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
a randomized controlled trial (RCT) examining mentor-
based interventions for highly aggressive elementary school
children (Cavell et al., 2009; Hughes et al., 2005). Audience
members were directors of mentoring programs from across
the U.S. and Canada attending the inaugural Summer
Institute on Youth Mentoring (https://www.pdx.edu/youth-
mentoring/). Importantly, positive outcomes from the RCT
favored the control condition – a standalone, three-semester
mentoring program in which the mentoring relationship was
intentionally weakened by limiting its strength (e.g., quality
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,
mentors were replaced with a new mentor. The goal was to
Address correspondence to Timothy A. Cavell, Department of
Psychological Science, University of Arkansas, Memorial Hall,
Fayetteville, AR 72701. E-mail: tcavell@uark.edu
make mentoring appealing but inert. At that time, conceptual
models of youth mentoring placed heavy emphasis on the
relationship as a key mechanism of change and matches that
were not close or that lasted less than 12 months were
thought to have little impact (Rhodes, 2005). Thus, it seemed
reasonable to begin this presentation with the following
question: How might mentoring produce positive outcomes
when the relationship is weakened? However, what ensued
was 30 minutes of confusion, debate, and finally, the realiza­
tion that for these audience members this question made no
sense: For them, the relationship was the outcome.
Overview
Youth mentoring is an umbrella term used to describe the
involvement of children and adolescents in supportive rela­
tionships with non-parental adults. The form and purpose
of these relationships can vary widely, but some are formed
and used intentionally to address various issues affecting
282 CAVELL ET AL.
the health and development of children and adolescents. In
this paper, we briefly review the history and science of
youth mentoring and then note both contextual and theore­
tical factors contributing to consistently modest outcomes.
We describe recent efforts to improve those outcomes and
present an agenda to guide future research and practice,
paying particular attention to how mentoring can be used to
promote healthy development and address the mental
health needs of children and adolescents. A key theme in
our suggested agenda is the paradoxical notion that mentor­
ing relationships can be both a means and an end when
supporting youth living in under resourced environments or
exposed to cumulative risks. As is detailed in the forth­
coming sections, mentoring as end is most akin to how
youth mentoring has been traditionally conceptualized,
with mentoring relationships considered to be among the
types of relationships that offer basic conditions for human
development (e.g., Li & Julian, 2012) and, as such, having
the potential to promote healthy development in a variety
of domains over time. In contrast, when mentoring serves
as a means to an end, it offers a context or tool that can be
leveraged to achieve more specified near-term youth out­
comes (Cavell & Elledge, 2014). Both approaches can be
powerful tools for the promotion of healthy development
but in different ways and realizing their potential calls for
significant change in mentoring science, practice, and
policy.
Why Youth Mentoring?
It is fair to ask why youth mentoring should matter to
clinical child and adolescent psychologists who develop,
evaluate, deliver, and supervise interventions designed to
promote the mental health and emotional wellbeing of
youth. These interventions might involve other adults
such as parents, but not typically mentors. Also, mentors
are not paid mental health-care providers but often volun­
teers recruited by organizations that rarely have improved
mental health for children and adolescents as part of their
mission. Still, there are mentoring programs designed spe­
cifically for youth with diagnosable mental health condi­
tions (e.g., DuBois et al., 2018; Johnson & Pryce, 2013;
Kerr & King, 2013; Utsey et al., 2003), and a recent study
found that 25% of parents identified their child’s disability
or psychiatric illness as a primary reason for enrolling their
child in a mentoring program (Sourk et al., 2019).
One could also make the case that youth mentoring has
the potential to address a glaring and recurring problem
central to the work of clinical child and adolescent psychol­
ogists and implementation scientists: Lack of access to
effective mental health care (e.g., Rhodes, 2020; Sourk
et al., 2019; Vázquez & Villodas, 2019). Most youth men­
toring programs operate under the auspices of a national
organization with affiliates in multiple cities, and Big
Brothers Big Sisters of America (BBBS-America), which
began in 1904, has nearly 280 affiliate agencies (Big
Brothers Big Sisters of America, 2018). Thus, to the extent
youth mentoring is a viable strategy for addressing the
mental health needs of developing youth, considerable
infrastructure has already been brought to scale. At this
time, however, the notion that mentoring can be used to
increase youth access to evidence-based mental health care
is more promise than proof.
Encouraging, however, is recent work within implemen­
tation science on the use of lay health workers and task
sharing as a way to increase youth access to needed mental
health services (Kazdin, 2019). It is estimated that the vast
majority of children and adolescents in need of mental
health services in the United States and worldwide receive
no treatment (Kazdin, 2019). Kazdin pointed to the prevail­
ing model for delivering psychosocial interventions as
a key barrier to access. This model, which relies heavily
on specialty mental health care provided by licensed pro­
fessionals, is limited in several areas including scalability,
reach, affordability, feasibility, flexibility, and acceptability.
Kazdin and others (e.g., Barnett et al., 2018) see merit in
borrowing innovative models from outside of traditional
care to address the mental health-care needs of children
and adolescents. To date, most of these models have been
applied to physical health care, often in low resource coun­
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.,
Murray et al., 2105; Singla et al., 2017).
Importantly, these newer models often emphasize the
work of nonprofessionals trained to support or share tasks
typically performed by professional health-care providers.
These tasks can include education or supportive counseling
surrounding patients’ health condition or training and
coaching in adaptive forms of coping (e.g., Sam-Agudu
et al., 2018; Singla et al., 2017). But also relevant to the
current paper is that these tasks are delivered by nonprofes­
sionals who come from the same community or who have
the same lived experience as that of the patients they serve.
Lay health workers, mentor mothers, and peer mentors with
similar chronic health conditions are a few examples of
how innovative health-care delivery is as much about rela­
tional touch points as it is a vehicle for delivering evidence-
based care (Viola et al., 2020; Wiemann et al., 2020). This
work raises the possibility that youth mentoring programs
could also move into the health promotion and health care
delivery space, helping to lower barriers to much needed
care.
Part of what makes mentoring an attractive delivery
option is that it is widely accepted as a form of youth
prevention and it relies mainly on a volunteer workforce
(e.g., Hagler et al., 2019). These attributes are especially
appealing when the goal is to address mental health issues
 MENTORING AS MEANS AND END IN PROMOTING CHILD MENTAL HEALTH
that can carry significant stigma. Indeed, there is evidence
that parents and caregivers from underserved groups tend to
view mentors and mentoring more favorably than mental
health care and its providers (e.g., Vázquez & Villodas,
2019). Vázquez and Villodas found that Black caregivers
perceived mentoring programs as a less stigmatizing and
more culturally congruent support service than mental
health counseling.
An important caveat to the prospect of mentors sharing
in the delivery of evidence-based mental health care is the
fact that youth mentors are generally unpaid volunteers
with limited available time. As a consequence, mentoring
programs rarely expect more than four hours of visitation/
month over a typical one-year match period and volunteers
are seldom provided more than two hours of training
(Garringer et al., 2015). In contrast, published studies of
efforts to use lay health workers or peer mentors in health-
care delivery reveal that training can take up to two months
(e.g., Barnett et al., 2018). Singla et al. (2017) reviewed
studies of nonspecialist providers (NSPs) of mental health
care in low- and middle-income countries and found that
training averaged nearly 80 hours. The training of NSPs
also tends to be supported by regular supervision and use of
highly structured, evidence-based strategies and techniques
(Barnett et al., 2018; Murray et al., 2015; Sam-Agudu et al.,
2018). In the field of youth mentoring, close supervision
and structured protocols are less commonly used to guide
the work of volunteers (Karcher et al., 2010). Not surpris­
ingly, scholars who call for mentors’ involvement in task
shifting activities have also emphasized the need for better
training and supervision as well as the use of structured
interventions, some of which can be delivered via mobile
phone apps (McQuillin et al., 2019; Rhodes, 2020).
Mentoring Relationships and Mentoring Programs
Mentoring relationships come in many shapes and sizes, but
the field of youth mentoring tends to distinguish between
what have been called informal or natural mentoring rela­
tionships and formal mentoring relationships. Informal men­
toring relationships are those that arise naturally from
youths’ interactions with adults in their social network
(Darling et al., 1994; Greenberger et al., 1998; Scales &
Gibbons, 1996). Examples include extended family mem­
bers, family friends, neighbors, teachers, coaches, after-
school program staff, and religious group leaders (Hurd &
Sellers, 2013; Sánchez et al., 2008). Scholars who study
informal mentoring relationships tend to ask whether youth
have an adult they “can go to for support and guidance if you
need to make an important decision or who inspires you to
do your best” (Zimmerman, Bingenheimer, & Notaro, 2002,
p. 226). Formal mentoring relationships, on the other hand,
are sponsored by a specific organization or program, with
volunteers recruited, screened, trained, and then matched
283
with a child. Traditional formal mentoring is said to be
community-based, with visits at regular intervals (e.g.,
weekly or bi-weekly) outside of school. In contrast, school-
based mentoring involves visits restricted to the school
setting.
History, Early Studies, and the Popularization of Youth
Mentoring Programs
The history of formal mentoring programs is essentially the
story of BBBS-America, which began as a charity that
aimed to offer positive adult role models to disadvantaged
youth thought to have none (Baker & Maguire, 2005). The
notion that adult mentors could help (and not harm) youth
from under-resourced environments was considered self-
evident (cf. McCord, 1978). Of course, the goal of provid­
ing positive role models to youth in high-risk, under
resourced environments was not without scholarly support.
Hirschi’s (1969) social control theory posited that delin­
quency is curtailed when youth have strong connections to
prosocial individuals and institutions. Also, early studies on
the interplay between risk and resilience (Garmezy &
Masten, 1986; Werner, 1995) added to the conceptual foun­
dation of youth mentoring. Indeed, Werner’s (1986) finding
that resilient youth tend to have at least one supportive
adult in their lives has been an important and abiding
assumption in the field of mentoring (DuBois & Karcher,
2014).
In 1995, roughly 90 years after it began, BBBS-America
took a leap forward when it released findings from an RCT
of its community-based mentoring program (Tierney et al.,
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
ings (i.e., mentored youth were 46% less likely to start
using drugs, 27% less likely to start using alcohol, and
33% less likely to hit someone) that became the source of
oft-repeated claims (https://www.bbbs.org/research/) for the
“proven” effects of mentoring (Grossman & Garry, 1997).
Tierney et al. (1995) described their findings as “surpris­
ingly robust” (p. 31) and called for greater expansion and
funding of mentoring programs.
Not surprisingly, the Tierney et al. (1995) “impact
study,” as it is often called, had its own impact on public
perceptions of mentoring, greatly accelerating its growth
and leading to increased funding for and government invol­
vement in mentoring (Rhodes & DuBois, 2006). Findings
from this early study also influenced the science of mentor­
ing. Release of the report was followed by strong state­
ments about the benefits of mentoring (Grossman & Garry,
1997; Rhodes, 2002) as well as a comprehensive theoretical
model (Rhodes, 2005). A key feature of Rhodes’ model
was the assertion that mentoring derived its benefits from
284 CAVELL ET AL.
the quality of the relationship, which was often examined
by reports from mentors and mentees about whether the
match was emotionally close and satisfying or whether the
match endured or ended prematurely. In fact, Grossman and
Rhodes (2002) used data from this early impact study to
show that youth in matches lasting at least 12 months
exhibited the most gains and youth in matches that ended
prematurely experienced decrements in functioning.
Findings from this correlational study were widely disse­
minated and viewed as clear evidence that strong matches
lasting at least 12 months were needed to produce signifi­
cant outcomes (e.g., Hansen et al., 2011). These findings, in
turn, greatly influenced policies used by mentoring organi­
zations (Garringer et al., 2015).
Enthusiasm generated by release of the Tierney et al.
(1995) study also led to repeated calls to close “the mentor­
ing gap”, said to be the difference in the number of youth
who might benefit from mentoring and the number who
lacked a mentor (see MENTOR, 2006b). The U.S.
Department of Education answered that call by launching
the Student Mentoring Program (SMP; Bernstein et al.,
2009), a funding initiative designed to grow school-based
mentoring in America’s schools. Through its involvement
in school-based mentoring, BBBS-America greatly
expanded during this time. In fact, the number of school-
based mentoring matches within BBBS-America quad­
rupled (from 27,000 to 126,000) between 1999 and 2006.
Current State of the Science in Youth Mentoring
As enthusiasm for the youth mentoring movement grew in
the early 2000s, so too did the demand for rigorous evalua­
tions. This demand was driven in part by calls from the
scientific community and subsequent federal legislation
(e.g., No Child Left Behind Act) focused on increasing
the methodological rigor used to evaluate programs. The
goal of these efforts was to reduce the research-to-practice
gap in education and other helping intuitions. One approach
to achieving this goal was the use of online registries that
provided information on the state of evidence for various
programs and practices, including the now defunct
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration’s National Registry of Evidence-Based
Programs and Practices and the U.S. Department of
Education’s What Works Clearinghouse. As the evidence-
based movement became status quo, so too did the eco­
nomic and institutional pressures to be labeled as a service
that “works”. Signaling these pressures, the National
Mentoring Partnership (mentoring.org) in 2010 branded
their annual summit “Mentoring Works!”. Eager to prove
that mentoring did in fact work, nonprofit organizations and
government-supported mentoring initiatives led researchers
to partner with programs and use the gold-standard of
evidence-based practice – the randomized evaluation. In
hindsight, this coupling of the mentoring movement with
the evidence-based practice movement was perhaps prema­
ture and portended a rude awakening for the field.
A series of randomized evaluations in the early 2010s
led researchers and policy makers to question the slogan of
the National Mentoring Partnership’s annual summit.
Perhaps the most consequential of these evaluations was
a randomized trial of the federally funded SMP (Bernstein
et al., 2009). This is the largest evaluation of youth mentor­
ing ever conducted (N = 2,570), and despite examining 17
different outcomes, the final report indicated children did
not benefit when randomly assigned to a mentor instead of
a non-mentoring control condition. As a result of this
evaluation, the Obama Administration cut funding to the
SMP, representing the heaviest federal budget cut to youth
mentoring services since the original influx of funding in
the late 1990s. Around the same time, researchers evaluated
BBBS-America’s school-based program (N = 1,139) and
found similarly disappointing results (Herrera et al., 2007;
Herrera et al., 2011). Of 31 outcomes tested, only 3 were
statistically significant, sans any correction for inflated
Type I error rates. The average effect across all outcomes
was small (~d = .05), with the largest effect for youths’
report of the presence of a special adult in their life (d =
.29). Thus, despite school-based mentoring increasing
youth perceptions of a special adult in their life, assignment
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,
2008), Wheeler, Keller, and DuBois (2010) wrote that
“Arguments seemingly could be made for or against con­
tinued investments in school based mentoring as a strategy
for promoting resilience among at-risk youth”. (p. 6).
The field also had to grapple with meta-analytic findings
that consistently suggested mentoring produces, on aver­
age, rather modest effects for participating youth (DuBois
et al., 2002, 2011; Raposa et al., 2019). Recently, Rhodes
(2020) offered this rather sobering account of the field:
Overall, youth mentoring programs are not nearly as effec­
tive as most people assume, particularly when compared to
other interventions with youth. Findings from large-scale
randomized control trials, meta-analyses, and recent cost-
benefit studies present a disappointing bottom line, with
relatively weak effects that have not budged in decades.
(p. 5)
The fields’ reckoning with these disappointing findings
led also to reconsidering findings from the 1995 impact
study. Researchers questioned whether findings from that
study justified proclamations that mentoring was
a “proven” delinquency prevention strategy (Grossman &
Garry, 1997, p. 1) or that empirical research supported the
benefits of mentoring (e.g., Cavell & Elledge, 2014;
DuBois & Rhodes, 2008). Some scholars noted concerns
 MENTORING AS MEANS AND END IN PROMOTING CHILD MENTAL HEALTH
about use of problematic research practices in youth men­
toring (Lyons & McQuillin, 2019). One glaring example
was the failure to account for Type I errors in the Tierney
et al. (1995) study: The authors tested 44 outcomes using
an uncorrected alpha of p < .10. It is difficult, in light of
these concerns, to view findings from this landmark study
as clear support for mentoring as an evidence-based
strategy.
The Culture and Business of Youth Mentoring
Carl Rogers (1967) once wrote, “The facts are always
friendly” (p. 25), which is a reminder that it helps to under­
stand the weight or complexity of a problem before trying
to tackle it. To make sense of how the field of youth
mentoring responded to persistently modest outcomes, it
is important to appreciate the culture and context in which
mentoring operates. As a youth-focused prevention strat­
egy, mentoring offers several advantages, including
a network of service delivery that is broadly scaled and
well positioned to reach youth living in less advantaged
communities. Youth mentoring, and BBBS more specifi­
cally, also enjoy wide public support and are viewed posi­
tively by folks from diverse and even opposing political
backgrounds (Hagler et al., 2019). But mentoring is also
constrained in ways that are not insignificant. In addition to
relying on the benevolence of unpaid volunteers (cf. Eddy
et al., 2017; Taussig & Culhane, 2010), mentoring pro­
grams almost always operate as nonprofit organizations
perennially challenged by precarious funding, limited infra­
structure, and staff turnover (Rhodes, 2020). This combina­
tion of a) a broad footprint, b) an appealing “brand” name
(e.g., Big Brothers Big Sisters of America), c) but a shallow
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
for whether youth mentoring can reach its potential as
a viable, youth-serving prevention strategy.
Perhaps the most important implication is that thinly
funded mentoring organizations are compelled to make
program decisions that optimize the likelihood of continued
and future funding. The emphasis is on maintaining market
share in the nonprofit space, preserving brand recognition,
reducing risk, and sometimes reaching into new markets or
launching innovative but untested programs designed to
pull in additional or new sources of revenue. There is little
capacity for and considerable costs associated with invest­
ing in prolonged research and development efforts. More
appealing is collaborating periodically with researchers to
evaluate an existing program (Grossman & Tierney, 1998;
Herrera et al., 2011) or to test efforts to enhance the service
delivery of existing programs (DuBois et al., 2020).
Limited infrastructure and the need to preserve revenue
streams also means that mentoring organizations have few
285
incentives for modifying and testing established programs.
With limited staff dedicated to maintaining current opera­
tions, there is also little bandwidth to take on and test
additional research-driven programs, however promising
these might be.
It is also important to recognize that volunteer mentors
are a limited resource (Rhodes, 2020). Unlike parents and
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
ability of volunteers for programs such as BBBS (Raposa
et al., 2017). Thus, efforts to grow the science of mentoring
and promote healthy mentor–mentee relationships are unli­
kely to have the broad impact we might expect from the
science and practice of improving parent-child or teacher–
student relationships. An additional aspect to the limited
availability of mentors is that many individuals in indus­
trialized Western societies believe caregiving is the sole
responsibility of parents (Kesselring et al., 2012; Scales
et al., 2004). Unfortunately, this belief appears to have
contributed to what has been described as a deficit view
of parents who seek the support of formal mentoring pro­
grams (Scafe & Cavell, 2020; Spencer & Basualdo-
Delmonico, 2014). From this deficit lens, it is assumed
that mentors fill a void for children who lack
a responsible, positive adult role model in the home and
that parents are likely to disrupt or impede the work of
mentors. Finally, it is important to note that mentors are
neither trained nor paid to provide mental health care to
youth. Mentoring organizations must be realistic about
what can be expected of volunteers, whether it is their
availability for training, their commitment to a long-term
relationship, or the particular talent they bring to mentoring
(Rhodes, 2020).
Pivoting from Modest Outcomes
Understandably, lackluster findings from randomized trials
of youth mentoring led to significant handwringing in the
field (Cavell & Elledge, 2014; Rhodes, 2020). Before pre­
senting our agenda for the future of youth mentoring, we
think it is instructive to consider various ways that practi­
tioners and scholars responded to studies that pointed con­
sistently to modest outcomes.
Enhance Existing Programs
One response was to enhance existing program models.
BBBS-America, for example, concerned about disappoint­
ing findings from its large trial of school-based mentoring
(Herrera et al., 2007), slowed the growth of new school-
based matches and quickly mobilized an internal team to
refashion its program model (Hansen et al., 2011). A key
feature of this enhanced model was ensuring that matches
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
mentoring was now “more like BBBS’s community-based
model than perhaps was anticipated” (p. 15). A pilot test of
the enhanced model (Hansen et al., 2011) showed an
increase in the proportion of matches lasting for one
full year (56% versus 40%); however, the impact on
youth outcomes was never reported. The direction of this
pivot suggests BBBS-America was strongly influenced by
findings from its earlier study of community-based mentor­
ing (Tierney et al., 1995) and by the notion that a long,
strong bond between mentor and mentee was the essential
mechanism of change (e.g., Grossman & Rhodes, 2002;
Rhodes, 2005). Absent from this enhancement effort was
consideration of work challenging this supposition or evi­
dence for more focused, short-term approaches that fit the
school calendar and context (e.g., Cavell et al., 2009;
Karcher, 2008).
Additional efforts to enhance rather than change or
replace existing programs involved significant findings
from meta-analytic studies of mentoring outcomes. For
example, affiliate agencies from BBBS-America were
involved in two separate trials driven by findings suggest­
ing programs were stronger when mentors engaged in
teaching and advocacy (DuBois et al., 2002, 2011). In one
trial (DuBois & Keller, 2017), BBBS community-based
mentors were trained to incorporate practices derived
from research on positive youth development, including
promoting growth mind-set, encouraging youth to find
and pursue a “spark”, and setting goals. Yet this evaluation
found “no evidence of effects of the thriving promotion
condition on youth outcomes” (p. 1486). In a second, sepa­
rate trial, Jarjoura et al. (2018) examined the impact of
providing mentors with enhanced training and support on
mentors’ use of advocacy and teaching in their mentoring
activities, but similar to DuBois and Keller (2017), found
no statistically significant difference between youth in the
enhanced versus control groups on any outcome.
Enhance Service Delivery
A different type of response to modest outcomes
involved efforts to improve the service delivery of estab­
lished programs. Formal mentoring programs are guided by
the Elements of Effective Practice (Garringer et al., 2015),
which include screening and training of volunteers, match­
ing mentors with mentees, supporting ongoing matches,
and overseeing match closure. Keller, Drew et al. (2020),
for example, found that the amount of time program staff
devoted to supporting mentors was positively linked to
mentors’ satisfaction with the match and with their rating
of youth outcomes. These findings were seen as evidence
that outcomes from mentoring are likely to be limited if
program staff do not provide meaningful support and super­
vision to mentors. This prompted efforts to test whether
improving the delivery of established mentoring programs,
while maintaining the essential components of those pro­
grams, led to greater outcomes (e.g., Keller et al., 2019;
Kupersmidt et al., 2017).
One recent approach to improved service delivery is
youth-initiated mentoring (YIM), developed for programs
that support adolescents not expected to complete high
school or involved in the juvenile justice system
(Millenky et al., 2014). In YIM, adolescents (and not pro­
gram staff) are tasked with recruiting potential mentors
from their own social network as a way to find
a supportive adult with whom they share important char­
acteristics and beliefs (Schwartz et al., 2013; Van Dam
et al., 2017). YIM offers organizations a strategy by
which they can seek to improve outcomes without altering
the fundamental model of mentoring. Van Dam and
Schwartz (2020) theorized that because YIM mentors are
drawn from youths’ social network, the alliance is poten­
tially stronger and youth are more motivated to pursue self-
concordant goals compared to mentoring as usual. Research
on this approach is still emerging, but studies to date
suggest youth who choose their own mentor have more
enduring relationships, which predicts better outcomes
(Schwartz et al., 2013; Spencer et al., 2016).
Shift Expectations about Youth Mentoring
Some scholars pivoted by asserting that modest out­
comes are to be expected when mentors are matched with
youth who vary widely in what they need (e.g., DuBois
et al., 2011). The strategy of lowering expectations about
mentoring was evident in a large trial of community-based
mentoring funded by the Gates Foundation (Herrera et al.,
2013). This project was an effort to examine whether level
and type of risk altered the benefits youth derived from
mentoring. Programs had little trouble enrolling and match­
ing youth facing more cumulative risk than average youth
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
significantly by type or level of risk, although mentors
matched with the lowest-risk youth were more likely to
report relationships ending “due to a lack of youth interest
or the youth not seeming to need a mentor” (p. 4). In
contrast, mentors matched with higher risk youth reported
greater challenges due to difficulty in mentees’ behavior or
lack of support from mentees’ family. In comparing out­
comes for mentored versus non-mentored youth across 22
different measures, Herrera and colleagues found evidence
for significant program effects on only 2 variables. One was
a self-report measure of depression and the other was an
aggregate score that assumed mentoring is not an interven­
tion with one or two specific targeted goals but rather “a
broad-based intervention that is believed to improve
youth’s lives by addressing the specific and differing
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
who were involved in the juvenile court system
(Beiswinger, 1985). The premise was that youth could be
kept out of trouble and set on a more productive path by
men willing to be their “Big Brother”. These notions were
further bolstered by research on risk, resilience, and the
search for characteristics of the so-called invulnerable child
(Anthony & Cohler, 1987; Masten, 2013, 2001). A key
finding was that supportive relationships with at least one
adult, not necessarily a parent, could provide significant
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
ing who saw themselves as championing the business of
providing these relationships.
As the mentoring movement began to expand, programs
strived to engineer the kind of growth-promoting relation­
ships that arose organically in the lives of resilient children.
Too often, however, programs fell down on the job and
failed to deliver this outcome, as shown by data indicating
a high percentage of premature match endings (Bernstein
et al., 2009; Grossman et al., 2012; Grossman & Rhodes,
2002). When researchers entered the scene, the emphasis
shifted from relationships as an end goal to proving pro­
gram effectiveness, testing for significant outcomes, and
estimating return on investment from youth mentoring
(Rhodes, 2020). Left unfinished was the work of develop­
ing a coherent understanding of what formal mentoring
programs needed to do if they were to replicate the natural
mentoring relationships observed by Werner and others. In
other words, as the field rushed to document the “proven”
effectiveness of youth mentoring programs, the notion that
mentoring relationships are one way to fill a basic, human
developmental need faded in the rearview mirror.
Meanwhile, evidence for the importance of these relation­
ships continues to mount. Neuroscientists have shown that
we are hard-wired to connect to others (Banks, 2015; Siegel,
2015) and burgeoning attention to the ravages of loneliness
and social isolation highlight the health-promoting power of
social connections (e.g., Murthy, 2020). Indeed, a lack of
social relationships is a risk factor for mortality among
adults on par with that of smoking (Holt-Lunstad et al.,
2017, 2010), and longitudinal studies have linked social
isolation in childhood with poorer health outcomes among
adults (e.g., Caspi et al., 2006; Lacey et al., 2014). Social
connections are now a focus of research on adverse child­
hood experiences (ACEs; Felitti et al., 1998; Shonkoff et al.,
2012), and scholars have begun to consider the counter-
corollary of positive childhood experiences (PCEs; Bethell
et al., 2019; Crandall et al., 2019; Narayan et al., 2018). This
is in accord with a larger shift in mental health care toward
promoting factors that support optimal development and the
pursuit of positive, healthy outcomes versus a reduction in
symptomatology (Sege & Linkenbach, 2014). Evidence
indicates that safe, stable, nurturing relationship (SSNRs)
are a powerful PCE that should be promoted more broadly
(Bethell et al., 2019; Jaffee et al., 2013; Mercy & Saul, 2009;
Sege & Linkenbach, 2014; Sege & Browne, 2017). SSNRs
provide young people a feeling of being safe and cared for,
and are not limited to relationships with parents or adults in
the home. Studies of child maltreatment indicate even the
perception of support from significant adults contributes
positively to children’s health and well-being (Berlin et al.,
2011; Crouch et al., 2000).
Mentoring as Means to an End
We also assert that mentoring relationships can be used to
address more narrowly defined developmental issues (e.g.,
academic achievement) or the needs of a specific popula­
tion of youth (i.e., depressed adolescents). In line with the
mentoring-as-context perspective proposed by Cavell and
Elledge (2014), mentoring used as a means to an end does
not singularly tie its success to the quality of the relation­
ship. This point alone represents a tremendous advantage
given that a significant proportion of mentor-mentee
matches end prematurely (Grossman & Rhodes, 2002). As
Cavell and Elledge (2014) suggested, “It seems wise to
design mentoring programs that accommodate to these
less-than-ideal relationships” (p. 37). An additional advan­
tage is that “programs have the flexibility to adapt mentor­
ing to meet diverse goals and achieve important prevention
goals” (p. 37). The concept of mentoring as-means-to-an-
end also parallels much of the work in evidence-based
psychosocial treatments for child and adolescent mental
health problems. That work documents the importance of
the therapeutic alliance (e.g., Shirk et al., 2011) but also the
importance of strategies that target specific change mechan­
isms (Weisz & Kazdin, 2010).
A Functional Typology of Mentoring Programs
At first glance, the assertion that mentoring should be
viewed from a bilateral lens seems rather straightforward
and limited in its import. But the idea that all of mentoring –
whether formal or informal, community-or school-based –
can be understood from a single theoretical model has long
been the prevailing view in the field (Cavell & Elledge,
2014). Indeed, for nearly eight decades, mentoring operated
without any guiding theory; instead, scholars offered post
hoc explanations (e.g., social control theory, social role
theory, resiliency theory) for how mentoring might benefit
youth. The radical nature of our bilateral framework
becomes more obvious when one also considers that for
the past two decades youth mentoring has relied on a single
theoretical model. Rhodes (2002; 2005; Rhodes et al.,
2006) model posited that mentoring affects processes
involved in emotional, cognitive, and identity development
 MENTORING AS MEANS AND END IN PROMOTING CHILD MENTAL HEALTH
and emphasized that the impact of mentoring on these
processes depends on the strength and length of the rela­
tionship. This model has been used consistently as the
theoretical lens by which practitioners and researchers
view mentoring (e.g., DuBois et al., 2011).
But if mentoring can be both means and end, then
a single, overarching model is no longer workable. Our
bilateral framework calls for program practitioners and
researchers to specify in greater detail how time spent
with a mentor might benefit youth: What exactly is
expected of mentors and of mentoring relationships? To
guide that specification, we offer a typology of youth men­
toring that can be used to identify the intended purpose or
functionality of the major approaches currently operating in
the field (see Table 1). In our view, the field of youth
mentoring is optimally sorted into three relatively distinct
but not mutually exclusive categories. The classic or tradi­
tional type of formal mentoring, which we call supportive
mentoring, involves the use of mentoring relationships as
an end unto itself. Under the rubric of mentoring as means
to an end are problem-focused and transitional mentoring.
Importantly, both of these approaches can also be incorpo­
rated and applied, as needed, into the work of supportive
mentoring. Our hope is that this typology will encourage
practitioners and scholars to specify and test the hypothe­
sized mechanisms by which mentoring serves to promote
youth development and address their social and emotional
needs.
Supportive Mentoring
We use this term to describe what some view as traditional
mentoring but which is more precisely viewed as mentoring
in which the relationship is the end goal. Supportive men­
tors provide safe, supportive nurturing relationships
(SSNRs) that supplement or enhance the relational
resources in a young person’s life. Presumably, mentors in
these programs are invested in promoting the psychosocial
development of the young person and are committed to
a relationship that spans more than a few months.
Supportive mentoring is based on research that identifies
the kinds of relationships that are foundational to the health
and wellbeing of children and adolescents (Li & Julian,
2012). Supportive mentoring recognizes that youth need
TABLE 1
A Functional Typology of Youth Mentoring Programs
Mentoring Relationships as an End
Type Supportive Problem-Focused
Estimated length Often one year or more Less than a year
Goals Normative developmental Reductions in specific problems; improved health for
achievements & milestones specific groups
Putative change Safe, supportive, nurturing Shift in risk/protective factors specific to the
mechanisms relationship problem or germane to the group
289
“webs of support” (Varga & Zaff, 2018) to grow and thrive,
and formal mentoring can be one source of that support.
The mentoring relationship is not intended as a targeted
intervention designed to produce a specific set of outcomes;
rather, the relationship is a supplemental, prevention- or
promotion-focused form of support for young people’s
overall growth and development. Done well, supportive
mentors should become part of the young person’s convoy
of support (Antonucci et al., 2014).
We assume that supportive mentors would adapt to the
changing needs and interests of mentored youth. Thus,
mentors might function as companions who create oppor­
tunities for fun and recreation or as trusted confidants who
lend an ear and offer a perspective separate from that of
parents or teachers. The marker of success in supportive
mentoring would be the continued supportive presence of
the mentor in the life of the young person, indexed by the
quality and durability of the relationship. Specific, desired
outcomes are secondary and include those expected of any
developing youth. Near-term gains or transformational
experiences are eschewed in favor of aims that are more
ordinary but no less important: healthy development and
the meeting of expected developmental outcomes.
Supportive mentoring is, in essence, a public health strat­
egy, a form of prevention used ideally to serve the largest
number of youth who experience gaps in this essential
ingredient for healthy development. Supportive mentoring
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
ples of supportive mentoring is Friends of the Children. In
this program, mentors earn a salary for mentoring a small
group of children, and the program commits to mentoring
children from kindergarten till the end of high school. The
program has shown promise, despite its costs (Eddy et al.,
2017).
Problem-focused Mentoring
As noted earlier, the research community has begun to
develop and test ways that mentoring can be more problem-
or need-focused (Rhodes, 2020). This type of mentoring
qualifies as means to an end and is line with Cavell and
Elledge (2014) notion that mentoring can be a context for
Mentoring Relationships as a Means
Transitional
Dictated by the transition
Successful transitions for specific groups
Shift in risk/protective factors specific to
the group’s transition
290 CAVELL ET AL.
prevention focused activities designed to alter putative risk
or protective factors. Problem-focused mentoring is char­
acterized by its reliance on specific practices designed to
prevent or treat specific problems or improve youth well­
being. Researchers have begun to test programs designed to
target specific problems (e.g., aggression; academic failure)
or are intended for specific subgroups (e.g., children with
developmental disabilities), Problem-focused programs
often integrate into mentoring science-informed practices
designed to match the needs of the targeted population
(Cavell & Elledge, 2014; McQuillin, Hagler, et al., 2020).
Christensen et al. (2020) used a similar term, targeted
mentoring, to describe mentoring that serves as a “context
for intentional, targeted skills development, in which men­
tors employ targeted skills designed to match the presenting
concerns of mentees” (p. 959).
Transitional Mentoring
Another example of mentoring as a means to an end is
transitional mentoring, which is mentoring that supports
youth who are facing a specific challenging transition in
their life. Transitional mentoring generally involves four
key features. The first is support. At minimum, transitional
mentors should interact in ways that give mentees a feeling
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,
2010). The second feature is tactical, which implies that
transitional mentors are trained to perform a narrow set of
tasks over a limited period of time. This is in contrast to
supportive mentoring that assumes mentors will likely
encounter a wide array of issues in their effort to support
youth over time. The third feature is availability, which
implies that transitional mentors can be deployed (and re-
deployed) in a fairly expeditious manner to youth at critical
junctures. Thus, time to match for transitional mentoring
must be kept to a minimum. The final feature is a focus on
transitions, which means it is designed to support youth as
they navigate specific changes in their life. These changes
could involve moving to the next school-level (e.g., into
middle school or high school), adjusting to newly diag­
nosed health conditions (e.g., diabetes), leaving
a treatment setting or a system of care (e.g., inpatient
hospitalization, juvenile justice, foster care), coming out
as a member of the LGBTQ community, or adjusting to
changing family circumstances (e.g., parental divorce,
incarceration, or death). It is not difficult to find examples
of transitional mentoring. One of the better examples of
transitional mentoring is the Youth-Nominated Support
Team (YST) program for teens released from the hospital
after engaging in suicidal behavior (King et al., 2019).
Other examples include programs for youth aging out of
foster care (Geenen et al., 2015), programs assisting min­
ority youth transitioning from school to work (Sánchez
et al., 2011), aftercare for delinquent youth post-incarcera­
tion (James et al., 2013), school-based mentoring for
chronically bullied children before they transition to middle
school (e.g., Elledge et al., 2010; S. J. Gregus et al., 2015),
and mentoring to help children with chronic medical con­
ditions transition from pediatric to adult care (Viola et al.,
2020; Wiemann et al., 2020).
Transitional mentoring offers a way to take advantage of
the most workable and reliable strengths of mentoring.
Program-sponsored mentoring matches often end prema­
turely and few last more than one year or two, which
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
these same mentors were re-deployed to support children
going through similar transitions, then reliance on volunteer
mentors and limited resources that constrain nonprofit pro­
grams can be optimized. A helpful analogy for transitional
mentoring is the work of Court-Appointed Special
Advocates (CASAs), adult volunteers trained and deployed
(repeatedly) to support and advocate for children as they
are entering the foster care system.
NEEDED DISRUPTIONS IN YOUTH MENTORING
The term disruptive innovation was used by Bower and
Christensen (1995) to describe a process whereby smaller
businesses with fewer resources are able to successfully
challenge established incumbent businesses. These authors
noted a tendency for incumbent businesses to shy away
from innovation and overlook certain segments of the mar­
ket, thereby creating opportunities for smaller companies to
address unmet market needs. In our agenda for the future of
mentoring, we see a need to disrupt science, practice, and
policy that surrounds mentoring.
Disrupting the Science of Youth Mentoring
The science that underlies mental health care for children
and adolescents is generally more advanced yet often sits
apart from what is practiced. In the field of youth mentor­
ing, the circumstances are somewhat different: A case
could be made that researchers have generally lagged
behind in their effort to inform and guide practitioners.
As such, we offer two important disruptions to the science
of mentoring that could reduce the odds of additional
missed opportunities going foward.
 MENTORING AS MEANS AND END IN PROMOTING CHILD MENTAL HEALTH
Develop and Test Microtheories of Mentoring
Kurt Lewin (1951) once offered, “There is nothing so
practical as a good theory” (p. 169), and that is certainly
true for the field of youth mentoring. Instead of a single
mega-theory, the field needs more narrowly specified con­
ceptual models to guide development and testing of differ­
ent types of mentoring. For example, Cavell and colleagues
offered a conceptual frame to explain how twice weekly
visits by mentors to the school lunch table could benefit
elementary school children who are chronically bullied by
peers (Cavell & Henrie, 2010; Elledge et al., 2010;
J. T. Gregus et al., 2020). These investigators drew from
previous research on processes that contribute to chronic
peer victimization, including studies that point to the role of
socially constructed narratives that cast victims as out-
group members and allow peers to disengage from the
usual moral prohibitions against bullying (e.g., Thornberg,
2015). Cavell and colleagues have also attempted to eluci­
date the mechanisms by which lunchtime mentoring can
shift peers’ attitudes and behaviors about victims of school
bullying (Craig et al., 2015, 2016).
Advance the Science of Mentoring Relationships
If a supportive, supplemental relationship is in fact
a viable prevention goal, then there is a need to grow the
science of mentoring relationships and not solely the prac­
tice of mentoring. After 100+ years of formal youth men­
toring, a number of critical questions remain unanswered.
For example, what malleable factors distinguish a stable,
growth-promoting mentoring relationship from one that
ends abruptly or fails to matter to either party? What
distinguishes mentors who form positive, affirming rela­
tionships from those who struggle to keep youth engaged
and invested (Cavell et al., 2020)? Can programs use infor­
mation about factors that predict relationship quality and
maintenance to train volunteers, especially in light of the
very real constraints under which most mentoring programs
operate? These rather obvious questions have not been
adequately addressed in previous studies of youth mentor­
ing. Recent qualitative studies provide important ground­
work (Pryce, 2012; Spencer, 2006; Spencer et al., 2020),
but scholars have not systematically examined what men­
tors actually do when interacting with mentees over the
course of their relationships. This basic, foundational
knowledge is critical to identifying matches at risk of end­
ing prematurely and mentors who will struggle to provide
a safe, stable, nurturing relationship (SSNR). This informa­
tion can also guide programs in selecting and training
volunteers who provide high-quality, lasting relationships.
Researchers who study relational processes in youth
mentoring tend to draw from research on psychotherapy
(e.g., Pryce, 2012; Spencer & Rhodes, 2005), but we see
more instructive examples in scholarship focused on
291
parent-child or teacher–student relationships (e.g., Cavell,
2014). Research has identified interactional components
and specific skills that promote or undermine adaptive
relationships that involve children and their parents or
teachers (e.g., Patterson et al., 1992; Pianta et al., 2003).
Findings from this work have been used to develop inter­
ventions to help parents and teachers form and sustain
healthy relationships with children, and many of these
interventions are designed to be brief and highly accessible
(e.g., Cook et al., 2018; Dishion et al., 2012; Hamre &
Pianta, 2006; Havighurst et al., 2013; Kjobli & Ogden,
2012; Morrison & Helker, 2010; Ralph & Sanders, 2004;
Sabol & Pianta, 2012; Sanders, 2008).
Programs would also benefit from ways to assess and
monitor whether mentors were meeting the conditions of
a “good enough” mentor. The tendency has been to assess
mentees’ perceptions of the more positive and affirming
actions of mentors, but it could be more useful to track
those behaviors that push mentees away or cause them to
drift out of disinterest (Cavell & Henrie, 2010; Cavell et al.,
2009; Karcher, 2005; Spencer, 2007). Determining which
youth to serve is also an important line of inquiry for
programs dedicated to the use of supportive mentoring.
Which youth are most likely to benefit from
a supplemental and supportive relationship? Is there
a developmental period in which these relationships are
especially critical? Few mentoring programs serve youth
under the age of six years, but it is unclear whether that
position is justified by developmental science (Varga &
Zaff, 2018).
Test and Compare Specific Program Practices and
Not Just Whole Programs
We suggest researchers and practitioners move beyond
global, program-focused evaluations of mentoring and
toward practice-focused evaluations of what mentors do
with mentees or what programs do with mentors. This
kind of research is long overdue (Lyons et al., 2019). Few
published studies of mentoring include assessment of the
types of activities or experiences that occur during
a mentoring visit (McQuillin et al., 2019). The seemingly
obvious importance of these issues has been largely over­
shadowed by pressures to “prove” that programs work.
There is also value in emulating the study of micro-pro­
cesses that predict successful counseling outcomes. For
example, studies of Motivational Interviewing (Miller &
Rollnick, 2012) often involve assessment of specific verba­
lizations by counselors as well as clients’ responses to
those verbalizations and any subsequent change in beha­
vior. This work has led to continued improvements in the
practice of motivational interviewing, which has also influ­
enced how mental health counselors are trained (Magill
et al., 2018). Implementing a formal mentoring program
involves several specific practice elements (Garringer et al.,
292 CAVELL ET AL.
2015), all of which are open to experimental evaluation,
including but not limited to how mentors are matched,
trained, and supervised as well as the benefits of using
specific curricula or structured activities (e.g., McQuilin
et al., 2019). By evaluating discrete practices rather than
whole programs, the pace at which mentoring organizations
learn and benefit from research can be greatly expedited.
Disrupting the Practice of Youth Mentoring
A bilateral framework for youth mentoring means disrupt­
ing the practice of mentoring. Likely shifts include broad­
ening and diversifying the mission of youth mentoring
organizations, being more intentional and explicit about
the type of mentoring offered, and structuring program
practices to match the type of mentoring delivered.
Broaden and Diversify the Mission of Youth
Mentoring
Most mentoring organizations are in the business of
“selling” a single promise: That parents who enroll their
children can anticipate a safe, relatively long-term match
that has the potential to be protective or transformative.
Less attention is given to possible risks, including having
a child wait for months to be matched, the match ending
early, or significant limits to what can be expected of
mentors working with youth at risk for significant, negative
developmental outcomes. It is now time to expand and
diversify this single view of mentoring, including exploring
ways to incorporate the different types of mentoring out­
lined earlier. Currently, few mentoring organizations oper­
ate from a vision that involves serving youth via problem-
focused or transitional types of mentoring. These more
circumscribed strategies are often theory-driven and
empirically supported, but do not readily align with the
existing structure and aims of most established mentoring
organizations. However, national mentoring organizations
also have the capacity to distribute policy changes across
affiliated agencies, which should greatly advantage any
effort to broaden and diversify the mission of youth
mentoring.
Be Intentional and Explicit about the Type of
Mentoring Offered
To the extent mentoring organizations can flexibly shift
to include diverse types of mentoring, there is the added
requirement of being explicit and transparent about which
youth are optimally served and which youth are less of a fit
for programs offered. In trying to serve all youth who might
benefit from having a mentor, some mentoring organiza­
tions run the risk of diluting their potential impact and
limiting what is effectively offered to participating youth.
More than a decade ago, Rhodes and DuBois (2008) called
for increasing the quality of mentoring and not simply the
number of youth mentored. Here we offer the added call for
the intentional and explicit use of more diverse forms of
mentoring.
Structure Program Practices to Match the Type of
Mentoring
Programs that use supportive mentoring need structures
and practices that effectively engineer mentors’ attempts to
form and maintain positive relationships. This can include,
for example, policies that govern the expected length of
matches, incentives to recognize the work of successful
mentors, training that builds on studies of interactional
processes in youth mentoring, greater use of progress mon­
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
a more problem-focused or transitional approach to men­
toring, there should also be an emphasis on practices that
promote the impact of mentoring on proximal, putative
mechanisms of change.
Recent innovations in program structure and practice
include use of embedded mentors and technology-mediated
mentoring. Embedded mentoring involves placing mentors
into existing systems of care as a way to expand services
while strengthening the effectiveness of mentoring and
better aligning program infrastructure with the kinds of
support mentors need (Rhodes, 2020). Across the United
States, over half of youth served by mentoring programs
are considered “academically at-risk”, and close to a fourth
have serious mental health needs including depression,
anxiety, or attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder
(Garringer et al., 2017; Jarjoura et al., 2018). Most mentor­
ing programs provide less than two hours of pre-match
training and little substantive ongoing support (Garringer
et al., 2017). Program staff have limited time to train and
support mentors, and few have professional training in
mental health care or education (Keller & Spencer, 2018;
Kupersmidt et al., 2017; Spencer et al., 2019). And yet,
emerging research documents the importance of mentor
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
lors) could also enhance the training experience for mentors
in ways that closely align with the needs of children served
(Mcquillin et al., 2020).
Another key aspect of embedded mentoring is task-shift­
ing, the redistribution of some tasks typically provided by
professionals to individuals with less professional training
(McQuillin et al., 2019). Shifting services typically pro­
vided by hard-to-access mental health professionals (e.g.,
counselors, psychologists) to volunteer or paraprofessional
mentors could dramatically increase access to care, espe­
cially for youth in communities where the need and
 MENTORING AS MEANS AND END IN PROMOTING CHILD MENTAL HEALTH
demand for services greatly exceeds the supply of avail­
able, accessible helping professionals (McQuillin et al.,
2019; Rhodes, 2020). For example, if only 5% of the
estimated 2,500,000 to 3,000,000 active volunteer mentors
offered a limited form of mental health-care service, they
would rival the total number of licensed psychologists in
the US (US, Bureau and Labor Statistics, 2019). There are
legitimate concerns surrounding the training and supervi­
sion of volunteer mentors to whom such tasks are shifted,
but we believe the challenges are surmountable and worthy
of further investigation and policy consideration.
Technology-mediated mentoring is the strategic use of
mobile mental health (MHapps) and educational support
applications to transfer traditional helping practices from
professionals to mentors (Rhodes, 2020). The aim is to
increase youth access to evidence-based strategies for
improving mental, behavioral, and academic functioning.
When these apps are used routinely, outcomes are often
similar to those found for professionally delivered services.
Meta-analytic studies reveal effect sizes ranging from g =
.28 to .58 for anxiety, from g = .38 to .56 for depressive
symptoms, and from g = .35 to .44 for general quality of
life and affect (Firth et al., 2017; Linardon et al., 2019),
though research on MHapp use by youth is more limited
(Temkin et al., 2020). A significant barrier to widespread
adoption of MHapps and related technology is that most
youth do not use the apps beyond initial installation.
However, there is research suggesting that support and
coaching (e.g., regular check-ins, trouble shooting), often
titled supportive accountability, can improve use of
MHapps and their outcomes (Conley, 2016). Rhodes
(2020) suggests mentors are well suited to offer supportive
accountability to youth using these apps.
Disrupting Policy Related to Youth Mentoring
The field of youth mentoring offers unique lessons to those
who view child and adolescent mental health from a policy
perspective or through the lens of dissemination and imple­
mentation science (Beidas & Kendall, 2014). Youth men­
toring was brought to scale long before there were
empirical tests of its effectiveness. Typically, widespread
adoption, utilization, and sustainability of a prevention pro­
gram occurs after its efficacy, effectiveness, and mechanism
of action have been established. (Flay, 1986; Mrazek &
Haggerty, 1994). Cavell and Elledge (2014) suggested this
departure from the prevention research cycle likely
impeded development of effective mentoring programs.
Paradoxically, early enthusiasm for mentoring and for its
rapid expansion might have also slowed its progress.
DuBois et al. (2011) noted the disconnect between research
and policy in youth mentoring: “Public policy in this area
has in many respects tended to run on a separate track, with
enthusiasm for new approaches often outpacing the
293
scientific knowledge base” (DuBois et al., 2011, pp.
78–79). Funding initiatives have tended to emphasize inno­
vation and growth of mentoring rather than critical tests of
whether mentoring works, for whom, and by what means
(DuBois et al., 2011). At least two important disruptions
are needed for policy involving youth mentoring. The first
is greater funding to advance the science and not just the
practice of mentoring. The second is use of policy initia­
tives to fund programs designed to provide children and
adolescents from under-resourced environments with sup­
plemental adult relationships that are safe and supportive.
Funding
An interesting byproduct of policy and funding patterns
in youth mentoring is the close and recurring collaboration
between mentoring practitioners and researchers. Indeed,
some of the largest and most prominent studies in this
field have involved partnerships between BBBS-America
and research teams tasked with evaluating the impact of an
established program, such as BBBS-America’s community-
or school-based mentoring program (e.g., Grossman &
Tierney, 1998; Herrera et al., 2007; Herrera et al., 2013).
The impetus for these trials is often a funding initiative that
seeks to demonstrate policy-linked benefits (Grossman &
Tierney, 1998) or the delivery of mentoring to specific
groups targeted by the funding agency (e.g., DuBois
et al., 2020). This close collaboration carries the potential
to benefit both researchers and practitioners: Researchers
need not create and implement a mentoring program before
studying it, and practitioners have a chance to learn what is
or is not working with their program.
But meta-analytic studies documenting persistently
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
(Henderson et al., 2006). In fact, it seems more accurate to
say that practice, linked as it has been to key policy and
funding decisions, has had a stronger influence on the
science of youth mentoring than vice versa. Rarely do
funding initiatives include monies to support the science
of youth mentoring or earnest tests of whether mentoring
actually works, for whom, and by what means (Fernandes,
2019). Instead, these trials are designed to estimate gains
for youth who did and did not participate in an established
program or to compare mentored youth who did and did not
have a high-quality match (e.g., Bayer et al., 2015; Herrera
et al., 2013). The field of youth mentoring would benefit
from funding that supports testing and refining innovative
models of mentoring (e.g., McQuillin et al., 2013). Efforts
to grow the science of mentoring need not limit researchers
working closely with practitioners or with established men­
toring organizations. However, the goal of these initiatives
should include learning what does and does not work in
youth mentoring.
294 CAVELL ET AL.
Funding to Provide Children and Adolescents Living
in Under-resourced Environments with Supplemental
Safe and Supportive Adult Relationships
A key premise in our bilateral framework is that healthy
development occurs in the context of safe, supportive,
nurturing relationships (Li & Julian, 2012). But not all
children have sufficient access to these kinds of relation­
ships, despite systems of care designed to provide children
with various forms of support over the course of their
development (e.g., Head Start, K-12 schooling, foster
care). Formal mentoring programs aim to provide children
with supplemental support from a caring adult, but mentor­
ing programs cannot serve all you in need (Rhodes, 2020)
and youth living in economically disadvantaged homes and
isolated communities have limited access to mentoring
relationships (Snellman et al., 2015).
One of the more interesting but unfortunate aspects of
formal mentoring is that organized programs are unlikely to
assist parents pursuing, on their own, supportive connec­
tions for their children with adults in their network (Scafe
& Cavell, 2020; Weiler et al., 2020). Mentoring organiza­
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
organizations cannot promote relationships that do not
involve the careful screening and training of volunteers
by program staff. One promising avenue by which mentor­
ing organizations could provide assistance to parents is
CareGiver-Initiated Mentoring (CG-IM). With this strat­
egy, parents of children waiting to be matched with
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
will not only expedite the matching process but also equip
those parents who choose, at some later point, to seek the
support of informal mentors for their children. CG-IM has
yet to be formally evaluated and it is unlikely to have the
broad, preventative impact ideally suited for supportive
mentoring. Therefore, policy initiatives and funding pro­
grams that invest in the healthy development of children
and adolescents should include other ways to increase
youth access to supportive mentoring relationships.
CONCLUSION
The field of youth mentoring sits apart from most of what is
studied and practiced by clinical child and adolescent psy­
chologists. But areas of overlap offer intriguing opportu­
nities for both practitioners and scholars. In this paper, we
called attention to persistently modest outcomes from stu­
dies of youth mentoring and offered a bilateral framework
as a path forward. This framework calls for researchers and
practitioners to consider both the means and ends of
mentoring, and it makes explicit potential differences in
types and goals of mentoring. In so doing, we return to
the roots of mentoring, centering the connection with pro­
social adults in young people’s lives, but this time with
a call for researchers to take these relationships seriously
and invest in understanding what makes them work and
how programs can effectively promote and sustain them.
We also recognize that mentoring can take another impor­
tant form, embedded within larger contexts and utilized in
more circumscribed ways that are intentionally focused on
the promotion of more specified and near-term outcomes.
In both cases, if mentoring is to become a viable strategy
for promoting youth development and addressing mental
health needs of children and adolescents, significant disrup­
tion in the current science, practice, and policy surrounding
mentoring is required.
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the
authors.
ORCID
Timothy A. Cavell http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5576-
1622
Renée Spencer http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2876-2918
Samuel D. McQuillin http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6880-
5871
REFERENCES
Anthony, E. J., & Cohler, B. J. (Eds.). (1987). The invulnerable child.
Guilford Press.
Antonucci, T. C., Ajrouch, K. J., & Birditt, K. S. (2014). The convoy
model: Explaining social relations from a multidisciplinary perspective.
The Gerontologist, 54(1), 82–92. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnt118
Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor (2021).
Occupational Outlook Handbook, Psychologists, Retrieved January 20,
2021 from https://www.bls.gov/ooh/life-physical-and-social-science/psy
chologists.htm.
Banks, A., & Hirschman, L. A. (2016). Wired to connect: The surprising
link between brain science and strong, healthy relationships. Tarcher/
Penguin.
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
Psychology, 14(1), 185–208. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-
050817-084825
Baker, D. B., & Maguire, C. P. (2005). Mentoring in historical perspective.
In D. L. DuBois & M. J. Karcher (Eds), Handbook of youth mentoring,
(pp. 14–29). Sage Publications.
Bayer, A., Grossman, J. B., & DuBois, D. L. (2015). Using volunteer
mentors to improve the academic outcomes of underserved students:
The role of relationships. Journal of Community Psychology, 43(4),
408–429. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.21693
 MENTORING AS MEANS AND END IN PROMOTING CHILD MENTAL HEALTH
Beiswinger, G. L. (1985). One to one: The story of the Big Brothers/Big
Sisters movement in America. Philadelphia: Big Brothers/Big Sisters of
America.
Beidas, R. S., & Kendall, P. C. (Eds.). (2014). Dissemination and imple­
mentation of evidence-based practices in child and adolescent mental
health. Oxford University Press.
Berlin, L. J., Appleyard, K., & Dodge, K. A. (2011). Intergenerational
continuity in child maltreatment: Mediating mechanisms and implica­
tions for prevention. Child Development, 82(1), 162–176. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01547.x
Bernstein, L., Rappaport, C. D., Olsho, L., Hunt, D., & Levin, M. (2009).
Impact evaluation of the US department of education’s student mentor­
ing program. Final report (NCEE 2009-4047). National Center for
Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.
Bethell, C., Jones, J., Gombojav, N., Linkenbach, J., & Sege, R. (2019).
Positive childhood experiences and adult mental and relational health in
a statewide sample: Associations across adverse childhood experiences
levels. JAMA Pediatrics, 173(11), e193007–e193007. https://doi.org/10.
1001/jamapediatrics.2019.3007
Big Brothers Big Sisters of America. (2018, July). Big brothers big sisters
of America announces local agencies and boards of the year. https://
www.bbbs.org/news-item/2018/07/big-brothers-big-sisters-america-
announces-local-agencies-boards-year/
Boyle, F. M., Donald, M., Dean, J. H., Conrad, S., & Mutch, A. J. (2007).
Mental health promotion and non-profit health organisations. Health &
social care in the community, 15(6), 553–560. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.
1365-2524.2007.00712.x
Bower, J. L., & Christensen, C. M. (1995). Disruptive innovation:
Catching the wave. Harvard Business Review, 73(1), 43–45. Retrieved
on February 9, 2021 from https://hbr.org/1995/01/disruptive-technolo
gies-catching-the-wave
Caspi, A., Harrington, H., Moffitt, T., Milne, B., & Poulton, R. (2006).
Socially isolated children 20 years later: Risk of cardiovascular disease.
Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 160(8), 805–811. https://
doi.org/10.1001/archpedi.160.8.805
Cavell, T. A. (2014, April). Lunch Buddy mentoring for bullied children.
Keynote address, Texas Mentoring Summit, University of Texas–San
Antonio.
Cavell, T. A., & Elledge, L. C. (2014). Mentoring and prevention science.
In D. L. DuBois & M. J. Karcher (Eds.), Handbook of youth mentoring
(2nd ed., pp. 29–41). Sage Publications.
Cavell, T. A., Elledge, L. C., Malcolm, K. T., Faith, M. A., &
Hughes, J. N. (2009). Relationship quality and the mentoring of aggres­
sive, high-risk children. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent
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 /
15374410802698420
Cavell, T. A., & Henrie, J. L. (2010). Deconstructing serendipity: Focus,
purpose, and authorship in Lunch Buddy mentoring. In G. G. Noam,
M. J. Karcher, & M. J. Nakkula (Eds.), New directions for youth
development: Theory, practice, and research. The structure of mentor­
ing interactions (pp. 107–121). John Wiley & Sons.
Cavell, T. A., Mutignani, L. M., Alfonso, L., & Marie Smith, A. (2020).
Attachment tendencies, big 5 personality traits, and self-efficacy as
predictors of mentors’ relationships with aggressive children.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 66(1–2), 130–143.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12437
Christensen, K. M., Hagler, M. A., Stams, G. J., Raposa, E. B., Burton, S.,
& Rhodes, J. E. (2020). Non-specific versus targeted approaches to
youth mentoring: A follow-up meta-analysis. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 49(5), 959–972. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-020-
01233-x
Coie, J. D., Watt, N. F., West, S. G., Hawkins, D., Asarnow, J. R.,
Markman, H. J., Ramey, S. L., Shure, M. B., & Long, B. (1993). The
science of prevention: A conceptual framework and some directions for
295
a national research program. American Psychologist, 48(10),
1013–1022. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.48.10.1013
Conley, C. S., Durlak, J. A., Shapiro, J. B., Kirsch, A. C., & Zahniser, E.
(2016). A Meta-Analysis of the Impact of Universal and Indicated
Preventive Technology-Delivered Interventions for Higher Education
Students. Prevention Science, 17(6), 659–78.10.1007/s11121-016-
0662-3
Cook, C. R., Fiat, A., Larson, M., Daikos, C., Slemrod, T., Holland, E. A.,
Thayer, A. J., & Renshaw, T. (2018). Positive Greetings at the Door:
Evaluation of a Low-Cost, High-Yield Proactive Classroom
Management Strategy. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 20
(3), 149–159. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300717753831
Craig, J. T., Gregus, S. J., Burton, A., Hernandez Rodriguez, J., Blue, M.,
Faith, M. A., & Cavell, T. A. (2015). Exploring change processes in
school-based mentoring for bullied children. Journal of Primary
Prevention, 37(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10935-015-0412-5
Craig, J. T., Gregus, S. J., Elledge, L. C., Pastrana, F. A., & Cavell, T. A.
(2016). Preliminary investigation of the relation between lunchroom
peer acceptance and peer victimization. Journal of Applied
Developmental Psychology, 43, 101–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.app
dev.2016.01.005
Crandall, A., Miller, J. R., Cheung, A., Novilla, L. K., Glade, R.,
Novilla, M. L. B., … Hanson, C. L. (2019). ACEs and counter-ACEs:
How positive and negative childhood experiences influence adult health.
Child Abuse & Neglect, 96, 104089. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.
2019.104089
Crouch, J. A., Milner, J. S., & Thonsen, C. (2000). Childhood physical
abuse, early social support, and maltreatment: Current social support as
a mediator of physical abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect, 25(1), 93–107.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0145-2134(00)00230-1
Darling, N., Hamilton, S. F., & Niego, S. (1994). Adolescents’ relations
with adults outside the family. In R. Montemayor, G. R. Adams, &
T. P. Gullotta (Eds.), Personal relationships during adolescence (pp.
216–235). Sage Publications.
Dishion, T. J., Stormshak, E. A., & Kavanagh, K. A. (2012). Everyday
parenting: A professional’s guide to building family management skills.
Research Press.
DuBois, D. L., & Karcher, M. J. (2014). Youth mentoring: Progress and
prospects for the 21st century. In D. L. DuBois & M. J. Karcher
(Eds), The handbook of youth mentoring (pp. 525–534). Sage
Publications.
DuBois, D. L., Alem, F., Silverthorn, N., & Stewart, K. (2020). Synthesis
of OJJDP-sponsored mentoring research: 2019 update. Office of
Justice Programs’ National Criminal Justice Reference Service.
DuBois, D. L., Herrera, C., & Higley, E. (2018). Investigation of the reach
and effectiveness of a mentoring program for youth receiving outpatient
mental health services. Children and Youth Services Review, 91, 85–93.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.05.033
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(2), 157–197. https://
doi.org/10.1023/A:1014628810714
DuBois, D. L., & Keller, T. E. (2017). Investigation of the integration of
supports for youth thriving into a community-based mentoring program.
Child Development, 88(5), 1480–1491. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12887
DuBois, D. L., Portillo, N., Rhodes, J. E., Silverthorn, N., & Valen-
Tine, J. C. (2011). How effective are mentoring programs for youth?
A systematic assessment of the evidence. Psychological Science in the
Public Interest, 12(2), 57–91. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100611414806
Eddy, J. M., Martinez, C. R., Grossman, J. B., Cearley, J. J., Herrera, D.,
Wheeler, A. C., … Harachi, T. W. (2017). A randomized controlled trial
of a long-term professional mentoring program for children at risk:
Outcomes across the first 5 years. Prevention Science, 18(8), 899–910.
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
buddy mentoring as selective prevention for bullied children. The
Journal of Primary Prevention, 31(3), 171–187. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s10935-010-0215-7
Felitti, V. J., Anda, R. F., Nordenberg, D., Williamson, D. F., Spitz, A. M.,
Edwards, V., & Marks, J. S. (1998). Relationship of childhood abuse
and household dysfunction to many of the leading causes of death in
adults: The Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) Study. American
Journal of Preventive Medicine, 14(4), 245–258.
Fernandes, A. L. (2019). Vulnerable youth: Federal mentoring programs
and issues. Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress.
Firth, J., Torous, J., Nicholas, J., Carney, R., Pratap, A., Rosenbaum, S., &
Sarris, J. (2017). The efficacy of smartphone-based mental health inter­
ventions for depressive symptoms: A meta-analysis of randomized
controlled trials. World Psychiatry, 16(3), 287–298. https://doi.org/10.
1002/wps.20472
Flay, B. R. (1986). Efficacy and effectiveness trials (and other phases of
research) in the development of health promotion programs. Preventive
Medicine, 15(5), 451–474. https://doi.org/10.1016/0091-7435(86)90024-1
Flay, B. R., Biglan, A., Boruch, R. F., Castro, F. G., Gottfredson, D.,
Kellam, S., Moscicki, E. K., Schinke, S., Valentine, J. C., & Ji, P.
(2005). Standards of evidence: Criteria for efficacy, effectiveness and
dissemination. Prevention Science, 6(3), 151–175. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s11121-005-5553-y
Garmezy, N., & Masten, A. S. (1986). Stress, competence, and resilience:
Common frontiers for therapist and psychopathologist. Behavior
Therapy, 17(5), 500–521.
Garringer, M., Kupersmidt, J., Rhodes, J., Stelter, R., & Tai, T. (2015).
Elements of effective practice for mentoring [TM]: Research-informed
and practitioner-approved best practices for creating and sustaining
impactful mentoring relationships and strong program services.
MENTOR: National Mentoring Partnership.
Garringer, M., McQuillin, S., McDaniel, H. (2017). Examining youth
mentoring services across America: Findings from the 2016 National
Mentoring Program Survey. Technical Report Produced produced by
MENTOR: The National Mentoring Partnership. http://www.mentoring.
org/program-resources/mentor-resources-and-publications/national-
survey/
Geenen, S., Powers, L. E., Phillips, L. A., Nelson, M., McKenna, J.,
Winges-Yanez, N., … Swank, P. (2015). Better futures: A randomized
field test of a model for supporting young people in foster care with
mental health challenges to participate in higher education. The Journal
of Behavioral Health Services & Research, 42(2), 150–171. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11414-014-9451-6
Greenberger, E., Chen, C., & Beam, M. R. (1998). The role of “very
important” nonparental adults in adolescent development. Journal of
Youth and Adolescence, 27(3), 321–343. https://doi.org/10.1023/
A:1022803120166
Gregus, J. T., Craig, J. T., & Cavell, T. A. (2020). Toward evidence-based
interventions for chronically bullied children: Candidate mechanisms
and potential strategies. Evidence-Based Practice in Child & Adolescent
Mental Health, 5(1), 83–101. https://doi.org/org/10.1080/23794925.
2020.1727796
Gregus, S. J., Craig, J. T., Hernandez Rodriguez, J., Pastrana, F. A., &
Cavell, T. A. (2015). Lunch Buddy mentoring for children victi­
mized by peers: Two open trials. Journal of Applied School
Psychology, 31(2), 167–197. https://doi.org/10.1080/15377903.
2015.1025172
Grossman, J. B., & Tierney, J. P. (1998). Does mentoring work? An impact
study of the Big Brothers Big Sisters program. Evaluation Review, 22
(3), 403–426.
Grossman, J. B., Chan, C. S., Schwartz, S. E., & Rhodes, J. E. (2012). The
test of time in school-based mentoring: The role of relationship duration
and re-matching on academic outcomes. American Journal of
Community Psychology, 49(1–2), 43–54. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10464-011-9435-0
Grossman, J. B., & Garry, E. M. (1997). Mentoring: A proven delinquency
prevention strategy. US Department of Justice, Office of Justice
Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Grossman, J. B., & Rhodes, J. E. (2002). The test of time: Predictors and
effects of duration in youth mentoring relationships. American Journal
of Community Psychology, 30(2), 199–219. https://doi.org/10.1023/
A:1014680827552
Hamilton, S. F., & Hamilton, M. A. (1992). Mentoring programs: Promise
and paradox. Phi Delta Kappan, 73(7), 546.
Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2006). Student-teacher relationships. In
G. G. Bear & K. M. Minke (Eds.), Children’s needs III: Development,
prevention, and intervention (pp. 59–71). National Association of
School Psychologists.
Hansen, K., Romens, K., & LaFleur, S. (2011). Final report on the
enhanced school-based mentoring pilot: Developing and substantiating
an evidence-based model. Big Brothers Big Sisters of America.
Havighurst, S. S., Wilson, K. R., Harley, A. E., Kehoe, C., Efron, D.,
Prior, M. (2013). “Tuning into kids”: Reducing young children’s beha­
vior problems using an emotion coaching parenting program. Child
Psychiatry & Human Development, 44(2), 247–264. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s10578-012-0322-1
Henderson, J. L., MacKay, S., & Peterson-Badali, M. (2006). Closing the
research-practice gap: Factors affecting adoption and implementation of
a children’s mental health program. Journal of Clinical Child and
Adolescent Psychology, 35(1), 2–12. https://doi.org/10.1207/
s15374424jccp3501_1
Herrera, C., DuBois, D. L., & Grossman, J. B. (2013). The role of risk:
Mentoring experiences and outcomes for youth with varying risk pro­
files. A Public/Private Ventures project published by MDRC. https://
www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/Role%20of%20Risk_Final-web%
20PDF.pdf
Herrera, C., Grossman, J. B., Kauh, T. J., Feldman, A. F., & McMaken, J.
(2007). Making a difference in schools: The Big Brothers Big Sisters
School-Based Mentoring impact study. Public/Private Ventures.
Herrera, C., Grossman, J. B., Kauh, T. J., & McMaken, J. (2011).
Mentoring in schools: An impact study of big brothers big sisters
school-based mentoring. Child Development, 82(1), 346–361. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01559.x
Hirschi, T. (1969). A control theory of delinquency. Criminology theory:
Selected classic readings, 1969, 289–305.
Holt-Lunstad, J., Robles, T. F., & Sbarra, D. A. (2017). Advancing social
connection as a public health priority in the United States. American
Psychologist, 72(6), 517–530. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000103
Holt-Lunstad, J., Smith, T. B., & Layton, J. B. (2010). Social relationships
and mortality risk: A meta-analytic review. PLoS Medicine, 7(7),
e1000316. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000316
Hughes, J. N., Cavell, T. A., Meehan, B. T., Zhang, D., & Collie, C. (2005).
Adverse school context moderates the outcomes of selective interventions
for aggressive children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73
(4), 731–736. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.73.4.731
Hurd, N. M., & Sellers, R. M. (2013). Black adolescents’ relationships
with natural mentors: Associations with academic engagement via
social and emotional development. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic
Minority Psychology, 19(1), 76–85. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031095
Hagler, M., Raposa, E. B., & Rhodes, J. (2019). Psychosocial profiles of
youth who acquire a natural mentor during a school year. Applied
Developmental Science, 23(2), 144–152. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10888691.2017.1342539
Jaffee, S. R., Bowes, L., Ouellet-Morin, I., Fisher, H. L., Moffitt, T. E.,
Merrick, M. T., & Arseneault, L. (2013). Safe, stable, nurturing relation­
ships break the intergenerational cycle of abuse: A prospective nation­
ally representative cohort of children in the United Kingdom. Journal of
 MENTORING AS MEANS AND END IN PROMOTING CHILD MENTAL HEALTH
Adolescent Health, 53(4), S4–S10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.
2013.04.007
James, C., Stams, G. J. J., Asscher, J. J., De Roo, A. K., & Van der
Laan, P. H. (2013). Aftercare programs for reducing recidivism among
juvenile and young adult offenders: A meta-analytic review. Clinical
Psychology Review, 33(2), 263–274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2012.
10.013
Jarjoura, G. R., Tanyu, M., Forbush, J., Herrera, C., & Keller, T. E. (2018).
Enhancement demonstration program. Technical report submitted to the
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. National
Criminal Justice Reference Center.
Johnson, S. B., & Pryce, J. M. (2013). Therapeutic mentoring: Reducing
the impact of trauma for foster youth. Child Welfare, 92(3), 9–25.
Johnson, V. L., Holt, L. J., Bry, B. H., & Powell, S. R. (2008). Effects of
an integrated prevention program on urban youth transitioning into high
school. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 24(2), 225–246. https://
doi.org/10.1080/15377900802089999
Karcher, M. J. (2005). The effects of developmental mentoring and high
school mentors’ attendance on their younger mentees’ self- esteem,
social skills, and connectedness. Psychology in the Schools, 42(1),
65–77. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20025
Karcher, M. J. (2008). The study of mentoring in the learning environment
(SMILE): A randomized evaluation of the effectiveness of school-based
mentoring. Prevention Science, 9(2), 99. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11121-008-0083-z
Karcher, M. J., Herrera, C., & Hansen, K. (2010). “I dunno, what do you
wanna do?”: Testing a framework to guide mentor training and activity
selection. New Directions for Youth Development, 2010(126), 51–69.
https://doi.org/10.1002/yd.349
Kazdin, A. E. (2019). Annual research review: Expanding mental health
services through novel models of intervention delivery. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 60(4), 455–472. https://doi.org/10.1111/
jcpp.12937
Keller, T. E., Drew, A. L., Clark-Shim, H., Spencer, R., & Herrera, C.
(2020). It’s about time: Staff support contacts and mentor volunteer
experiences. Journal of Youth Development, 15(4), 145–161. https://doi.
org/10.5195/jyd.2020.879
Keller, T. E., Perry, M., Spencer, R. (2020). Reducing social isolation through
formal youth mentoring: Opportunities and potential pitfalls. Clinical Social
Work Journal, 48, 35–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10615-019-00727-x
Keller, T. E., Spencer, R., Herrera, C., & McBeath, B. (2019). Changing
youth programs and settings: An experimental evaluation of the quality
mentoring systems initiative (Final Program Report). Portland State
University.
Keller, T.E. & Spencer, R. (2017). Prediction and prevention of premature
closures of mentoring relationships. The Study to Analyze
Relationships (STAR Project). U.S. Department of Justice, Office of
Justice Programs’ National Criminal Justice Reference Service,
Document Number 251461.
Kerr, D. C., & King, C. A. (2013). Youth with mental health needs. In D.
Dubois & M. Karcher (Eds.), Handbook of youth mentoring (pp.
325–340). SAGE Publications.
Kesselring, M., de Winter, M., Horjus, B., van de Schoot, R., & van
Yperen, T. (2012). Do parents think it takes a village? Parents’ attitudes
towards nonparental adults’ involvement in the upbringing and nurture
of children. Journal of Community Psychology, 40(8), 921–937. https://
doi.org/10.1002/jcop.21497
Kjøbli, J., & Bjørnebekk, G. (2013). A Randomized Effectiveness Trial of
Brief Parent Training: Six-Month Follow-Up. Research on Social Work
Practice, 23(6), 603–612. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731513492860
King, C. A., Arango, A., Kramer, A., Busby, D., Czyz, E., Foster, C. E.,
Gillespie, B. W., & YST Study Team. (2019). Association of the Youth-
Nominated Support Team Intervention for Suicidal Adolescents With
11- to 14-Year Mortality Outcomes: Secondary Analysis of a
297
Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA psychiatry, 76(5), 492–498. https://
doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2018.4358
Kupersmidt, J. B., Stump, K. N., Stelter, R. L., & Rhodes, J. E. (2017).
Mentoring program practices as predictors of match longevity. Journal of
Community Psychology, 45(5), 630–645. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.21883
Lacey, R., Kumari, M., & Bartley, M. (2014). Social isolation in childhood
and adult inflammation: Evidence from the national child development
study. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 50, 85–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
psyneuen.2014.08.007
Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical
papers. In D. Cartwright (Ed.). Harper and Row. (Original work pub­
lished 1944).
Li, J., & Julian, M. M. (2012). Developmental relationships as the active
ingredient: A unifying working hypothesis of “what works” across
intervention settings. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 82(2),
157. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1939-0025.2012.01151.x
Linardon, J., Cuijpers, P., Carlbring, P., Messer, M., & Fuller-
Tyszkiewicz, M. (2019). The efficacy of app-supported
smartphone interventions for mental health problems: A meta-analysis
of randomized controlled trials. World Psychiatry, 18(3), 325–336.
https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.20673
Lyons, M. D., & McQuillin, S. D. (2019). Risks and rewards of
school-based mentoring relationships: A reanalysis of the student men­
toring program evaluation. School Psychology, 34(1), 76–85. https://doi.
org/10.1037/spq0000265
Lyons, M. D., McQuillin, S. D., & Henderson, L. J. (2019). Finding the sweet
spot: Investigating the effects of relationship closeness and instrumental
activities in school-based mentoring. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 63(1–2), 88–98. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12283
Magill, M., Apodaca, T. R., Borsari, B., Gaume, J., Hoadley, A.,
Gordon, R., Tonigan, J. S., & Moyers, T. (2018). A meta-analysis of
motivational interviewing process: Technical, relational, and conditional
process models of change. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 86(2), 140–157. https://doi.org/10.1037/ccp0000250
Masten, A. S. (2001). Ordinary magic: Resilience processes in
development. American Psychologist, 56(3), 227. https://doi.org/10.
1037/0003-066X.56.3.227
Masten, A. S. (2013). Risk and resilience in development. In P. D. Zelazo
(Ed.), The Oxford handbook of developmental psychology, Vol. 2: Self
and other (pp. 579–607). Oxford University Press.
McCord, J. (1978). A thirty-year follow-up of treatment effects. American
Psychologist, 33(3), 284–289. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.33.3.284
McQuillin, S., Strait, G., Smith, B., & Ingram, A. (2015). Brief instru­
mental school-based mentoring for first-and second-year middle school
students: A randomized evaluation. Journal of Community Psychology,
43(7), 885–899. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.21719
McQuillin, S. D., Hagler, M., & Rhodes, J. E. (2020).
Paraprofessional youth mentoring: A framework for integrating
youth mentoring with helping institutions and professions.
Manuscript under review.
McQuillin, S. D., Lyons, M. D., Becker, K. D., Hart, M. J., & Cohen, K.
(2019). Strengthening and expanding child services in low resource
communities: The role of task-shifting and just-in-time training.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 63(3–4), 355–365.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12314
McQuillin, S. D., Lyons, M. D., Clayton, R. J., & Anderson, J. R. (2020).
Assessing the impact of school-based mentoring: Common problems
and solutions associated with evaluating nonprescriptive youth devel­
opment programs. Applied Developmental Science, 24(3), 215–229.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2018.1454837
McQuillin, S., Terry, J., Strait, G., & Smith, B. (2013). Innovation in
school-based mentoring: matching the context, structure, and goals of
mentoring with evidence-based practices. Advances in School Mental
Health Promotion, 6(4), 280–294.
298 CAVELL ET AL.
MENTOR. (2006). The national agenda for action: How to close
America’s mentoring gap. Alexandria, VA: Author. Retrieved
February 9, 2021 from http://www.michigan.gov/documentsnationala
genda_157944_7.pdf.
Mercy, J. A., & Saul, J. (2009). Creating a healthier future through early
interventions for children. Jama, 301(21), 2262–2264. https://doi.org/
10.1001/jama.2009.803
Millenky, M., Schwartz, S. E. O., & Rhodes, J. E. (2014). Supporting the
transition to adulthood among high school dropouts: An impact study of
the national guard youth challeNGe program. Prevention Science, 15(4),
448–459. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-013-0388-4
Miller, W. R., & Rollnick, S. (2012). Motivational interviewing: Helping
people change. Guilford press.
Morrow, K. V., & Styles, M. B. (1995). Building relationships with youth
in program settings: A study of Big Brothers/Big Sisters. Philadelphia:
Public/Private Ventures.
Morrison, M. O., & Helker, W. P. (2010). Child-teacher relationship
training: Using the power of the child-teacher relationship as
a school-based mental health intervention. In A. A. Drewes &
C. E. Schaefer (Eds.), School-based play therapy (pp. 181–195). John
Wiley & Sons Inc.
Mrazek, P. J., & Haggerty, R. J. (Eds.). (1994). Reducing risks for mental
disorders: Frontiers for preventative intervention research. National
Academy Press.
Murthy, V. H. (2020). Together: Loneliness, health and what happens
when we find connection. Profile Books.
Murray, L. K., Skavenski, S., Kane, J. C., Mayeya, J., Dorsey, S.,
Cohen, J. A., … Bolton, P. A. (2015). Effectiveness of trauma-focused
cognitive behavioral therapy among trauma-affected children in Lusaka,
Zambia: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Pediatrics, 169(8), 761–769.
https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2015.0580
Narayan, A. J., Rivera, L. M., Bernstein, R. E., Harris, W. W., &
Lieberman, A. F. (2018). Positive childhood experiences predict less
psychopathology and stress in pregnant women with childhood adver­
sity: A pilot study of the benevolent childhood experiences (BCEs)
scale. Child Abuse & Neglect, 78, 19–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
chiabu.2017.09.022
Patterson, G. R., Reid, J. B., & Dishion, T. J. (1992). A social interactional
approach: Antisocial boys. Oregon Social Learning Center & Castilian
Publishing Company.
Phillips, D. A., & Shonkoff, J. P. (Eds.). (2000). From neurons to neigh­
borhoods: The science of early childhood development. National
Academies Press.
Pianta, R. C., Hamre, B., & Stuhlman, M. (2003). Relationships between
teachers and children. Handbook of Psychology, 199–234.
Pryce, J. (2012). Mentor attunement: An approach to successful
school-based mentoring relationships. Child and Adolescent Social
Work Journal, 29(4), 285–305. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10560-012-
0260-6
Putnam, R. (2015). Our kids: The American dream in crisis. Simon and
Schuster.
Raposa, E. B., Dietz, N., & Rhodes, J. E. (2017). Trends in volunteer
mentoring in the United States: Analysis of a decade of census survey
data. American Journal of Community Psychology, 59(1–2), 3–14.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12117
Raposa, E. B., Rhodes, J., Stams, G. J. J., Card, N., Burton, S.,
Schwartz, S., … Hussain, S. (2019). The effects of youth mentoring
programs: A meta-analysis of outcome studies. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 48(3), 423–443. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-019-
00982-8
Resnick, M. D., Harris, L. J., & Blum, R. W. (1993). The impact of caring
and connectedness on adolescent health and well-being. Journal of
Paediatrics and Child Health, 29(Suppl. 1), S3–S9. https://doi.org/10.
1111/j.1440-1754.1993.tb02257.x
Ralph, A., Sanders., M. (2004). The ‘Teen Triple P’ Positive Parenting
Program: A preliminary evaluation. Trends & Issues in Crim and
Criminal Justice, 282, 1–6.
Rhodes, J. E., & DuBois, D. L. (2008). Mentoring relationships and
programs for youth. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17
(4), 254–258. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2008.00585.x
Rhodes, J. E., & DuBois, D. L. (2006). Understanding and facilitating the
youth mentoring movement. Social Policy Report, 20(3), 1–20.
Rhodes, J. E., Spencer, R., Keller, T. E., Liang, B., & Noam, G. (2006). A
model for the influence of mentoring relationships on youth
development. Journal of Community Psychology, 34(6), 691–707.
Rhodes, J., Liang, B., & Spencer, R. (2009). First do no harm: Ethical
principles for youth mentoring relationships. Professional Psychology,
Research and Practice, 40(5), 452. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015073
Rhodes, J. E. (2002). Stand by me: The risks and rewards of mentoring
today’s youth. Harvard University Press.
Rhodes, J. E. (2005). A model of youth mentoring. In D. L. DuBois &
M. J. Karcher (Eds.), Handbook of youth mentoring (pp. 30–43). Sage
Publications Ltd. https://0-doi-org.library.uark.edu/10.4135/
9781412976664.n3
Rhodes, J. E. (2020). Older and wiser: New ideas for youth mentoring in
the 21st century. Harvard University Press.
Rogers, C. R. (1967). On becoming a person: A therapist’s view of
psychotherapy. Constable.
Roggman, L., Boyce, L., & Innocenti, M. (2008). Developmental parenting:
A guide for early childhood practitioners. Paul H. Brookes Publishing.
Sabol, T. J., & Pianta, R. C. (2012). Recent trends in research on teacher–
child relationships. Attachment & Human Development, 14(3),
213–231. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616734.2012.672262
Sam-Agudu, N. A., Odiachi, A., Bathnna, M. J., Ekwueme, C. N.,
Nwanne, G., Iwu, E. N., & Cornelius, L. J. (2018). “They do not see
us as one of them”: A qualitative exploration of mentor mothers’
working relationships with healthcare workers in rural North-Central
Nigeria. Human Resources for Health, 16(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.
1186/s12960-018-0313-9
Sánchez, B., Esparza, P., Berardi, L., & Pryce, J. (2011). Mentoring in the
context of Latino youth’s broader village during their transition from
high school. Youth & Society, 43(1), 225–252. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0044118X10363774
Sánchez, B., Esparza, P., & Colón, Y. (2008). Natural mentoring under the
microscope: An investigation of mentoring relationships and Latino
adolescents’ academic performance. Journal of Community
Psychology, 36(4), 468–482. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.20250
Sanders, M. (2008). Triple P-positive parenting program as a public health
approach to strengthening parenting. Journal of Family Psychology, 22
(4), 506–517. doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.22.3.506
Scafe, M. S., & Cavell, T. A. (2020). Expanding parents’ role in their
children’s mentoring relationships. University of Arkansas.
Scales, P. C., Benson, P. L., Roehlkepartain, E. C., Hintz, N. R.,
Sullivan, T. K., & Mannes, M. (2004). The role of parental status and
child age in the engagement of children and youth with adults outside
their families. Journal of Family Issues, 25(6), 735–760. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0192513X03259139
Scales, P. C., & Gibbons, J. L. (1996). Extended family members and
unrelated adults in the lives of young adolescents: A research agenda.
Journal of Early Adolescence, 16(4), 365–389. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0272431696016004001
Scardera, S., Perret, L. C., Ouellet-Morin, I., Gariépy, G., Juster, R.,
Bovin, M., & Geoffroy, M. (2020). Association of social support during
adolescence with depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation in young
adults. JAMA, 3(12), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.
2020.27491
Schwartz, S. E. O., Rhodes, J. E., Spencer, R., & Grossman, J. B. (2013).
Youth initiated mentoring: Investigating a new approach to working with
 MENTORING AS MEANS AND END IN PROMOTING CHILD MENTAL HEALTH
vulnerable adolescents. American Journal of Community Psychology, 52
(1–2), 155–169. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-013-9585-3
Sege, R., & Linkenbach, J. (2014). Essentials for childhood: Promoting healthy
outcomes from positive experiences. Pediatrics, 133(6), e1489–e1491.
Sege, R. D., & Browne, C. H. (2017). Responding to ACEs with HOPE:
Health outcomes from positive experiences. Academic Pediatrics, 17
(7), S79–S85.
Shirk, S. R., Karver, M. S., & Brown, R. (2011). The alliance in child and
adolescent psychotherapy. Psychotherapy, 48(1), 17–24. https://doi.org/10.
1037/a0022181
Shonkoff J. P., Garner, A. S., Siegel, B. S., Dobbins, M. I., Earls, M. F.,
Garner, A. S., McGuinn, L., Pascoe, J., & Wood, D. (2012). The life­
long effects of early childhood adversity and toxic stress. Pediatrics,
129, e232–e246.
Siegel, D. J. (2015). The developing mind: How relationships and the
brain interact to shape who we are. Guilford Press.
Singla, D. R., Kohrt, B. A., Murray, L. K., Anand, A., Chorpita, B. F., &
Patel, V. (2017). Psychological treatments for the world: Lessons from
low-and middle-income countries. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology,
13(1), 149–181. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032816-045217
Snellman, K., Silva, J. M., & Putnam, R. D. (2015). Inequity outside the
classroom: Growing class differences in participation in extracurricular
activities. Voices in Urban Education, 40, 7–14.
Sourk, M., Weiler, L. M., & Cavell, T. A. (2019). Risk, support, and
reasons for wanting a mentor: Comparing parents of youth in commu­
nity versus school-based matches. Children and Youth Services Review,
99, 156–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.01.046
Spencer, R., Gowdy, G., Drew, A. L., & Rhodes, J. E. (2019). “Who
Knows Me the Best and Can Encourage Me the Most?”: Matching and
Early Relationship Development in Youth-Initiated Mentoring
Relationships with System-Involved Youth. Journal of Adolescent
Research, 34(1), 3–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/0743558418755686
Spencer, R. (2006). Understanding the mentoring process between adoles­
cents and adults. Youth and Society, 37(3), 287–315. https://doi.org/10.
1177/0743558405278263
Spencer, R. (2007). ‘It’s not what I expected’: A qualitative study of youth
mentoring relationship failures. Journal of Adolescent Research, 22(4),
331–354. https://doi.org/10.1177/0743558407301915
Spencer, R., & Basualdo-Delmonico, A. (2014). Family involvement in
the youth mentoring process: A focus group study with program staff.
Children and Youth Services Review, 41, 75–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.childyouth.2014.03.013
Spencer, R., Pryce, J., Barry, J., Walsh, J., & Basualdo-Delmonico, A.
(2020). Deconstructing empathy: A qualitative examination of mentor
perspective-taking and adaptability in youth mentoring relationships.
Children and Youth Services Review, 114, 105043. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.childyouth.2020.105043
Spencer, R., & Rhodes, J. E. (2005). A counseling and psychotherapy
perspective on mentoring relationships. In D. L. DuBois &
M. J. Karcher (Eds.), Handbook of youth mentoring (pp. 118–132).
Sage Publications.
Spencer, R., Tugenberg, T., Ocean, M., Schwartz, S. E. O., & Rhodes, J. E.
(2016). ‘Somebody who was on my side’: A qualitative examination of
youth initiated mentoring. Youth & Society, 48(3), 402–424. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0044118X13495053
Taussig H. N., Culhane, S. E., Hettleman, D. (2007). Fostering Healthy
Futures: An innovative preventive intervention for preadolescent youth
in out-of-home care. Child Welfare, 86(5):113–31.
Taussig, H. N., & Culhane, S. E. (2010). Impact of a mentoring and skills
group program on mental health outcomes for maltreated children in
foster care. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 164(8),
739–746. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpediatrics.2010.124
Tierney, J.P., Grossman, J.B., Resch, N. L. (1995). Making a Difference:
An Impact Study of Big Brothers/Big Sisters. Public/Private Ventures
Philadelphia.
299
Temkin, A. B., Schild, J., Falk, A., & Bennett, S. M. (2020). Mobile apps
for youth anxiety disorders: A review of the evidence and forecast of
future innovations. Professional Psychology, Research and Practice, 51
(4), 400. https://doi.org/10.1037/pro0000342
Thornberg, R. (2015). Distressed Bullies, Social Positioning and Odd
Victims: Young People’s Explanations of Bullying. Children &
Society, 29, 15–25.
Utsey, S. O., Howard, A., & Williams, O., III. (2003). Therapeutic group
mentoring with African American male adolescents. Journal of Mental
Health Counseling, 25(2), 126–139. https://doi.org/10.17744/mehc.25.
2.q3wda06r0ul0x97c
Van Dam, L., Neels, S., de Winter, M., Branje, S., Wijsbroek, S.,
Hutschemaekers, G., Dekker, A., Sekreve, A., Zwaanswijk, M.,
Wissink, I., & Stams, G. J. (2017). Youth initiated mentors: Do they
offer an alternative for out-of-home placement in youth care? The
British Journal of Social Work, 47(6), 1764–1780. https://doi.org/10.
1093/bjsw/bcx092
Van Dam, L., & Schwartz, S. (2020). Cultivation of natural mentors to
strengthen resiliency in youth: A program theory of youth initiated
mentoring. Journal of Social Intervention: Theory and Practice, 29(1),
3–20. http://doi.org/10.18352/jsi.623
Varga, S. M., & Zaff, J. F. (2018). Webs of support: An integrative
framework of relationships, social networks, and social support for
positive youth development. Adolescent Research Review, 3(1), 1–11.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40894-017-0076-x
Vázquez, A. L., & Villodas, M. T. (2019). Racial/ethnic differences in
caregivers’ perceptions of the need for and utilization of adolescent
psychological counseling and support services. Cultural Diversity &
Ethnic Minority Psychology, 25(3), 323. https://doi.org/10.1037/
cdp0000255
Viola, A. S., Levonyan-Radloff, K., Drachtman, R., Porter, J., Savage, B.,
Kaveney, A., Sridharan, A., Delnevo, C. D., Coups, E. J., &
Devine, K. A. (2020). Understanding barriers to transition from pedia­
tric to adult care among young adults with sickle cell disease to develop
a transition mentor program. Clinical Practice in Pediatric Psychology.
https://doi.org/10.1037/cpp0000372
Werner, E. E. (1995). Resilience in development. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 4(3), 81–84.
Werner, E. E. (1986). Resilient offspring of alcoholics: A longitudinal
study from birth to age 18. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 47(1), 34–40.
Weiler, L. M., Haddock, S. A., Zimmerman, T. S., Henry, K. L.,
Krafchick, J. L., & Youngblade, L. M. (2015). Time-limited, structured
youth mentoring and adolescent problem behaviors. Applied
Developmental Science, 19(4), 196–205. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10888691.2015.1014484
Weiler, L. M., Sourk, M., Spencer, R., & Cavell, T. A. (2020). Caregiver-
initiated mentoring: Developing a working model to mitigate social
isolation. Journal of Clinical Social Work, 48(1), 6–17. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10615-019-00723-1
Weisz, J. R., & Kazdin, A. E. (Eds.). (2010). Evidence-based psychothera­
pies for children and adolescents. Guilford Press.
Werner, E. E., & Smith, R. S. (1992). Overcoming the odds: High risk
children from birth to adulthood. Cornell University Press.
Wiemann, C. M., Graham, S. C., Garland, B. H., Raphael, J. L.,
Jones, M. D., Sanchez-Fournier, B. E., … Benavides, J. M. (2020).
In-depth interviews to assess the relevancy and fit of a peer-mentored
intervention for transition-age youth with chronic medical conditions.
Journal of Pediatric Nursing, 50, 121–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
pedn.2019.04.028
Wheeler, M. E., Keller, T. E., & DuBois, D. L. (2010). Review of three
recent randomized trials of school-based mentoring: making sense of
mixed findings. Social Policy Report, 24(3).
Zimmerman, M. A., Bingenheimer, J. B., & Notaro, P. C. (2002). Natural
mentors and adolescent resiliency: A study with urban youth. American
Journal of Community Psychology, 30(2), 221–243.