Reimagining mentoring through an equity lens

/in /by

By Jean Rhodes

“In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not.” – Benjamin Brewster

The field of youth mentoring has experienced remarkable growth and evolution over the past two decades, fundamentally shaped by three theoretical frameworks developed in the mid-2000s. These foundational models – Keller’s systemic model, Spencer’s relational model, and my own mechanisms model – have collectively guided hundreds of research studies and practical applications in youth mentoring. But, in their recent work, Gowdy, Jones, and Griffith (2024) provide an important critical historical analysis and important reimagining of these frameworks through an equity lens.

The authors conducted in-depth interviews with the original theorists (Keller, Spencer, and Rhodes) to understand the genesis and evolution of our models. This qualitative investigation revealed how each framework emerged from distinct philosophical orientations and practical experiences, contents and values. The systemic model, developed by Keller from his direct experience at Big Brothers Big Sisters, emphasized the broader network of relationships surrounding the mentor-mentee dyad. Spencer’s relational model, informed by clinical social work practice, identified four essential processes: authenticity, empathy, collaboration, and companionship. Rhodes’ mechanisms model provided an equation-like framework linking relationship qualities to developmental outcomes. A key insight was the complementary nature of these models, with each addressing different levels of analysis – from Spencer’s micro-level relational processes to Keller’s macro-level systems perspective. The authors discovered that, while these frameworks provided robust foundational elements, they did not fully address contemporary concerns around equity, social justice, and cultural humility.

The Equity Model

Building on these insights, the authors propose a new “Equity Model of Formal Youth Mentoring” that synthesizes elements from all three frameworks while centering issues of social justice and cultural responsiveness. This model  emphasizes healing-centered engagement, strengths-based approaches, and recognition of community cultural wealth. The evolution from individual frameworks to an integrated equity model demonstrates the field’s growing recognition of systemic factors and cultural contexts.

The model (Jones, Gowdy, Griffith, 2024) synthesizes elements from all three frameworks while centering issues of social justice and cultural responsiveness. This model, a major contribution to our field, redistributes some power within the mentoring relationship back to the young person and their family by acknowledging the wealth of resources within those players and by emphasizing the benefits the mentor experiences through being in relationship with the young person.

I interviewed the authors to get their perspectives on the importance and implications of their work:

JR: The new Equity Model emphasizes healing-centered engagement and cultural humility. What specific strategies would you recommend for mentoring programs to implement these concepts effectively? Could you elaborate on how mentoring programs can better provide this support while acknowledging structural inequities?

Aisha Griffith: We encourage mentoring program directors to learn about these concepts and reflect on what this means for their own local context. For instance, start with the concept of Healing Centered Engagement in the below resources. What are your reactions? How does your mission statement and theory of change reflect the principles of Healing Centered Engagement- what needs to shift to emphasize the strengths of mentees? Who are the communities you partner with and how are you centering the voices of the mentees in your program? How do you currently view their experiences?

Mentoring programs work in a climate of structural oppression such as systemic racism. The link below is one resource for recognizing this in the context of mentoring. After reviewing, think beyond your mentors. To what extent do your board of directors and your funders recognize that mentoring is working in the context of structural oppression?

Consider your mentors and who they are in the context of cultural humility. After looking at the links below, consider- Who are your mentors? What guides the mentors to your program? Have they done the critical reflection described in the resources?

Programs that start with these specific resources with an open mind and understanding that mentoring needs to center the strengths of the youth and families they partner with in their local context will be better equipped to design strategies to promote the Equity Model in a thoughtful manner.

JR: Your new model emphasizes reciprocal benefits for both mentors and mentees. How might this shift in perspective influence program design and evaluation?

Kristian Jones: This is a great question. Much of the youth mentoring literature, as well as the history of youth mentoring programs in the United States, focuses on how mentoring can help youth, but often overlooks that mentoring can be such an impactful experience for the mentor as well. Considering the ways in which youth can positively impact mentors could potentially shift how much programs utilize youth input on mentor selection and consider the outcomes selected for the specific mentoring program. Additionally, evaluating the impact on outcomes experienced by the mentor (e.g., life satisfaction, critical consciousness, communication skills) could also illustrate positive impacts of mentoring programs that have not been captured in the past.

JR: Looking ahead, what do you see as the most critical areas for future research in youth mentoring, particularly regarding support for minoritized youth?

Grace Gowdy:  I think real world conversation between families, practitioners, and researchers are forever needed in order to keep this line of work helpful. Families and practitioners often have the most compelling research and evaluation questions.

I think the role that researchers can play is more the thinking bigger: What is mentoring’s role in combating the social injustices our young people face? How can mentoring be thought of as just one piece of a larger wraparound intervention that is more systems focused and asset based? I think more work needs to be done by researchers in recognizing parts of the history of the field that are deficit based and steeped in white saviorism. One product of that is the over-use of mentoring as an intervention. Mentoring is not a benign intervention and can in fact leave a young person worse off than if they were never matched. The Equity model is just one small step in a long and ongoing course correction from these parts of the field’s history.

I think researchers should also be thinking through the tension of implementation fidelity and context. How can we have a set of best practices with full and open acknowledgement that interventions need to be context-specific, adapting to a particular place and the needs of that community? How can researchers support such adaptation while still supporting basic fidelity to best practices?

In summary, the Equity Model represents a significant shift in youth mentoring by centering cultural humility, social justice, and reciprocal benefits for mentors and mentees. This model challenges programs to critically reflect on their practices, acknowledging structural inequities and fostering resilience within local communities. As youth mentoring continues to evolve, this framework underscores the importance of context-sensitive, strengths-based approaches that empower both youth and the systems supporting them.

References

Gowdy, G., Jones, K. & Griffith, A. N. (2024). Youth mentoring as a means of supporting mental health for minoritized youth: A reflection on three theoretical frameworks 20 years later. Youth, 4(3), 1211-1223. https://doi.org/10.3390/youth4030076
Jones, K.V., Grace. G., & Griffith. A. N. (2024). Why not all three? Combining Keller, Rhodes, and Spencer models two decades later to equitably support the health and well-being of minoritized youth in mentoring programs. Youth, 4(3), 1348-1363. https://doi.org/10.3390/youth4030085