Mentoring for Youth with Disabilities

Introduction

Within the United States, there are approximately 6.7 million students aged 3 to 21 who receive special education services.³ Thirty-four percent of these students have a learning disability, 20 percent have a speech or language impairment, 9 percent have autism, 6 percent have a developmental delay, 14 percent have other health impairments, and the remainder face other types of physical disabilities.^{3, 4}

Young people with disabilities encounter many challenges and barriers to participating in society. For instance, they often experience social isolation and physical exclusion,⁵ are at risk of abuse and poor developmental outcomes, and are less equipped with the emotional, social, and cognitive resources to fully achieve positive life outcomes.^{2, 5} Many youth with disabilities also lack educational and employment opportunities.^{2, 6} For instance, youth with disabilities are underrepresented in higher education and have a lower probability of completing school than children without disabilities.^{7, 8} Furthermore, they are at risk of living below the poverty line⁹ and are more likely to encounter extreme social and economic disparities relative to youth without disabilities.⁴ Negative attitudes, discrimination, lack of resources and supports, and inaccessible environments contribute to these trends.^{10, 11}

The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities aims to enhance inclusion and participation of youth with disabilities toward realization of their human rights.¹² Mentoring is one promising mechanism that could help achieve this goal by enhancing youth’s inclusion in society.^{13, 14, 15, 16, 17} Mentors can serve as role models and share experiences while helping to support youth in their academic, career, and psychosocial development^{5, 15, 18} and in their transition to adulthood. Mentors can help teach or advise youth, offer support and coping strategies, and help them to feel less alone.¹⁹

Until recently, most mentoring programs did not include or specifically target youth with disabilities.^{14, 20} Therefore, the number of youth with disabilities in the United States who are engaged in mentoring is largely unknown. Studies focusing on mentoring for youth with disabilities show potential benefits on the transition to postsecondary education and employment,^{14, 21} self-esteem, social competence,²² and independent living skills.²³ Having mentors for youth with disabilities also may be important for the development of social capital, self-determination, quality of life, and career and employment goals.^{14, 15, 21, 24, 25, 26, 27}

Scope of Review

For this review, disability is defined as follows (using the World Health Organization’s definition)⁸: “Disability is an umbrella term covering impairments, activity limitations, and participation restrictions. An impairment is a problem in body function or structure; an activity limitation is a difficulty encountered by an individual in executing a task or action; while a participation restriction is a problem experienced by an individual in involvement in life situations. Disability is, therefore, not just a health problem. It is a complex phenomenon reflecting the interaction between features of a person’s body and features of the society in which they live.”

Furthermore, the National Mentoring Resource Center defines mentoring as “relationships and activities that take place between youth (i.e., mentees) and older or more experienced persons (i.e., mentors) who are acting in a nonprofessional helping capacity, whether through a program or, more informally, to provide support that benefits one or more areas of the young person’s development” (for further details, see What is Mentoring?).

Studies were included in which:

1. Youth participants are age 25 and under, or the average age of the sample was 18 or under; or findings were delineated by age, with findings outlined for a subsample of youth 25 and under. This target age was expanded from that used in other NMRC reviews because youth with disabilities are often delayed in their transition to adulthood relative to youth without disabilities.²⁸ We sought to include youth up to age 25 years to capture the “other side” of their transition to adulthood.
2. At least 80 percent of study participants have a disability (using the World Health Organization’s⁸ definition of disability), or the authors conducted analyses that examine youth with disabilities as a distinct group.
3. The study was a report of quantitative or qualitative empirical research with sufficient methodological detail included to be able to assess study rigor and findings.
4. The study reported findings that bear on one or more of the four core questions for the review and examined either (a) an intentional, structured intervention or program involving mentoring, or (b) natural mentoring relationships occurring with youth with disabilities.

Mental health conditions were excluded as a disability because an NMRC review has already been conducted on mentoring youth with mental health challenges.¹ Temporary disabilities (e.g., cancer and the youth has fully recovered) and chronic illnesses/conditions that are not classified as a disability using the World Health Organization’s definition⁸ were also excluded. We also excluded chronic illness (e.g., chronic pain, diabetes) because a systematic review of peer support interventions for youth with chronic illness is already reported elsewhere.²⁹ In addition, we excluded program descriptions and studies that did not have empirical findings.

A literature search was conducted to identify potentially eligible journal articles, book chapters, and other types of reports, including searches of PubMed, ProQuest, PsycINFO, and Google Scholar, using an established set of keywords. Keywords used in the searches included “disability” (and a broad list of various types of physical, developmental, cognitive, and intellectual disabilities), “children and youth,” and “mentoring.” After two authors independently applied our inclusion criteria, we found a total of 40 studies addressing these questions with most of the studies focusing on youth aged 25 and under.

What are the Demonstrated Effects of Mentoring on Youth with Disabilities?

Children with disabilities are more likely to report being victims of peer aggression and social exclusion because they often do not have the protective function of friendships.^{10, 30} They are bullied at disproportionally higher rates compared to youth without disabilities and are nearly three times as likely to experience social exclusion including limited social integration, fewer friends, and lower levels of friend support.^{10, 31} Given that they often encounter social isolation and exclusion, social support is an area of particular need for youth with disabilities. Therefore, mentoring may be a good resource for them to build friendships and other social networks that facilitate their development. Research also suggests that mentoring can improve academic and employment outcomes—areas of need for many youth with disabilities. This section presents findings on the potential benefits of mentoring for youth with disabilities.

Research

Academic and Career Development

Six studies in this review assessed the benefits of mentoring for academic outcomes and career development. For example, Kolakowsky-Hayner et al.³² used a pre-post survey to evaluate a community, group-based mentoring program (i.e., Back on Track to Success) to help 131 youth (aged 16 to 26) return to work and school after a brain or spinal cord injury. Participating youth reported that mentoring was beneficial for achieving postsecondary educational goals. In another study using a repeated measures design, Bell³³ explored the effects of an online mentoring program for transition-age youth with blindness and found a significant increase in efficacy to make career-related decisions compared to their efficacy at the beginning of the program. Similarly, Kim-Rupnow and Burgstahler³⁴ evaluated a community-based online mentoring program using a cross-sectional post-survey design and found a significant improvement in knowledge of career options. O’Mally and Antonelli¹⁸ used a longitudinal design to explore how a one-on-one career mentoring program benefited college students who were legally blind and found a pattern of improved career adaptability among participants over time. Burgstahler and Chang’s³⁵ study assessed the impact of the Access STEM/DO-IT online program among youth with various types of disabilities. Using a case study design, they found that youth improved their career options (e.g., interest in STEM) over time. Finally, Powers et al.³⁶ assessed the impact of an online group-based program on youth with various types of disabilities using a RCT (randomized controlled trial) design and reported significant improvements in educational planning among participants compared to controls.³⁶

Employment

Six studies in this review found that mentoring was associated with employment-related improvements, specifically improved knowledge of employment services and supports,^{37, 38} transition to employment,^{32, 37} knowledge of employment preparedness³⁴ (e.g., the key skills needed to apply for a job), increased job-seeking self-efficacy and assertiveness in job hunting,¹⁸ as well as improvements in employability.³⁹ Francis et al.^37,38 used a mixed-method design (i.e., surveys and qualitative methods) to evaluate a group mentoring program serving youth with various types of disabilities. They found improved self-rated knowledge of employment services and supports and different types of competitive employment positions.^{37, 38} Kolakowsky-Hayner et al.³² evaluated a community-based group mentoring approach for youth with a brain or spinal cord injury. The researchers used a pre-post survey design and reported that promising numbers of program participants showed progress toward achieving their goals of postsecondary education, employment, and community independence. Another study focusing on youth with various types of disabilities³⁴ involved an online group mentoring program and found significant improvements in perceived Internet and computer skills, career options, employment preparedness, perseverance, self-esteem, social skills, self-advocacy, and independence. O’Mally and Antonelli’s¹⁸ study focused on a one-to-one career mentoring program serving youth with vision impairments. Using a longitudinal design, they found that participants experienced increased job-seeking self-efficacy and career adaptability, and made significant gains in assertiveness in job hunting. Another study³⁹ found that youth with spinal cord injury participating in an online, phone-based mentoring program experienced significant improvements in student education planning and transition awareness.

Psychosocial Health, Quality of Life, and Protective Factors

Fourteen studies included in this review found positive mentoring outcomes among youth with disabilities in areas which are important protective factors, including self-determination,^{25, 40} self-efficacy,¹⁸ social and emotional support,^{41, 42, 43} self-advocacy,^{25, 34, 42, 44} self-esteem,^{34, 45, 46} self-confidence,^{16, 47} and sense of community.^{39, 47} Studies showing benefits in these areas used a wide range of methods (e.g., quasi-experimental, pre-post, qualitative) and focused on youth with various disabilities including intellectual disability,^{40, 43, 45} vision impairments,¹⁸ pediatric liver transplant,⁴¹ deafness,⁴² autism,⁴⁶ and various additional disabilities.^{34, 44, 48} Studies also included a wide range of mentoring models, such as one-to-one mentoring^{18, 41, 43} taking place at a college, out-patient or employment setting; group-based mentoring;^{34, 40, 44} e-mentoring;^{25, 34, 48, 49} naturally occurring mentoring;^{42, 45} and mixed models.³⁴ We did not note any strong patterns in outcomes based on methodological design, type of disability, or type of mentoring.

Eleven studies showed improvements in quality of life and social connections. Specifically, four studies^{41, 46, 50, 51} using various methodological designs (i.e., pre-post, case study, RCT) showed enhanced quality of life among youth with autism, brain injury, pediatric transplants, and other various types of disabilities (i.e., learning, emotional, behavioral). One study found an improved ability to manage their condition⁴⁹ among those with juvenile arthritis. Studies focusing on youth with autism that used pre-post designs showed improvements in social anxiety⁴⁶ and empathy.⁵² A qualitative study further found that role modeling⁴² helped youth with deafness. Improvements in social skills,³⁴ social acceptance,⁴⁷ social connectedness,^{46, 47, 53} ability to make new friends,²² and positive attitudes toward disability³³ were seen for youth with autism, developmental disabilities, learning disabilities, physical disabilities, blindness, and other types of disabilities. These studies used survey, pre-post, and qualitative designs.

Transition and Life Skills

Five studies using a range of designs (e.g., 3 RCTs, pre-post surveys) highlighted that mentoring yielded improvements in skills related to the transition to adulthood and life skills. Specifically, Powers et al.^{16, 36, 51} used an RCT design in three separate studies to assess the impact of mentoring programs for youth with various types of disabilities. They found significant differences between the treatment and comparison groups at post-intervention and/or follow-up in transition-related goals and planning, accessing transition services,⁵¹ engagement in independent living activities,⁵¹ and knowledge about strategies to promote independence,16 as well as significant improvements over time in program participants relative to the control group in transition awareness.³⁶ Kolowsky-Hayner’s³² evaluation of a community, group-based mentoring program for youth with brain and spinal cord injury used a pre-post survey and found improvements in community independence³² over time.

Studies within this review also reported on benefits of mentoring for the development of life skills. For example, Powers¹⁶ evaluated an online and in-person mentoring program for youth with physical disabilities, using an RCT design and found significant improvements in daily living skills (i.e., choice management, problem-solving)^{16, 54} compared to controls. Kramer et al.⁵⁴ similarly found improvements in problem-solving over time for a one-to-one e-mentoring program for youth with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Another study evaluated an in-person, group-based mentoring program for youth with intellectual disabilities using a pre-post design and found significant improvements in self-regulation and assertiveness.⁴⁰ Two studies focusing on youth with physical disabilities participating in online mentoring programs found significant improvements in typing skills⁵⁵ as well as Internet and computer skills.³⁴

Types of Mentoring Models

Of the studies included within our review, five different types of mentoring models were studied. Two studies involved naturally occurring mentoring,^{42, 45} fifteen involved one-to-one mentoring, (see references ^{17, 18, 22, 24, 26, 41, 43, 46, 50, 53, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60}) and eleven studied group-based mentoring programs(see ^{13, 16, 32, 34, 36, 37, 38, 40, 44, 51, 52}). Online or e-mentoring was studied in 21 evaluations (see ^{13, 16, 25, 33, 34, 35, 36, 39, 47, 48, 49, 51, 54, 55, 58, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66}), revealing both the promise and relevance of this modality given that it helps to address many of the barriers that youth with disabilities often encounter in traveling to meet a mentor. Six studies had mixed models (i.e., combined approaches).^{13,16,34,36,51,58} The studies of naturally occurring mentoring focused on youth with deafness and youth with learning disabilities, whereas the one-to-one based mentoring interventions focused on youth with a wide variety of disabilities including intellectual, learning, and developmental disabilities; autism; blindness; pediatric transplants; acquired brain injury; and various other (i.e., mixed) types of disabilities. The group-based models focused on youth with physical and intellectual disabilities, acquired brain injury, spinal cord injury, autism, and various other types of disabilities. Finally, studies using an e-mentoring approach focused on youth with cerebral palsy; spina bifida; intellectual, learning, and developmental disabilities; blindness; spinal cord injury; juvenile arthritis; and various types of physical disabilities.

Conclusions

1. Research on mentoring programs and interventions for youth with disabilities shows that there are potential benefits of mentoring on academics, employment, psychosocial health and quality of life, and transition-related and life skills.
2. Given the various mentoring formats and disability types included in the studies, it is difficult to draw conclusions about what formats work best for which types of youth.
3. The limited number of RCTs conducted and the various types of outcomes explored in studies to date only allows for tentative conclusions about the effectiveness of mentoring programs for youth with disabilities.

What Factors or Conditions Influence the Effectiveness of Mentoring for Youth with Disabilities?

Also, the impact of mentoring has been thought to depend on program practices (e.g., training, supervision, characteristics of the mentor).⁶⁹ For example, the impact of a mentoring program may be stronger if the program includes structured training with continued intermittent training and supervision⁶⁷ or if it involves mentors who also live with disabilities.⁶⁹ The impact may also depend on program location and organizational culture and climate.

Research

Demographics and Type of Disability

For example, in one study of secondary and postsecondary students (n=189) with a university-defined disability (e.g., autism, learning disability), the effects of a virtual mentoring program to keep students involved in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) were found to vary by type of disability and race/ethnicity.²⁵ More specifically, minority students did not experience gains in self-determination that were apparent for nonminority students. Also, students with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) actually decreased in their math-related self-efficacy, whereas students without ADHD made gains in this area.²⁵ Burgstahler and Chang⁶¹ also found gender differences in the perceived value of a mentoring program for students with disabilities. Male DO-IT program participants reported more interest, or saw more value, in STEM areas of career goals and financial security, while females reported more interest in program areas related to independent living.⁶¹ Thus, although no studies in our review formally examined moderators, these qualitative findings suggest that race/ethnicity, gender, and type of disability may influence program effectiveness and should be prioritized as potential moderators in future studies.

Communication

A small group of studies suggest that communication between mentors and youth may influence the impact of mentoring: stronger communication may foster stronger program benefits. One study involving the DO-IT program found that youth particularly enjoyed “having conversations about their work plans for the future”.⁶¹ It was these types of conversations that fostered youth satisfaction and, thus, potentially influenced educational and employment outcomes.¹³ One e-mentoring study with a small group of mentoring dyads (n=9)⁵³ reported that the type of communication style within the mentoring relationship affected its success.⁵³ Another e-mentoring study found that unsuccessful mentoring pairs used a more formal and distant communication style, whereas successful dyads had mentors who used a more informal and supportive communication style.⁶⁴

Communication was also highlighted as important in an evaluation of a mentoring program for young adults with intellectual disabilities on a college campus (n=24 participants across three focus groups).⁵⁷ One of the main themes in this study was that program effectiveness was perceived to be affected by the strength of communication and collaboration across stakeholders (e.g., with parents and professors).⁵⁷ Combined with the findings highlighting the importance of strong mentor-mentee communication, these findings suggest that the effects of mentoring may be strengthened by strong communication on both the dyadic and programmatic levels.

Conclusions

1. Gender and race/ethnicity of program participants may strengthen or weaken program effectiveness; however, research to understand whether mentoring programs should be designed to target youth with specific types of disabilities or whether a more generic approach could be similarly effective is lacking.
2. Communication (e.g., strength, style) between mentor and mentee emerged as another potential factor that may affect outcomes of mentoring for youth with disabilities.

What Processes Are Most Important in Linking Mentoring to Outcomes for Youth with Disabilities?

In the field of mentoring for youth with disabilities, some researchers have begun to apply these theories and others (e.g., relational cultural theory) to their research but, to date, there is no single dominant theory for how mentoring impacts youth with disabilities. The studies reviewed in this section are suggestive of some of the important processes that may ultimately lead to positive youth outcomes, such as work, school, or relationship improvements. Where possible, we group studies together by mediator (i.e., the processes through which mentoring achieves its benefits) and/or type of disability.

Research

Social Processes

Mentoring relationships can have effects on social processes and relationships (e.g., improved social skills, improved relationships with parents or peers). In addition, the impact of mentoring on specific youth outcomes, such as employment and college success can be achieved through effects on other relationships, making these relationships an important process in linking mentoring with outcomes. For example, using data from the classic Big Brothers Big Sisters evaluation,⁶⁸ Rhodes et al.⁷⁰ found that the impact of mentoring on academic outcomes occurred, in part, through improved relationships with parents.

One small qualitative study of 22 adolescents with physical disabilities, such as spina bifida or cerebral palsy, were connected with 5 mentors online for 25 sessions over 6 months.⁵⁵ Youth’s responses to semistructured interviews postintervention suggest that they felt the program increased their social connections with other teens, reduced their feelings of loneliness, and increased their feelings of social acceptance.⁴⁷ A second qualitative study with adolescents with autism spectrum disorders reported that both youth and other stakeholders (e.g., parents, mentors, staff) had improved social connectedness and willingness to take social risks.⁴⁶ These social outcomes could certainly foster distal improvements in a wide range of areas.

Learning Processes

Another important process that research suggests could mediate the ultimate outcomes of mentoring is knowledge or learning. Two studies suggest that youth learn important information though mentoring. One study examined the use of peer mentors for youth in a cosmetology program and found improvements in work-related performance; one youth reported that a peer mentor provided them an opportunity to learn and “ask questions that¹⁴ they may have been hesitant to ask before working with (their mentors)”.⁵⁸ There was learning taking place through the provision of the peer mentorship program, which focused on praise, corrective feedback, and demonstrations.⁵⁸ These types of processes could then support further positive outcomes.

Another mentoring program, the Family Employment Awareness Training (FEAT), focused on improving competitive employment for youth with disabilities and reported that expectations and knowledge improved through the program.^{37, 38} Relatedly, Barnard-Brak and colleagues²⁴ conducted a study involving 43 high school students attending a one-to-one mentoring program aimed at improving academic outcomes for students with a variety of disabilities. Participation improved youth’s attitudes toward help-seeking (e.g., requesting accommodations).²⁴ As stated earlier, theories have suggested cognitive, emotional, and modeling pathways to ultimate outcomes in mentoring, and some of these preliminary qualitative studies suggest that examining attitude change and enhanced knowledge may similarly inform our understanding of how mentoring influences outcomes for youth with disabilities.

Self-determination

Some research suggests that self-determination is an outcome of mentoring participation. One study further suggests that it also may help to explain how mentoring achieves impacts on quality of life.⁵¹ “Take Charge” is a mentoring program for youth enrolled in special education and involved in the foster care system. An evaluation of this program reported that self-determination partially mediated, or explained, effects on enhanced quality of life for participants.⁵¹ Another study found that e-mentoring was empowering for youth with special needs.⁶⁵ While the study did not test empowerment, or self-determination, as a potential mediator, it could be important in fostering other positive outcomes. Although the field of mentoring for youth with disabilities is in its infancy, these two studies together suggest that fostering the process of enhancing self-determination and empowerment may be important; however, research in this area is notably limited.

Emotional Support

Finally, emotional support is a common process that is addressed by mentoring programs for many different groups of youth, as it is a key process in youth development. One qualitative study on youth with hearing impairments reported that emotional support, in addition to advice-giving and role modeling, were important for mentees in achieving career success.⁴² Informal mentors provided a foundation for the mentees to break through common barriers to career success (e.g., lack of self-belief) for deaf youth. The relationships assisted these youth by advocating for additional needed support services and having faith and belief in them as they struggled to move forward in their lives.

Conclusions

1. Potential areas for formal tests of mediation roughly map onto previous conceptual models of youth mentoring, namely a socioemotional mediating pathway, a cognitive pathway, and a modeling pathway.
2. Overall, the field of mentoring interventions for children, youth, and young adults with disabilities needs to move beyond qualitative research to rigorously test potential mediators that have emerged as important in qualitative studies.

Have Mentoring Programs and Supports for Youth with Disabilities Reached Intended Youth, Been Implemented with High Quality, and Been Adopted and Sustained?

These programs have shown some evidence of reach through their ability to enroll a targeted number of participants. However, with the exception of the DO-IT program, most of the mentoring programs discussed in this review have not been adopted on a wider scale. Our review indicates that relatively little is known about best practices for setting up a sustainable and effective mentoring program for youth with disabilities.

Research

Challenges in Mentoring Youth with Disabilities

Several studies in this review highlighted challenges encountered by programs and the mentors they support when serving this population. Some mentors found it difficult to engage youth and to develop a rapport with them,⁷² particularly engaging younger mentees in career development conversations. This may have been a result of youth with disabilities often starting to think about employment and careers at a later stage compared to youth without disabilities.²⁸ Communication style was highlighted in Shpigelman and Gill’s⁶⁴ study where they noted that unsuccessful mentoring was associated with a more formal style and distant tone. Others similarly reported challenges common to mentoring other populations of youth—for example, that having a mismatch in the values, work styles, or personalities of the youth and mentor, combined with distancing behavior⁶⁴ hindered communication. Pham²⁶ found that building positive mentoring relationships requires sustained rather than time-limited or random efforts. Mentors need to think about communicating in a way that enhances trust and reduces feelings of alienation.²⁶ This work suggests that additional and/or tailored training and support beyond that which is provided in more typical mentoring programs is needed when working with this population to ensure that mentors are adequately prepared for the unique challenges that these youth are experiencing.

Other studies highlighted difficulties with the accessibility of the program setting,⁷³ challenges in arranging transportation,^{17, 73} and/or overprotective parents.⁷³ Other hurdles specific to mentoring youth with disabilities include that there is not a “one-size-fits-all” approach; mentoring programs should be designed specifically for the youth and type of disability that they are targeting.³ It is also difficult to assimilate persons from diverse backgrounds, needs, and abilities into one mentoring program.⁴² Barnfather et al.⁵⁵ also noted that the age and ability level of the participants need to be considered when matching them. Others (e.g., Pham²⁶) discovered that a program’s own evaluation efforts may be challenged given that youth with learning disabilities, autism, and intellectual disabilities had difficulties completing some of the self-assessment outcome measures. Bedell et al.⁷⁴ found that youth with acquired brain injury had social participation barriers and fewer strategies for overcoming them compared to youth without disabilities. Because mentoring is an inherently social activity, some youth with disabilities may need support and resources beyond that which is provided by mentoring to help them achieve their goals. Other challenges noted by programs mentoring youth with disabilities include lack of mentor training, length of time for mentoring,^{17, 49, 64, 75} difficulty locating mentors,⁷⁶ and challenges specific to e-mentoring (e.g., connectivity, security, privacy).²⁵

Reach and Engagement

Very few studies in this review reported on reach and engagement (i.e., participation in the program). Of those that did, one study reported a mean engagement of 8.53/10 (i.e., participants self-reported on their engagement level with the program).⁴⁹ The Kramer et al.⁵⁴ study reported that mentees had high rates of attendance (87 percent) in peer mentoring calls and high rates of engagement within these calls, suggesting that mentoring is a promising approach for engaging this population. They also noted that some mentors with disabilities relied on a script to maintain engagement with participants.⁵⁴ The highest rates of fidelity were achieved when addressing objectives related to participants’ unique interests and strengths or goals.⁵⁴

Powers et al. found that having experiential and hands-on activities (e.g., visiting colleges, shadowing professionals on job sites, touring STEM clubs and organizations, volunteering) helped to increase engagement in the mentoring relationship.⁷² Francis et al.³⁷ further noted that having small group activities helped with engagement of participants. Others⁵⁷ reported that clearly articulating the expectations of mentors at the outset helped with participant engagement. Requiring a social component (i.e., meeting face-to-face) is also a catalyst for more frequent, spontaneous, natural interactions, helping to foster a meaningful bond.

Three studies highlighted that e-mentoring can help to reach and engage youth because it uses a convenient format, can reach youth in remote locations, and is anonymous.^{15, 25, 77} Gregg et al.,^{25, 48} for example, found that a collaborative use of online learning modules, in which mentors and participants met to complete these modules, was essential to participant engagement (i.e., participation in the program). Another aspect of engagement, noted in two studies,^{16, 78} was the importance of having family supports and engaging family members in the intervention.

Quality of Implementation

Six studies within this review reported that their mentoring program or intervention was feasible and acceptable to the participants.^{17, 22, 46, 54, 66, 74}

Adoption and Sustainability

Some studies within this review reported on the adoption and sustainability of mentoring programs for youth with disabilities. For example, Stumbo et al.¹⁵ found that e-mentoring can be used to create and sustain a community that benefits both peers and mentors. These authors argue that engaging youth early on (i.e., beginning of college) can help to sustain their participation in mentoring over the longer term.¹⁵ Francis et al.^{37, 38} suggested that their program (FEAT) could be formatted as a professional development program for employment agencies to reach vocational rehabilitation counselors, job coaches, and other employment-related professionals. The authors also highlighted the potential for this program to expand to other states. They argue that expanding into schools would provide a sustainable foundation for teachers to empower their students.^{37, 38} Burghstahler and Crawford⁷⁷ noted that the steps involved in sustaining an e-mentor community include: establishing goals for the program; selecting appropriate technology for the communication; developing the community structure; developing guidelines for protégés, mentors and parents; standardized procedures for recruiting, screening, and orienting participants; providing supervision and ongoing support of mentors; managing the mentor-mentee discussions; and evaluating the program.

Furthermore, Kramer et al.⁵⁴ emphasize that community-based organizations adopting e-mentoring should consider partnering with local colleges or vocational training institutions, which could help provide students with valuable hands-on experience and ensure that they also have access to qualified personnel.⁵⁴ E-mentoring could help to sustain the program because of its ease of access.

Conclusions

1. Several mentoring programs that are designed specifically for youth with disabilities appear to have successfully engaged substantial numbers of youth on a local level; however, most of these programs have not been adopted on a larger scale.
2. Research on the factors influencing the adoption and longer-term sustainability of the programs is lacking.
3. Challenges in mentoring youth with disabilities are similar to those found in mentoring programs for youth without disabilities, with the exception of the accessibility of the program.

Implications for Practice

As noted in the review of the research presented on the preceding pages, there is considerable evidence that mentoring relationships can be beneficial to youth with disabilities in a wide range of aspects of their lives, including their education, careers, engagement with the community at large, and their own sense of identity, direction, and purpose. This evidence is especially important given the high prevalence of disability within the U.S. population. With one in five people experiencing some type of disability, it is a virtual guarantee that all mentoring programs are serving youth with disabilities (even when the program does not proactively recruit youth with disabilities). Therefore, whether a mentoring program explicitly engages youth with disabilities or whether the inclusion of youth with disabilities has occurred in a less intentional way, all mentoring programs should be prepared to adopt an inclusive approach to ensure that youth with disabilities are being served in a meaningful, equitable way.

Despite the evidence of the value of mentoring for youth with disabilities, the review also notes challenges that practitioners can face in providing meaningful mentoring to these youth. Here we attempt to review some of the programmatic and relationship factors that can maximize the benefit of mentoring for youth with disabilities, building on the content of the review to support practitioners in developing inclusive, responsible, and meaningful mentoring services.

Resources

Recommended Resources on the NMRC Website

• Best Practices for Mentoring Youth with Disabilities
• Supporting Students on the Autism Spectrum: Student Mentor Guidelines

Other Relevant Online Resources for Supporting Youth With Disabilities

• Kids as Self Advocates
• National Consortium on Leadership and Disability for Youth
• National Youth Leadership Network
• Self-Advocates Becoming Empowered

References

1. Munson, R., & Railey, J. (2016). Mentoring for youth with mental health challenges. Boston, MA: National Mentoring Resource Center. Mental Health Population Review
2. UNICEF (2013). State of the world’s children: Children with disabilities. Retrieved from https://www.unicef.org/reports/state-worlds-children-2013
3. National Centre for Education Statistics. (2018). Children and youth with disabilities. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cgg.asp
4. United Nations. (2015). Youth with disabilities. Retrieved from https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/youth-with-disabilities.html
5. McDonald, K., Balcazar, F., & Keys, C. (2005). Youth with disabilities. In D. L. DuBois & M. J. Karcher (Eds.) Handbook of Youth Mentoring (pp. 493–507). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
6. Lindsay, S., McPherson, A., & Maxwell, J. (2017). Perspectives of school-work transitions among youth with spina bifida, their parents and health care providers. Disability & Rehabilitation, 39, 641–652. doi:10.3109/09638288.2016.1153161
7. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2015). Education at a glance. Retreived from http://www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-2015.htm
8. World Health (2015). Disabilities. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/topics/disabilities/en
9. Mitra, S., Posarac, A., & Vick, B. (2013). Disability and poverty in developing countries: A multi-dimensional study. World Development, 41, 1–18. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2012.05.024
10. Lindsay, S., & McPherson, A. (2012). Experiences of social exclusion and bullying at school among children and youth with cerebral palsy. Disability & Rehabilitation, 34, 101–doi:10.3109/09638288.2011.587086.
11. Lindsay, S. (2011). Discrimination and other barriers to employment for teens and young adults with disabilities. Disability & Rehabilitation, 33, 1340–1350. doi:10.3109/09638288.2010.531372
12. United Nations General Assembly. (2006). Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities (A/RES/61/106). Retrieved from https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities.html
13. Burgstahler, S., & Cronheim, D. (2001). Supporting peer-peer and mentor-protege relationships on the internet. Journal of Research in Technology and Education, 34, 59–74. doi:10.1080/15391523.2001.10782334
14. Lindsay, S., L, Hartman, R., & Fellin, M. (2016). A systematic review of mentorship programs to facilitate transition to postsecondary education and employment for youth and young adults with disabilities. Disability & Rehabilitation, 38, 1329–1349. doi:10.3109/09638288.2015.1092174
15. Stumbo, N., Martin, J., Nordstrom, D., Rolfe, T., Burgstahler, S., Whitney, J., … & Misquez, E. (2010). Evidence-based practices in mentoring students with disabilities: Four case studies. Journal of Science Education for Students with Disabilities, 14, 33–54. doi:10.14448/jsesd.03.0003
16. Powers, L., Sowers, J., & Stevens, T. (1995). An exploratory randomized study of the impact of mentoring on the self-efficacy and community-based knowledge of adolescents with severe physical challenges. Journal of Rehabilitation, 61, 33–41.
17. Wilson, N., Cordier, R., Ceccarelli, M., MacCallum, J., Melbourne, B., Vaz, S., … & Stancliffe, R. (2018). Intergenerational mentoring at Men’s Sheds: A feasibility study. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 31, 2105–e2117. doi:10.1111/jar.12338
18. O’Mally, J., & Antonelli, K. (2016). The effect of career mentoring on employment outcomes for college students who are legally blind. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 110, 295–307.
19. Shpigelman, C., & Gill, C. (2009). A conceptual framework for electronic socioemotional support for people with special needs. Journal of Rehabilitation Research, 32, 301–doi:10.1097/MRR.0b013e32831e4519.
20. Sword, C., & Hill, K. (2003). Creating mentoring opportunities for youth with disabilities: Issues and suggested strategies. American Rehabilitation, 27, 14–18. https://ici.umn.edu/index.php?products/view/427
21. Buckner, A. (1993). Mediating at-risk factors among seventh and eighth grade students with specific learning disabilities using a holistically based model. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ERIC Document Reproduction Service. (Accession No. 368122). https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED368122.pdf
22. Muscott, H., & O’Brien, S. (1999). Teaching character education to students with behavioral and learning disabilities through mentoring relationships. Education & Treatment of Children, 22, 373–390. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ597265
23. West, M., Targett, P., Steininger, G., & Anglin, N. (2001). Project corporate support (CORPS): A model demonstration project on workplace supports. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 16, 111–118.
24. Barnard-Brak, L., Schmidt, M., Wei, T., Hodges, T., & Robinson, E. (2013). Providing postsecondary transition services to youth with disabilities: Results of a pilot program. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 26, 135–144.
25. Gregg, N., Galyardt, A., Wolfe, G., Moon, N., & Todd, R. (2017). Virtual mentoring and persistence in STEM for students with disabilities. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 40, 205–214. doi:10.1177%2F2165143416651717
26. Pham, Y., & Murray, C. (2016). Social relationships among adolescents with disabilities: Unique and cumulative associations with adjustment. Exceptional Children, 82, 234–250. doi:10.1177/0014402915585491
27. Cawthon, S., Johnson, P., Garberolgio, C., & Schoffstall, S. (2016). Role models as facilitators of social capital for deaf individuals: A research synthesis. American Annals of the Deaf, 161, 115–127. doi:10.1353/aad.2016.0021
28. Lindsay, S., McDougall, C., Sanford, R., Menna-Dack, D., Kingsnorth, S., & Adams, T. (2015). Exploring employment readiness through mock job interview and workplace role-play exercises: Comparing youth with physical disabilities to their typically developing peers. Disability & Rehabilitation, 37, 1651–1663. doi:10.3109/09638288.2014.973968
29. Kohut, A., Stinson, J., van Wyk, M., Giosa, L., & Luca, S. (2014). Systematic review of peer support interventions for adolescents with chronic illness: A narrative synthesis. International Journal of Child and Adolescent Health, 7, 183–197.
30. Gini, G., & Pozzoli, T. (2009). Association between bullying and psychosomatic problems: A meta-analysis. Pediatrics, 123, 1059–1065. doi:10.1542/peds.2008-1215
31. Dixon, R. (2006). A framework for managing bullying that involves students who are deaf or hearing impaired. Dear Education International, 8, 11–32. doi:10.1002/dei.16
32. Kolakowsky-Hayner, S., Wright, J., Shem, K., Medel, R., & Duong, T. (2012). An effective community-based mentoring program for return to work and school after brain and spinal cord injury. NeuroRehabilitation, 31, 63–73. doi:10.3233/NRE-2012-0775
33. Bell, C. (2012). Mentoring transition-age youth with blindness. Journal of Special Education, 46, 170–179. doi:10.1177%2F0022466910374211
34. Kim-Rupnow, W., & Burgstahler, S. (2004). Perceptions of students with disabilities regarding the value of technology-based support activities on postsecondary education and employment. Journal of Special Education Technology, 19, 43–56. doi:10.1177/016264340401900204
35. Burgstahler, S., & Chang, C. (2007). A preliminary report of the AccessSTEM/DO-IT longitudinal transition study. https://www.washington.edu/doit/programs/accessstem/resources/accessstemdo-it-longitudinal-transition-study-alts/preliminary-report
36. Powers, L., Turner, A., & Westwood, D. (2001). Take charge for the future: A controlled field-test of a model to promote student involvement in transition planning. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 2, 89–104. doi:10.1177%2F088572880102400107
37. Francis, G., Gross, J., Turnbull, A., & Turnbull, R. (2013). The Family Employment Awareness Training (FEAT): A mixed-method follow-up. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 39, 167–181. doi:10.3233/JVR-130652.
38. Francis, G., Gross, J., Turnbull, R., & Parent-Johnson, W. (2013). Evaluating the effectiveness of the family employment awareness training I’m Kansas: A pilot study. Research in Practice Persons Severe Disability, 38, 44–57. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.826.8181&rep=rep1&type=pdf
39. Shem, K., Medel, R., Wright, J., Kolakowsky-Hayner, S., & Duong, T. (2011). Return to work and school: A model mentoring program for youth and young adults with spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord, 49, 544–548. doi:10.1038/sc.2010.166
40. Abery, B., Rudrud, L., & Arndt, K. (1995). Evaluating a multicomponent program for enhancing the self-determination of youth with disabilities. Intervention in School and Clinic, 30, 170–179. doi:10.1177/105345129503000307
41. Jerson, B., D’Urso, C., Arnon, R., Miloh, T., Iyer, K., Kerkar, N., & Annuziato, R. (2013). Adolescent transplant recipients as peer mentors: A program to improve self-management and health-related quality of life. Pediatric Transplantation, 17, 612–620. doi:10.1111/petr.12127
42. Foster, S., & MacLeod, J. (2004). The role of mentoring relationships in the career development of successful deaf persons. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 9, 442–458. doi:10.1093/deafed/enh053
43. Scholl, L., & Mooney, M. (2003). Youth with disabilities in work-based learning programs: Factors that influence success. Journal for Vocational Special Needs Education, 26, 4–16. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ854911.pdf
44. Grenwelge, C., & Zhang, D. (2013). The effects of the Texas youth leadership forum summer training on the self-advocacy abilities of high school students with disabilities. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 24, 158–169. doi:10.1177/1044207312457415
45. Ahrens, K., DuBois, D., Lozano, P., & Richardson, L. (2010). Naturally acquired mentoring relationships and young adult outcomes among adolescents with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities in Research and Practice, 25, 207–216. doi:1111/j.1540-5826.2010.00318.x
46. Curtin, C., Humphrey, K., Vronsky, K., & Mattern, K. (2016). Expanding horizons: A pilot mentoring program linking college/graduate students and teens with ASD. Clinical Pediatrics, 55, 150–156. doi:10.1177/0009922815588821
47. Stewart, M., Barnfather, A., Magill-Evans, J., Ray, L., & Letourneau, N. (2011). Brief report: An online support intervention: Perceptions of adolescents with physical disabilities. Journal of Adolescence, 34, 795–800. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2010.04.007
48. Gregg, N., Wolfe, G., Jones, S., Todd, R., Moon, N., & Langston, C. (2017). STEM e-mentoring and community college students with disabilities. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 29, 47–63. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1107474.pdf
49. Stinson, J. S., Kohut, S., Forgeron P., Amaria, K., Bell, M., Kaufman, M., Luca, N., Luca, S., Harris, L., Victor, C., & Spiegel, L. (2016). The iPeer2Peer Program: A pilot randomized controlled trial in adolescents with juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Pediatric Rheumatology, 14, 48. doi:10.1186/s12969-016-0108-2
50. Fraas, M., & Bellerose, A. (2010). Mentoring programme for adolescent survivors of acquired brain injury. Brain injury, 24, 50–61. doi:10.3109/02699050903446781
51. Powers, L., Geenen, S., & Powers, J. (2012). My life: Effects of a longitudinal, randomized study of self-determination enhancement on the transition outcomes of youth in foster care and special education. Child and Youth Services Review, 34, 2179–2187. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2012.07.018
52. Hillier, A., Fish, T., Cloppert, P., & Beversdorf, D. (2007). Outcomes of a social and vocational skills support group for adolescents and young adults on the autism spectrum. Focus on Autism and other Developmental Disorders, 22. doi:10.1177%2F10883576070220020201
53. Ryan, C., Kramer, J., & Cohn, E. (2016). Exploring the self-disclosure process in peer mentoring relationships for transition-age youth with developmental disabilities. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 54, 245–249. doi:10.1352/1934-9556-54.4.245.
54. Kramer, J., Ryan, C., Moore, R., & Schwartz, A. (2018). Feasibility of electronic peer mentoring for transition‐age youth and young adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities: Project teens making environment and activity modifications. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 31, e118–e129. doi:10.1111/jar.12346
55. Barnfather, A., Stewart, M., Magill-Evans, J., Ray, L., & Letourneau, N. (2011). Computer-mediated support for adolescents with cerebral palsy or spina bifida. Computers and Informatics in Nursing, 29, 24–33. doi:10.1097/NCN.0b013e3181f9db63.
56. Bobroff, S., & Sax, C. (2010). The effects of peer tutoring interview skills training with transition-age youth with disabilities. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 33, 143–157. doi:10.3233/JVR-2010-0523
57. Jones, M., & Goble, Z. (2012). Creating effective mentoring partnerships for students with intellectual disabilities on campus. Journal of Policy and Practice on Intellectual Disabilities, 9, 270–278. doi:10.1111/jppi.12010
58. Westerlund, D., Granucci, E., Gamache, P., & Clark, H. (2011). Effects of peer mentors on work-related performance of adolescents with behavioral and/or learning disabilities. Journal of Positive Behavioral Interventions, 8, 244–251. doi:10.1177%2F10983007060080040601
59. Seeger, K. (2007). Mentoring youth with disabilites: The mentor’s lived experiences. (Master’s thesis). Retreived from Louisiana State University Digital Commons. (#2187). https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3186&context=gradschool_theses
60. Schwartz, A., & Kramer, J. (2018). “I just had to be flexible and show good patience”: Management of interactional approaches to enact mentoring roles by peer mentors with developmental disabilities. Disability & Rehabilitation, 40, 2364–2371. doi:10.1080/09638288.2017.1334835.
61. Burgstahler, S., Chang, C. (2007). Gender differences in perceived value of components of a program to promote academic and career success for students with disabilities. Journal of Science Education for Students with Disabilities, 12, 1–11. https://scholarworks.rit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1020&context=jsesd
62. Burgstahler, S., Doyle, A. (2005). Gender differences in computer-mediated communication among adolescents with disabilities: Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics case study. Disability Studies Quarterly, 25. http://dsq-sds.org/article/view/552
63. Stumbo, N., & Lindahl-Lewis, P. (2008). Two mentorship case studies of high school and university students with disabilities: Milestones and lessons. Journal of Rehabilitation, 74, 45–51.
64. Shpigelman, C., & Gill, C. (2012). The characteristics of unsuccesful e-mentoring relationships for youth with disabilities. Qualitative Health Research, 23, 463–475. doi:10.1177/1049732312469115.
65. Shpigelman, C., Weiss, P., & Reiter, S. (2009). E-mentoring for all. Computers in Human Behaviour, 25, 919–928. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2009.03.007
66. Kramer, J., Hwang, I., Helfrich, C., & Carrellas, A. (2018). Problem-solving intervention to teach transition age youth with developmental disabilities to resolve environmental barriers. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 65, 57–75. doi:10.1080/1034912X.2017.1346237
67. DuBois, D., & Karcher, M. (2014). Handbook of Youth Mentoring. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
68. Grossman, J., & Rhodes, J. (2002). The test of time: Predictors and effects of duration in youth mentoring relationships. American Journal of Community Psychology, 30, 199–219. doi:10.1023/A:1014680827552
69. Sowers, J., Powers, L., Schmidt, J., Keller, T., Turner, A., Salazar, A., & Swank, P. (2017). A randomized trial of a science, technology, engineering, and math mentoring program. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 40, 196–204. doi:10.1177%2F2165143416633426
70. Rhodes, J., Grossman, J., & Resch, N. (2000). Agents of change: Pathways through which mentoring relationships influence adolescents academic adjustment. Child Development, 71, 1662–1671. doi:1111/1467-8624.00256
71. Parra, G., DuBois, D., Neville, H., Pugh-Lilly, A., & Povinelli, N. (2006). Mentoring relationships for youth: Investigation of a process-oriented model. Journal of Community Psychology, 30, 367–388. doi:10.1002/jcop.10016
72. Powers, L., Schmidt, J., Sowers, J., & McCracken, K. (2015). Qualitative investigation of the influence of STEM members on youth with disabilities. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 38, 25–38. doi:10.1177/2165143413518234
73. Froschl, M., Rousso, H., & Rubin, E. (2001). Nothing to do after school: More of an issue for girls. In H. Rousso & M. Wehmeyer (Eds.), Double jeopardy: Addressing gender equity in special education (pp. 313–336). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
74. Bedell, G., Wade, S., Turkstra, L., Haarbauer-Krupa, J., & King, J. (2016). Informing design of an app-based coaching intervention to promote social participation of teenagers with traumatic brain injury. Developmental Rehabilitation, 20, 408–417. doi:10.1080/17518423.2016.1237584
75. Hayes, E., & Balcazar, F. (2008). Peer-mentoring and disability: Current applications and future directions. In T. Kroll (Ed.), Focus on Disability: Trends in Research and Application (pp. 89–108). New York, NY: Nova Science Publishers.
76. Daughtry, D., Gibson, J., & Abels, A. (2009). Mentoring students and professionals with disabilities. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 40, 201–205. doi:10.1037/a0012400
77. Burgstahler, S., & Crawford, L. (2007). Managing an e-mentoring community to support students with disabilities: A case study. Association for Advancement of Computing in Education Journal, 15, 97–114.
78. Luecking, R., & Wittenburg, D. (2009). Providing support to youth with disabilities transitioning to adulthood: Case descriptions from the youth transition demonstration. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 30, 241–251. doi:10.3233/JVR-2009-0464