 8 5 – 1 9 8 . h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 8 0 / DuBois, D. L., Herrera, C., & Higley, E. (2018). Investigation of the reach
15374410802698420 and effectiveness of a mentoring program for youth receiving outpatient
Cavell, T. A., & Henrie, J. L. (2010). Deconstructing serendipity: Focus, mental health services. Children and Youth Services Review, 91, 85–93.
purpose, and authorship in Lunch Buddy mentoring. In G. G. Noam, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.05.033
M. J. Karcher, & M. J. Nakkula (Eds.), New directions for youth DuBois, D. L., Holloway, B. E., Valentine, J. C., & Cooper, H. (2002).
development: Theory, practice, and research. The structure of mentor­ Effectiveness of mentoring programs for youth: A meta-analytic review.
ing interactions (pp. 107–121). John Wiley & Sons. American Journal of Community Psychology, 30(2), 157–197. https://
Cavell, T. A., Mutignani, L. M., Alfonso, L., & Marie Smith, A. (2020). doi.org/10.1023/A:1014628810714
Attachment tendencies, big 5 personality traits, and self-efficacy as DuBois, D. L., & Keller, T. E. (2017). Investigation of the integration of
predictors of mentors’ relationships with aggressive children. supports for youth thriving into a community-based mentoring program.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 66(1–2), 130–143. Child Development, 88(5), 1480–1491. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12887
https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12437 DuBois, D. L., Portillo, N., Rhodes, J. E., Silverthorn, N., & Valen-
Christensen, K. M., Hagler, M. A., Stams, G. J., Raposa, E. B., Burton, S., Tine, J. C. (2011). How effective are mentoring programs for youth?
& Rhodes, J. E. (2020). Non-specific versus targeted approaches to A systematic assessment of the evidence. Psychological Science in the
youth mentoring: A follow-up meta-analysis. Journal of Youth and Public Interest, 12(2), 57–91. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100611414806
Adolescence, 49(5), 959–972. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-020- Eddy, J. M., Martinez, C. R., Grossman, J. B., Cearley, J. J., Herrera, D.,
01233-x Wheeler, A. C., … Harachi, T. W. (2017). A randomized controlled trial
Coie, J. D., Watt, N. F., West, S. G., Hawkins, D., Asarnow, J. R., of a long-term professional mentoring program for children at risk:
Markman, H. J., Ramey, S. L., Shure, M. B., & Long, B. (1993). The Outcomes across the first 5 years. Prevention Science, 18(8), 899–910.
science of prevention: A conceptual framework and some directions for https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-017-0795-z
296 CAVELL ET AL.

Elledge, L. C., Cavell, T. A., Ogle, N., & Newgent, R. A. (2010). Lunch Community Psychology, 49(1–2), 43–54. https://doi.org/10.1007/
buddy mentoring as selective prevention for bullied children. The s10464-011-9435-0
Journal of Primary Prevention, 31(3), 171–187. https://doi.org/10. Grossman, J. B., & Garry, E. M. (1997). Mentoring: A proven delinquency
1007/s10935-010-0215-7 prevention strategy. US Department of Justice, Office of Justice
Felitti, V. J., Anda, R. F., Nordenberg, D., Williamson, D. F., Spitz, A. M., Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Edwards, V., & Marks, J. S. (1998). Relationship of childhood abuse Grossman, J. B., & Rhodes, J. E. (2002). The test of time: Predictors and
and household dysfunction to many of the leading causes of death in effects of duration in youth mentoring relationships. American Journal
adults: The Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) Study. American of Community Psychology, 30(2), 199–219. https://doi.org/10.1023/
Journal of Preventive Medicine, 14(4), 245–258. A:1014680827552
Fernandes, A. L. (2019). Vulnerable youth: Federal mentoring programs Hamilton, S. F., & Hamilton, M. A. (1992). Mentoring programs: Promise
and issues. Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress. and paradox. Phi Delta Kappan, 73(7), 546.
Firth, J., Torous, J., Nicholas, J., Carney, R., Pratap, A., Rosenbaum, S., & Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2006). Student-teacher relationships. In
Sarris, J. (2017). The efficacy of smartphone-based mental health inter­ G. G. Bear & K. M. Minke (Eds.), Children’s needs III: Development,
ventions for depressive symptoms: A meta-analysis of randomized prevention, and intervention (pp. 59–71). National Association of
controlled trials. World Psychiatry, 16(3), 287–298. https://doi.org/10. School Psychologists.
1002/wps.20472 Hansen, K., Romens, K., & LaFleur, S. (2011). Final report on the
Flay, B. R. (1986). Efficacy and effectiveness trials (and other phases of enhanced school-based mentoring pilot: Developing and substantiating
research) in the development of health promotion programs. Preventive an evidence-based model. Big Brothers Big Sisters of America.
Medicine, 15(5), 451–474. https://doi.org/10.1016/0091-7435(86)90024-1 Havighurst, S. S., Wilson, K. R., Harley, A. E., Kehoe, C., Efron, D.,
Flay, B. R., Biglan, A., Boruch, R. F., Castro, F. G., Gottfredson, D., Prior, M. (2013). “Tuning into kids”: Reducing young children’s beha­
Kellam, S., Moscicki, E. K., Schinke, S., Valentine, J. C., & Ji, P. vior problems using an emotion coaching parenting program. Child
(2005). Standards of evidence: Criteria for efficacy, effectiveness and Psychiatry & Human Development, 44(2), 247–264. https://doi.org/10.
dissemination. Prevention Science, 6(3), 151–175. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s10578-012-0322-1
1007/s11121-005-5553-y Henderson, J. L., MacKay, S., & Peterson-Badali, M. (2006). Closing the
Garmezy, N., & Masten, A. S. (1986). Stress, competence, and resilience: research-practice gap: Factors affecting adoption and implementation of
Common frontiers for therapist and psychopathologist. Behavior a children’s mental health program. Journal of Clinical Child and
Therapy, 17(5), 500–521. Adolescent Psychology, 35(1), 2–12. https://doi.org/10.1207/
Garringer, M., Kupersmidt, J., Rhodes, J., Stelter, R., & Tai, T. (2015). s15374424jccp3501_1
Elements of effective practice for mentoring [TM]: Research-informed Herrera, C., DuBois, D. L., & Grossman, J. B. (2013). The role of risk:
and practitioner-approved best practices for creating and sustaining Mentoring experiences and outcomes for youth with varying risk pro­
impactful mentoring relationships and strong program services. files. A Public/Private Ventures project published by MDRC. https://
MENTOR: National Mentoring Partnership. www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/Role%20of%20Risk_Final-web%
Garringer, M., McQuillin, S., McDaniel, H. (2017). Examining youth 20PDF.pdf
mentoring services across America: Findings from the 2016 National Herrera, C., Grossman, J. B., Kauh, T. J., Feldman, A. F., & McMaken, J.
Mentoring Program Survey. Technical Report Produced produced by (2007). Making a difference in schools: The Big Brothers Big Sisters
MENTOR: The National Mentoring Partnership. http://www.mentoring. School-Based Mentoring impact study. Public/Private Ventures.
org/program-resources/mentor-resources-and-publications/national- Herrera, C., Grossman, J. B., Kauh, T. J., & McMaken, J. (2011).
survey/ Mentoring in schools: An impact study of big brothers big sisters
Geenen, S., Powers, L. E., Phillips, L. A., Nelson, M., McKenna, J., school-based mentoring. Child Development, 82(1), 346–361. https://
Winges-Yanez, N., … Swank, P. (2015). Better futures: A randomized doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01559.x
field test of a model for supporting young people in foster care with Hirschi, T. (1969). A control theory of delinquency. Criminology theory:
mental health challenges to participate in higher education. The Journal Selected classic readings, 1969, 289–305.
of Behavioral Health Services & Research, 42(2), 150–171. https://doi. Holt-Lunstad, J., Robles, T. F., & Sbarra, D. A. (2017). Advancing social
org/10.1007/s11414-014-9451-6 connection as a public health priority in the United States. American
Greenberger, E., Chen, C., & Beam, M. R. (1998). The role of “very Psychologist, 72(6), 517–530. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000103
important” nonparental adults in adolescent development. Journal of Holt-Lunstad, J., Smith, T. B., & Layton, J. B. (2010). Social relationships
Youth and Adolescence, 27(3), 321–343. https://doi.org/10.1023/ and mortality risk: A meta-analytic review. PLoS Medicine, 7(7),
A:1022803120166 e1000316. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000316
Gregus, J. T., Craig, J. T., & Cavell, T. A. (2020). Toward evidence-based Hughes, J. N., Cavell, T. A., Meehan, B. T., Zhang, D., & Collie, C. (2005).
interventions for chronically bullied children: Candidate mechanisms Adverse school context moderates the outcomes of selective interventions
and potential strategies. Evidence-Based Practice in Child & Adolescent for aggressive children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73
Mental Health, 5(1), 83–101. https://doi.org/org/10.1080/23794925. (4), 731–736. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.73.4.731
2020.1727796 Hurd, N. M., & Sellers, R. M. (2013). Black adolescents’ relationships
Gregus, S. J., Craig, J. T., Hernandez Rodriguez, J., Pastrana, F. A., & with natural mentors: Associations with academic engagement via
Cavell, T. A. (2015). Lunch Buddy mentoring for children victi­ social and emotional development. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic
mized by peers: Two open trials. Journal of Applied School Minority Psychology, 19(1), 76–85. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031095
Psychology, 31(2), 167–197. https://doi.org/10.1080/15377903. Hagler, M., Raposa, E. B., & Rhodes, J. (2019). Psychosocial profiles of
2015.1025172 youth who acquire a natural mentor during a school year. Applied
Grossman, J. B., & Tierney, J. P. (1998). Does mentoring work? An impact Developmental Science, 23(2), 144–152. https://doi.org/10.1080/
study of the Big Brothers Big Sisters program. Evaluation Review, 22 10888691.2017.1342539
(3), 403–426. Jaffee, S. R., Bowes, L., Ouellet-Morin, I., Fisher, H. L., Moffitt, T. E.,
Grossman, J. B., Chan, C. S., Schwartz, S. E., & Rhodes, J. E. (2012). The Merrick, M. T., & Arseneault, L. (2013). Safe, stable, nurturing relation­
test of time in school-based mentoring: The role of relationship duration ships break the intergenerational cycle of abuse: A prospective nation­
and re-matching on academic outcomes. American Journal of ally representative cohort of children in the United Kingdom. Journal of
 MENTORING AS MEANS AND END IN PROMOTING CHILD MENTAL HEALTH 297

Adolescent Health, 53(4), S4–S10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth. Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA psychiatry, 76(5), 492–498. https://
2013.04.007 doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2018.4358
James, C., Stams, G. J. J., Asscher, J. J., De Roo, A. K., & Van der Kupersmidt, J. B., Stump, K. N., Stelter, R. L., & Rhodes, J. E. (2017).
Laan, P. H. (2013). Aftercare programs for reducing recidivism among Mentoring program practices as predictors of match longevity. Journal of
juvenile and young adult offenders: A meta-analytic review. Clinical Community Psychology, 45(5), 630–645. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.21883
Psychology Review, 33(2), 263–274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2012. Lacey, R., Kumari, M., & Bartley, M. (2014). Social isolation in childhood
10.013 and adult inflammation: Evidence from the national child development
Jarjoura, G. R., Tanyu, M., Forbush, J., Herrera, C., & Keller, T. E. (2018). study. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 50, 85–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Enhancement demonstration program. Technical report submitted to the psyneuen.2014.08.007
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. National Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical
Criminal Justice Reference Center. papers. In D. Cartwright (Ed.). Harper and Row. (Original work pub­
Johnson, S. B., & Pryce, J. M. (2013). Therapeutic mentoring: Reducing lished 1944).
the impact of trauma for foster youth. Child Welfare, 92(3), 9–25. Li, J., & Julian, M. M. (2012). Developmental relationships as the active
Johnson, V. L., Holt, L. J., Bry, B. H., & Powell, S. R. (2008). Effects of ingredient: A unifying working hypothesis of “what works” across
an integrated prevention program on urban youth transitioning into high intervention settings. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 82(2),
school. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 24(2), 225–246. https:// 157. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1939-0025.2012.01151.x
doi.org/10.1080/15377900802089999 Linardon, J., Cuijpers, P., Carlbring, P., Messer, M., & Fuller-
Karcher, M. J. (2005). The effects of developmental mentoring and high Tyszkiewicz, M. (2019). The efficacy of app-supported
school mentors’ attendance on their younger mentees’ self- esteem, smartphone interventions for mental health problems: A meta-analysis
social skills, and connectedness. Psychology in the Schools, 42(1), of randomized controlled trials. World Psychiatry, 18(3), 325–336.
65–77. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20025 https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.20673
Karcher, M. J. (2008). The study of mentoring in the learning environment Lyons, M. D., & McQuillin, S. D. (2019). Risks and rewards of
(SMILE): A randomized evaluation of the effectiveness of school-based school-based mentoring relationships: A reanalysis of the student men­
mentoring. Prevention Science, 9(2), 99. https://doi.org/10.1007/ toring program evaluation. School Psychology, 34(1), 76–85. https://doi.
s11121-008-0083-z org/10.1037/spq0000265
Karcher, M. J., Herrera, C., & Hansen, K. (2010). “I dunno, what do you Lyons, M. D., McQuillin, S. D., & Henderson, L. J. (2019). Finding the sweet
wanna do?”: Testing a framework to guide mentor training and activity spot: Investigating the effects of relationship closeness and instrumental
selection. New Directions for Youth Development, 2010(126), 51–69. activities in school-based mentoring. American Journal of Community
https://doi.org/10.1002/yd.349 Psychology, 63(1–2), 88–98. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12283
Kazdin, A. E. (2019). Annual research review: Expanding mental health Magill, M., Apodaca, T. R., Borsari, B., Gaume, J., Hoadley, A.,
services through novel models of intervention delivery. Journal of Child Gordon, R., Tonigan, J. S., & Moyers, T. (2018). A meta-analysis of
Psychology and Psychiatry, 60(4), 455–472. https://doi.org/10.1111/ motivational interviewing process: Technical, relational, and conditional
jcpp.12937 process models of change. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Keller, T. E., Drew, A. L., Clark-Shim, H., Spencer, R., & Herrera, C. Psychology, 86(2), 140–157. https://doi.org/10.1037/ccp0000250
(2020). It’s about time: Staff support contacts and mentor volunteer Masten, A. S. (2001). Ordinary magic: Resilience processes in
experiences. Journal of Youth Development, 15(4), 145–161. https://doi. development. American Psychologist, 56(3), 227. https://doi.org/10.
org/10.5195/jyd.2020.879 1037/0003-066X.56.3.227
Keller, T. E., Perry, M., Spencer, R. (2020). Reducing social isolation through Masten, A. S. (2013). Risk and resilience in development. In P. D. Zelazo
formal youth mentoring: Opportunities and potential pitfalls. Clinical Social (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of developmental psychology, Vol. 2: Self
Work Journal, 48, 35–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10615-019-00727-x and other (pp. 579–607). Oxford University Press.
Keller, T. E., Spencer, R., Herrera, C., & McBeath, B. (2019). Changing McCord, J. (1978). A thirty-year follow-up of treatment effects. American
youth programs and settings: An experimental evaluation of the quality Psychologist, 33(3), 284–289. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.33.3.284
mentoring systems initiative (Final Program Report). Portland State McQuillin, S., Strait, G., Smith, B., & Ingram, A. (2015). Brief instru­
University. mental school-based mentoring for first-and second-year middle school
Keller, T.E. & Spencer, R. (2017). Prediction and prevention of premature students: A randomized evaluation. Journal of Community Psychology,
closures of mentoring relationships. The Study to Analyze 43(7), 885–899. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.21719
Relationships (STAR Project). U.S. Department of Justice, Office of McQuillin, S. D., Hagler, M., & Rhodes, J. E. (2020).
Justice Programs’ National Criminal Justice Reference Service, Paraprofessional youth mentoring: A framework for integrating
Document Number 251461. youth mentoring with helping institutions and professions.
Kerr, D. C., & King, C. A. (2013). Youth with mental health needs. In D. Manuscript under review.
Dubois & M. Karcher (Eds.), Handbook of youth mentoring (pp. McQuillin, S. D., Lyons, M. D., Becker, K. D., Hart, M. J., & Cohen, K.
325–340). SAGE Publications. (2019). Strengthening and expanding child services in low resource
Kesselring, M., de Winter, M., Horjus, B., van de Schoot, R., & van communities: The role of task-shifting and just-in-time training.
Yperen, T. (2012). Do parents think it takes a village? Parents’ attitudes American Journal of Community Psychology, 63(3–4), 355–365.
towards nonparental adults’ involvement in the upbringing and nurture https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12314
of children. Journal of Community Psychology, 40(8), 921–937. https:// McQuillin, S. D., Lyons, M. D., Clayton, R. J., & Anderson, J. R. (2020).
doi.org/10.1002/jcop.21497 Assessing the impact of school-based mentoring: Common problems
Kjøbli, J., & Bjørnebekk, G. (2013). A Randomized Effectiveness Trial of and solutions associated with evaluating nonprescriptive youth devel­
Brief Parent Training: Six-Month Follow-Up. Research on Social Work opment programs. Applied Developmental Science, 24(3), 215–229.
Practice, 23(6), 603–612. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731513492860 https://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2018.1454837
King, C. A., Arango, A., Kramer, A., Busby, D., Czyz, E., Foster, C. E., McQuillin, S., Terry, J., Strait, G., & Smith, B. (2013). Innovation in
Gillespie, B. W., & YST Study Team. (2019). Association of the Youth- school-based mentoring: matching the context, structure, and goals of
Nominated Support Team Intervention for Suicidal Adolescents With mentoring with evidence-based practices. Advances in School Mental
11- to 14-Year Mortality Outcomes: Secondary Analysis of a Health Promotion, 6(4), 280–294.
298 CAVELL ET AL.

MENTOR. (2006). The national agenda for action: How to close Ralph, A., Sanders., M. (2004). The ‘Teen Triple P’ Positive Parenting
America’s mentoring gap. Alexandria, VA: Author. Retrieved Program: A preliminary evaluation. Trends & Issues in Crim and
February 9, 2021 from http://www.michigan.gov/documentsnationala Criminal Justice, 282, 1–6.
genda_157944_7.pdf. Rhodes, J. E., & DuBois, D. L. (2008). Mentoring relationships and
Mercy, J. A., & Saul, J. (2009). Creating a healthier future through early programs for youth. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17
interventions for children. Jama, 301(21), 2262–2264. https://doi.org/ (4), 254–258. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2008.00585.x
10.1001/jama.2009.803 Rhodes, J. E., & DuBois, D. L. (2006). Understanding and facilitating the
Millenky, M., Schwartz, S. E. O., & Rhodes, J. E. (2014). Supporting the youth mentoring movement. Social Policy Report, 20(3), 1–20.
transition to adulthood among high school dropouts: An impact study of Rhodes, J. E., Spencer, R., Keller, T. E., Liang, B., & Noam, G. (2006). A
the national guard youth challeNGe program. Prevention Science, 15(4), model for the influence of mentoring relationships on youth
448–459. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-013-0388-4 development. Journal of Community Psychology, 34(6), 691–707.
Miller, W. R., & Rollnick, S. (2012). Motivational interviewing: Helping Rhodes, J., Liang, B., & Spencer, R. (2009). First do no harm: Ethical
people change. Guilford press. principles for youth mentoring relationships. Professional Psychology,
Morrow, K. V., & Styles, M. B. (1995). Building relationships with youth Research and Practice, 40(5), 452. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015073
in program settings: A study of Big Brothers/Big Sisters. Philadelphia: Rhodes, J. E. (2002). Stand by me: The risks and rewards of mentoring
Public/Private Ventures. today’s youth. Harvard University Press.
Morrison, M. O., & Helker, W. P. (2010). Child-teacher relationship Rhodes, J. E. (2005). A model of youth mentoring. In D. L. DuBois &
training: Using the power of the child-teacher relationship as M. J. Karcher (Eds.), Handbook of youth mentoring (pp. 30–43). Sage
a school-based mental health intervention. In A. A. Drewes & Publications Ltd. https://0-doi-org.library.uark.edu/10.4135/
C. E. Schaefer (Eds.), School-based play therapy (pp. 181–195). John 9781412976664.n3
Wiley & Sons Inc. Rhodes, J. E. (2020). Older and wiser: New ideas for youth mentoring in
Mrazek, P. J., & Haggerty, R. J. (Eds.). (1994). Reducing risks for mental the 21st century. Harvard University Press.
disorders: Frontiers for preventative intervention research. National Rogers, C. R. (1967). On becoming a person: A therapist’s view of
Academy Press. psychotherapy. Constable.
Murthy, V. H. (2020). Together: Loneliness, health and what happens Roggman, L., Boyce, L., & Innocenti, M. (2008). Developmental parenting:
when we find connection. Profile Books. A guide for early childhood practitioners. Paul H. Brookes Publishing.
Murray, L. K., Skavenski, S., Kane, J. C., Mayeya, J., Dorsey, S., Sabol, T. J., & Pianta, R. C. (2012). Recent trends in research on teacher–
Cohen, J. A., … Bolton, P. A. (2015). Effectiveness of trauma-focused child relationships. Attachment & Human Development, 14(3),
cognitive behavioral therapy among trauma-affected children in Lusaka, 213–231. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616734.2012.672262
Zambia: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Pediatrics, 169(8), 761–769. Sam-Agudu, N. A., Odiachi, A., Bathnna, M. J., Ekwueme, C. N.,
https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2015.0580 Nwanne, G., Iwu, E. N., & Cornelius, L. J. (2018). “They do not see
Narayan, A. J., Rivera, L. M., Bernstein, R. E., Harris, W. W., & us as one of them”: A qualitative exploration of mentor mothers’
Lieberman, A. F. (2018). Positive childhood experiences predict less working relationships with healthcare workers in rural North-Central
psychopathology and stress in pregnant women with childhood adver­ Nigeria. Human Resources for Health, 16(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.
sity: A pilot study of the benevolent childhood experiences (BCEs) 1186/s12960-018-0313-9
scale. Child Abuse & Neglect, 78, 19–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Sánchez, B., Esparza, P., Berardi, L., & Pryce, J. (2011). Mentoring in the
chiabu.2017.09.022 context of Latino youth’s broader village during their transition from
Patterson, G. R., Reid, J. B., & Dishion, T. J. (1992). A social interactional high school. Youth & Society, 43(1), 225–252. https://doi.org/10.1177/
approach: Antisocial boys. Oregon Social Learning Center & Castilian 0044118X10363774
Publishing Company. Sánchez, B., Esparza, P., & Colón, Y. (2008). Natural mentoring under the
Phillips, D. A., & Shonkoff, J. P. (Eds.). (2000). From neurons to neigh­ microscope: An investigation of mentoring relationships and Latino
borhoods: The science of early childhood development. National adolescents’ academic performance. Journal of Community
Academies Press. Psychology, 36(4), 468–482. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.20250
Pianta, R. C., Hamre, B., & Stuhlman, M. (2003). Relationships between Sanders, M. (2008). Triple P-positive parenting program as a public health
teachers and children. Handbook of Psychology, 199–234. approach to strengthening parenting. Journal of Family Psychology, 22
Pryce, J. (2012). Mentor attunement: An approach to successful (4), 506–517. doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.22.3.506
school-based mentoring relationships. Child and Adolescent Social Scafe, M. S., & Cavell, T. A. (2020). Expanding parents’ role in their
Work Journal, 29(4), 285–305. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10560-012- children’s mentoring relationships. University of Arkansas.
0260-6 Scales, P. C., Benson, P. L., Roehlkepartain, E. C., Hintz, N. R.,
Putnam, R. (2015). Our kids: The American dream in crisis. Simon and Sullivan, T. K., & Mannes, M. (2004). The role of parental status and
Schuster. child age in the engagement of children and youth with adults outside
Raposa, E. B., Dietz, N., & Rhodes, J. E. (2017). Trends in volunteer their families. Journal of Family Issues, 25(6), 735–760. https://doi.org/
mentoring in the United States: Analysis of a decade of census survey 10.1177/0192513X03259139
data. American Journal of Community Psychology, 59(1–2), 3–14. Scales, P. C., & Gibbons, J. L. (1996). Extended family members and
https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12117 unrelated adults in the lives of young adolescents: A research agenda.
Raposa, E. B., Rhodes, J., Stams, G. J. J., Card, N., Burton, S., Journal of Early Adolescence, 16(4), 365–389. https://doi.org/10.1177/
Schwartz, S., … Hussain, S. (2019). The effects of youth mentoring 0272431696016004001
programs: A meta-analysis of outcome studies. Journal of Youth and Scardera, S., Perret, L. C., Ouellet-Morin, I., Gariépy, G., Juster, R.,
Adolescence, 48(3), 423–443. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-019- Bovin, M., & Geoffroy, M. (2020). Association of social support during
00982-8 adolescence with depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation in young
Resnick, M. D., Harris, L. J., & Blum, R. W. (1993). The impact of caring adults. JAMA, 3(12), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.
and connectedness on adolescent health and well-being. Journal of 2020.27491
Paediatrics and Child Health, 29(Suppl. 1), S3–S9. https://doi.org/10. Schwartz, S. E. O., Rhodes, J. E., Spencer, R., & Grossman, J. B. (2013).
1111/j.1440-1754.1993.tb02257.x Youth initiated mentoring: Investigating a new approach to working with
 MENTORING AS MEANS AND END IN PROMOTING CHILD MENTAL HEALTH 299

vulnerable adolescents. American Journal of Community Psychology, 52 Temkin, A. B., Schild, J., Falk, A., & Bennett, S. M. (2020). Mobile apps
(1–2), 155–169. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-013-9585-3 for youth anxiety disorders: A review of the evidence and forecast of
Sege, R., & Linkenbach, J. (2014). Essentials for childhood: Promoting healthy future innovations. Professional Psychology, Research and Practice, 51
outcomes from positive experiences. Pediatrics, 133(6), e1489–e1491. (4), 400. https://doi.org/10.1037/pro0000342
Sege, R. D., & Browne, C. H. (2017). Responding to ACEs with HOPE: Thornberg, R. (2015). Distressed Bullies, Social Positioning and Odd
Health outcomes from positive experiences. Academic Pediatrics, 17 Victims: Young People’s Explanations of Bullying. Children &
(7), S79–S85. Society, 29, 15–25.
Shirk, S. R., Karver, M. S., & Brown, R. (2011). The alliance in child and Utsey, S. O., Howard, A., & Williams, O., III. (2003). Therapeutic group
adolescent psychotherapy. Psychotherapy, 48(1), 17–24. https://doi.org/10. mentoring with African American male adolescents. Journal of Mental
1037/a0022181 Health Counseling, 25(2), 126–139. https://doi.org/10.17744/mehc.25.
Shonkoff J. P., Garner, A. S., Siegel, B. S., Dobbins, M. I., Earls, M. F., 2.q3wda06r0ul0x97c
Garner, A. S., McGuinn, L., Pascoe, J., & Wood, D. (2012). The life­ Van Dam, L., Neels, S., de Winter, M., Branje, S., Wijsbroek, S.,
long effects of early childhood adversity and toxic stress. Pediatrics, Hutschemaekers, G., Dekker, A., Sekreve, A., Zwaanswijk, M.,
129, e232–e246. Wissink, I., & Stams, G. J. (2017). Youth initiated mentors: Do they
Siegel, D. J. (2015). The developing mind: How relationships and the offer an alternative for out-of-home placement in youth care? The
brain interact to shape who we are. Guilford Press. British Journal of Social Work, 47(6), 1764–1780. https://doi.org/10.
Singla, D. R., Kohrt, B. A., Murray, L. K., Anand, A., Chorpita, B. F., & 1093/bjsw/bcx092
Patel, V. (2017). Psychological treatments for the world: Lessons from Van Dam, L., & Schwartz, S. (2020). Cultivation of natural mentors to
low-and middle-income countries. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, strengthen resiliency in youth: A program theory of youth initiated
13(1), 149–181. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032816-045217 mentoring. Journal of Social Intervention: Theory and Practice, 29(1),
Snellman, K., Silva, J. M., & Putnam, R. D. (2015). Inequity outside the 3–20. http://doi.org/10.18352/jsi.623
classroom: Growing class differences in participation in extracurricular Varga, S. M., & Zaff, J. F. (2018). Webs of support: An integrative
activities. Voices in Urban Education, 40, 7–14. framework of relationships, social networks, and social support for
Sourk, M., Weiler, L. M., & Cavell, T. A. (2019). Risk, support, and positive youth development. Adolescent Research Review, 3(1), 1–11.
reasons for wanting a mentor: Comparing parents of youth in commu­ https://doi.org/10.1007/s40894-017-0076-x
nity versus school-based matches. Children and Youth Services Review, Vázquez, A. L., & Villodas, M. T. (2019). Racial/ethnic differences in
99, 156–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.01.046 caregivers’ perceptions of the need for and utilization of adolescent
Spencer, R., Gowdy, G., Drew, A. L., & Rhodes, J. E. (2019). “Who psychological counseling and support services. Cultural Diversity &
Knows Me the Best and Can Encourage Me the Most?”: Matching and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 25(3), 323. https://doi.org/10.1037/
Early Relationship Development in Youth-Initiated Mentoring cdp0000255
Relationships with System-Involved Youth. Journal of Adolescent Viola, A. S., Levonyan-Radloff, K., Drachtman, R., Porter, J., Savage, B.,
Research, 34(1), 3–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/0743558418755686 Kaveney, A., Sridharan, A., Delnevo, C. D., Coups, E. J., &
Spencer, R. (2006). Understanding the mentoring process between adoles­ Devine, K. A. (2020). Understanding barriers to transition from pedia­
cents and adults. Youth and Society, 37(3), 287–315. https://doi.org/10. tric to adult care among young adults with sickle cell disease to develop
1177/0743558405278263 a transition mentor program. Clinical Practice in Pediatric Psychology.
Spencer, R. (2007). ‘It’s not what I expected’: A qualitative study of youth https://doi.org/10.1037/cpp0000372
mentoring relationship failures. Journal of Adolescent Research, 22(4), Werner, E. E. (1995). Resilience in development. Current Directions in
331–354. https://doi.org/10.1177/0743558407301915 Psychological Science, 4(3), 81–84.
Spencer, R., & Basualdo-Delmonico, A. (2014). Family involvement in Werner, E. E. (1986). Resilient offspring of alcoholics: A longitudinal
the youth mentoring process: A focus group study with program staff. study from birth to age 18. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 47(1), 34–40.
Children and Youth Services Review, 41, 75–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/ Weiler, L. M., Haddock, S. A., Zimmerman, T. S., Henry, K. L.,
j.childyouth.2014.03.013 Krafchick, J. L., & Youngblade, L. M. (2015). Time-limited, structured
Spencer, R., Pryce, J., Barry, J., Walsh, J., & Basualdo-Delmonico, A. youth mentoring and adolescent problem behaviors. Applied
(2020). Deconstructing empathy: A qualitative examination of mentor Developmental Science, 19(4), 196–205. https://doi.org/10.1080/
perspective-taking and adaptability in youth mentoring relationships. 10888691.2015.1014484
Children and Youth Services Review, 114, 105043. https://doi.org/10. Weiler, L. M., Sourk, M., Spencer, R., & Cavell, T. A. (2020). Caregiver-
1016/j.childyouth.2020.105043 initiated mentoring: Developing a working model to mitigate social
Spencer, R., & Rhodes, J. E. (2005). A counseling and psychotherapy isolation. Journal of Clinical Social Work, 48(1), 6–17. https://doi.org/
perspective on mentoring relationships. In D. L. DuBois & 10.1007/s10615-019-00723-1
M. J. Karcher (Eds.), Handbook of youth mentoring (pp. 118–132). Weisz, J. R., & Kazdin, A. E. (Eds.). (2010). Evidence-based psychothera­
Sage Publications. pies for children and adolescents. Guilford Press.
Spencer, R., Tugenberg, T., Ocean, M., Schwartz, S. E. O., & Rhodes, J. E. Werner, E. E., & Smith, R. S. (1992). Overcoming the odds: High risk
(2016). ‘Somebody who was on my side’: A qualitative examination of children from birth to adulthood. Cornell University Press.
youth initiated mentoring. Youth & Society, 48(3), 402–424. https://doi. Wiemann, C. M., Graham, S. C., Garland, B. H., Raphael, J. L.,
org/10.1177/0044118X13495053 Jones, M. D., Sanchez-Fournier, B. E., … Benavides, J. M. (2020).
Taussig H. N., Culhane, S. E., Hettleman, D. (2007). Fostering Healthy In-depth interviews to assess the relevancy and fit of a peer-mentored
Futures: An innovative preventive intervention for preadolescent youth intervention for transition-age youth with chronic medical conditions.
in out-of-home care. Child Welfare, 86(5):113–31. Journal of Pediatric Nursing, 50, 121–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Taussig, H. N., & Culhane, S. E. (2010). Impact of a mentoring and skills pedn.2019.04.028
group program on mental health outcomes for maltreated children in Wheeler, M. E., Keller, T. E., & DuBois, D. L. (2010). Review of three
foster care. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 164(8), recent randomized trials of school-based mentoring: making sense of
739–746. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpediatrics.2010.124 mixed findings. Social Policy Report, 24(3).
Tierney, J.P., Grossman, J.B., Resch, N. L. (1995). Making a Difference: Zimmerman, M. A., Bingenheimer, J. B., & Notaro, P. C. (2002). Natural
An Impact Study of Big Brothers/Big Sisters. Public/Private Ventures mentors and adolescent resiliency: A study with urban youth. American
Philadelphia. Journal of Community Psychology, 30(2), 221–243.