Researchers Propose New Framework for Measuring Natural Mentor Support
Brown-Weinstock, R., Kang, M., Edin, K., Pachman, S., & Bolin, K. (2024). Other adults in the United States: Improving survey measures of youths’ non-parental adult relationships. Journal of Marriage and Family, 1-20.
Introduction
This study by Brown-Weinstock et al. (2024) provides a critical examination of how major nationally representative surveys measure the influence of non-parental adults, or “other adults” (OAs), on youth development. The authors argue that existing survey measures fail to adequately capture the complex and significant roles that OAs play in young people’s lives, particularly for disadvantaged and minority youth. Brown-Weinstock and colleagues identify key limitations in current survey approaches and propose new measures to better assess OA relationships.
Methods
Researchers drew on in-depth life history interviews conducted in 2018-2019 with 40 youth-primary caregiver dyads sampled from the FFCWS. The youth were 18-19 years old at the time of interview. The sample is roughly representative of the larger FFCWS cohort in terms of race/ethnicity, family structure, and socioeconomic status.
Interviews typically lasted 2-3 hours and covered a wide range of topics including family relationships, education, employment, and neighborhood contexts. The researchers used an inductive coding approach, systematically analyzing interview transcripts to identify themes related to OA relationships. They then compared these qualitative findings to existing survey measures across the four major nationally representative studies.
Results
The analysis revealed four key limitations in how current surveys measure OA relationships:
1. Reproducing the nuclear family model: Surveys prioritize biological parent relationships, with minimal attention to influential OAs like grandparents, aunts/uncles, or non-kin adults.
2. Narrow focus on financial contributions: Measures emphasize OAs’ material support but neglect important socioemotional contributions.
3. Poor capture of harmful OA influences: Surveys provide limited options for reporting negative or abusive OA relationships.
4. Aggregating OAs: Questions often treat OAs as homogeneous groups (e.g., “teachers,” “neighbors”) without capturing variation within these categories.
The authors illustrate each limitation in survey measures to capture positive and negative relationships. They use rich case examples from their qualitative data, describing how 19-year-old Monique’s aunt and “godmother” played crucial caregiving roles that would be missed by standard survey measures focused on biological parents, or how Mark’s neighborhood “big brother” who introduced him to drug dealing.
Discussion
The researchers argue that these limitations in measuring OA relationships constitute a critical blind spot in youth development research. They contend that addressing this gap is crucial for understanding how contemporary family structures and social contexts shape youth outcomes, particularly for disadvantaged populations.
In response to these findings, the FFCWS has added new measures to its age 22 survey wave. These items ask respondents to identify influential parent-like figures beyond biological parents, assess the quality and frequency of communication with these OAs, and explore how OAs support educational and career development.
Researchers highlight that further research in this vein is critical for understanding the evolving dynamics of contemporary families and developing more effective policies to support youth development.
Implications for Mentoring Programs
- Mentoring programs should consider the ways in which they assess and support OA relationships for youth in their programs, to understand outside factors influencing outcomes
Read full article here
