Mentoring for young people leaving foster care: promise and potential pitfalls.
Spencer, Renee ; Collins, Mary Elizabeth ; Ward, Rolanda 等
It would seem that mentoring--matching youths with a caring and
committed adult--would fit hand in glove with the needs of young people
who are transitioning out of the foster care system. A stable,
consistent, and caring adult presence is precisely what many such youths
lack as they reach the age of legal adult maturity (18 in most states,
21 in others) and may no longer have access to foster care services. It
is not surprising that mentoring programs targeting foster care youths
have been cropping up across the United States and abroad (Clayden &
Stein, 2005; Mech, Pryde, & Rycraft, 1995), as mentoring programs
have enjoyed unprecedented growth in recent years (DuBois & Karcher,
2005). However, the existing empirical literature on the conditions
associated with effective formal youth mentoring relationships and the
potential for harm in their absence should give us pause, as meeting
these conditions may be especially challenging when working with
transitioning youths.
The needs of transitioning youths and the efficacy of mentoring
programs are of central concern to social work. Child welfare has been a
major field of practice since the beginning of the profession. In
addition, relationship-based approaches to intervention are a core
technology of the profession, both through clinical intervention and
community-based programming. In this article, consistent with the social
work profession's attention to the empirical evidence base for
interventions, we identify and critique the research literature on the
effectiveness of mentoring programs for youths more generally and the
implications of this evidence for programs serving youths leaving foster
care and for policies guiding and governing these programs. We use the
ecological approach (for example, Germain & Gitterman, 1996) in our
analysis, partially out of concern that mentoring has tended to focus
intently on the interpersonal relationship to the neglect of both mezzo
and macro issues (see Keller, 2005, for an exception).
PSYCHOSOCIAL OUTCOMES AND NEEDS OF TRANSITIONING YOUTHS
Prior to addressing the potential for mentoring with transition-age
foster youths, we briefly review what is known about the outcomes of
youths aging out of foster care.Virtually all of the existing evidence
suggests that the psychosocial and vocational outcomes of these youths
are, on the whole, quite poor (for example, Collins, 2001; Cook, 1994;
Courtney & Dworsky, 2006; Courtney & Heuring, 2005; Courtney,
Piliavin, Grogan-Kaylor, & Nesmith, 2001; Lindsey & Ahmed, 1999;
McMillen & Tucker, 1999; Reilly, 2003). Studies have found, for
example, high rates of homelessness and incarceration, poor physical and
mental health, limited educational attainment, higher unemployment and
use of public assistance, and higher rates of parenting and substance
abuse among this group than other young adult populations (for example,
Cook, 1994; Courtney & Dworsky, 2006; Courtney et al., 2001; Reilly,
2003). Although some youths do make the transition to healthy and
productive adulthood (Hines, Merdinger, & Wyatt, 2005), for
substantial proportions of youths who have been in substitute care, the
basic goals of a high school education, employment, and stable housing
remain elusive.
It is typically presumed that the challenges facing young people
aging out of care are at least partially related to the lack of strong,
healthy, and stable relationships, which are key ingredients for any
adolescent's successful transition to adulthood. It is expected
that these relationships are lacking; otherwise, the child need not have
spent long periods of time in care. However, the extent to which young
people are completely on their own is unclear. Often they reconnect and
sometimes live with their biological parents, siblings, and extended
family members (Collins, Paris, &Ward, 2008). In addition, efforts
are made while youths are in care to provide alternate nonparental
relationships through foster parents and professional staff, and many
youths are helped by these relationships (Lemon, Hines, & Merdinger,
2005). Others, however, for a variety of reasons, do not form sustained
helpful relationships while in care. Frequent moves among homes of
biological relatives, foster homes, and group care settings may be part
of the problem, as this instability disrupts attachments needed for
healthy development (D'Andrade, 2005). Some youths connect with
natural mentors, or supportive nonparental adults in their existing
social networks (Gilligan, 1999), and recent studies indicate that
youths who have at least one positive and significant naturally
occurring mentoring relationship tend to fare better in the transition
to adulthood (Ahrens, DuBois, Richardson, Fan, & Lozano, 2008;
Drapeau, Saint-Jacques, Lepine, Begin, & Bernard, 2007; Hines et
al., 2005).
Increasingly, due to greater flexibility allowed to states to
assist youths after age 18, some youths appear to get their basic needs
for connection and social support met by voluntarily electing to remain
in the foster care system. Evidence indicates that these youths tend to
fare better than those who leave the foster care system as soon as they
are legally able to do so. They are more likely to have health insurance
and to be enrolled in high school, college, or vocational training and
are less likely to be a parent or to be exposed to violence than youths
who do not continue in care (Collins, Clay, & Ward, 2008; Courtney
& Dworsky, 2006).
Whereas there is agreement that foster youths need permanent,
supportive, emotional connections with adults to navigate the
challenging transition to adulthood (Charles & Nelson, 2000; Pew
Charitable Trusts--Kids Are Waiting Campaign and the Jim Casey Youth
Opportunities Initiative, 2007), it is less clear how such support is
best obtained. Of particular concern are those youths who lack some type
of stable family connection, whether through kinship network, an
adoptive family, or the voluntary continued support of a foster family.
Increasingly, mentoring has been identified as a potential way to meet
these youth's critical needs for supportive connections (Clayden
& Stein, 2005; Daining & DePanfilis, 2007; Massinga &
Pecora, 2004). The Foster Care Independence Act of 1999 (EL. 106-169),
the primary federal legislation providing supports to foster youths who
age out of care, includes mentoring among the services that may be
provided by states with federal funding. In addition, bills have been
introduced in multiple sessions of Congress in recent years that would
provide grants to states to encourage more mentoring programs to serve
foster care youths (for example, the Foster Care Mentoring Act of 2009).
Yet there is little discussion of how to develop and implement mentoring
interventions for this population.
MENTORING FOSTER CARE YOUTHS
Mentoring for foster care youths is taking a variety of forms
(Britner & Kraimer-Rickaby, 2005). Some programs are using the more
traditional model of matching youths with adult mentors who then meet
regularly in person. Examples include the Adoption and Foster Care
Mentoring program in Boston and the Foster Care Mentoring program run by
Mentoring USA in New York. Other programs are using alternative formats
such as online mentoring, wherein mentors and youths communicate through
regular e-mail messages (for example, the vMentor program), or what are
called peer mentoring programs, in which youths who have transitioned
out of foster care and into independent living mentor youths in care
(for example, FosterClub). Mentoring programs serving youths more
generally, such as Big Brothers and Big Sisters of America, are also
encouraging greater participation of foster care youths in their
existing programs.
However, research specifically addressing the nature and efficacy
of formal mentoring programs for foster care youths more generally, and
transitioning youths in particular, is quite sparse to date.
Consequently, there is little empirical evidence regarding whether and
how mentoring may enhance the well-being of transitioning youths.
Research on formal mentoring with foster care youths is largely limited
to descriptions of programs (for example, Mech et al., 1995; Payne,
Cathcart, & Pecora, 1995; Utsey, Howard, & Williams, 2003) or
individual program evaluations (for example, Osterling & Hines,
2006).
Clayden and Stein (2005) offered a more comprehensive examination
of 181 mentoring relationships across 11 programs in the United Kingdom
and focused specifically on transitioning youths, with participants
ranging from 15 to 23 years of age. They culled case files to yield
descriptive information on the youths, the mentors, and the mentoring
relationships and interviewed 17 of the youths. This study offers a
snapshot of the characteristics of the mentor and youth participants and
some information about the nature of their relationships, including
whether they set and reported achieving mutually agreed-upon goals,
evidence in the case files for positive or negative outcomes associated
with mentoring, and whether the relationship endings were planned.
However, this approach did not allow the researchers to use standard
measures of youth behavioral or psychosocial outcomes, and comparisons
were not made across programs.
One study (Rhodes, Haight, & Briggs, 1999) examined the effects
of mentoring for foster care youths ages 10 to 16 years. These
researchers examined data from foster youths and parents gathered as a
part of a national study of mentoring relationships formed through Big
Brothers and Big Sisters of America (Tierny, Grossman, & Resch,
1995), which randomly assigned youths to treatment (received a mentor
immediately) and control (placed on a waiting list for a mentor) groups.
Foster parents were more likely at follow-up to report improvements in
their child's social skills and comfort and trust with others than
were non-foster parents. The foster care youths who were in the control
group and did not receive mentors reported decrements in peer support
over time, suggesting that mentors may mitigate the interpersonal
problems experienced by youths in foster placements. In addition, the
reasons foster parents sought out mentors for their children differed
from those of non-foster parents. Foster parents were more likely to
seek a mentor for their child because the child was "insecure and
did not trust adults" and had poor relationships with others
(Rhodes et al., 1999, p. 191).
Some recent research has examined the role of natural mentors in
the lives of foster care youths. One study (Ahrens et al., 2008) found
associations between having a natural mentor in adolescence and faring
well in adulthood among youths who had been in foster care. Examining
data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, the
researchers found that mentored youths (those who reported having a
mentor before the age of 18 years and for at least two years) did better
on self-reports of overall health, educational attainment, physical
aggression, suicide risk, and risk of sexually transmitted infection
than did nonmentored foster care youths. Another study (Munson &
McMillen, 2008) of older youths in foster care found that youths who had
been in a natural mentoring relationship for more than one year reported
lower levels of stress and were less likely to have been arrested by the
age of 19 than where nonmentored youths.
CURRENT RESEARCH ON THE EFFECTIVENESS OF YOUTH MENTORING PROGRAMS
In the absence of empirical evidence on the effectiveness of
mentoring programs for transitioning youths specifically, we examined
the research on youth mentoring more generally. It should he noted that
the preponderance of this research has been conducted on more
traditional community and school-based formal mentoring programs
(one-to-one, face-to-face relationships with unrelated adults that are
intended to continue over many months minimally) and with younger
adolescents (typically ages 10 to 16 years) than those transitioning out
of the foster care system. This research suggests that such
relationships, even under optimal conditions, can prove difficult to
engineer. On average, mentoring tends to have only modest benefits for
the youth participants (DuBois, Holloway, Valentine, & Cooper,
2002), and in some cases these small effects appear to fade over time
(Aseltine, Dupre, & Lamlein, 2000; Herrera et al., 2007). However,
research has begun to point to a set of factors that distinguish more
effective mentoring relationships, with duration, consistency, and a
close emotional connections emerging as key characteristics (Rhodes
& DuBois, 2006).
Duration
The benefits of mentoring appear to accrue over time. Grossman and
Rhodes (2002) found that mentoring relationship length significantly
contributed to youth outcomes, such as improvements in emotional and
behavioral functioning and academic achievement, with the positive
effects of mentoring growing progressively stronger the longer the
relationship continued. Youths (ages 10 to 16 years) whose relationships
lasted at least one year experienced the greatest benefits, with
significant improvements in feelings of self-worth, perceived social
acceptance, perceived scholastic competence, the value placed on school,
and the quality of relationships with parents as well as decreases in
drug and alcohol use as compared with nonmentored youths. Also important
is their finding that youths in relationships that persisted for fewer
than three months reported decreases in self-worth and in perceptions of
scholastic competence (Grossman & Rhodes, 2002).This and other
research (Spencer, 2007) suggested that relationships that end
prematurely have the potential to make matters worse for already
vulnerable youths. Unfortunately, although relationship failure rates
can vary greatly across programs, general estimates are that only about
half of the mentoring relationships established through formal programs
last beyond a few months (Rhodes, 2002) .The failure rate is even higher
among youths who have more complex problems, such as a history of abuse,
or who were referred to a mentoring program in response to psychological
or educational difficulties (Grossman & Rhodes, 2002). Rhodes and
DuBois (2006) have noted that although the optimal amount of time a
formal mentoring relationship needs to last for youths to reap the
greatest benefits is not yet clear, research on natural mentoring
relationships suggests that relationships that last for several
years--and thus help shepherd youths through significant developmental
transitions--may be especially beneficial (for example, Klaw,
Fitzgerald, & Rhodes, 2003).
Consistency
Consistent contact is another feature of more effective mentoring
relationships (DuBois & Neville, 1997; Herrera, Sipe, &
McClanahan, 2000). Regular contact is linked to youth outcomes
indirectly through the ways that such contact creates opportunities for
the mentor to become more directly involved in the young person's
life and to offer various forms of meaningful assistance, including
instruction and guidance in areas of interest and emotional and
instrumental support (Herrera et al., 2000; Parra, DuBois, Neville,
Pugh-Lilly, & Povinelli, 2002; Spencer, 2006). It has also been
suggested that the stable presence of a caring adult may facilitate
attachment-related processes, such as helping youths more effectively
cope with stress and promoting positive changes in their working models
of relationships (Keller, 2007; Rhodes, 2002).
Emotional Connection
The bond that forms between the mentor and the youth is considered
by many to be at the heart of the mentoring process (Herrera et al.,
2000; Rhodes, 2002; Spencer, 2006).The presence of a strong emotional
connection is associated with better outcomes, such as improvements in
youths' self-reports on standardized measures of scholastic
competence and feelings of self-worth (Grossman & Rhodes, 2002) and
levels of emotional and behavioral problems, as reported by youths,
parents, and teachers (DuBois & Neville, 1997). One study (Parra et
al., 2002) found the perceived benefits of mentoring relationships to be
mediated by relationship closeness for mentors and youths, rather than
being directly linked with variables such as amount of contact and types
of activities. Relationships that are less close tend to have little
effect (Grossman & Rhodes, 2002; Parra et al., 2002).
Program Support for Mentoring Relationships
Evidence is beginning to indicate that there is much that programs
can do to facilitate the development of close, enduring, and consistent
mentoring relationships. Based on a meta-analysis of more than 50
evaluations of mentoring programs (DuBois et al., 2002), Rhodes and
DuBois (2006) noted that the magnitude of the positive effects of a
program on youth outcomes increased as the number of both theoretically
(based on practice standards) and empirically based program practices
implemented rose. These "best practices" include screening
prospective mentors, using mentors with some experience in a helping
role, training mentors prior to matching with their proteges, providing
ongoing training and support and supervision to mentors, having
expectations for the frequency of contact between mentor and youth and
for the overall duration of the relationship, and providing
mentor--youth matches with structured activities. The effect size among
programs using the greatest number of these best practices was more than
double that associated with programs using the fewest.
POTENTIAL PITFALLS FOR MENTORING PROGRAMS SERVING TRANSITIONING
YOUTHS
The conditions associated with more effective mentoring
relationships may be difficult to meet with many transitioning youths,
especially without considerable program support and, perhaps, greater
support than is offered by mentoring programs serving youths more
generally. In the absence of research specifically examining the
effectiveness of mentoring programs for foster care youths, we highlight
the implications of some of the lessons learned from the research on
formal youth mentoring programs. We organize this discussion using an
ecological model, focusing the pitfalls in three areas: (1) the
interpersonal relationship between youth and mentor, (2) the
administration of mentoring programs, and (3) the policy environment
supporting mentoring initiatives for transition-age youths in child
welfare systems.
Interpersonal Relationships
Like the research on mentoring programs more generally, Clayden and
Stein (2005), in their study of mentoring programs for youths leaving
care in the United Kingdom, found that the youths whose mentoring
relationships lasted for more than one year tended to report more
favorable outcomes than those in shorter term relationships, including
greater likelihood of having achieved their original goals and having
made some plans for their future. However, the complex circumstances
faced by transitioning youths may make achieving a close and enduring
relationship with a previously unknown adult mentor especially
difficult. Given the transitory nature of the lives of youths as they
move out of the foster care system, consistent contact between a young
person in these circumstances and a formal mentor may be quite difficult
to maintain for the amount of time necessary for the mentor to become
the kind of "significant adult" in the young person's
life that has been associated with effective mentoring (Parra et al.,
2002).
Support and guidance may need to be provided to matches to help
them be creative and flexible in their approach to spending time
together (for example, phone calls when face-to-face meetings are not
possible), establishing plans for how to reach each other when the young
person has to move unexpectedly or experiences an interruption in
telephone service. Findings from a recent impact study of school-based
mentoring programs (Herrera et al., 2007) suggest that some form of
contact between mentor and youth may serve to bridge the relationship
during times when face-to-face contact is not possible. Consideration
may also be given to the establishment of mentoring relationships
earlier in the young person's life so that a close and consistent
connection is already in place when the young person makes the
transition to independent living and is likely to experience increased
instability in many arenas. However, programs should not be bound to
foster placements, so that when a young person changes placements or
moves to independent living he or she does not lose the mentor.
Building meaningful connections with foster youths may be difficult
in some cases. Recently, there has been greater explication of some the
attachment-related difficulties of many foster care youths (Mennen&
O'Keefe, 2005). A large proportion of foster youths have
substantial maltreatment histories, which have been related to insecure
attachment. Specifically, maltreated children tend to demonstrate a
devalued sense of self, mistrust of others, and wariness in
relationships (Price & Glad, 2003). Problems in mentoring
relationships, more generally, have only recently begun to receive
attention (Spencer, 2007), despite their frequent occurrence. Mentor
abandonment is one considerable contributor to early match endings
(Spencer, 2007), and Clayden and Stein's study (2005) suggested
that this is likely to be the case for programs serving foster care
youths as well. Other research on youths in state custody has noted that
mentors' not feeling connected to the youths contributed to
premature endings and that youths who experienced disruptions in their
matches reported higher rates of externalizing behaviors, as compared
with nonmentored youths or youths whose matches remained intact (Britner
& Kraimer-Rickaby, 2005).
On the one hand, the past vulnerable experiences of foster youths
may present barriers to their establishing close relationships with
mentors. On the other hand, this same history may mean that youths in
foster care could be especially responsive to supportive relationships
with caring adults when such relationships take hold and grow. Rhodes
and colleagues (1999) argued that mentoring relationships may mitigate
the negative effects of problems in these youths' primary
caregiving relationships by offering a "corrective experience"
in the form of a more stable and consistent adult presence. Facilitating
such corrective experiences with foster care youths, however, may pose
particular challenges.
Introducing a failed or disappointing relationship into the life of
any young person has the potential to be detrimental to his or her
well-being, and this is likely to be especially true for foster youths
who have already suffered significant disruptions in relationships with
adults. Having clear guidelines and options for appropriately and
sensitively ending the mentoring relationship may help reduce the
likelihood that mentors may simply abandon the relationship when they
become uncertain about how to handle a difficult situation or have
decided they no longer want to continue the relationship. This could
prove useful to the youth as well, offering an opportunity to terminate
a mentoring relationship that is not meeting his or her needs in a
manner that builds skills in ending relationships in a healthy way.
Program Administration
To facilitate successful implementation of programs that address
the interpersonal factors identified earlier, thoughtful and
professional program administration is needed. The first step is
achieving clarity about the program goals and even the definition of
mentoring. Youth mentoring programs are quite diverse in their form
(one-to-one, group, peer), setting (school, community, e-mail), tasks
(engaging in social activities, eating lunch at the youth's school,
reading together, tutoring), and goals (psychosocial development,
academic achievement). As noted previously, mentoring programs for
foster youths appear to be following suit and are taking a variety of
forms. It is critical that programs clearly define the role of the
mentor and provide appropriate supports to minimize risks and maximize
potential benefits of the mentoring relationships.
Given that the current evidence points to the effectiveness of
certain features of mentoring relationships (duration, frequency of
contact, and connectedness), rather than offering clear evidence for
which specific program models are most effective, it is reasonable for
programs to use different approaches. It is important, however, that the
program philosophy be clearly articulated and then supported by core
program elements, implementation practices, and program administration.
This conceptual clarity is needed for each individual mentoring program
offered by a public or private agency. From this clarity flows decisions
regarding the structure of the program, its administration, and,
ideally, evaluation of its effectiveness. A rigorous process for
carefully screening mentors that includes clear descriptions of program
focus and goals and of the youths being served, along with forthright
discussion of the challenges posed by forging a relationship with youths
in such circumstances, could help eliminate adults who may be ill-suited
to mentoring this population. Intensive training that includes
information about the foster care system, the kinds of difficulties
these youths tend to face, and their consequences, along with ongoing
supervision or support for the mentors, may help reduce the likelihood
of mentors entering into their relationships with unrealistic
expectations and quickly becoming disillusioned or overwhelmed by the
reality of mentoring a transitioning youth.
In the absence of empirical guidance, some effort has been made on
the part of programs to adopt best practices for mentoring more
generally to their work with foster care youths. The NYC Administration
for Children's Services (n.d.) has developed a set of guidelines
for best practices, and a report by Senior Corps (LEARNS, 2004) offers
recommendations to their program directors on special considerations for
programs serving foster care youths. These recommendations include
specialized training for mentors and the importance of partnering with
other agencies providing services to these youths. Few other sources on
this topic exist.
Also relevant is how a mentoring strategy intersects with a young
person's relationship with his or her own family and the child
welfare system's responsibility to support the family relationship.
Handling the intricate dynamics of vulnerable youths and their
families is a profound challenge requiring a high degree of clinical
skill. Introduction of a mentor into a youth's life might cause a
parent to feel threatened, a youth to feel conflicted, or a sibling to
feel jealous, for example. No program would intend to create these
feelings, and a good program would be conscious of these possibilities
and take actions to address them. They remain risks, nonetheless.
Finally, it is important to keep in mind that there is substantial
heterogeneity within the population of former foster youths--some do
quite well with the transition, others do not. Keller, Cusick, and
Courtney (2007) identified four distinctive profiles of this population
and advocated matching appropriate services to the needs of specific
youths. This type of empirical analysis may contribute to more
sophisticated thinking about program design and matching. Such a
typology, based on factors such as kind of out-of-home care or level of
vocational functioning, might suggest different mentoring strategies for
different youths. These kinds of program practices would require
significant resources, such as well-trained staff with adequate support
and time to complete these tasks and appropriate levels of
responsibility.
Policy Considerations
As noted, federal policy in this area allows the use of federal
funds for mentoring programs. These are state choices, raising the
question of whether, with always limited funding, states will choose
mentoring over other less politically popular uses (for example,
substance abuse treatment).Assuming that there is careful consideration
of the issues that we have raised and that cautious, protective, and
evidence-based mentoring programs have been developed that offer a
reasonable chance of producing some positive change for some young
people as they transition from care, additional considerations also need
attention. The criterion of efficiency is central to policy discussion,
and thus begs this question: Is this the best use of our already limited
funding for child welfare? Assuming some agreement that this is a good
use of funding, we must also address how funds should be spent to
support mentoring. Presumably, good mentoring programs will be
expensive. Recruitment, assessment, training, supervision, and
monitoring will be required activities, as will the provision of
resources to allow for innovative and exciting activities for the mentor
and the youth.
Government funding for social services, particularly in child
welfare, is vulnerable to cuts in tight budget environments. Mentoring
programs, by definition, involve relationships, and early evidence
suggests that although mentoring relationships with youths of at least
one year's duration can yield modest benefits for youths, there is
some evidence that greater benefits may be realized through
relationships that extend over several years (Rhodes & DuBois,
2006). This raises concerns about the level of commitment to ongoing
funding that would support the relationships established as they
progress over time. Currently, youth mentoring programs are under
pressure for growth, with greater emphasis often placed on establishing
new relationships, despite the growing evidence base emphasizing the
importance of quality of the matches made for positive youth outcomes
(Rhodes & DuBois, 2006). In this climate, limited resources may go
disproportionately toward increasing the number of foster youths served
rather than ensuring that the youths who are being served are served
well.
A related concern is attention to effectiveness as determined by
program evaluation. If successful models for mentoring programs for
transitioning youths are identified, it will then be critical to ensure
that models with the best evidence are implemented. We can predict that
chronically underfunded agencies will be under great pressure to replace
core elements of successful mentoring models with cheaper alternatives.
There is a long history in human services of "model
drift"--that is, the tendency for empirically supported models of
interventions to be adopted in various settings and with different
populations, without extensive attention to fidelity to the original
program model. The experience with intensive family preservation
programs, for example, demonstrated these tendencies, often combined
with cost-cutting measures (for example, expansion of caseload), and
offers a lesson in adherence to program fidelity (Hayward & Cameron,
2002).
Equity considerations are important in discussions of policy
responses and raise particular challenges for mentoring foster youths.
As it is unlikely that all youths transitioning from foster care will
have access to this type of intervention, the potential for biases in
the methods of selection is great, especially in light of the limited
pool of volunteer mentors currently faced by youth mentoring programs
(MENTOR/National Mentoring Partnership, 2006b). Highly vulnerable
youths, such as those with long stays in residential care and histories
of drug use or violent behavior, may have the greatest needs for
emotional supports but be less attractive to volunteer mentors. In
addition, the well-known disproportionate representation of youths of
color within the child welfare system (Hines, Lemon, & Wyatt, 2004),
coupled with the fact that most adult volunteer mentors in formal
programs are white and reside in middle- to upper-income households
(MENTOR/National Mentoring Partnership, 2006a), suggests that attention
to the role of race and culture in the mentoring process should be a
priority.
CONCLUSION
Mentoring, if done well, may hold the potential to meet some of the
critical needs of youths transitioning from foster care to independent
living and early adulthood. However, given the heightened
vulnerabilities and complex needs of these youths, social workers should
proceed with caution. Protecting foster youths from further rejection or
disappointment must take precedence; this priority dictates, at minimum,
diligent adherence to the best practices gleaned from the research on
youth mentoring more generally. There is no doubt that, as a report from
the Casey Family Programs (2001) asserted, "every young person who
leaves the child welfare system" needs to be "connected with a
competent, caring adult" (p. 3).The question, rather, is whether
and under what conditions is a volunteer mentor likely to reliably and
effectively serve in this role.
Several steps in filling the gaps in empirical knowledge are
warranted. Obviously, a serious commitment of evaluation of these
interventions is needed, with the use of progressively rigorous designs
for constructing the knowledge base. Evaluations should be a requirement
of receiving funding for mentoring interventions. Evaluations should
provide explicit attention to the characteristics of the youths, the
mentors, and the program so that comparisons across programs can be
made. Each intervention should articulate a clear program philosophy and
theory of change so that evaluations can be based on program theory and
not the simple collection of outcome data. The practice field must
encourage the replication of existing models rather than the design of
new models that may fit agency resources but do not necessarily build
the knowledge base. Finally, ongoing efforts to synthesize the research
base are needed.
Still, the mentoring approach, particularly one-to-one mentoring,
remains an individual-level solution to what are inherently systemic
problems. Families involved with the child welfare system struggle with
poverty, mental illness, domestic violence, homelessness, and other
social problems primarily rooted in systemic challenges related to
social class, racism, and sexism. A sound mentoring program may prove to
be a key ingredient to helping some youths to achieve a successful,
healthy, productive adulthood, relatively free of these types of social
problems. Yet disproportionate attention to mentoring as a solution
might continue to prohibit the enactment of more comprehensive solutions
to the problems plaguing vulnerable families. As is often the case in
social work, both micro and macro efforts will need to occur
simultaneously. The profession must not lose sight of the need to tackle
the far more difficult structural challenges while working to assist
individual youths in the immediate term.
Both social networks and concrete assistance are typically needed
to effectively serve vulnerable youths, such as those transitioning from
foster care. Without social networks, concrete assistance (for example,
safe housing, employment, education) and access to health care may be
insufficient for sustained success. Ostensibly, mentoring provides the
individual attention and support to supplement concrete supports.
However, it cannot serve as a substitute for these supports. To the
extent that it is relied on without first securing the basic building
blocks of a successful adult life--housing, employment, education, and
health care--it will almost surely fail to support young people in their
transitions to adulthood.
If our cautions outweigh our enthusiasm, it is only to bring
contemplation and care to what appears at times to be a bandwagon
phenomenon, driven by the broad appeal of mentoring and the connection
most people make with a personal story of a caring adult who made a
difference in their lives. The widespread and rapid growth in interest
in mentoring for foster youths is occurring in the absence of clear
empirical support for the effectiveness of these programs. Capitalizing
on the promise of mentoring and other relationship-based approaches
(including professional social work, foster parenting, apprenticeships)
certainly calls for not only creativity and innovation, but also an
unwavering commitment to full consideration of the risks and the
construction of a sound evidence base on which to build these programs
to protect transitioning foster care youths from further harm.
Original manuscript received April 7, 2008
Final revision received February 24, 2009
Accepted April 14, 2009
REFERENCES
Ahrens, K. R., DuBois, D. L., Richardson, L. P., Fan, M.Y., &
Lozano, P. (2008).Youth in foster care with adult mentors during
adolescence have improved adult outcomes. Pediatrics, 121(2), e246-e252.
Aseltine, R. H., Dupre, M., & Lamlein, P. (2000). Mentoring as
a drug prevention strategy: An evaluation of Across Ages. Adolescent and
Family Health, 1, 11-20.
Britner, P. A., & Kraimer-Rickaby, L. (2005). Abused and
neglected youth. In D. L. DuBois & M. J. Karcher (Eds.), Handbook of
youth mentoring (pp. 482-492). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Casey Family Programs. (2001). It's my life: A framework for
youth transitioning from foster care to successful adulthood. Seattle:
Casey Family Programs.
Charles, K., & Nelson, J. (2000). Permanency planning: Creating
life long connections. What does it mean for adolescents? Tulsa, OK:
National Resource Center for Youth Development.
Clayden, J., & Stein, M. (2005). Mentoring young people leaving
care: "Someone for me. "York, England: Joseph Rowntree
Foundation.
Collins, M. E. (2001). Transition to adulthood for vulnerable
youths: A review of research and policy implications. Social Service
Review, 75, 271-291.
Collins, M. E., Clay, C. M., & Ward, R. (2008). Leaving care in
Massachusetts: Policy and supports to facilitate transition. Boston:
Boston University School of Social Work.
Collins, M. E., Paris, R., & Ward, R. (2008).The permanence of
family ties: Implications for youth transitioning from foster care.
American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 78, 54-62.
Cook, R. (1994).Are we helping foster care youth prepare for their
future? Children and Youth Services Review, 16, 213-229.
Courtney, M. E., & Dworsky, A. (2006). Early outcomes for young
adults transitioning from out-of-home care in the USA. Child &
Family Social Work, 11, 209-219.
Courtney, M. E., & Heuring, D. H. (2005).The transition to
adulthood for youth "aging out" of the foster care system. In
D.W. Osgood, E. M. Foster, C. Flanagan, & G. R. Ruth (Eds.), On your
own without a net: The transition to adulthood for vulnerable
populations (pp. 27-67). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Courtney, M. E., Piliavin, I., Grogan-Kaylor, A., & Nesmith, A.
(2001). Foster youth transitions to adulthood: A longitudinal view of
youth leaving care. Child Welfare, 80, 685-717.
D'Andrade, A. C. (2005). Placement stability in foster care.
In G. P. Mallon & P. M. Hess (Eds.), Child welfare for the 21st
century : A handbook of practices, policies, and programs (pp. 608-622).
New York: Columbia University Press.
Daining, C., & DePanfilis, D. (2007). Resilience of youth in
transition from out-of-home care to adulthood. Children and Youth
Services Review, 29, 1158-1178.
Drapeau, S., Saint-Jacques, M.-C., Lepine, R., Begin, G., &
Bernard, M. (2007). Processes that contribute to resilience among youth
in foster care. Journal of Adolescence, 30, 977-999.
DuBois, D. L., Holloway, B. E., Valentine, J. C., & Cooper, H.
(2002). Effectiveness of mentoring programs for youth: A meta-analytic
review. American Journal of Community Psychology, 30, 157-197.
DuBois, D. L., & Karcher, M.J. (2005).Youth mentoring: Theory,
research, and practice. In D. L. Dubois & M.J. Karcher (Eds.),
Handbook of youth mentoring (pp. 2-11). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
DuBois, D. L., & Neville, H. A. (1997). Youth mentoring:
Investigation of relationship characteristics and perceived benefits.
Journal of Community Psychology, 25, 227-234.
Foster Care Independence Act of 1999, P.L. 106-109, 113 Stat. 1882.
Foster Care Mentoring Act of 2009, $986, 111th Cong. (2009-2010).
Germain, C. B., & Gitterman, A. (1996). The life model of
social work practice: Advances in theory and practice. New York:
Columbia University Press.
Gilligan, R. (1999). Enhancing the resilience of children and young
people in public care by mentoring their talents and interests. Child
& Family Social Work, 4, 187-196.
Grossman, J. B., & Rhodes, J. E. (2002).The test of time:
Predictors and effects of duration in youth mentoring programs. American
Journal of Community Psychology, 30, 199-219.
Hayward, K., & Cameron, G. (2002). Focussing intensive family
preservation services: Patterns and consequences. Child and Youth Care
Forum, 31, 341-356.
Herrera, C., Grossman, J. B., Kauh, T. J., Feldman, A. E, McMaken,
J., & Jucovy, L. Z. (2007). Making a difference in schools: The Big
Brothers Big Sisters School-Based Mentoring Impact Study. Philadelphia:
Public/Private Ventures.
Herrera, C., Sipe, C. L., & McClanahan, W S. (2000). Mentoring
school-age children: Relationship development in community-based and
school-based programs. Philadelphia: Public/Private Ventures.
Hines, A. M., Lemon, K., & Wyatt, P. (2004). Factors related to
the disproportionate involvement of children of color in the child
welfare system: A review and emerging themes. Children and Youth
Services Review, 26, 507-527.
Hines, A. M., Merdinger, J., & Wyatt, P. (2005). Former foster
youth attending college: Resilience and the transition to young
adulthood. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 75, 381-391.
Keller, T. E. (2005).A systemic model of the youth mentoring
intervention. Journal of Primary Prevention, 26, 169-188.
Keller, T. E. (2007).Youth mentoring: Theoretical and
methodological issues. In T. D. Allen & L.T. Eby (Eds.), The
Blackwell handbook of mentoring: A multiple perspectives approach (pp.
23-47). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Keller, T. E., Cusick, G. R., & Courtney, M. E. (2007).
Approaching the transition to adulthood: Distinctive profiles of
adolescents aging out of the child welfare system. Social Service
Review, 81, 453-484.
Klaw, E. L., Fitzgerald, L. E. & Rhodes, J. E. (2003). Natural
mentors in the lives of African American adolescent mothers: Tracking
relationships over time. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 32, 223-232.
LEARNS. (2004). Mentoring children in foster care: Considerations
and partnership strategies for Senior Corps directors. Retrieved
November 30, 2007, from http://www.nationalserviceresources.org/files/
legacy/filemanager/download/learns/Mentoring_ Children in Foster_Care
Final_Revised.pdf
Lemon, K., Hines, A., & Merdinger, J. (2005). From foster care
to young adulthood: The role of independent living programs in
supporting successful transitions. Children and Youth Services Review,
27, 251-270.
Lindsey, E.W., & Ahmed, F. U. (1999).The North Carolina
Independent Living Program: A comparison of outcomes for participants
and nonparticipants. Children and Youth Services Review, 21, 389-412.
Massinga, R., & Pecora, P. (2004). Providing better
opportunities for older children in the child welfare system. Future of
Children, 14(1), 151-173.
McMillen, J. C., & Tucker, J. (1999).The status of older
adolescents at exit from out-of-home care. Child Welfare, 78, 339-362.
Mech, E. V., Pryde, J. A., & Rycraft, J. R. (1995). Mentors for
adolescents in foster care. Child & Adolescent Social Work Journal,
12, 317-328.
Mermen, F. & O'Keefe, M. (2005). Informed decisions in
child welfare: The use of attachment theory. Children and Youth Services
Review, 27, 577-593.
MENTOR/National Mentoring Partnership. (2006a). Mentoring in
America 2005: A snapshot of the current state of mentoring. Alexandria,
VA: Author.
MENTOR/National Mentoring Partnership. (2006b). National agenda for
action: How to close America's mentoring gap. Alexandria, VA:
Author.
Munson, M. R., & McMillen, J. C. (2008). Natural mentoring and
psychosocial outcomes among older youth transitioning from foster care.
Children and Youth Services Review, 31, 104-111.
NYC Administration for Children's Services. (n.d.). Best
practices guidelines for foster youth mentoring. Retrieved March 20,
2008, from http://www.nyc.gov/html/acs/html/become_mentor/
best_practices_addition.shtml
Osterling, K. L., & Hines, A. M. (2006). Mentoring adolescent
foster youth: Promoting resilience during developmental transitions.
Child & Family Social Work, 11, 242-253.
Parra, G. R., DuBois, D. L., Neville, H. A., Pugh-Lilly, A. O.,
& Povinelli, N. (2002). Mentoring relationships for youth:
Investigation of a process-oriented model. Journal of Community
Psychology, 30, 367-388.
Payne, V. H., Cathcart, E. J., & Pecora, P.J. (1995).The
Seattle Mentorship Project: Evaluating the effectiveness of social
tutors. Community Alternatives: International Journal of Family Care,
7(2), 1-21.
Pew Charitable Trusts--Kids Are Waiting Campaign and the Jim Casey
Youth Opportunities Initiative. (2007). Time for reform: Aging out and
on their own. Retrieved from
http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/Reports/
Foster_care_reform/Kids_are_Waiting_TimeforReform0307.pdf
Price, J. M., & Glad, K. (2003). Hostile attributional
tendencies in maltreated children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology,
31, 329-343.
Reilly, T. (2003).Transition from care: Status and outcomes of
youth who age out of foster care. Child Welfare, 82, 727-746.
Rhodes, J. E. (2002). Stand by me: The risks and rewards of
mentoring today's youth. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Rhodes, J. E., & DuBois, D. L. (2006). Understanding and
facilitating the youth mentoring movement. Social Policy Report, 20(3),
3-19.
Rhodes, J. E., Haight, W. L., & Briggs, E. C. (1999). The
influence of mentoring on the peer relationships of foster youth in
relative and nonrelative care. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 9,
185-201.
Spencer, R. (2006). Understanding the mentoring process between
adolescents and adults. Youth and Society, 37, 287-315.
Spencer, R. (2007). "It's not what I expected": A
qualitative study of youth mentoring relationship failures. Journal of
Adolescent Research, 22, 331-354.
Tierney, J. P., Grossman, J., & Resch, N. L. (1995). Making a
difference: An impact study. Philadelphia: Public/Private Ventures.
Utsey, S. O., Howard, A., & Williams, O. (2003). Therapeutic
group mentoring with African American male adolescents. Journal of
Mental Health Counseling, 25(2), 126-139.
Renee Spencer, EdD, LICS W, is associate professor, School of
Social Work, Boston University, 264 Bay State Road, Boston, MA 02215;
e-mail: rspenc@bu.edu. Mary Elizabeth Collins, PhD, is associate
professor, School of Social Work, Boston University. Rolanda Ward, PhD,
is assistant professor, State University of New York at Fredonia.
Svetlana Smashnaya, MSW, MA, is a doctoral candidate, School of Social
Work, Boston University.