Exploring relationships among boys and men: A retrospective, qualitative study of a multi-year community-based group mentoring program

Children and Youth Services Review 44 (2014) 349–355

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Children and Youth Services Review journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/childyouth

Exploring relationships among boys and men: A retrospective, qualitative study of a multi-year community-based group mentoring program Mark J. Van Ryzin Oregon Social Learning Center, 10 Shelton McMurphey Boulevard, Eugene, OR 97401, United States

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 11 April 2014 Received in revised form 3 July 2014 Accepted 3 July 2014 Available online 10 July 2014 Keywords: Community-based group mentoring Adolescent boys Mentor–youth relationships Stepping Stones Project

a b s t r a c t Mentoring has been established as a useful mechanism by which to reduce risk and promote a variety of beneficial outcomes across age groups and settings. However, very little research has explored long-term group mentoring programs for adolescents, and researchers have not established the optimal approach to mentoring relationships among boys and men. This study interviewed a cohort of recent graduates from the Stepping Stones Project, a group mentoring program for boys that began in 6th grade and continued until the end of high school. Several themes emerged from the interviews, including: (a) the SSP encouraged an open, honest style of communication that the youth learned to adapt through observation and experience; (b) the youth and co-leaders developed intimate, trusting relationships; (c) the supportive environment enabled the youth to explore their own identity and develop greater self-knowledge; (d) the transition ceremony provided a venue in which the youths' growing maturity could be seen and recognized by parents; (e) the structure of the SSP enabled the youth to take on increasing responsibility for planning and managing group activities, and (f) the parent group provided an important source of support and community for parents during the adolescent transition. These themes are discussed in terms of current theory and research on mentoring and adolescent development. © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Mentoring has been established as a useful mechanism by which to reduce risk and promote a variety of beneficial outcomes across age groups and settings (Eby, Allen, Evans, Ng, & DuBois, 2008). For example, recent meta-analyses have found career benefits associated with mentoring in the workplace, both in the private sector (Allen, Eby, Poteet, Lentz, & Lima, 2004; Underhill, 2006) and among public school teachers (Grant, 2003) and university faculty (Gardiner, Tiggemann, Kearns, & Marshall, 2007). Other meta-analyses and reviews have established the benefits of academic or school-based mentoring at elementary, secondary, and post-secondary levels (Eby et al., 2008; Wheeler, Keller, & DuBois, 2010); for example, a meta-analysis found positive effects of peer mentoring for struggling readers in elementary school (Elbaum, Vaughn, Tejero Hughes, & Watson Moody, 2000), as did a review of mentoring programs for college students (Crisp & Cruz, 2009). Reviews and meta-analyses of community-based or psychosocial mentoring programs have also found positive behavioral, social, emotional, and academic outcomes for youth of various ages (DuBois, Holloway, Valentine, & Cooper, 2002; DuBois, Portillo, Rhodes, Silverthorn, & Valentine, 2011), including domains such as

E-mail address: [email protected].

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2014.07.002 0190-7409/© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

delinquency prevention (Tolan, Henry, Schoeny, & Bass, 2008) and juvenile reoffending (Jolliffe & Farrington, 2007). The majority of the research on community-based mentoring to date has focused on one-on-one mentoring (e.g., Big Brothers/Big Sisters), with comparatively little research conducted on group mentoring programs, in which one or more mentors work simultaneously with multiple youth (Kuperminc & Thomason, 2013). For example, a recent review found only 34 peer reviewed articles or dissertations on group mentoring (Huizing, 2012), and most of these dealt with workplace mentoring or other programs that involved adults rather than adolescents. Those programs that did involve adolescents were one year or less in length (e.g., in Yeh, Ching, Okubo, & Luthar, 2007, the program lasted one semester). In another review, Kuperminc and Thomason (2013) examined 10 group mentoring programs, but none of these was explicitly designed to span more than one year. Thus, it is clear that research on multi-year group mentoring programs is quite rare, and this gap is particularly noteworthy given that the length of the relationship between the mentor and protégé has been found to contribute to beneficial youth outcomes (DuBois & Rhodes, 2006; Grossman, Chan, Schwartz, & Rhodes, 2012; Grossman & Rhodes, 2002; Herrera et al., 2007; Karcher, 2005). A few examples of research on Boys & Girls Clubs can be found (Hirsch, 2005; Hirsch, Deutsch, & DuBois, 2011), but in these informal contexts it is unclear whether group mentoring relationships last more than one year. Finally, there

350

M.J. Van Ryzin / Children and Youth Services Review 44 (2014) 349–355

is one example of research on a group mentoring program that was designed to span multiple years, but this research concerns an advisory program in an educational context (i.e., secondary school; Van Ryzin, 2010). No research on community-based multi-year group mentoring programs currently exists, even though such programs were among the first to be established on a national level and still retain widespread visibility (e.g., Boy/Girl Scouts). To address these sorts of gaps between research and practice in mentoring, the National Research Summit on Mentoring developed a National Research Agenda for Youth Mentoring to promote effective evidence-based youth mentoring policy (Rhodes & DuBois, 2004). The National Research Agenda highlighted the need for evaluation of alternate mentoring formats, including group-based mentoring. To meet this need, the current study uses qualitative methods to examine the Stepping Stones Project (SSP), a long-term group mentoring program in Northern California. The SSP was initiated in 2002 and sought to create small groups of 6 to 8 youth along with two co-leaders, who would work together over an extended period of time. The group that comprises the sample for this study was originally planned for the middle school years but was eventually extended until high school graduation. This sample is also somewhat unique in that it was comprised solely of male youth and co-leaders (although the SSP has recently expanded to include female youth and co-leaders). Thus, this particular study not only provides the opportunity to examine processes and outcomes in a long-term group mentoring program, but can also provide insight into long-term mentoring relationships among boys and men. Although some researchers have emphasized the supposed benefits of shared activities in male mentoring relationships (as compared to the emphasis on closeness and intimacy in female mentoring relationships; Bogat & Liang, 2005; Darling, Bogat, Cavell, Murphy, & Sánchez, 2006), others have concluded that close relationships are just as important for boys as for girls (Hirsch, 2005; Spencer, 2007). Since the SSP is designed to encourage the development of close, supportive relationships among youth and co-leaders, this study can explore the degree to which such relationships play an important role for boys in a long-term mentoring program.

connected relationship with the youth, in order to provide instrumental and emotional support as the youth faced the trials of navigating the adolescent transition. Periodically the co-leaders held meetings with parents that did not include the youth, in which the group's activities were discussed in a general fashion and co-leaders provided a review of the youths' progress in the program. Youth also wrote summaries of their experiences to be shared with parents. During these meetings, co-leaders attempted to obtain from parents a fuller picture of the home life and dynamics in the family, in order to put the youths' issues and challenges in context. Parents were also encouraged to share concerns about their youth with one another and develop a network of social support. Finally, coleaders used the parent meetings to provide insight and coaching on adolescent development to enable parents to support the continued maturation of their youth. In the fall of 9th grade, the youths' progress in the program (and their matriculation in high school) was recognized with a formal ceremony. This ceremony was a community gathering of the youth, coleaders, parents, and important others during which the development of the youth was acknowledged and marked with ritual and celebration. In line with previous exploratory research on group-based mentoring programs (e.g., Herrera, Vang, & Gale, 2002), a cohort of recent graduates from the Stepping Stones Project and their parents were approached to participate in qualitative interviews. 2. Method 2.1. Participants A total of 11 participants (4 male adolescents and 7 parents comprised of 4 mothers and 3 fathers) were interviewed for this study, which comprised an entire cohort. The boys were approximately 20 years of age during the interviews and all were enrolled in postsecondary education. The mentoring relationships began when the boys were starting middle school (6th grade, or approximately 12 years old) and the program continued until high school graduation (approximately 18 years old). Parents and boys were all European-American.

1.1. The Stepping Stones Project 2.2. Interview protocols The Stepping Stones Project (SSP; Szilagyi, 2013) was founded to address the lack of meaningful traditions associated with the developmental transitions between childhood and adulthood in contemporary communities. The framework for the SSP includes coming-of-age and initiation practices of different cultures, which not only provide formal training for youth in preparation for the “rite of passage” to adulthood but also encourage the development of a community to support the youth in their transition. The primary goals of the SSP are to help youth develop communication and regulatory skills and a stronger, clearer sense of self; from this, the youth can develop and sustain healthy relationships with peers, parents, and other adults, who can serve as their support network during the transition to adulthood. The SSP consisted of regular monthly or bi-monthly meetings between youth and co-leaders that lasted several hours, during which recreational activities were conceived, planned, and executed; these activities took place both during meetings (e.g., sports, art projects) and outside of meetings (e.g., hiking or camping trips). The regular meetings also served as the context for direct experience in the practice of intentional, meaningful communication. Youth were encouraged to talk openly about the issues and challenges related to school, family, or friends outside the group. Leaders encouraged the youth to verbalize and explore the tensions they felt negotiating the expectations and demands from parents and teachers while attempting to develop mutually supportive relationships with peers. The co-leaders modeled an open approach to this dialogue, sharing challenges from their own lives. Through the regular meetings and shared recreational activities, the co-leaders sought to develop a mutually respectful, caring, and

Semistructured interview protocols were developed that asked about participants' experiences during the program, attitudes and behaviors related to the program, and perceptions of the value of the program. These protocols were used primarily as a guide, allowing the interviews to follow the participants' narratives as opportunities arose (Seidman, 1991). The author conducted the interviews in a one-on-one manner by telephone, and they generally lasted about 60 min, although a few lasted as much as 90 min. All interviews were recorded and the audio tape was transcribed. The transcriptions of the audio recordings of all interviews were verified in preparation for data analysis. Interview questions can be obtained from the author. 2.3. Data analysis Given the exploratory nature of this study, the absence of research on multi-year group mentoring programs, and the open-ended interview format, an inductive approach was taken. Specifically, a process of content analysis was applied (Weber, 1990) in which two individuals with knowledge of the mentoring literature read the written transcripts and independently generated a list of codes or themes to classify participants' responses to the interview questions; these themes were linked to specific words or phrases in the text. The two lists were compared and a final coding scheme was developed for use in coding the transcripts. During coding, the two coders held a series of consensus meetings in order to ensure that they were in agreement regarding which text segments were selected and how they were coded. The

M.J. Van Ryzin / Children and Youth Services Review 44 (2014) 349–355

overall percent agreement among the two coders was acceptable at 81%, and initial disagreements were resolved through discussion and consensus. 3. Results The analysis of the interview data indicated several main themes, and these were found across nearly all participants. The themes are detailed below, along with examples of comments from various participants. 3.1. Unique experiences in the understanding and communication of emotion The first theme to emerge from the interviews was that the SSP provided experiences that were exceedingly rare, especially for boys; this included the ability to listen and support others and to identify and verbalize feelings in an open, non-confrontational manner. One boy noted that the “stereotype is that men are prone to ignoring feelings, holding back tears, and just pushing through,” whereas the conversations they held in their group meetings were “completely open and straightforward”. This opportunity was seen by all as unique, with one boy noting that “people take time for listening in this program unlike in many other relationships” and a parent commented that “I don't think that kind of space was available to adolescents anywhere else when I was going through high school and middle school; during the process I wasn't aware of how unique it was”. One of the boys expanded on this idea to note that “it would be very profound for something like Stepping Stones to be a facet of everyday culture”. The parents agreed with these sentiments, with one parent noting that “boys have to put on layers of toughness or bravado, sarcasm, something, in order to cope”, and that “this group let them be their real selves, and it was not scary as far as I could tell; it seems to be a real safe place to do that, and that I think is the rarity of it; there isn't another part of their world that allows them to be this way.” Another parent echoed these comments, saying that “it's rare to have this community that you can trust and be yourself”; the parent added that this sort of communication “doesn't just happen, parents don't know how to do it, I don't know how to do it, and children, if it's not modeled at home, are not going to learn how to do it….it doesn't happen in school, it doesn't happen in sports, and it doesn't happen, I don't think, in their peer group.” The boys universally felt as though they gained important skills from participating in these conversations. One boy felt that he was “better able to express feelings” and another that he was “more aware of feelings”. A parent noted that his son “was better able to express himself…to speak clearly, to communicate and be at ease in groups of people”. Another parent commented that “there is a ‘genuineness’ to his relationships that probably was modeled or learned in this group”. One boy summed up his experience as: “I had the opportunity to be able to strengthen my ability to be vulnerable, or to articulate feelings and thoughts and emotions that, for a lot of the people around me, are hard to articulate because they've never really had the space to do that. I think that monthly practice made me a lot more comfortable with talking in that quality of conversation. It's sort of like a deeper, more serious type of dialogue. There is a greater ease with which I can bring up deeper, more personal subjects. I notice myself that I feel comfortable with that even though other people may be uncomfortable with that.” These benefits seemed to spread beyond just the boys themselves, as one parent commented that “the communication aspect of this was a plus, because that may be one of my weaker areas”. Another parent commented that she and her son “began to navigate the years more honestly and openly,” and that she was able to develop “the ability to

351

navigate tough circumstances and have an open and honest conversation and have it be a positive experience.” As a result of participating in the SSP, this parent “felt like I had the tools to do with that.” Similarly, one boy noted that: “This group had a greater effect on my parents…bringing that kind of communication into their vocabulary. Parents often say ‘you can come to me about anything, you can talk to me about anything’ but it's easier said than done. It's really hard to actually practice that. For my parents, it was that they got more comfortable and were able to see ways to do that.” Interestingly, rather than being intimidated by these conversations, the boys seemed to embrace them. One boy noted that he felt “free from the typical ‘middle school’ way of being” and that the group didn't have to “act tough” or “hide their feelings”. Contributing to their comfort with these conversations seemed to be a universal “sense of safety” and confidence that “what is said will be heard and respected” and that “all opinions are legitimate.” One boy noted that the confidentiality of the conversations (i.e., they were not shared verbatim with the parents) enabled a greater degree of honesty and candor, and another commented that their discussions as a group were “sharing feelings in a safe environment”. They also found the repetitive practice to be helpful, with one boy commenting that “the number of times that we went through the process of sharing, the experience of constant support, the skills we had at listening, made sharing easier”. Several boys also commented on the value of observing others, either mentors or other boys. One boy noted the “importance of role modeling of older men, demonstrating how to be a man” when interacting with other people, and another boy noted that “I learned a lot just by watching interactions among the other people in the group.” The group-based structure of the SSP also seemed to play a role in the success of these conversations, with one parent commenting that “sometimes it's easier to have heart-toheart talks when it's not your parents, or when it's in a group setting with other kids sharing things.” 3.2. Intensity of interpersonal relationships In parallel with these shared experiences in emotionally open communication, the group developed extremely close, supportive relationships between the boys and co-leaders and, in particular, among the boys themselves. One parent commented on the “intense emotion in the bonding” among the boys, and another parent pointed to her son's “depth of relationships with the other boys”; a third commented on the “loyalty and devotion and commitment” among the boys. One boy noted that the group felt “an unusual closeness” to one another, and another commented that “the quality of the friendship I have with them is deeper and of another quality than any other friendship that I have”, even though the boys in the group no longer spend that much time together (having gone to different places for postsecondary education). In discussing the relationships between the mentors and youth, several boys noted that the co-leaders often shared personal things with them, reaffirming the strength and bi-directionality of the relationship. A parent, in describing the nature of the relationship between the mentors and her son, added that “you generally don't have that kind of closeness in relationships with teachers or extended family members.” 3.3. Growing sense of self-knowledge and self-confidence The open nature of the communication in the group and the supportiveness of the social environment appeared to contribute to a growing sense of self-knowledge and self-confidence among the boys. One boy commented that a key part of the group experience was “to continually be affirmed for just being myself”, and that it “helped me to be less afraid of the world, and be who I was”. Another boy noted that “quieter people were given the opportunity to uncover a more

352

M.J. Van Ryzin / Children and Youth Services Review 44 (2014) 349–355

confident, outgoing piece of themselves, and more outgoing kids were given the chance to learn to listen to others”. A parent noted that, through the SSP, “the boys had an opportunity to develop their own code of ethics and their own self-image”. One parent found value in this approach in that “it's so rare to have time to think about who you are and what you want to do, and to be actively directed and supported in this activity”. Another parent noted that, as a result of participating in the program, his son “has a more positive view of who he is as a person”; this parent attributed the change to the influence of the mentors, stating that “there was nobody else like [the mentors] in his life, so emotionally open and present and supportive”. A third parent felt that the group activities enabled her son to “explore what it means to be a man,” and that this exploration enabled him to develop “more clarity about who he is as a person and where he is going with his life”. The ability of the mentors to encourage and support the boys' selfdiscovery may have resulted from their unique role as sources of support from outside the family. For example, one boy commented that “it would have been hard to be a dad and listen the way they did, without worrying, without reacting strongly or negatively, without restricting boundaries or re-establishing rules or punishing”. A parent noted that mentors could “provide skills and experiences that parents could not”, and that “the relationship with a mentor doesn't have the same constraints or baggage as a relationship with a parent”; instead, a mentor can see each boy with “fresh eyes.” Echoing these ideas, another parent discussed how male role models outside the family could be helpful, in that “different people are good at different things, with different skills and perspectives”; this parent viewed the mentors as “sort of like having uncles”.

her son. A third parent, speaking about this newfound maturity, commented that “I hadn't seen it so clearly before” but now “I recognized it, I saw it; it was obvious”. A third parent was “stunned” by the ceremony and “could see the depth that he was able to express and the depth of what he was experiencing internally”; as a result, this parent “had a different perspective of who he is.” The insights appeared to accrue to the boys also; a parent stated that her son “saw how difficult it was for her to let go”, that “he understood that she was working at it, and he saw that I was trying to grow too”. Finally, all participants noted that this ceremony provided a unique opportunity that was unlikely to have arisen otherwise. Commenting on the uniqueness of the ceremony, one parent said that “I had not experienced anything like that before or since…it was something that I will always remember”.

3.4. Support for a developmental shift in parent–youth relationship

As the program progressed and the boys demonstrated increasing capacity, they were given more voice in the direction of the program and were provided with more organizational responsibilities for group activities. A parent commented that, as time when on, “the leaders encouraged the kids to make more decisions about how the group would work and what would be done” and added that “the kids earned responsibility by demonstrating that they would make good decisions.” For example, although the co-leaders planned and led the initial meetings, the boys were given the opportunity to contribute ideas. Within the first few years, the boys had progressed to the point where they could plan and lead activities during meetings. In the last few years of the program, the boys planned and led several major group activities; as an example, several boys mentioned a group backpacking trip that occurred near the end of the program in which the boys were fully responsible for every aspect of the trip, including picking the location and timeframe and planning all trip logistics.

Another main theme that emerged from the interviews was that the program helped the boys and their parents shift their relationship to reflect the boys' growing maturity, and rather than being a source of conflict and distance, this shift seemed to bring them closer together. One key appeared to be the use of ceremony in the SSP. All participants and parents, when asked to name their most memorable moments in the program, referred to the ceremony that marked the transition from middle to high school. During this ceremony, the boys had the opportunity to address their parents and discuss things that they wanted to change in their relationships, and the co-leaders also offered comments on each boy. The boys expressed the feeling that relationships with their parents were “stuck” and that parents continued to view them more as children rather than as emerging adults. One parent noted that, during the ceremony, the boys “indicated that the parents were using outdated parenting methods and hadn't caught up with their maturity level” and another commenting that “it was the first time the relationship moved away from parent–child toward adult–adult”. Although such conversations could potentially serve as the source of conflict in some settings, there appeared to be an emphasis on mutual respect and appreciation between parents and boys. The parents indicted that the boys made their statements “in a kind way that included appreciation”, that they were “well-thought-out”, and “expressed gratitude in addition to the difficulties and challenges in their relationship with parents”. One boy also believed that the formal nature of the ceremony and the presence of others added a degree of gravity and legitimacy to their comments and enabled parents to actually take in and respond to what was being said. Both parents and boys seemed to find a great deal of value in the ceremony. One parent found it to be “a very constructive conversation”, and a boy commented that the families were able to “come together with a shared understanding”. One parent found this ceremony to be “so much more personal and compelling than other graduation ceremonies”, and commented that it was “amazing to hear about how others perceive my son”. The ceremony enabled this parent to “see things I had not seen before” which “added another dimension to who [my son] was”. Another parent saw “a different level of maturity” in

3.5. Gradual shift in the balance of power Another common theme was the open structure of the SSP and the ability of the boys to increase their voice and leadership in the group over time. As one parent put it, “it wasn't a package that was imposed, but it was developed based upon the interests and needs of the kids in the program”. Another parent added that “the program was open to where the boys wanted to take it.” One boy noted that: “Our group was very democratically run. All decisions were made communally — how often we meet, length of meetings. We shaped it together into something that was the most perfect for us. It would morph over time, although it would always have the same structure.”

3.6. Development of an inter-parental support network Finally, the parent-only group was mentioned as a significant source of support by all of the parents. Through this group, the parents realized that they all shared the same concerns, disappointments, and stresses. As one parent put it, it was “a great place to talk about things.” Uniformly, the parents felt reassured as they found that others were having similar experiences with their boys. One parent felt that the parent group was “one of the most important benefits” of participating as a family in the SSP. The parent support group also enabled parents to talk through any issues or concerns they had about the program. At the beginning, one parent “felt replaced as a Dad” and commented that he “wanted to do those things himself” with his son. Through the discussions among parents in the support group, he “realized that mentors were the right people to do that”. 4. Discussion In this study, we conducted a series of interviews with boys and their parents who participated in the Stepping Stones Project (SSP), a long-

M.J. Van Ryzin / Children and Youth Services Review 44 (2014) 349–355

term group mentoring program. The SSP was initiated at the start of middle school and continued until high-school graduation, and included monthly or bi-monthly meetings, shared activities, and periodic ceremonies marking significant transitions. Overall, the comments from the boys suggested that their relationships with their mentors were developmental (i.e., flexible, supportive, and guided by the boys' interest; Morrow & Styles, 1995) rather than prescriptive, and instrumental (i.e., oriented toward the accomplishment of a goal through guidance and advice; Hamilton & Hamilton, 1990) rather than social. Research has found that developmental and instrumental relationships tend to last longer and be more beneficial to youth (Hamilton & Hamilton, 1990; Keller, 2005a), and the results from this study corroborate these findings. In the discussion that follows, each of the main themes highlighted above will be linked to the two overlapping goals of this study: (1) exploring program processes and outcomes, and (2) illuminating the role of close, intimate relationships in mentoring programs for boys. 4.1. Program processes and outcomes The themes that emerged from the analysis of interviews were similar to those discussed by Kuperminc and Thomason (2013) in their theory of group mentoring, which relied on ideas from group psychotherapy. For example, in group psychotherapy, the group format serves as a context for interpersonal learning and skill development; specifically, in the social context of the group, individuals can explore new behaviors, develop new communication skills, observe and learn from others' behavior, and receive feedback from the group leader and from other group members. In translating these ideas to group mentoring, Kuperminc and Thomason (2013) highlighted several potential benefits to group mentoring, as compared to traditional oneon-one mentoring: (1) youth have the opportunity to interact directly with peers (i.e., other group members) in a structured context; (2) youth have the opportunity to observe interactions between mentor(s) and other group members in which they are not directly involved; and (3) in the case of team mentoring (i.e., more than one mentor for the group), youth may also have the opportunity to observe interactions among the mentors. All of these appeared to be at work in SSP, with the boys commenting often on the quality of the relationships that developed with other participants and several boys noting the value of observing as well as participating in this sort of communication. In a group mentoring format such as SSP, there may be advantages to having multiple leaders with different and potentially complementary communication and leadership styles, as it may be difficult for a single leader to serve the diverse needs of a group of youth across such an extended period of time and across varied contexts and activities. As one parent noted, multiple leaders may provide benefits to a group mentoring program in that “you're getting more different kinds of people involved in the raising of your child.” At the same time, conflict between co-leaders could be potentially quite harmful to group dynamics, so the choice of co-leaders should clearly be done with extreme care. Some researchers have questioned whether participants in group mentoring can experience the same intensity and quality of relationship with a mentor that is thought to be at the heart of mentoring (Rhodes, 2002); based upon the results of this study, it would appear that programs such as the SSP can alleviate this concern. The boys developed not only trusting relationships with the co-leaders, but also strong and lasting relationships with one another. The results also suggest that the relationships between the mentors and boys in the SSP fulfilled the criteria put forth by Li and Julian (2012), who hypothesized that the most beneficial developmental relationships would be characterized by a strong emotional attachment, reciprocity, progressive complexity, and a balance of power that gradually shifts from the developed person in favor of the developing person. The comments from boys and parents in this study describe relationships with mentors that were strong, trusting, and accepting, with a high degree of mutual

353

positive regard. These relationships were also reciprocal, in that mentors shared intimate details about their own lives with the boys. Finally, the balance of power clearly shifted to the boys during the course of the program as the mentors gradually ceded more control over the planning and execution of group activities. These high-quality developmental relationships most likely contributed to the universal impression among the boys that the program had a significant positive impact on their well-being. The mentors also appeared to play a role in the boys' identity formation, a key developmental process in adolescence (Erikson, 1968). First, through their instruction, guidance, and example as role models, the mentors attempted to socialize the boys toward more positive identities — for example, toward becoming a person that is comfortable in situations of vulnerability and emotional intimacy. Second, the mentors supported the process of identity formation by providing a “mirror” during the boys' identity exploration (Kohut, 1977) that was free from the possibly limiting conditions that evolve within the family, school, or peer group. The mentors provided a positive, responsive audience that encouraged the boys' initiative in exploring different aspects of their identity. The mentors also were able to recognize the boys' growth and emerging maturity without being hindered by static notions of the boys as “less-than-adults”; in this way, it would appear that mentors can play an important role that is unlikely to be filled by parents. In their review of group mentoring programs, Kuperminc and Thomason (2013) also briefly discussed the applicability of developmental concepts to group mentoring, which is also a topic of interest in this study. Given the extended timeframe and stated goals of the SSP, developmental concepts are clearly germane, particularly the notion of adolescent autonomy and its impact on parent–youth relationships. During the course of adolescence, increased behavioral and emotional autonomy from parents requires a periodic re-negotiation of parent–adolescent boundaries and roles (Zimmer-Gembeck & Collins, 2003). If families can negotiate these changes in a positive manner, then youth are likely to experience more positive adjustment in adulthood; in contrast, a difficult transition marked by an acrimonious renegotiation of boundaries and roles may strain parent–adolescent relationships, reducing parents' capacity to provide emotional support and behavioral guidance during this period (Allen & Land, 1999; Steinberg, 1990). Indeed, conflict in the family can lead to a variety of negative outcomes among adolescents, including increased antisocial behavior, depression, and violent behavior in early adulthood (Sheeber, Hops, Alpert, Davis, & Andrews, 1997; Van Ryzin & Dishion, 2012a; Van Ryzin & Dishion, 2012b). This is particularly true when parents fail to acknowledge or purposefully limit adolescents' autonomy (Allen & Hauser, 1996). A program such as SSP, which attempts to promote youth development and maturity with an eye toward a more skillful negotiation of autonomy with parents, may provide significant benefits in terms of reduced family conflict and a more positive, stable transition to adulthood. Improved parent–youth relationships, in turn, are a means by which mentoring programs can promote more distal positive outcomes, such as enhanced self-worth and academic achievement (Rhodes, Grossman, & Resch, 2000). One of the key components of the SSP that seemed to promote a more positive re-negotiation of the parent–youth relationship was the ceremony that officially marked the transition between middle and high school. This ceremony prepared the boys to speak clearly and respectfully to parents and seemed to assist the parents in listening to and respecting the boys' point of view and taking their comments to heart. Ceremonies of this nature (more formally known as Rites of Passage) have been part of human culture for centuries (Van Gennep, 1960) but are only recently being re-discovered as a useful tool for youth development (Foster & Little, 1998; Mahdi, Christopher, & Meade, 1996; Plotkin, 2009). For example, Washington State University recently adopted a Rite of Passage program for adolescents as part of their 4-H Program (http://4h.wsu.edu/challenge/rite/). Rites of Passage

354

M.J. Van Ryzin / Children and Youth Services Review 44 (2014) 349–355

have also recently been introduced into substance use prevention programs (e.g., Cherry et al., 1998). Further research on the specific benefits of Rites of Passage is certainly warranted. 4.2. Benefits of emotionally intimate mentoring relationships for males Contrary to hypotheses about activity-centric mentoring relationships being more appropriate for adolescent boys (Bogat & Liang, 2005; Darling et al., 2006), the boys in this study were not reluctant to participate in emotionally intimate conversations; rather, they seemed grateful for the opportunity. Indeed, one parent felt that her son was “hungering” for such an environment, in which he was able to express emotions without fear of social rejection. This opportunity was clearly unique for these boys, and something that they did not experience anywhere else in their lives. Other researchers have reported similar findings in programs involving mentoring relationships between boys and men (e.g., Hirsch, 2005; Spencer, 2007). Together, these findings suggest that, although it may be socially normative for boys to retreat behind bravado or “hypermasculine” behavior (Mosher & Tomkins, 1988), boys often desire social situations in which a high degree of emotional intimacy is accepted and encouraged. In her research, Spencer (2007) found that close male mentoring relationships can provide adolescent boys with role models for “less constricting and conventional forms of masculinity, particularly with regard to emotional disclosures and expressivity” (p. 197). Similarly to Spencer (2007), the mentors in this study developed close relationships with the boys by expressing interest in their emotional lives and serving as a trusted “listening ear” (p. 191). Unlike the sample in Spencer (2007), however, most of the boys in this study were not lacking for male role models; rather, the boys in the SSP appreciated the value of other men in their lives over and above the influence of their fathers. As a result of the close relationships and the regular exposure to emotionally intimate conversations, participants in the SSP felt that they developed a degree of emotional maturity, a perception that was corroborated by parents. In this way, programs such as SSP may be akin to social–emotional learning (SEL) programs (Durlak, Weissberg, Dymnicki, Taylor, & Schellinger, 2011), which use set curricula and role-playing to strengthen the ability of children and youth to recognize, communicate, and manage their emotions, empathize with others, negotiate conflicts, and make responsible decisions. One key difference appears to be the experiential nature of SSP; no formal curricula were used, and the boys gained skills through a combination of social modeling (by the mentors) and direct experience. Skills such as these have also been described as “emotional intelligence”, which refers to the ability to monitor one's own and others' emotions, to discriminate among them, and to use this information to guide one's thinking and actions (Salovey & Mayer, 1990). Research has linked emotional intelligence to a variety of beneficial outcomes, including self-regulation, empathy, work performance, relationship quality, and life satisfaction (Ciarrochi, Chan, & Caputi, 2000; Law, Wong, & Song, 2004; Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2008; Schutte et al., 2001). Although it is unclear whether these benefits accrued to the boys in this study as a result of their participation in the SSP, longitudinal quantitative research on relationship-focused programs such as SSP could help to clarify their potential to spur the development of these skills, as well as the influence of these skills on long-term behavioral and developmental outcomes. 4.3. Parental involvement Outside of these two areas of interest, one final theme emerged relating to the involvement of parents. The inclusion of parents in the SSP is rather unique in the mentoring literature; indeed, very little mentoring research has included parents, and few programs deliberately encourage parental involvement. As noted by Spencer, Basualdo‐ Delmonico, and Lewis (2011), however, involvement of parents can help to ensure that parent motivations are understood and parent

expectations are addressed. Beyond simply encouraging parental involvement, however, the SSP provided specific program components designed explicitly for parents, including not only the parent support group but also the inclusion of parents in program ceremonies. These program components were perceived by the parents as providing significant value in terms of information and emotional support, as well as insight into program activities and the development and maturation of their children. Keller (2005b) hypothesized that parent–mentor relationships may play a key role in the success or failure of a mentoring program, and thus part of the success of the SSP for this cohort may be attributable to the way in which the program catered to parents. 4.4. Limitation and conclusion Several limitations to this study should be noted. Most importantly, this study used a small and racially homogenous sample. As a result, these findings cannot be construed as supporting the overall efficacy of the SSP program, but rather only as providing insight into program processes and their perceived links to outcomes. The nature of the sample also limits the generalizability of these results to other groupbased mentoring programs. Further, this cohort was initially larger, with several boys choosing not to participate in the program within the first few weeks; these selection effects also limit the generalizability of the results. The SSP is currently serving several other cohorts of both boys and girls, and additional research on these cohorts is required before broader conclusions about the efficacy of the SSP can be drawn. Finally, the accounts of experiences in the SSP were retrospective, which can bias an individual's recall of positive events to an unknown extent (Wilson, Meyers, & Gilbert, 2003). A prospective study of a current or future SSP cohort would be required to ensure that bias in recall was not significantly influencing these results. In sum, this study can contribute to theory regarding the developmental processes and perceived benefits of involvement in long-term group mentoring programs for adolescent boys. From a process perspective, the group-based nature of the SSP did not appear to negatively impact the ability of the mentors to form close, trusting relationships with the boys in this sample and, in turn, to influence their behavior and well-being. The boys described an environment that provided regular exposure to emotionally intimate conversations in which they felt that they were able to share stressful or troubling aspects of their lives and obtain sympathy and emotional support. This experience was seen as very unique in modern society, and the boys and their parents perceived strong and lasting benefits in terms of communication skills and the boys' sense of identity. The results from this study speak to the importance of having adult mentors outside of the family, even for boys not disadvantaged by absent or unsupportive fathers. During the course of the program, the parents came to appreciate the benefits of having adult male role models for their children. In summing up the SSP, one parent noted that it helped the parents to “go through the process of releasing the boys to the world.” References Allen, T. D., Eby, L. T., Poteet, M. L., Lentz, E., & Lima, L. (2004). Career benefits associated with mentoring for proteges: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 127–136. Allen, J. P., & Hauser, S. T. (1996). Autonomy and relatedness in adolescent–family interactions as predictors of young adults' states of mind regarding attachment. Development and Psychopathology, 3, 793–809. Allen, J. P., & Land, D. (1999). Attachment in adolescence. In J. Cassidy, & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 319–335). New York: Guilford Press. Bogat, G. A., & Liang, B. (2005). Gender in mentoring relationships. In D. L. Dubois, & M. J. Karcher (Eds.), Handbook of youth mentoring (pp. 205–217). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Cherry, V. R., Belgrave, F. Z., Jones, W., Kennon, D. K., Gray, F. S., & Phillips, F. (1998). NTU: An Africentric approach to substance abuse prevention among African American youth. Journal of Primary Prevention, 18, 319–339. Ciarrochi, J. V., Chan, A. Y., & Caputi, P. (2000). A critical evaluation of the emotional intelligence construct. Personality and Individual Differences, 28, 539–561.

M.J. Van Ryzin / Children and Youth Services Review 44 (2014) 349–355 Crisp, G., & Cruz, I. (2009). Mentoring college students: A critical review of the literature between 1990 and 2007. Research in Higher Education, 50, 525–545. Darling, N., Bogat, G. A., Cavell, T. A., Murphy, S. E., & Sánchez, B. (2006). Gender, ethnicity, development, and risk: Mentoring and the consideration of individual differences. Journal of Community Psychology, 34, 765–779. DuBois, D. L., Holloway, B. E., Valentine, J. C., & Cooper, H. (2002). Effectiveness of mentoring programs for youth: A meta-analytic review. American Journal of Community Psychology, 30, 157–197. DuBois, D. L., Portillo, N., Rhodes, J. E., Silverthorn, N., & Valentine, J. C. (2011). How effective are mentoring programs for youth? A systematic assessment of the evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 12, 57–91. DuBois, D. L., & Rhodes, J. E. (2006). Youth mentoring: Bridging science with practice. Journal of Community Psychology, 34, 547–565. Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R. D., & Schellinger, K. B. (2011). The impact of enhancing students' social and emotional learning: A meta‐analysis of school‐based universal interventions. Child Development, 82, 405–432. Eby, L. T., Allen, T. D., Evans, S. C., Ng, T., & DuBois, D. L. (2008). Does mentoring matter? A multidisciplinary meta-analysis comparing mentored and non-mentored individuals. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 72, 254–267. Elbaum, B., Vaughn, S., Tejero Hughes, M., & Watson Moody, S. (2000). How effective are one-to-one tutoring programs in reading for elementary students at risk for reading failure? A meta-analysis of the intervention research. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 605–619. Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York: Norton. Foster, S., & Little, M. (1998). The four shields: The initiatory seasons of human nature. Lost Borders Press. Gardiner, M., Tiggemann, M., Kearns, H., & Marshall, K. (2007). Show me the money! An empirical analysis of mentoring outcomes for women in academia. Higher Education Research & Development, 26, 425–442. Grant, L. L. (2003). Meta-analysis of induction and mentoring programs' contribution to new teacher retention during the first five years of employment. (PhD Dissertation). Northern Illinois University. Grossman, J. B., Chan, C. S., Schwartz, S. E. O., & 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, 43–54. 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. Hamilton, S. F., & Hamilton, M. A. (1990). Linking up: Final report on a mentoring program for youth. New York: Cornell University, College of Human Ecology, Department of Human Development & Family Studies. Herrera, C., Grossman, J. B., Kauh, T. J., Feldman, A. F., McMaken, J., & Jucovy, L. Z. (2007). Making a difference in schools: The Big Brothers Big Sisters school-based mentoring impact study. Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private Ventures. Herrera, C., Vang, Z., & Gale, L. (2002). Group mentoring: A study of mentoring groups in three programs. Philadelphia: Public/Private Ventures (Retrieved from http://www. ppv.org/ppv/publications.asp?section_id=22). Hirsch, B. J. (2005). A place to call home: After school programs for urban youth. New York: Teachers College Press. Hirsch, B. J., Deutsch, N. L., & DuBois, D. L. (2011). After-school centers and youth development: Case studies of success and failure. New York: Cambridge University Press. Huizing, R. L. (2012). Mentoring together: A literature review of group mentoring. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 20, 27–55. Jolliffe, D., & Farrington, D. P. (2007). A rapid evidence assessment of the impact of mentoring on re-offending: A summary. Home Office online report 11/07. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University. 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, 65–77. Keller, T. E. (2005a). The stages and development of mentoring relationships. In D. L. DuBois, & M. Karcher (Eds.), Handbook of youth mentoring (pp. 82–95). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Keller, T. E. (2005b). A systemic model of the youth mentoring intervention. Journal of Primary Prevention, 26, 169–188. Kohut, H. (1977). The restoration of the self. CT: International Universities Press Inc. Kuperminc, G. P., & Thomason, J. D. (2013). Group mentoring. In D. L. DuBois, & M. J. Karcher (Eds.), Handbook of youth mentoring (pp. 273–289) (Second ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

355

Law, K. S., Wong, C. S., & Song, L. J. (2004). The construct and criterion validity of emotional intelligence and its potential utility for management studies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 483–496. Li, J., & Julian, M. M. (2012). Developmental relationships as the active ingredient: A unifying working hypothesis of “what works” across intervention settings. The American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 82, 157–166. Mahdi, L. C., Christopher, N. G., & Meade, M. (Eds.). (1996). Crossroads: The quest for contemporary rites of passage. Open Court Publishing. Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2008). Emotional intelligence: New ability or eclectic traits? American Psychologist, 63(6), 503–517. 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. Mosher, D. L., & Tomkins, S. S. (1988). Scripting the macho man: Hypermasculine socialization and enculturation. Journal of Sex Research, 25(1), 60–84. Plotkin, B. (2009). Nature and the human soul: Cultivating wholeness and community in a fragmented world. New World Library. Rhodes, J. (2002). Group mentoring. Research Corner on the website of MENTOR (Retrieved from http://www.mentoring.org/access_research/group/). Rhodes, J. E., & DuBois, D. L. (2004). National research agenda for youth mentoring. Alexandria, VA: MENTOR/National Mentoring Partnership. Rhodes, J. E., Grossman, J. B., & Resch, N. L. (2000). Agents of change: Pathways through which mentoring relationships influence adolescents' academic adjustment. Child Development, 71, 1662–1671. Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition, and Personality, 9, 185–211. Schutte, N. S., Malouff, J. M., Bobik, C., Coston, T. D., Greeson, C., Jedlicka, C., et al. (2001). Emotional intelligence and interpersonal relations. The Journal of Social Psychology, 141(4), 523–536. Seidman, I. E. (1991). Interviewing as qualitative research. New York: Teachers College Press. Sheeber, L., Hops, H., Alpert, A., Davis, B., & Andrews, J. (1997). Family support and conflict: Prospective relations to adolescent depression. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 25, 333–344. Spencer, R. (2007). “I just feel safe with him”: Emotional closeness in male youth mentoring relationships. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 8, 185–198. Spencer, R., Basualdo‐Delmonico, A., & Lewis, T. O. (2011). Working to make it work: The role of parents in the youth mentoring process. Journal of Community Psychology, 39, 51–59. Steinberg, L. (1990). Autonomy, conflict, and harmony in the family relationship. In S. Feldman, & G. Elliot (Eds.), At the threshold: The developing adolescent (pp. 255–276). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Szilagyi, J. (2013). Stepping Stones Project leader guidebook. Unpublished manuscript. Tolan, P., Henry, D., Schoeny, M., & Bass, A. (2008). Mentoring interventions to affect juvenile delinquency and associated problems. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 16 (Retrieved from http://www.campbellcollaboration.org/lib/download/238/). Underhill, C. M. (2006). The effectiveness of mentoring programs in corporate settings: A meta-analytical review of the literature. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68, 292–307. Van Gennep, A. (1960). The rites of passage. Routledge. Van Ryzin, M. J. (2010). The secondary school advisor as mentor and secondary attachment figure. Journal of Community Psychology, 38, 131–154. Van Ryzin, M. J., & Dishion, T. J. (2012a). The impact of a family-centered intervention on the ecology of adolescent antisocial behavior: Modeling developmental sequelae and trajectories during adolescence. Development and Psychopathology, 24, 1139–1155. Van Ryzin, M. J., & Dishion, T. J. (2012b). From antisocial behavior to violence: A model for the amplifying role of coercive joining in adolescent friendships. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 54, 661–669. Weber, R. P. (1990). Basic content analysis. Newbury Park: Sage. Wheeler, M., Keller, T., & DuBois, D. L. (2010). Review of three recent randomized trials of school-based mentoring. Social Policy Report, 24, 1–21. Wilson, T. D., Meyers, J., & Gilbert, D. T. (2003). “How happy was I, anyway?” A retrospective impact bias. Social Cognition, 21, 421–446. Yeh, C. J., Ching, A. M., Okubo, Y., & Luthar, S. S. (2007). Development of a mentoring program for Chinese immigrant adolescents' cultural adjustment. Adolescence, 42, 733–747. Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J., & Collins, W. A. (2003). Autonomy development during adolescence. In G. R. Adams, & M. D. Berzonsky (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of adolescence (pp. 175–204). Malden, MA: Blackwell.