Scoping review of therapeutic mentoring highlights benefits and need for rigorous research

Werntz, A., Rhodes, J. E., Brockstein, H., Fallon, L., & Cook, A. (2025). A scoping review of therapeutic mentoring for youth mental health. Frontiers in Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 4, 1509971.

Introduction

Between 20% and 30% of children require psychological services, yet only one-third receive adequate treatment, with access gaps disproportionately affecting communities of color and under-resourced areas. Given the shortage of highly trained mental health providers, paraprofessional mentoring programs have been increasingly integrated into mental health interventions. Werntz and colleagues (2025) synthesize the available research on self-designated therapeutic mentoring programs, clarify the defining features of therapeutic mentoring, and identify gaps that future research should address.

Methods

A systematic literature search was conducted and inclusion criteria required that studies be peer-reviewed, published in English, conducted within the United States, and explicitly reference therapeutic mentoring in their abstracts or titles. 18 studies published between 2003 and 2024 were identified, spanning randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-experimental studies, qualitative research, and case studies.

Results

13 studies examined the Campus Connections (CC) program, a university-based mentoring initiative that pairs undergraduate students with at-risk youth. Mentors in CC undergo extensive training and are supervised by clinical professionals, providing a structured framework for therapeutic support. Other programs reviewed included state-funded Medicaid-reimbursable therapeutic mentoring initiatives, community-based interventions, and culturally tailored mentoring models for racially and ethnically diverse youth.

Only two studies employed RCTs, both evaluating variations within the CC program rather than testing therapeutic mentoring against alternative interventions. Findings from non-experimental studies suggested that therapeutic mentoring may reduce stress, trauma symptoms, and externalizing behaviors while promoting social-emotional development. However, one study (the Arthur Project) reported an increase in self-reported mental health symptoms post-intervention, potentially reflecting increased disclosure rather than program ineffectiveness.

Mentor backgrounds varied widely, ranging from undergraduate students and social work interns to trained paraprofessionals supervised by licensed clinicians.

Discussion

A central challenge identified in this review is the lack of a unified definition of therapeutic mentoring. Programs self-identify under this label despite vast differences in structure (e.g., supervision), mentor qualifications (e.g., training), and targeted outcomes. This ambiguity complicates efforts to evaluate therapeutic mentoring systematically and compare it to other mental health interventions.

The review also highlights the racial and ethnic diversity of youth served in therapeutic mentoring programs. Given the disparities in access to traditional mental health services, therapeutic mentoring may provide a culturally responsive alternative, particularly when mentors share lived experiences with mentees.

The authors argue that therapeutic mentoring should be defined by its explicit focus on improving youth mental health, use of evidence-based techniques, delivery by trained paraprofessionals, and supervision by licensed clinicians. Additionally while therapeutic mentoring programs appear to draw more heavily from youth mentoring models, integrating evidence-based therapeutic approaches, such as cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) principles, into mentoring models may enhance their impact.

Implications for Mentoring Programs

First, standardized training and supervision protocols must be established to ensure that mentors are adequately prepared to support youth with mental health challenges. Second, research should prioritize rigorous experimental designs, including RCTs, to evaluate the efficacy of therapeutic mentoring compared to traditional therapy and other youth support interventions. Third, program developers should emphasize cultural responsiveness by incorporating frameworks that acknowledge the unique experiences of marginalized youth.

Additionally, therapeutic mentoring programs should clarify their role within the broader mental health care continuum. Determining the conditions under which therapeutic mentoring is most effective—whether as a supplement to psychotherapy or as an independent service—is crucial for guiding policy and funding decisions.

Read article here