Do “credible messengers” make better mentors?
By Jean Rhodes
In his comprehensive new National Mentoring Resource Center review of credible messenger and lived experience mentoring (LEM) programs, David DuBois explores an under-researched topic in youth development and criminal justice reform. The report evaluates mentoring models in which mentors share meaningful life experiences with at-risk youth, such as previous criminal legal system involvement or personal struggles with addiction or mental health conditions. By synthesizing a diverse body of research, including systematic reviews and program evaluations, DuBois constructs a cautious yet hopeful narrative on the potential of LEM programs, while acknowledging significant research gaps.
The review’s central thesis is that LEM programs, particularly credible messenger initiatives targeting youth involved in the criminal justice system, offer promising but uneven outcomes. Evaluations of prominent programs like the Arches Transformative Mentoring Program and Cure Violence reveal mixed effects, with some evidence suggesting reduced recidivism, enhanced social connections, and improved emotional well-being. Nonetheless, as he points out, methodological limitations, such as inconsistent use of comparison groups and reliance on small sample sizes, make it hard to draw definitive conclusions about efficacy.
The report also highlights the theoretical appeal of LEM programs, linking their promise to established psychological principles such as social learning, empathy, and role modeling. Mentors who share lived experiences with mentees are often uniquely positioned to build trust, challenge negative behaviors, and model resilience. For instance, evaluations of hospital-based violence intervention programs reveal that mentees perceived mentors as credible and transformative, capable of reducing stigma and encouraging the pursuit of supportive services like mental health care.
Despite the promising findings, the report is careful not to romanticize the lived experience model. DuBois notes that matching mentors and mentees solely based on shared experiences can backfire if mentors lack adequate training or struggle with unresolved trauma. The potential for negative role modeling, emotional burnout, and logistical barriers to mentor engagement emerges as a critical concern.As DuBois notes: “Concerns were expressed that these mentoring models must avoid tokenism and ensure that those implementing them are not viewing other people’s pain and trauma solely as an asset to be mined by those from outside a community.” (p. 33)
The review’s nuanced analysis acknowledges that while lived experience can create powerful bonds, it does not inherently translate into effective mentoring. As with other mentoring models, it requires structured support and supervision.
The report’s critique extends to program implementation and sustainability. DuBois highlights how financial constraints, inconsistent training protocols, and variability in mentor recruitment practices undermine program stability. Encouragingly, he identifies promising practices such as community-based participatory approaches, where stakeholders co-design and implement mentoring programs, enhancing both cultural relevance and local buy-in.
Perhaps the most compelling insight from the review is the tension between aspiration and evidence. While LEM programs align well with social equity goals, empirical support for their superiority over conventional mentoring remains inconclusive. The report calls for more rigorous research, particularly randomized controlled trials and long-term evaluations that can isolate the unique contributions of lived experience mentoring.
For mentoring programs broadly, the implications are both practical and philosophical. LEM initiatives invite a reimagining of mentorship as a reciprocal, empathy-driven process, rooted in shared struggle rather than hierarchical expertise. Yet, the review’s cautious tone serves as a reminder that even well-intentioned interventions must be evidence-based, scalable, and adequately funded to achieve lasting impact.
In sum, David DuBois’ evidence review is an exceptionally thoughtful, data-driven exploration that balances optimism with realism. It advances the conversation on mentoring policy by emphasizing that lived experience, while invaluable, requires intentional design and robust evaluation to unlock its full potential in supporting marginalized youth. This insight is vital for policymakers, practitioners, and researchers committed to equity-driven mentoring innovation.
