The Relationship Between Mentoring Relationships and Adult Outcomes for Foster Youth in Transition to Adulthood

Background

Research on the transition to adulthood for foster youth shows them to be at heightened risk for poor adult outcomes (Courtney 2007; Pecora et al 2005), but research on protective factors that may influence these outcomes is lacking. Practitioners have pushed for mentoring programs for foster youth, believing that mentoring can serve as a protective factor (Stein 2006). Research has shown non-parental adults to have positive effects on adolescents (Beier et al 2000; DuBois & Silverthorn 2005; Zimmerman et al 2002), but research on mentoring for foster youth is scarce, results are mixed, and methodological problems abound (Ahrens et al 2008).

This study examines the relationship between non-parental mentoring and adult outcomes, hypothesizing that regular contact with a non-parental mentor is associated with improved adult outcomes for former foster youth.

Methods

The study relies on data from a prospective study of foster youth begun in 2002 in three states, involving three waves of in-person interviews with a random sample of foster youth done when they were 17-18 , 19, and 21 years old respectively. The analyses reported here come from baseline in-person interviews conducted at age 17-18 (n = 732; 95% response rate) and follow-up interviews conducted at age 21 (n = 591; 81% retention rate). Outcomes were assessed at age 21 or during the previous year, depending on the outcome, including: education; employment; economic hardship; public assistance utilization; homelessness; incarceration; social support; life satisfaction; and civic engagement. The independent variable was the young person's report of having had contact several times in the past year with a non-parental mentor with whom the subject had begun a relationship during adolescence. Logistic and OLS regression were used to examine the relationship between mentoring and outcomes, using covariates assessed at baseline (demographic characteristics and a wide range of measures of subject background and functioning).

Results

60% (n = 352) of the subjects reported having had a non-parental mentor at some time since age 14 and 73% reported being close to their mentor. Only 5% reported the mentor had come from a mentoring program. Over two-fifths (n = 247) reported an ongoing relationship with a mentor they saw at least several times per year. Regression analyses show an ongoing mentoring relationship to be associated with a greater likelihood that subjects completed some college (OR=2.2), a greater likelihood of current employment (OR=1.7), and greater social support (standardized beta = .3), but with none of the other outcomes.

Conclusions

Most former foster youth report having had a non-parental mentor at some point since adolescence and many continue to have an ongoing relationship with a mentor. These enduring relationships are associated with some positive outcomes for former foster youth. That few youth report mentoring programs to be the source of these relationships suggests that mentoring programs have yet to have much impact on foster youth. The hopeful findings reported here provide support for continued research on the relationship of mentoring to outcomes for former foster youth and for evaluation of mentoring programs for this population.