Youth-Initiated Mentoring (YIM)
Practice Review
Description of Practice
Youth Initiated Mentoring involves supporting youth with engaging nonparental adults from their social networks (e.g., teachers, family friends, extended family members) in mentoring interactions and relationships. Key elements of the practice may include 1) providing youth with the opportunity to nominate potential mentors from their existing social networks as part of their participation in a formal mentoring program as well as 2) training youth in skills for initiating mentoring interactions or relationships with nonparental adults.
Goals
The primary goal of the practice is to increase the amount and quality of mentoring that youth receive from nonparental adults in their existing social networks.
Target Population/Eligibility of Target Sites
The practice, to date, has been targeted toward adolescents, including those receiving mental health care, youth with disabilities, and those reintegrating into their communities following residential programming.
Theory and Evidence-Informed Principles
The practice is informed by a number of theoretical considerations (Schwartz, Rhodes, Spencer, & Grossman, 2013). Nonparental adults in youths’ social networks are likely to live in the same communities as them, thereby providing naturally-occurring opportunities for contact between youth and these adults. In addition, because such adults are also likely to be involved in ongoing roles with youth (e.g., extended family member, teacher), there may be increased opportunities for sustained interactions and relationships over time. In formal mentoring programs, providing youth with a significant role in determining their mentors also may increase their motivation and investment in these relationships (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Finally, youth initiated mentoring may foster empowerment among youth and build social capital within communities (Balcazar, Keys, & Garate-Serafini, 1995; Coleman, 1988; Rappaport, 1981).
Corresponding Elements of Effective Practice
This practice is most relevant to the area of Recruitment within the Elements of Effective Practice. It does not, however, fall within the scope of the existing Standard for this Element or correspond to any of its Benchmarks or Enhancements. It thus may be best considered as an innovative practice in relation to the Elements.
Key Personnel
The successful implementation of this practice is likely to require staff who have relevant skills and experience, especially as it pertains to supporting youth with exercising autonomy and voice in ways that are simultaneously attentive to their need for adult guidance or scaffolding (Larson, 2006).
Additional Information
None.
-
Study 1 Evaluation Methodology
Schwartz and colleagues (2013) examined the practice of youth initiated mentoring (YIM) using data from a larger evaluation of the 17-month National Guard Youth ChalleNGe Program (NGYCP) that involved youth recruited from 10 NGYCP sites across the country. NGYCP targets youths ages 16-18 who have dropped out or been expelled from school and, at the time of program entry, are drug-free, not currently on probation or parole for anything beyond juvenile status offenses, not serving time or awaiting sentencing, not under indictment or charged, and have not been convicted of a felony or capital offense. Youth identify specific post-residential activities (e.g., GED program, community college, vocational training, a job, or military service) to be carried out with support of a mentor. At the time of program enrollment, youth are asked to nominate nonparental adults from their social networks as potential mentors. A more detailed description of the program and findings regarding its overall effectiveness can be found at Crimesolutions.gov.
A total of 2,320 youths were randomly assigned to participate in the program as part of the larger study at the baseline assessment and 754 youth were assigned to the control group. Follow-up assessments were conducted 9-months, 21-months, and 38-months after study entry. At the 38-month follow-up, a randomly selected subsample of 1,507 program participants was targeted with a response rate of 78 percent, resulting in a sample consisting of 722 program participants and 451 youth from the control group. This sample, which constituted the sample for the Schwartz et al. (2013) investigation of YIM, was 87.6 percent male, 19.1 percent Hispanic, 42.6 percent White, 32.4 percent Black, and 3.4 percent some other race. Among the youths in the program group, approximately 390 reported having selected their own mentors. The remainder reported having received help from their parents, having received help from the program staff, or having found their mentors in “some other way”. Chi square analyses were used to determine whether any demographic and other baseline characteristics of youth were associated with participants’ method of selecting a mentor. It was determined that participants whose families were reported to receive public assistance were relatively more likely to report having selected mentors on their own or with the help of program staff and were relatively less likely to report having received help from parents in finding a mentor. No significant differences were observed based on reported method of mentor selection for other variables examined (i.e., gender, minority status, age, highest grade completed, drug/alcohol use, or suspensions).
Researchers used logistic regression analysis to test for differences between youth who reported having selected their own mentors and youth who did not with regard to whether they reported still being in contact with their mentors at the 38-month follow-up (contact was measured through a single question asking the youth if he/she was still in contact with his/her mentor). This analysis controlled for baseline youth reports of age, gender, race, zip code, whether anyone in the youth’s household was on public assistance, highest grade completed in school, and suspensions, as well as for baseline mentor characteristics, including age, gender, race, zip code, and occupation. Data on mentor characteristics were gathered from a web-based data management and reporting system in use by programs.
Evaluation Outcomes
Contact with Mentor
Youth who selected their own mentors were significantly more likely to report contact with their mentors at the 38-month follow-up in comparison to those whose mentors were selected with help from parents, with help from program staff, or in “some other way.” The odds of reporting such continued contact was 1.28 times higher for youth who selected their own mentors compared to youth who did not.Additional Findings
In other analyses, program participants in the treatment group who were in contact with their mentors at the 38-month follow-up showed significant improvements on a range of self-report academic, vocational, and behavioral outcomes, including GED/high school diploma, college credit, months employed, earnings, months idle, and convictions, compared to the control group of participants who were not in the program.
External Validity Evidence
Available evidence indicates that YIM as practiced within the National Guard Youth ChalleNGe Program can promote longer term mentor-mentee relationships among adolescents during the period of their reintegration into their communities following residential programming in various locations across the United States. Evidence bearing on the effects of other forms of the practice as well as its effects in relation to other populations, outcomes, and program contexts is not currently available.
Resources Available to Support Implementation
No resources to support implementation of this practice have received review by the National Mentoring Resource Center.
Evidence Base
Schwartz, S. E., Rhodes, J. E., Spencer, R., & Grossman, J. B. (2013). Youth initiated mentoring: Investigating a new approach to working with vulnerable adolescents. American Journal of Community Psychology, 52, 155-169. doi:10.1007/s10464-013-9585-3
Additional References
Balcazar, F. E., Keys, C. B., & Garate-Serafini, J. (1995). Learning to recruit assistance to attain transition goals: A program for adjudicated youth with disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 16, 237-246.
Coleman, J. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. The American Journal of Sociology, 94, 95-120.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum.
Larson, R. (2006). Positive youth development, willful adolescents, and mentoring. Journal of Community Psychology, 34, 677–689. doi:10.1002/jcop.20123
Rappaport, J. (1981). In praise of paradox: A social policy of empowerment over prevention. American Journal of Community Psychology, 9, 1-25. doi:10.1007/BF00896357
Youth-initiated mentoring (YIM) is an innovative idea that has drawn increasing attention over the last several years. Although there is limited hard research on this topic, there are several considerations and possible practices that practitioners can keep in mind as they think about whether YIM applies to their programmatic settings and whether this is an idea worth integrating into their services.
- YIM may work best when used on older populations of youth⎯those high school age or older. To effectively implement a YIM strategy, youth need to be able to:
- Nominate adults that they have an existing relationship with and whom they think will be able to support them in some specific ways.
- Be comfortable asking the adult to take on this role (or at least be comfortable having a staff member or parent do it on their behalf)
- Be able to take an active role in growing this relationship and getting what they need out of it over time
Those are all tasks that a younger child might struggle with and it’s no surprise that most applications of YIM in the field to date have been with youth transitioning into young adulthood (with the accompanying career and educational challenges ahead) or youth transitioning out of a continuum of care where they find themselves needing to take the lead role in procuring the support they need to move forward. So at the most basic level, YIM may be best viewed as a strategy more appropriate for use with older adolescents or young adults who have the capacity to take an active role in seeking and maintaining supportive relationships. (Alternatively, it stands to reason that there may be value in teaching youth of all ages the value in, and skills for, seeking out supportive relationships throughout their lives.)
- If your program serves youth who are old enough to navigate the challenges of YIM, there are several options to consider when implementing this concept:
- Have the mentors whom youth are to recruit be part of the core intervention being offered to these young people o Have the mentors be supplementary to other services being offered
- Have the mentors be a post-intervention support system
There are several examples of these options currently being employed in the field: The National Guard Challenge program integrates YIM mentors into existing services and gives them a post-intervention support role; the Youth-Nominated Support Team model has YIM mentors at the core of an intensive suicide prevention model that is intended to supplement traditional mental health services; and YouthBuild USA integrates YIM mentors into current and post-program activities.
- There is a temptation to see YIM as a way of relieving the burden on program staff to recruit competent and committed volunteer mentors⎯the one task that can be most time-consuming for mentoring programs. But programs should note that YIM still requires a significant outlay of staff time, just in different ways than traditional volunteer recruitment:
- Programs must teach youth who would serve as an appropriate mentor to them, as well as skills around asking an adult to take on this role. Teaching youth to nominate their own appropriate mentors may be just as time consuming as general volunteer recruitment.
- In most YIM models, staff still must screen and train any mentors identified by youth. This may prove more challenging than training staff-recruited mentors as programs have less control over the types of individuals youth nominate.
- Programs should also be prepared to do traditional recruitment for those youth who struggle to identify or nominate an appropriate mentor who is willing to take on the role. Related to this, programs must take care to ensure that practices are in place to help youth navigate the disappointment and possible feelings of rejection that youth may experience when their nominated mentors do not agree to take on this role.
- And post-match, programs should still anticipate some level of follow-up or match support, particularly in cases where outcomes are being tracked closely. YIM removes some level of control from programs over the relationships that they are, in theory, fostering to achieve an outcome. So programs may want to question whether YIM is the easy solution to the burden of mentor recruitment that its proponents often claim it to be.
This all being said, YIM has considerable appeal and promise for the mentoring movement. It seems likely that there is much to be gained by teaching youth how to identify the areas of life in which they could benefit from some additional support and by encouraging them, and building their skills, to seek out deeper connections with adults who can help them in these areas. In fact, there may be few gifts a program can give young persons more than teaching them how to find mentors throughout their lives, long after they have left their program’s doors. If only all youth had the opportunities and skills to find the mentoring they need. But therein lies the conundrum for the mentoring field, which exists almost entirely because these relationships are something that youth struggle to find or facilitate on their own. But for those older youth who are ready to take a leading role in securing the support they need from caring adults, YIM is an appealing idea and initial evidence of promise. Hopefully the coming years will produce more research that clarifies both the effectiveness and viability of YIM across different applications, thus laying the foundation for evidence-based scaling up throughout the mentoring field.
For more information on research-informed program practices and tools for implementation, be sure to consult the Elements of Effective Practice for Mentoring™ and the “Resources” section of the National Mentoring Resource Center site.
-
Practice Overview Description of Practice
Youth Initiated Mentoring involves supporting youth with engaging nonparental adults from their social networks (e.g., teachers, family friends, extended family members) in mentoring interactions and relationships. Key elements of the practice may include 1) providing youth with the opportunity to nominate potential mentors from their existing social networks as part of their participation in a formal mentoring program as well as 2) training youth in skills for initiating mentoring interactions or relationships with nonparental adults.
Goals
The primary goal of the practice is to increase the amount and quality of mentoring that youth receive from nonparental adults in their existing social networks.
Target Population/Eligibility of Target Sites
The practice, to date, has been targeted toward adolescents, including those receiving mental health care, youth with disabilities, and those reintegrating into their communities following residential programming.
Theory and Evidence-Informed Principles
The practice is informed by a number of theoretical considerations (Schwartz, Rhodes, Spencer, & Grossman, 2013). Nonparental adults in youths’ social networks are likely to live in the same communities as them, thereby providing naturally-occurring opportunities for contact between youth and these adults. In addition, because such adults are also likely to be involved in ongoing roles with youth (e.g., extended family member, teacher), there may be increased opportunities for sustained interactions and relationships over time. In formal mentoring programs, providing youth with a significant role in determining their mentors also may increase their motivation and investment in these relationships (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Finally, youth initiated mentoring may foster empowerment among youth and build social capital within communities (Balcazar, Keys, & Garate-Serafini, 1995; Coleman, 1988; Rappaport, 1981).
Corresponding Elements of Effective Practice
This practice is most relevant to the area of Recruitment within the Elements of Effective Practice. It does not, however, fall within the scope of the existing Standard for this Element or correspond to any of its Benchmarks or Enhancements. It thus may be best considered as an innovative practice in relation to the Elements.
Key Personnel
The successful implementation of this practice is likely to require staff who have relevant skills and experience, especially as it pertains to supporting youth with exercising autonomy and voice in ways that are simultaneously attentive to their need for adult guidance or scaffolding (Larson, 2006).
Additional Information
None.
-
Evaluation and Evidence -
Study 1 Evaluation Methodology
Schwartz and colleagues (2013) examined the practice of youth initiated mentoring (YIM) using data from a larger evaluation of the 17-month National Guard Youth ChalleNGe Program (NGYCP) that involved youth recruited from 10 NGYCP sites across the country. NGYCP targets youths ages 16-18 who have dropped out or been expelled from school and, at the time of program entry, are drug-free, not currently on probation or parole for anything beyond juvenile status offenses, not serving time or awaiting sentencing, not under indictment or charged, and have not been convicted of a felony or capital offense. Youth identify specific post-residential activities (e.g., GED program, community college, vocational training, a job, or military service) to be carried out with support of a mentor. At the time of program enrollment, youth are asked to nominate nonparental adults from their social networks as potential mentors. A more detailed description of the program and findings regarding its overall effectiveness can be found at Crimesolutions.gov.
A total of 2,320 youths were randomly assigned to participate in the program as part of the larger study at the baseline assessment and 754 youth were assigned to the control group. Follow-up assessments were conducted 9-months, 21-months, and 38-months after study entry. At the 38-month follow-up, a randomly selected subsample of 1,507 program participants was targeted with a response rate of 78 percent, resulting in a sample consisting of 722 program participants and 451 youth from the control group. This sample, which constituted the sample for the Schwartz et al. (2013) investigation of YIM, was 87.6 percent male, 19.1 percent Hispanic, 42.6 percent White, 32.4 percent Black, and 3.4 percent some other race. Among the youths in the program group, approximately 390 reported having selected their own mentors. The remainder reported having received help from their parents, having received help from the program staff, or having found their mentors in “some other way”. Chi square analyses were used to determine whether any demographic and other baseline characteristics of youth were associated with participants’ method of selecting a mentor. It was determined that participants whose families were reported to receive public assistance were relatively more likely to report having selected mentors on their own or with the help of program staff and were relatively less likely to report having received help from parents in finding a mentor. No significant differences were observed based on reported method of mentor selection for other variables examined (i.e., gender, minority status, age, highest grade completed, drug/alcohol use, or suspensions).
Researchers used logistic regression analysis to test for differences between youth who reported having selected their own mentors and youth who did not with regard to whether they reported still being in contact with their mentors at the 38-month follow-up (contact was measured through a single question asking the youth if he/she was still in contact with his/her mentor). This analysis controlled for baseline youth reports of age, gender, race, zip code, whether anyone in the youth’s household was on public assistance, highest grade completed in school, and suspensions, as well as for baseline mentor characteristics, including age, gender, race, zip code, and occupation. Data on mentor characteristics were gathered from a web-based data management and reporting system in use by programs.
Evaluation Outcomes
Contact with Mentor
Youth who selected their own mentors were significantly more likely to report contact with their mentors at the 38-month follow-up in comparison to those whose mentors were selected with help from parents, with help from program staff, or in “some other way.” The odds of reporting such continued contact was 1.28 times higher for youth who selected their own mentors compared to youth who did not.Additional Findings
In other analyses, program participants in the treatment group who were in contact with their mentors at the 38-month follow-up showed significant improvements on a range of self-report academic, vocational, and behavioral outcomes, including GED/high school diploma, college credit, months employed, earnings, months idle, and convictions, compared to the control group of participants who were not in the program.
-
-
External Validity Evidence External Validity Evidence
Available evidence indicates that YIM as practiced within the National Guard Youth ChalleNGe Program can promote longer term mentor-mentee relationships among adolescents during the period of their reintegration into their communities following residential programming in various locations across the United States. Evidence bearing on the effects of other forms of the practice as well as its effects in relation to other populations, outcomes, and program contexts is not currently available.
-
Implementation Resources Available to Support Implementation
No resources to support implementation of this practice have received review by the National Mentoring Resource Center.
-
References Evidence Base
Schwartz, S. E., Rhodes, J. E., Spencer, R., & Grossman, J. B. (2013). Youth initiated mentoring: Investigating a new approach to working with vulnerable adolescents. American Journal of Community Psychology, 52, 155-169. doi:10.1007/s10464-013-9585-3
Additional References
Balcazar, F. E., Keys, C. B., & Garate-Serafini, J. (1995). Learning to recruit assistance to attain transition goals: A program for adjudicated youth with disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 16, 237-246.
Coleman, J. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. The American Journal of Sociology, 94, 95-120.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum.
Larson, R. (2006). Positive youth development, willful adolescents, and mentoring. Journal of Community Psychology, 34, 677–689. doi:10.1002/jcop.20123
Rappaport, J. (1981). In praise of paradox: A social policy of empowerment over prevention. American Journal of Community Psychology, 9, 1-25. doi:10.1007/BF00896357
-
Insight Youth-initiated mentoring (YIM) is an innovative idea that has drawn increasing attention over the last several years. Although there is limited hard research on this topic, there are several considerations and possible practices that practitioners can keep in mind as they think about whether YIM applies to their programmatic settings and whether this is an idea worth integrating into their services.
- YIM may work best when used on older populations of youth⎯those high school age or older. To effectively implement a YIM strategy, youth need to be able to:
- Nominate adults that they have an existing relationship with and whom they think will be able to support them in some specific ways.
- Be comfortable asking the adult to take on this role (or at least be comfortable having a staff member or parent do it on their behalf)
- Be able to take an active role in growing this relationship and getting what they need out of it over time
Those are all tasks that a younger child might struggle with and it’s no surprise that most applications of YIM in the field to date have been with youth transitioning into young adulthood (with the accompanying career and educational challenges ahead) or youth transitioning out of a continuum of care where they find themselves needing to take the lead role in procuring the support they need to move forward. So at the most basic level, YIM may be best viewed as a strategy more appropriate for use with older adolescents or young adults who have the capacity to take an active role in seeking and maintaining supportive relationships. (Alternatively, it stands to reason that there may be value in teaching youth of all ages the value in, and skills for, seeking out supportive relationships throughout their lives.)
- If your program serves youth who are old enough to navigate the challenges of YIM, there are several options to consider when implementing this concept:
- Have the mentors whom youth are to recruit be part of the core intervention being offered to these young people o Have the mentors be supplementary to other services being offered
- Have the mentors be a post-intervention support system
There are several examples of these options currently being employed in the field: The National Guard Challenge program integrates YIM mentors into existing services and gives them a post-intervention support role; the Youth-Nominated Support Team model has YIM mentors at the core of an intensive suicide prevention model that is intended to supplement traditional mental health services; and YouthBuild USA integrates YIM mentors into current and post-program activities.
- There is a temptation to see YIM as a way of relieving the burden on program staff to recruit competent and committed volunteer mentors⎯the one task that can be most time-consuming for mentoring programs. But programs should note that YIM still requires a significant outlay of staff time, just in different ways than traditional volunteer recruitment:
- Programs must teach youth who would serve as an appropriate mentor to them, as well as skills around asking an adult to take on this role. Teaching youth to nominate their own appropriate mentors may be just as time consuming as general volunteer recruitment.
- In most YIM models, staff still must screen and train any mentors identified by youth. This may prove more challenging than training staff-recruited mentors as programs have less control over the types of individuals youth nominate.
- Programs should also be prepared to do traditional recruitment for those youth who struggle to identify or nominate an appropriate mentor who is willing to take on the role. Related to this, programs must take care to ensure that practices are in place to help youth navigate the disappointment and possible feelings of rejection that youth may experience when their nominated mentors do not agree to take on this role.
- And post-match, programs should still anticipate some level of follow-up or match support, particularly in cases where outcomes are being tracked closely. YIM removes some level of control from programs over the relationships that they are, in theory, fostering to achieve an outcome. So programs may want to question whether YIM is the easy solution to the burden of mentor recruitment that its proponents often claim it to be.
This all being said, YIM has considerable appeal and promise for the mentoring movement. It seems likely that there is much to be gained by teaching youth how to identify the areas of life in which they could benefit from some additional support and by encouraging them, and building their skills, to seek out deeper connections with adults who can help them in these areas. In fact, there may be few gifts a program can give young persons more than teaching them how to find mentors throughout their lives, long after they have left their program’s doors. If only all youth had the opportunities and skills to find the mentoring they need. But therein lies the conundrum for the mentoring field, which exists almost entirely because these relationships are something that youth struggle to find or facilitate on their own. But for those older youth who are ready to take a leading role in securing the support they need from caring adults, YIM is an appealing idea and initial evidence of promise. Hopefully the coming years will produce more research that clarifies both the effectiveness and viability of YIM across different applications, thus laying the foundation for evidence-based scaling up throughout the mentoring field.
For more information on research-informed program practices and tools for implementation, be sure to consult the Elements of Effective Practice for Mentoring™ and the “Resources” section of the National Mentoring Resource Center site.
- YIM may work best when used on older populations of youth⎯those high school age or older. To effectively implement a YIM strategy, youth need to be able to: