MENTORING CHILDREN OF INCARCERATED PARENTS

A SYNTHESIS OF RESEARCH AND INPUT FROM THE LISTENING SESSION HELD BY 

THE OFFICE OF JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION AND THE 

WHITE HOUSE DOMESTIC POLICY COUNCIL AND OFFICE OF PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT
MENTORING CHILDREN OF INCARCERATED PARENTS

A SYNTHESIS OF RESEARCH AND INPUT FROM THE LISTENING SESSION HELD BY THE 

OFFICE OF JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION AND THE WHITE HOUSE 

DOMESTIC POLICY COUNCIL AND OFFICE OF PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT

G. Roger Jarjoura

David L. DuBois 

Rebecca J. Shlafer

Konrad A. Haight

This project was supported by grant numbers (2011-MU-FX-K009 and 2013-JU-FX-K001 ) from the 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), U.S. Department of Justice. Points of 

view or opinions expressed in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily 

represent the official position or policies of OJJDP or the U.S. Department of Justice.
1

CONTENTS

Executive Summary................................................................................................................................................................ 2

Research and Background: Children of Incarcerated Parents and Mentoring.......................................... 3

Supporting High-Quality Mentoring Relationships for Children of Incarcerated Parents................... 5

Recommendations for Practice and Policy .............................................................................................................. 8

Introduction.............................................................................................................................................................................10

Research and Background: Children of Incarcerated Parents and Mentoring ............................................11

A Brief Profile of Children of Incarcerated Parents............................................................................................11

Mentoring Programs and Relationships for Youth.............................................................................................13

Mentoring Programs.............................................................................................................................................13

Mentoring Relationships...........................................................................................................................................15

Mentoring for Children of Incarcerated Parents .................................................................................................18

Supporting High-Quality Mentoring Relationships for Children of Incarcerated Parents......................21

Program Practices ............................................................................................................................................................22

Mentor and Youth Recruitment. ............................................................................................................................24

Screening and Intake Assessment.........................................................................................................................27

Matching. .........................................................................................................................................................................28

Training............................................................................................................................................................................30

Monitoring and Support............................................................................................................................................32

Structure and Supports for Mentoring Activities. ..........................................................................................33

Family Engagement.....................................................................................................................................................34

External Partnerships. ...............................................................................................................................................35

Closure of Mentoring Relationships.....................................................................................................................36

Organizational Infrastructure and Capacity..........................................................................................................37

Recommendations for Practice and Policy .................................................................................................................38

References ................................................................................................................................................................................44

Appendix ...................................................................................................................................................................................54

Notes...........................................................................................................................................................................................57
2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In September 2013, a Listening Session on Mentoring Children of Incarcerated Parents 

was held in Washington, DC. This session was organized by the U.S. Department of Justice’s

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention in partnership with the White House 

Domestic Policy Council and Office of Public Engagement. It continues the administration’s 

commitment to support youth with incarcerated parents and to ensure that all young people get 

the best possible start in life. The day-long session comprised more than 40 participants and was 

co-facilitated by the first two authors of this report. Participants included:

• Officials from relevant government agencies and departments;

• Individuals recognized by the White House in June 2013 as Champions of Change for 

Children of Incarcerated Parents;

• Representatives from mentoring organizations and other programs with experience 

serving children with incarcerated parents and their families; and

• Youth who were current or previous participants in two of the mentoring programs 

represented, along with their mentors and family members. 

This report summarizes both the research and stakeholder input shared during the 

Listening Session and offers recommendations to further advance the availability and 

effectiveness of mentoring for children of incarcerated parents. The organization of the report 

largely follows the agenda of the Listening Session, provided in the appendix. The Listening 

Session began with brief overviews of research on children of incarcerated parents (Dr. Shlafer) 

as well as mentoring programs and relationships for youth in general (Dr. DuBois) and for 

children with incarcerated parents specifically (Dr. Jarjoura). Following an opportunity to 

discuss the presentations, participants were asked to share their views concerning the 
3

significance and most important features of mentoring relationships in the lives of children with 

incarcerated parents. Next, Drs. Jarjoura and DuBois facilitated an in-depth participant 

discussion on specific areas of program infrastructure and practice as they pertain to effectively 

mentoring this population. The session concluded with participants sharing their views regarding 

the most important next steps for making high-quality mentoring available to children of 

incarcerated parents. It should be noted that the recommendations included in this report, 

although informed by the perspectives of session participants, are solely those of the report’s 

authors.

RESEARCH AND BACKGROUND: CHILDREN OF INCARCERATED PARENTS AND 

MENTORING

Parents may be incarcerated in correctional facilities at either the local or state level and 

the length of incarceration varies by type of facility. Jails are locally-operated correctional 

facilities and sentences to jail (typically for misdemeanors) are usually one year or shorter, 

whereas prisons (state or federal) are typically further away and generally involve sentences 

(typically for felonies) that are longer than one year. The number of youth who have an 

incarcerated parent has grown considerably over the past two decades. It is estimated that 1.7 

million youth in the United States have at least one parent currently in prison and that millions 

more have a parent in jail. As a group, these youth fare worse than other youth on a range of 

immediate and longer-term outcomes that relate to mental and physical health as well as 

educational achievement. Evidence suggests that, in combination with other sources of risk and 

adversity, the incarceration of a parent can increase the likelihood that youth become involved in 

antisocial and delinquent behavior. Yet, it is clear that parental incarceration affects families in 

different ways and that experiences before, during, and after incarceration contribute to youths’ 
4

outcomes. Furthermore, as many youth faced with the incarceration of a parent do well, a

parent’s incarceration is clearly not an insurmountable barrier to a young person realizing his or 

her full potential. 

The broader research literature supports mentoring programs as a promising form of 

support for youth with incarcerated parents. Findings indicate that participation in a mentoring 

program can benefit a young person in several different areas, including emotional well-being, 

social relationships, avoiding problem behavior, and academic achievement. Research also 

suggests the following specific qualities of mentoring relationships are important for fostering 

positive youth outcomes: 

• Active guidance (mentor efforts to build mentee’s skills and facilitate development of 

mentee’s character and values; mentor helping mentee to set and work toward personal 

goals)

• Advocacy (efforts to identity and address a mentee’s needs for services and resources 

and foster the mentee’s skills for self-advocacy)

• Closeness/emotional connection (mentor and mentee caring for one another) 

• Collaborative/developmental orientation (responsiveness to mentee’s interests; 

cultivation of mentee’s strengths and sense of contribution)

• Consistency (mentor follow-through and trustworthiness)

• Longevity (extended duration of relationship)

• Parent engagement (mentor efforts to partner with mentee’s primary caregiver in 

meeting mentee’s needs; demonstrating respect for the caregiver’s wishes and caregiverchild relationship).
5

• Positive role modeling (mentor exhibiting personal integrity, healthy behaviors, and 

concern for others) 

Recognition of the potential benefits of additional adult support and guidance in the 

context of a parent’s incarceration has inspired a number of initiatives to make high-quality 

mentoring (as summarized above) available to youth who are faced with this life circumstance. 

The evidence available regarding the effectiveness of mentoring as a form of support for children 

with incarcerated parents specifically is limited and best regarded as preliminary. Available 

findings are, however, encouraging because they point to a range of potential benefits that are 

similar to those observed in the much more extensive body of research that has evaluated 

mentoring program outcomes for youth in general. Many of the youth at the Listening Session, 

furthermore, spoke with conviction about the ways they had been influenced positively–often in 

ways that transformed their development and futures—from their involvement in mentoring 

programs that were represented. Session participants also emphasized how, in their experience,

essentially all of the features of high-quality mentoring relationships suggested by research are 

instrumental to ensuring that children with incarcerated parents benefit from their program

experiences and, importantly, are shielded from unintended harm (e.g., feelings of abandonment 

stemming from lack of mentor follow-through on commitments). 

SUPPORTING HIGH-QUALITY MENTORING RELATIONSHIPS FOR CHILDREN OF 

INCARCERATED PARENTS

Much has been learned about the ways to design and manage mentoring programs to

maximize the potential for meaningful and effective mentoring relationships. Along with the 

critical need for adequate organizational infrastructure, research suggests that attention to

practices in several different areas (recruitment, screening, matching, training, structure and 
6

supports for mentoring activities, monitoring and support, family engagement, external 

partnerships, and closure) is important for ensuring the quality of mentoring relationships and 

thereby positive youth outcomes. During the Listening Session, participants emphasized specific 

aspects within these areas as both particularly important and challenging in making high-quality 

mentoring available to children of incarcerated parents. These include:

• Taking into account the complexities of the home and family situations when a 

parent is incarcerated, including how this may influence the experience for 

mentors, and establishing realistic expectations when recruiting prospective 

mentors.

• Screening and intake procedures that ensure that prospective mentors have the 

time, commitment, and personal qualities to be effective mentors and that 

consider the possibility that suitable mentors may be adults with similar 

backgrounds as the youth and may already be known to them (e.g., relatives or 

acquaintances). 

• Being attentive to how the experience of having an incarcerated parent may shape 

youths’ openness to, and expectations about, a relationship with an adult mentor

and using this and other information to match youth with mentors whose 

characteristics and backgrounds are appropriate to their needs. 

• Providing training that prepares mentors to be supportive of children with 

incarcerated parents—to understand their own personal biases and views about 

incarcerated parents as well as the cultural attitudes and values of the youth they 

will serve and how to respond when issues arise (e.g., when to contact staff, how 

to make referrals, how to listen non-judgmentally, and so on).
7

• Having structured support for mentors working with children of incarcerated 

parents and providing targeted preparation for mentors to support these youth 

effectively—this includes ensuring that mentors understand how mentoring fits in 

with other support systems in place and with family/caregiver needs.

• Establishing clear expectations about the regularity and amount of contact that 

should occur between mentor and youth as well as the duration of the

relationship—especially given that when youth experience the kind of disruption 

in their relationships with adults that is sometimes associated with having an 

incarcerated parent, consistency and predictability as well as a long-term 

commitment may be necessary for youth to cultivate open and trusting 

relationships with their mentors.

• Entering into partnerships between the mentoring agencies and other 

organizations is particularly important when serving this population, especially in 

terms of building the support that youth with incarcerated parents need to be 

successful in the school setting. 

• Providing a structured process for closing the mentoring relationship so that it 

acknowledges the contributions of both mentor and mentee and gives both a 

chance to reflect on the experience, keeping in mind that because children of 

incarcerated parents sometimes have a background of strained and disrupted

relationships with adults, it is critical that relationships they experience with 

mentors be healthy and positive in all aspects, including their closure. 
8

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PRACTICE AND POLICY

The research evidence and Listening Session discussion summarized in this report point 

to a number of useful next steps that can be taken to support the availability of high-quality and 

effective mentoring for youth with incarcerated parents. The authors’ specific recommendations 

follow:

Provide strategic supports to programs to enhance the availability of high-quality 

mentoring for children of incarcerated parents. These supports should be structured (i.e., 

tiered) to respond to mentoring organizations’ varying needs and degrees of readiness, taking 

into account the extent to which foundational evidence-based practices are established 

components of their programs as well as their levels of experience providing mentoring to 

children of incarcerated parents. Assisting all programs to efficiently and effectively engage 

high-quality mentors from diverse backgrounds should also be a priority. As emphasized during 

the Listening Session, the need for access to more timely and affordable background checks as 

part of the mentor screening process is a particularly pressing concern. 

Cultivate a community of practice for mentoring children of incarcerated parents.

There is a need to facilitate sharing of ideas and exchange of resources among programs 

involved in providing mentoring for children of incarcerated parents. The recently funded OJJDP 

National Mentoring Resource Center as well as mechanisms to foster peer learning and 

collaboration among organizations working at national, regional, and local levels should be 

utilized for this purpose.

Invest in research to advance the evidence base for effective mentoring for children 

of incarcerated parents. Any efforts to enhance the availability and effectiveness of mentoring 

for children of incarcerated parents should be grounded in a strong evidence base. As a first step 

in addressing this need, federal funding should be provided for a well-designed and rigorous 
9

evaluation study. This study should be designed to advance understanding of how best to support 

the implementation of key practices in making mentoring available to children of incarcerated 

parents as well as how to achieve optimal levels of mentor and youth engagement in programs. It 

also should be structured to improve knowledge of the ways in which youth outcomes may be 

contingent on the different characteristics and practices of programs, key features of mentoring 

relationships, and the widely varying life circumstances and backgrounds of children of 

incarcerated parents. When and how mentoring is most likely to complement the broader array of 

supports that such youth with incarcerated parents and their families may receive from other 

organizations should also be carefully examined. 
10

INTRODUCTION

In September 2013, a Listening Session on Mentoring Children of Incarcerated Parents 

was held in Washington, DC. This session was organized by the U.S. Department of Justice’s

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention in partnership with the White House 

Domestic Policy Council and Office of Public Engagement. It continues the administration’s 

commitment to support youth with incarcerated parents and to ensure that all young people get 

the best possible start in life. The day-long session comprised more than 40 participants and was 

co-facilitated by the first two authors of this report. Participants included:

• Officials from relevant government agencies and departments;

• Individuals recognized by the White House in June 2013 as Champions of Change for 

Children of Incarcerated Parents;

• Representatives from mentoring organizations and other programs with experience 

serving children with incarcerated parents and their families; and

• Youth who were current or previous participants in two of the mentoring programs 

represented, along with their mentors and family members. 

This report summarizes both the research and stakeholder input shared during the 

Listening Session and offers recommendations to further advance the availability and 

effectiveness of mentoring for children of incarcerated parents. The organization of the report 

largely follows the agenda of the Listening Session, provided in the appendix. The Listening 

Session began with brief overviews of research on children of incarcerated parents (Dr. Shlafer) 

as well as mentoring programs and relationships for youth in general (Dr. DuBois) and for 

children with incarcerated parents specifically (Dr. Jarjoura). Following an opportunity to 

discuss the presentations, participants were asked to share their views concerning the 
11

significance and most important features of mentoring relationships in the lives of children with 

incarcerated parents. Next, Drs. Jarjoura and DuBois facilitated an in-depth participant 

discussion on specific areas of program infrastructure and practice as they pertain to effectively

mentoring this population. The session concluded with participants sharing their views regarding

the most important next steps for making high-quality mentoring available to children of 

incarcerated parents. It should be noted that the recommendations included in this report, 

although informed by the perspectives of session participants, are solely those of the report’s 

authors. 

RESEARCH AND BACKGROUND: CHILDREN OF INCARCERATED 

PARENTS AND MENTORING

A BRIEF PROFILE OF CHILDREN OF INCARCERATED PARENTS

Parents may be incarcerated in correctional facilities at either the local or state level and 

the length of incarceration varies by type of facility. Jails are locally operated correctional 

facilities and sentences to jail (typically misdemeanors) are usually one year or less, whereas 

prisons (state or federal) typically are further away and generally involve sentences (typically for 

felonies) that are longer than one year.1 The best available estimates indicate that at least 1.7 

million youth under the age of 18 have at least one parent currently in prison in the United States

and millions more have a parent currently in jail.

2 This is a significant increase from the number 

of youth with incarcerated parents as recently as the early 1990s; between 1991 and 2007, the 

number of parents held in prisons increased by 79%.

3 For the vast majority of these youth (91%), 

the incarcerated parent is the father;

4 however, incarcerated women (62%) are more likely than 

incarcerated men (51%) to report being the parents of minor children.

5 Half of the youth are 

known to be younger than age 10 and an estimated one-quarter of all children with an 
12 

incarcerated parent are less than 4 years old.6 Notably, African American youth are more than 

seven times as likely as White youth and nearly three times as likely as Hispanic youth to have a 

parent in prison.7

As a group, children of incarcerated parents are at increased risk for both internalizing 

(e.g., depression, anxiety, withdrawal) and externalizing (e.g., delinquency, substance use) 

behavior problems, cognitive delays, and difficulties in school (e.g., school failure).8 The 

associations between parental incarceration and poor developmental outcomes are complicated, 

however, because incarcerated parents and their children are a heterogeneous group and often 

experience many additional challenges that place them at risk for suboptimal outcomes even 

before the parent is incarcerated. These environmental risks (e.g., single parenting, poverty, 

parent substance use, parent mental health problems, exposure to domestic violence) could 

compromise a family’s stability and a child’s developmental outcomes. This may be particularly 

true for children who lived with their parents before the parent’s incarceration. About 50% of 

parents in prison report having lived with their children before they were incarcerated, and 

mothers are more likely than fathers to report living with their minor children before 

incarceration.9

 So for some youth—but certainly not all—the parent’s incarceration results in a 

disruption in the household. This may be particularly important in the context of the discussion 

of mentoring for this population, because the experiences before, during, and after a parent’s 

incarceration vary considerably and the intended goals of mentoring programs may not address 

the unique needs of individual youths. 

Recent evidence10 suggests that even after environmental risks (e.g., race, education, 

poverty, and prior criminal convictions) are accounted for, parental incarceration continues to 

predict youths’ likelihood of engaging in antisocial and delinquent behavior. In addition, parental 
13 

incarceration has been linked to poor physical and mental health in adulthood, including 

increased risk of high cholesterol, asthma, migraines, HIV/AIDS, depression, posttraumatic 

stress disorder, and anxiety.

11 These results suggest that parental incarceration can have longlasting implications for the physical and mental health of the next generation. At the same time, 

it should be noted that the available evidence does not support a view that parental incarceration 

causes poor developmental outcomes among children. As with most social problems, any one risk 

factor, such as parental incarceration, is probably most accurately regarded as part of a complex 

web of myriad intersecting circumstances and events.

MENTORING PROGRAMS AND RELATIONSHIPS FOR YOUTH

MENTORING PROGRAMS 

Rigorous evaluations of mentoring programs generally support their ability to make a 

positive difference in multiple domains of the behavior and development of participating 

youth.

12 Findings include enhanced self-esteem; better relationships with parents and peers; 

improvements in school attendance and performance; and reductions in substance use, violence, 

and other risk behaviors. The most common pattern is for mentored youth to exhibit positive 

gains on outcomes, while non-mentored youth experience declines. Thus, it appears that 

programs can serve both promotion and prevention aims.13 There is also evidence that mentoring

programs can foster inroads in multiple areas for the same young person,

14 thereby facilitating 

holistic growth and development.15 Furthermore, existing research supports the value of 

mentoring programs for youth of varying ages, ranging from young children to older adolescents, 

thus positioning them as a potentially beneficial form of support throughout the formative stages 

of a young person’s development.16 Likewise, although programs typically have used adult 

volunteers and focused on cultivating one-to-one relationships, findings are also encouraging 
14 

when using older peers as mentors and when offering mentoring in a group format.17 In 

summary, existing evidence points to the flexibility and broad applicability of mentoring as an 

approach to supporting positive youth development. 

Gains with regard to outcome measures for the typical young person in a mentoring 

program, however, have been modest.

18 Although comparable to those observed for other types 

of community-based programs for children and adolescents,19 these benefits fall short of the 

transformative levels of impact that have widely been assumed possible with mentoring.20

Substantial variability in effects has been observed across programs

21 as well as among youth 

served by the same program. Notably, these findings have revealed instances in which program 

involvement was potentially harmful to youth.22 As discussed in later sections of this report, 

much of the observed variation in effectiveness appears likely to be attributable to differences in 

the quality of the relationships formed between youth and their mentors in programs and, in turn, 

unevenness in the use of practices that may be best suited to cultivating high-quality mentoring 

relationships. Yet, even the most encouraging findings typically have not reflected what would 

be considered large benefits for participating youth. Nor has there been discernible improvement 

in program effectiveness over time.

23 Along with inconsistency in adherence to currently 

identified evidence-based practices, these trends may reflect limitations in the attention that has 

been given to developing and evaluating program innovations (i.e., new evidence-based practices 

and models). 

There are also a number of significant gaps in the current evidence base for mentoring 

program effectiveness. These include a relative lack of research to inform understanding of the 

capacity of mentoring programs to address youth outcomes likely to be of particular interest to 

policy makers, such as juvenile offending, educational attainment, and obesity.24 Likewise, very 
15

few studies have examined whether the benefits of program participation for youth are sustained 

at later points in their development, especially extending into adulthood.

25 Related to this, 

evidence concerning the economic return associated with youth mentoring programs is currently 

limited. Some analyses have produced estimates of a sizable monetary return on investment for 

select youth mentoring programs.

26 A key untested assumption in these analyses, however, is

that the short-term gains observed for youth in evaluations have translated into long-term

educational and vocational benefits.27

MENTORING RELATIONSHIPS

It is clear from available research that not all mentoring relationships are “created equal” 

with respect to their likelihood of fostering positive outcomes for youth. Table 1 provides an 

overview of features of mentoring relationships that were discussed at the Listening Session. As 

discussed in this section, there is evidence to indicate that these qualities can be important in

realizing the potential benefits that mentoring relationships hold for youth. It should not be 

assumed, however, that all of these characteristics are necessary or desirable for any particular 

relationship or that this list in any way exhausts all relevant considerations.

Theoretical perspectives have emphasized mutual trust and a sense of being liked, 

understood, and respected as fundamentally important in meaningful mentoring relationships for

youth.28 In line with this view, research points to the youth’s experience of an emotional bond 

(e.g., feelings of closeness) with his or her mentor as a key facilitator of positive outcomes, such 

as improved academic performance29 and avoiding involvement in problem behavior.30

Similarly, relationships that are collaborative and youth-centered (sometimes referred to as 

“developmental”) in their orientation, as opposed to being driven primarily by the interests or

expectations of the mentor (sometimes referred to as “prescriptive”), appear more likely to last 
16 

and to be experienced positively by mentors and youth,31 and have been linked to improvements 

in youths’ relationships with other adults.32,33 

Mentoring relationships characterized by feelings of emotional security and a sense of 

collaboration may also be important for establishing the conditions necessary for more active 

forms of guidance or support to be well received and thus prove beneficial. Considerable 

Table 1: Characteristics of Mentoring Relationships Associated With Positive Outcomes 

for Youth 

Active guidance—Mentor sharing information, providing skill-building opportunities, 

supporting the development of character and personal values, and offering a broadening 

perspective on the world; mentor helping youth to set and work toward personally meaningful 

goals.

Advocacy—Mentor efforts to identify and meet a mentee’s needs, such as through facilitating 

connections to relevant services and resources and introductions to adults who can open doors to 

opportunities in areas such as education or employment; helping the mentee to become confident 

and skilled in advocating for himself or herself. 

Closeness/emotional connection—Mentor and mentee caring for one another and being 

“bonded,” potentially in a kin-like manner. 

Collaborative/developmental orientation—Eliciting and being responsive to a mentee’s 

interests and concerns; recognizing the mentee’s contributions and cultivating his or her 

strengths. 

Consistency—Mentor follow-through on expectations for engagement with a mentee, such as 

how often they spend time together, and mentor demonstrating trustworthiness in terms of living 

up to promises and expectations established in the mentoring relationship. 

Longevity—Mentor and mentee sustaining an active relationship over a substantial period. 

Parent engagement—Active efforts of the mentor to partner with a mentee’s primary caregiver 

in supporting the mentee; seeking out and respecting parental wishes; maintaining appropriate 

boundaries to avoid disrupting the parent–mentee relationship or the mentor–mentee

relationship. 

Positive role modeling—Mentor serving as an example of how to conduct oneself with personal 

integrity, look after one’s mental and physical health, demonstrate caring and concern for others, 

etc.
17

evidence indicates, for example, that mentors can be an important resource in helping youth to 

set and work toward goals, especially in the context of the above-described youth-centered

approach to mentoring.

34 Likewise, although the teaching and advocacy dimensions of 

mentoring relationships have not received much direct study, greater effectiveness has been 

observed in programs that are intentionally structured to support such roles.35

Mentoring relationships that involve more consistent or frequent patterns of contact and 

that are sustained over longer periods of time have also been implicated in more favorable 

outcomes for youth.36 Available evidence suggests that relationships characterized by greater 

intensity of interaction and longevity may be beneficial, at least in part, because they afford a 

greater opportunity for other desirable features of relationships to take root and be operative, 

such as feelings of closeness and collaboration on goals.37 It is important to note, however, that 

favorable results have nonetheless been reported in evaluations of programs intentionally 

structured for mentoring relationships to last relatively short periods of time (e.g., a few 

months).38 Likewise, available evidence suggests that youth can be adversely affected when

program-arranged relationships end prematurely39 or if, in the wake of such endings, a youth is 

paired with a new mentor.40,41

Theory and available research also point to the importance of taking into account the 

ways that the mentoring relationship interfaces with other important relationships in youths’ lives

(and possibly those of mentors).42 The extent to which mentors can forge the types of 

connections with youths’ parents or other caregivers that enable collaboration on behalf of 

youths is a significant consideration in this regard.43 It seems likely, however, that other social 

network linkages, such as those involving youths’ teachers or peers, when examined will prove 

to be consequential as well. 
18

MENTORING FOR CHILDREN OF INCARCERATED PARENTS

The recent attention paid to mentoring for youth with incarcerated parents has been 

characterized as a “national movement.”44 In 2000, the Amachi mentoring organization was 

developed to support these youth through the consistent presence of caring adult mentors. 

Amachi is a faith-based initiative that began in Philadelphia under the leadership of (former 

mayor) Rev. Wilson Goode. Originally, the Amachi model was a partnership with Big Brothers 

Big Sisters (BBBS) in which mentors were recruited through religious organizations. Specialized 

training was developed to prepare mentors, who were then supervised and monitored by BBBS 

agencies. To date, more than 300,000 children have been mentored through Amachi-modeled 

programs in 250 cities across all 50 states. 

President George W. Bush took the Amachi concept and built a national initiative under 

the leadership of the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives and the Administration for 

Children and Families (ACF). In 2002, through the Promoting Safe and Stable Families 

Amendments, Congress established the Mentoring Children of Prisoners Program. Through this 

program, in 2003 the ACF provided $8.9 million of funding to 52 mentoring programs

specifically serving children of incarcerated parents. The program was reauthorized in 2006, and 

in 2008, ACF awarded $45.6 million in funding to support 219 mentoring programs. Through the 

Mentoring Children of Prisoners Program, grants were awarded to faith-based and community 

organizations, along with tribes and state and local government entities.

Unfortunately, evaluations of the mentoring programs targeting children of incarcerated 

parents through these initiatives were unavailable at the time of this report. In the most rigorous 

evaluation to date, 272 youth (ages 7 to 13) with an incarcerated family member were randomly 

assigned to receive mentoring immediately or to be placed on an 18-month wait list within the 

community-based mentoring programs of three BBBS agencies in Texas. At a 6-month 
19 

assessment, findings indicated the favorable effects of program participation on several 

outcomes, including more positive relationships with parents/caregivers, higher self-esteem, and 

a more positive sense of the future.45 Similar differences on outcome measures favoring the 

mentoring program group were also apparent at the final, 18-month assessment. As noted by the 

report authors, however, these results are best regarded as exploratory because these follow-up 

data could only be collected for approximately half of the youth in the original study sample.

46

Of further note, no significant differences were found between the groups at any point in the 

study on measures of school/academic-related outcomes (e.g., attitudes toward school, school 

competence as rated by parent, and suspensions).47 

In other research from the same program, stakeholder interviews and focus groups were 

conducted with parents/caregivers, mentors, youth, and program staff. These pointed to the 

importance of mentors demonstrating consistency and commitment, and thus being involved on a 

regular, long-term basis. Also emphasized was the need for mentors to be compassionate 

listeners and to be supportive and open-minded in the context of family structures and values that 

might differ from their own. Parental/caregiver involvement was also perceived as essential, 

especially as reflected in the parent/caregiver’s understanding and acceptance of the role of the 

mentor in his or her child’s life, making an effort to communicate regularly with the mentor, and 

making outings between the mentor and child a priority.48 

In further research, national data from BBBS agencies were used to compare the 

mentoring relationships that children of incarcerated parents experienced compared to other 

youths’. For the organization’s community-based program model, findings indicated that the 

experiences of children of incarcerated parents in their relationships with their mentors (e.g., 

feelings of closeness) were for the most part similar to those experienced by other youth. This 
20

was true for assessment data gathered at 3 months, 1 year, and 2 years into the development of 

relationships. Children of incarcerated parents did, however, report greater feelings of 

disappointment in their relationships with mentors (which were relatively rare for all youth) 

compared to other youth at both 3 months and 1 year. In the organization’s school-based 

program, children of incarcerated parents reported levels of relationship quality similar to or 

more favorable than those of other youth in all areas. When considering mentor ratings, those in 

community-based based programs who were paired with youth who had incarcerated parents 

reported higher levels of frustration and challenge in their mentoring relationships than did other 

mentors; a comparable difference was not observed for mentors in school-based programs. 

Proportions of mentoring relationships that lasted at least one year did not differ in communitybased programs; whereas for school-based programs, the 1-year retention rate was significantly 

higher for youth with an incarcerated parent. 

The potential for mentoring programs and relationships to significantly benefit youth 

with incarcerated parents was a prominent theme in participants’ contributions during the 

Listening Session. Several of the youth attributed transformative changes in their development, 

such as refraining from involvement in gang activity and success in pursuing postsecondary 

education, to mentoring relationships they had experienced in the programs represented at the 

session. At the same time, participants highlighted a number of formidable challenges that could 

be encountered in efforts to cultivate mentoring relationships with young people whose lives 

have been affected by a parent’s incarceration. These include the potential for some youth to be 

reluctant to trust or engage possible mentors in the wake of past disappointments in relationships 

with other adults, and a corresponding vulnerability to feelings of abandonment when mentors 

end relationships abruptly or fail to follow through on promises of continued involvement. It was 
21

noted that success in overcoming such barriers required mentors to exhibit patience, empathy, 

and trustworthiness. The importance of mentors demonstrating a sustained high level of 

commitment to supporting youth with incarcerated parents not only by their encouragement and 

guidance, but also advocacy (e.g., facilitating connections to other supportive adults and 

resources) was also a prominent theme. Mentors’ efforts to support youths’ relationships with 

their incarcerated parents (e.g., writing letters to the parent together) and their indirect value as 

supporters and sources of inspiration for current caregivers were also cited as important. These

features of mentoring relationships, emphasized by participants in the Listening Session, reflect 

many of those noted earlier (see Table 1) as linking to more positive outcomes for youth in the 

research literature.

In summary, available findings, with input from Listening Session participants, point to

mentoring as a valuable source of support for youth with incarcerated parents. It is noteworthy, 

for example, that children of incarcerated parents are as likely as other youth to have the kinds of 

positive experiences in their relationships with mentors that contribute to positive outcomes. At 

the same time, attention to special considerations that may arise in mentoring children of 

incarcerated parents is warranted. These include, for example, the importance of mentor qualities 

such as patience, flexibility, compassion, and commitment as well as a strong parent–mentor 

alliance characterized by mutual respect.

SUPPORTING HIGH-QUALITY MENTORING RELATIONSHIPS FOR 

CHILDREN OF INCARCERATED PARENTS 

Much has been learned about the ways to design and manage mentoring programs so they 

maximize the potential for meaningful and effective mentoring relationships. Research suggests 

that, along with organizational infrastructure and capacity, practices in each of several areas can 
22

influence program effectiveness.49 Table 2 provides a brief description of these areas of practice. 

We explore each in detail here.

As noted previously, in considering research that addresses the overall effectiveness of 

youth mentoring programs, most of what we know about the importance of specific types of 

program practices comes from research that has not been specific to mentoring programs serving 

children of incarcerated parents. It is also important to note that many traditional mentoring 

programs undoubtedly served children with incarcerated parents, recognizing them as “at-risk” 

because they were experiencing challenges or being raised by single parents, for example, but 

not specifically because they had an incarcerated parent. Thus, previous research on the

characteristics and practices of mentoring programs likely has included children with 

incarcerated parents, but only rarely have such studies reported findings specific to this 

population.

To help offset this limitation, in this section of the paper we draw on input from the 

Listening Session. Although much of what we highlight from the Listening Session points to 

practices and personal experiences that typically have not been the subject of research, at the 

very least this can expand our perspective on and understanding of mentoring initiatives that 

specifically target children of incarcerated parents. Throughout the rest of the paper we identify 

program features and approaches that merit careful consideration as we explore 

recommendations specific to mentoring practice and research for this population. 

PROGRAM PRACTICES

In the third edition of the Elements of Effective Practice for Mentoring (hereafter, 

referred to simply as the Elements), six “evidence-based standards for practice that incorporate 

the latest research and best-available practice wisdom” are identified .

50 These standards include
23 

Table 2: Mentoring Program Practices

Mentor and youth recruitment—Identifying and engaging potential mentors through such 

means as community outreach, partnerships with businesses and universities, and social media; 

engaging the youth intended to be served by the program and their families through community 

outreach, partnerships with schools and service providers, and so forth. 

Screening and intake assessment —Strategies to ensure that potential mentors have appropriate 

backgrounds and readiness, such as child abuse and neglect background checks, in-person 

interviews, and contacting references; efforts to ensure that there is a good fit between what the 

program can offer and the needs and desires of the youth and their families.

Matching—Pairing youth and mentors according to program format (e.g., one-to-one, group) 

informed by considerations such as mentor, mentee, and parent preferences; the compatibility of 

mentor and mentee interests and personalities; mentee needs; and the professional judgment of 

staff members. 

Training—Providing mentors with information and opportunities to build skills that will support 

them in developing effective and beneficial relationships with their mentees; can be delivered in 

a variety of formats (e.g., in person, online) and both before and after the mentoring relationship 

has begun. 

Structure and supports for mentoring activities—Strategies and resources used to ensure that 

mentoring relationships reflect regularity and the amounts of activity, overall duration, styles of 

interaction, and activity content consistent with program goals. 

Monitoring and support—Personalized staff check-ins with mentors that can occur on an 

established schedule and an ad hoc basis in response to emergent needs; also includes similar 

check-ins that might occur with mentees and their caregivers.

Family engagement—Outreach by program staff and mentors to a mentee’s family focused on 

partnering to best support the mentee’s development; may include staff and mentor check-ins 

with a mentee’s parent, inviting a mentee’s family to participate in program-sponsored events 

and activities, having a mentor partner with a mentee’s parent to carry out activities on behalf of 

the mentee, and so on. 

External partnerships—Collaboration with other organizations involved in providing services 

or resources to support mentees and their families. 

Closure of mentoring relationships—Procedures to help mentees and mentors prepare for and 

manage the ending of the mentor–mentee relationship such as establishing appropriate 

expectations, facilitating mentor–mentee communication, and so on. 
24

benchmarks that guide programs in establishing or revising procedures to recruit mentors and 

mentees for the program; screen volunteers to ensure they fit with the goals and principles of the 

program; train volunteers to best prepare them to build effective mentoring relationships; match

mentors and youth to maximize the likelihood of a meaningful mentoring relationship; provide 

ongoing training and support for the mentors and youth; and formally end the relationships. In 

addition to the benchmarks identified in Elements, enhancements to practices are recommended 

for each area.

Determining the specific form that a mentoring program will assume is, of course, one of 

the most fundamental issues to be addressed when developing a mentoring program. Programs

can focus on one-to-one, group, team, or e-mentoring. They can be school- or community-based, 

stand-alone or one piece of a larger youth-serving program. Currently, research offers support for 

the potential effectiveness of each of these formats.51 Decisions regarding format can, however, 

be informed by a needs assessment focused on the youth to be served through the program as 

well as by other pertinent considerations such as the likely availability and characteristics of 

mentors, staffing and other resources of the host organization.52 The format selected typically 

will then, in turn, have implications for decisions that are made about program practices in each 

of the areas discussed below. 

MENTOR AND YOUTH RECRUITMENT. One standard from the Elements is that 

programs should recruit mentors and youth who are “appropriate” based on program objectives 

and anticipated outcomes. More specifically, recruitment efforts that provide a realistic sense of 

what mentors and youth should expect from the program are advised.

53 It has also been 

recommended that mentoring programs take particular care in their recruitment efforts to 

accurately portray what being in a mentoring relationship may be like, because some research 
25

has indicated that mentors’ unrealistic expectations for the mentoring relationship can contribute 

to the risk for relationships to close early and unexpectedly.

54

Establishing realistic expectations when recruiting prospective mentors for children of 

incarcerated parents may be especially critical. During the Listening Session we heard how 

mentoring programs experienced in serving this population have paid attention to how best to 

communicate background information about the youth to the mentor. Is it important for mentors 

to know that a youth has an incarcerated parent? A related question pertains to what 

responsibilities come with knowing that a parent is incarcerated. It is clear from input received 

during the Listening Session that perspectives on this matter are not uniform across providers. 

During the session, it was shared that in some families dealing with the incarceration of a loved 

one, parents have chosen not to share this information with a child. In some families, a parent’s

absence from the home is explained with more positive stories—the parent is in the military or 

working in another region. In such situations, some participants in the Listening Session felt that 

it was appropriate for programs to share information about the parent’s incarceration with the 

mentor. These considerations suggest the potential value of programs working with families of 

incarcerated parents on an individual basis to find out what a child has been told and using that to 

inform what information is shared, in turn, with the youth’s prospective mentor. 

In practice, some mentoring programs specifically advertise that they are looking for 

volunteers to mentor youth with incarcerated parents, making it impossible not to tell mentors

that the youth has a parent in prison.55 During the Listening Session, we heard from mentors who

learned after the relationship was already in place that their mentees had incarcerated parents. 

Those mentors expressed mixed feelings about not knowing earlier in the relationship and not 

feeling prepared to handle such a dynamic. Indeed, we heard that the mentors might need to be 
26 

prepared for the confusing questions that youth could have if they have not been told about their 

parent’s incarceration. Likewise, if youth have been informed, the mentors may need to be 

prepared to deal with questions the youth may have about their parent’s incarceration. These 

considerations suggest the potential importance of specific training for mentors to help anticipate 

some of the special needs of these youth, a topic addressed further below. 

Mentoring organizations use various strategies to recruit good mentors, including 

presentations to community and professional groups, appeals by current staff and volunteers to 

friends and associates, and advertising campaigns.

56 Some mentoring programs also form 

relationships with corporations as well as colleges or universities and even high schools, which 

then may become an ongoing source of volunteers.57 Mentoring programs may also find that 

establishing a recognizable and reputable name, or branding, is beneficial for recruiting 

mentors.58 Offering mentors stipends or other benefits (e.g., course or service learning credit for

students) is still another strategy used to recruit mentors. Currently very little research addresses

the likely effectiveness of different recruitment strategies.59 However, some evidence suggests 

the importance of programs looking beyond where and how to recruit mentors most easily to also 

consider the type of volunteer being recruited. In particular, available research points to the value 

of seeking out, through recruitment strategies, pools of potential mentors likely to possess 

relevant skills or abilities, not simply avoiding pools that might have undesirable traits or 

characteristics.

60 

Research on why people volunteer points to two of the biggest reasons: (a) having a 

passion for and/or personal commitment to the work; or (b) being asked to volunteer by someone 

they have a personal relationship with. During the Listening Session we heard powerful stories 

about mentors that brought a great deal of personal commitment to the young people in the
27

program, which led to a transformative experience for the youth. Yet, we also heard about the 

challenges of converting recruited volunteers into engaged mentors. One way to maximize the 

number of engaged mentors is to get key people to ask people they know. A national strategy 

ideally suited for the role of the faith community in initiatives focused on mentoring children of 

incarcerated parents is the Mentor Recruitment Ambassador.61 Each ambassador makes a 

commitment to identify and ask five adults to become a volunteer mentor. Coupled with a 

deliberate strategy built around the profile of the mentor ideal for serving youth with incarcerated 

parents, the right people are positioned to ask the right people.

SCREENING AND INTAKE ASSESSMENT. When screening is done correctly, it helps 

enhance the safety of the program for youth, mentors, and the organization.62 In the Elements,

one of the standards is to screen prospective mentors effectively so the program is confident the 

mentor has the “time, commitment, and personal qualities” to be an effective mentor. In 

screening potential mentors, programs often consider the volunteers’ interests and skills. In a 

recent meta-analysis of evaluations of mentoring initiatives, programs were found to be more 

effective when mentors’ educational and occupational backgrounds fit well with specific 

program goals.63 In addition, programs were found to be more effective when shared interests 

were considered when matching mentors and youth; thus, it is important for programs to assess 

the interests of both potential volunteers and the youth served by the program. In addition to 

assessing youths’ interests, programs can capture information about the youths’ strengths and 

needs as well as their characteristics or life circumstances that represent sources of vulnerability 

or risk for negative outcomes. A recent study of the role of risk in youth mentoring relationships 

concluded that understanding a youth’s level of risk may have implications for the way that 

programs should prepare their volunteers for the mentoring role.64
28

Of course, screening potential volunteers should also focus on protecting youth from 

victimization. Yet, although it is widely agreed that background checks are an important tool in 

screening prospective (and current) mentors for safety concerns, they should not be relied on as a 

stand-alone measure for mentor screening.

65 Instead, a mentoring organization’s approach to 

screening mentors and protecting youth should include established eligibility, screening, training 

and monitoring processes; staff training and supervision; a written application to be filled out by 

volunteers; maintenance of a database of applicants; written eligibility criteria for applicants; a 

position description for the mentor role; a commitment statement that volunteers will sign; an inperson interview; a state and federal criminal history background check; a check of sex offender 

registries; searches of the Internet/social media; and a check of character references.66

In terms of screening potential mentors for work with youth with incarcerated parents, 

during the Listening Session we heard about the power of having a mentor who has “been there.”

The discussion challenged government funders and others to consider the potential benefits of 

engaging mentors who have overcome similar (in some cases, criminal) backgrounds and have a 

track record of personal success that may inspire the youth. Of further note is the importance that 

Listening Session participants placed on having a way to complete affordable and rapid 

background checks. The length of time some programs had to wait to approve volunteers was 

seen as a barrier to keeping potential mentors engaged during the waiting period. It was also 

recognized that many background checks were cost-prohibitive, making it a serious challenge for 

many programs. It was noted during the Listening Session that legislation designed to address 

these barriers is currently pending.

MATCHING. Mentoring programs use a variety of methods to match mentors with youth. 

These include giving priority to—or in some cases requiring—matching youth with mentors who 
29

share one or more aspects of their demographic background, such as gender or race/ethnicity,

whose skills are judged most likely to fit a youth’s needs, and/or who have interests in common 

with a youth. Still others match youth in a more organic fashion, where mentors and mentees are 

allowed to meet in large groups and matches are made on the basis of natural pairings that 

occur.67 

Programs that place an emphasis on systematically matching youth and mentors have 

stronger effects than those that do not.

68 However, little empirical evidence suggests that when 

programs systematically match according to demographic factors such as race and gender, the 

results for youth are more positive. On the other hand, as previously noted, evidence suggests

that matching based on similarity of interests contributes to better outcomes for youth.69

Available research also points to the value of matching mentors and youth with respect to

characteristics judged likely to be important in the context of program goals, coupled with close 

monitoring of relationships in the period immediately following the matching.

70 

Because the experience of having an incarcerated parent may shape youths’ openness to,

and expectations about, a relationship with an adult mentor, the characteristics and backgrounds 

of the mentors such youth are matched with merit particular attention. We heard during the 

Listening Session, for example, how the identities of some youth had seemingly been influenced 

by having an incarcerated parent (e.g., some participants at the Listening Session said that they

looked up to their fathers for the very reasons that led to their incarceration). It was suggested 

that matching such youth with adults who were previously involved in criminal activity and have 

since forged a more positive identity was potentially significant.

The Listening Session discussion also underscored the importance of acknowledging the

positive role models already in the day-to-day lives of these youth. In fact, it was made clear that 
30

in many families experiencing the incarceration of a parent, there are often caregivers who are 

appropriate role models, and in some cases incarcerated parents also functions as positive role

models in their relationships with their children. Allowing such youth to identify adults that may 

be positive role models aligns with research on Youth-Initiated Mentoring. The strategy to

provide training and support to mentors identified by the youth builds on the strengths and 

available resources in the youth’s natural environment. Many of the challenges that mentors 

experience in the early stages of building the relationship would not necessarily surface in 

relationships with these “natural” mentors.71

TRAINING. In the Elements, the standard for training mentors points to the importance of 

focusing on the “basic knowledge and skills” shown to lay the foundation for effective mentoring 

relationships.72 Key considerations when planning mentor training include the frequency, dose, 

duration, and timing.

73 Research suggests that providing mentors with training is related to the 

success of mentoring relationships and, ultimately, program effectiveness in promoting desired 

youth outcomes.

74 Mentor training may foster stronger outcomes for youth participating in 

programs by improving the quality of the mentor–mentee relationship, as well as the length and 

duration of the relationship.

75 It is recommended that the initial (pre-match) mentor training last 

at least two hours, with the best results argued to be most likely when the amount of initial 

training is six hours or more. Ideally, training includes topics such as the objectives of 

mentoring; how to be an effective mentor, with special attention to roles, behaviors, and program 

expectations; a code of ethics for mentors; insights regarding the mentoring of youth served by 

the program; program policies and procedures; communication skills; conflict resolution skills; 

appropriate physical and emotional boundaries between mentor and mentee; and procedures for 

reporting child abuse.76 Mentor training should also include an in-person component and an 
31 

interactive element; utilize evidence-based training materials; and be used as a method for the 

continued screening of mentors.77 The mentoring relationship may also be improved by focusing 

on training mentors in active listening, empathy, and problem solving.78

Ongoing training may be an important opportunity for mentoring programs to provide 

education on new topics that become more relevant as the mentoring relationship develops. It 

also provides a means for mentoring programs to refresh mentors on topics they may have 

forgotten since the initial training.79 Consistent with these possibilities, whether or not programs 

provided ongoing training opportunities for mentors was found to be one of the strongest 

predictors of effectiveness in one meta-analysis of youth mentoring program evaluations.80 

As noted above, a theme that emerged during the Listening Session is the potential value 

of providing training with content that addresses the unique considerations that may be 

associated with mentoring a youth who has an incarcerated parent, including how incarceration 

affects families. Given the range of challenges and trauma that children of incarcerated parents

may be experiencing in their home lives, it may be important to prepare mentors for ways to be 

supportive and understand how best to respond when issues arise (e.g., when to contact staff, 

how to make referrals, how to listen, and so on). It will be critical to help mentors understand 

their own personal biases and views about incarcerated parents. Input received during the 

Listening Session also underscored the importance of preparing mentors to understand the 

cultural attitudes and values of the youth they will serve. Culturally competent mentors were 

noted to have a greater impact on the youth they mentored. It was clear that to effectively 

consider the role of culture in building high-quality mentor–mentor relationships, we must also 

attend to the complexities that may infuse the experiences of some youth because of race, 

poverty, and previous trauma experiences. 
32 

MONITORING AND SUPPORT. One of the standards in the Elements addresses providing 

ongoing staff monitoring and support for mentors that focus on helping mentors deal with 

problems and challenges in the mentoring relationship.81 Recommended initial “match support” 

activities by program staff include meetings with the mentor, and the parent and youth separately 

before the match, and then meeting with mentor, parent, and youth together for an initial 

meeting. Once the relationship is launched, there should be monthly contacts of staff with the 

mentor and mentee to monitor and facilitate the development of their relationship. Quarterly 

contact with a key person in the mentee’s life (e.g., parent, guardian or teacher) is also 

recommended for the duration of the match. As part of ongoing support, mentoring program staff 

should be available to answer questions, troubleshoot issues, and recommend alternative 

strategies when it appears the relationship is not moving in a good direction.82 A recent study 

found that when program staff provided more consistent support for mentors, mentor–mentee 

relationships tended to be characterized by more frequent meetings, longer duration, and positive 

reports from the mentor and youth regarding the closeness of the relationship.83 The quality of 

the support provided to mentors appeared to be important as well, contributing to greater strength 

and longevity of the mentoring relationship. 

When serving youth with incarcerated parents, features of the youth’s situation can create 

events that mentors are likely to be ill-equipped to handle without ongoing support from the 

program, for example, the residential mobility of the youth and family, contact with the 

incarcerated parent, understanding how mentoring fits in with other existing support systems and 

with family/caregiver needs. For instance, while it was noted that some youth do not know about 

the incarceration of their parents, there are some youth that will want to talk about the 

incarcerated parents. The mentor should be prepared for such a conversation should it arise. 
33

Match support is particularly valuable for helping mentors respond to these issues. The Listening 

Session discussion reinforced the importance of having structured support for mentors working 

with children of incarcerated parents and providing targeted preparation so mentors were 

prepared to support these youth effectively.

STRUCTURE AND SUPPORTS FOR MENTORING ACTIVITIES. Programs can also build 

in structure to increase the likelihood that the mentoring relationship will be meaningful and 

impactful. Research suggests that key considerations in this area include the regularity of 

mentor–youth meetings, the amount of time spent together in these meetings, and the length of

time over which they take place (i.e., relationship duration). Programs establishing clear 

expectations about the frequency of contact between mentor and youth, for example, have been 

found to be more effective.

84 Likewise, youth outcomes appear to be facilitated, and risk for 

unintentional harm reduced, when their relationships with mentors are sustained for periods of 

time that align with program goals and expectations.85 Available findings, however, fail to 

provide a basis for clear-cut guidelines about what may be the most desirable (or minimally 

effective or safe) levels of mentor–youth interaction or relationship duration that programs 

should target. Such guidelines, too, may well need to be modified according to differences 

among mentoring programs in areas such as goals, youth populations served, and infrastructure. 

On the surface, there is the potential for tension between program practices oriented toward 

fostering differing aspects of mentoring relationships, such as fun on the one hand and goals on 

the other. Over the course of a mentoring relationship, however, research suggests that 

programmatic encouragement of a developmental orientation may be able to set the stage for 

practices focused on more instrumental aims (e.g., skill development) to achieve more desirable 

results. Likewise, when programs are structured to encourage an initial focus on instrumental 
34 

purposes, they may offer mentors and youth a foundation of shared experience (e.g., work 

together on projects) that facilitates the success of efforts to cultivate stronger personal 

connections or bonds between them. On the basis of a review of relevant research within and 

outside the area of youth mentoring, it is recommended that mentees be integrally involved in the 

process of setting and working on goals, and that care be taken to avoid the pitfall of mentors 

becoming overly directive or task-oriented.86 In line with the value of efforts to foster mentor–

youth activities directed toward relationship development, as well as more instrumental aims, the 

results of a recent meta-analysis indicate that a joint emphasis on supporting mentors in 

functional roles pertaining to both emotional support and teaching was most predictive of 

program effectiveness.

87

The types of experiences to which children of incarcerated parents are known to be 

susceptible make it important for programs to adopt practices to facilitate meaningful mentormentee relationships. Establishing regular and consistent patterns for meetings may be especially 

vital for building trust in the wake of past disappointments in relationships with adults. In fact, 

youth members of the Listening Session shared first-hand experiences with mentors who built 

strong relationships by being consistent and “hanging in there” during early testing by the youth. 

Several participants also spoke of their mentors imparting critical life lessons to them and 

actively supporting them in both setting and reaching ambitious goals (e.g., attending college). 

Thus, their shared experiences were very much in accord with mentoring programs for children 

of incarcerated parents benefiting from a dual focus on relationship development and more 

instrumental aims.

FAMILY ENGAGEMENT. Earlier research suggested that programs were more effective 

when youths’ parents were more engaged.

88 The body of research on parental involvement in the 
35

mentoring relationship supports that it generally has a positive impact, but no studies have 

isolated whether parental involvement specifically improved outcomes or whether they resulted

from one of the many activities mentoring programs use to try to engage parents.89 Thus, it may 

not be a question of determining whether parental engagement can help strengthen positive 

outcomes for youth, but how. 

Family engagement received significant attention at the Listening Session. The focus of 

the work that might be done with families has many dimensions, including the relationship the 

child has with his or her incarcerated parent, as well as the relationship between the child and his 

or her caregiver(s). During the Listening Session, we heard examples of how mentoring can be

critical for healthy youth development. We also heard about programs where the youth were 

engaged in laying the foundation for parents’ effective reentry once they were released from 

prison. One example in the Listening Session focused on working with parents while they were 

in prison; this work involved rebuilding relationships with family members, training in parenting, 

and engaging parents with the youth in meaningful experiences. Such programs were made 

possible by strong collaborative relationships between the service organizations and correctional 

agencies.

EXTERNAL PARTNERSHIPS. Through the National Mentoring Partnership and its 

affiliated state partnerships, attention has been directed to the collaboration of mentoring 

programs with other service providers and external partners.90 There are many reasons to 

develop such collaborative partnerships. The needs of youth served by the programs may be 

complex and provide reasons to engage other service providers. Partnerships can elevate 

program visibility, making a strong case for the need for mentoring services. Efficiencies may be 

realized when partnerships enable the sharing of resources for training and screening mentors. 
36

Collaborative relationships between mentoring programs and businesses, faith-based groups, and 

community-based organizations can be key elements of volunteer recruitment and fundraising 

campaigns.

Listening Session participants addressed the need for partnerships in many different 

ways. One school-integrated program noted that although mentoring is powerful, it should be 

enhanced “through the specialized training you give teachers, principals, and administrators.”

This program focuses on what it will take for children of incarcerated parents to do well in 

school. They pay attention to appropriate emotional support and understand that visiting a parent 

in prison can be traumatic. Part of their strategy is to “train teachers and principals in the schools 

because they might not know the impact of having a parent in prison.”

CLOSURE OF MENTORING RELATIONSHIPS. Engaging in a closure process can help 

bring mentoring relationships to an end in a positive way that sets an example for future healthy 

relationships in a youth’s life. Important steps for programs to have successful relationship

closure may include introducing the idea of and process for closure to the mentor and mentee

from the beginning of the relationship; making closure policies and procedures clear to the 

mentor, the mentee, and the mentee’s family; preparing mentors for day-to-day challenges to 

avoid premature and unmonitored relationship endings; regular monitoring of mentoring 

relationships to assess whether they have reached a point where closure is appropriate; and 

conducting interviews with all participants as part of the closure process.

91 In the Elements, one 

of the standards requires programs to provide a structured process for “bringing the match to 

closure in a way that affirms the contributions of both the mentor and the mentee and offers both 

individuals the opportunity to assess the experience.”92
37

Research suggests that youth may experience more harm than good when their programarranged mentoring relationships end prematurely.

93 It is not yet clear, however, whether this 

harm derives from the relative brevity of the relationship or the fact that the ending was 

unexpected. Studies of a number of different mentoring programs reveal that premature endings 

occur frequently in mentoring relationships; in some research, relationships with older boys and 

girls have been found more likely to end early.

94 These relationships end prematurely for a 

variety of reasons. One study of a mentoring program for children of incarcerated parents

identified the following five reasons for early termination of relationships: scheduling conflicts, 

personal or family issues, residential mobility, mentors underestimating the commitment, and 

match incompatibility.95 Keeping in mind that these youth sometimes have a background of 

strained and disrupted relationships with adults, it may be especially critical that the mentoring 

relationship be healthy and positive in all aspects. This includes its closure.

ORGANIZATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE AND CAPACITY 

Deciding the format and practices to be used in a given mentoring program is, of course, 

vitally important. Equally critical, however, is the extent to which the program has the 

infrastructure necessary to support the practices chosen. Ideally, it has been recommended that 

staff be aware of the strengths and challenges of the youth they serve and understand how 

recruiting, screening, training, and ongoing mentor support will contribute to the quality of the 

resulting mentoring relationships.

96 Standards address the types of training that mentoring 

program staff should receive.

97 In addition to training on each of the evidence-based practices 

described above, program staff should also be prepared to track and document the progress of the 

mentor-mentee relationship and any challenges that arise.98
38 

As in other types of youth programs, another area of emphasis in recommendations for 

mentoring programs is the need for written protocols and procedures that encompass all areas of 

program operations and practice. For example, programs are advised to have specific, written

procedures—including background check procedures—to screen potential volunteers. Similarly, 

research on why mentor–mentee relationships fail has also stimulated recommendations that 

programs have clearly defined procedures for when to end a relationship.

99 

A final element of program infrastructure and capacity has to do with the attention the 

program pays to assessing its own performance. Performance assessment measures the degree to 

which a program adheres to the original program design. Written protocols and procedures, 

discussed above, become critically important because they provide a measure of this adherence. 

Program goals and objectives are another piece of performance assessment. Establishing goals 

and objectives for a program is important in determining its structure, but it is also an important 

part of performance assessment. Goals and objectives identify desired outcomes against which 

program progress can be measured.100 It has been recommended that, at a minimum, programs

track mentoring relationship progress in written or computerized records and resolve issues that 

arise within relationships.

101 Ideally, though, the full range of program operations and practices 

should be tracked and subject to ongoing evaluation.102

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PRACTICE AND POLICY

The research evidence and Listening Session discussion summarized in this report point 

to a number of useful next steps that can be undertaken to support the availability of high-quality 

and effective mentoring for youth with incarcerated parents. Our specific recommendations 

follow: 

Provide strategic support to programs to enhance the availability of high-quality 
39 

mentoring for children of incarcerated parents. Both available research and Listening Session

input underscore the potential for the types of support that can be made available through highquality mentoring relationships to benefit many young people for whom parental incarceration is

part of their life circumstances—perhaps in ways that are profound and life changing. Therefore, 

we see a strong case to be made for renewed investment in supporting the mentoring of children 

of incarcerated parents. It is equally clear from the available research and perspectives shared at 

the Listening Session that many unique considerations and challenges are involved with making 

mentoring relationships available to children of incarcerated parents and that considerable time 

and experience are likely to be required to ensure that program infrastructure and practices are 

responsive to these. Accordingly, although there is likely value in initiatives supporting diverse 

and wide-ranging programs and organizations, we believe it is imperative that such support be 

tailored appropriately to the needs and circumstances of each recipient. For programs with

foundational, evidence-based practices in place that have considerable experience in providing 

mentoring to children of incarcerated parents, it may be optimal to provide support that 

facilitates expansion of services to reach greater numbers of such youth. In contrast, other 

programs will still be in the process of establishing core infrastructure and practices or will have 

begun only recently to develop strategies to best address the specific needs of children with

incarcerated parents. Under these scenarios, supports directed toward program planning and 

small-scale piloting, respectively, are likely to be most advisable. As such examples suggest, it 

may be possible to establish progressive tiers of support within a single initiative and operational 

performance criteria for moving from one tier of support to the next. 

Steps also should be undertaken to ensure that adequate supports are available in areas 

likely to be of common concern to programs in their efforts to make high-quality mentoring 
40 

available to children of incarcerated parents. Of particular note, during the Listening Session we 

heard about formidable challenges faced by programs in their efforts to engage enough suitable 

mentors. As noted by participants in the session, individuals who have overcome personal 

difficulties (e.g., nonviolent criminal histories) may bring unique capacities to connect with 

youth who have an incarcerated parent as part of their life circumstances, but remain a largely 

untapped resource. In this regard, we see significant value in providing programs with resources 

and guidance in areas such as mentor recruitment, screening, and support to better equip them to 

engage those who represent less traditional, but nonetheless potentially effective sources of 

support for children of incarcerated parents. Youth-initiated mentoring, a strategy in which 

young people engage effective mentors from within their own social networks, also deserves 

attention. Ensuring program access to affordable and timely background checks as part of 

screening potential mentors is critical as well. Reestablishing a reliable and cost-effective 

resource that can be used for this purpose at the national level should be a high priority. 

Previous governmental initiatives have had a similar overarching goal of increasing the 

availability of high-quality mentoring for children of incarcerated parents. Any new initiatives 

should build on what was learned from these earlier efforts. All available accounts of results and 

lessons learned from this work should be carefully considered as a first step in the planning and 

design process. 

Cultivate a community of practice for mentoring children of incarcerated parents.

The Listening Session highlighted a range of promising practices and resources that participating 

programs have developed and refined in their efforts to provide effective mentoring for children 

of incarcerated parents. Participants, too, clearly welcomed the opportunity for networking and 

sharing that the session itself provided. These considerations lead us to recommend that efforts 
41

be undertaken to strengthen the community of practice for mentoring children of incarcerated 

parents. Rather than mechanisms to connect grantees of specific funding initiatives, we see the 

greatest value in networking strategies that extend more broadly and can be sustained over time. 

The recently funded National Mentoring Resource Center provides one promising vehicle in this 

regard because it will include, for example, a clearinghouse dedicated to sharing the resources 

developed by programs. Support for cooperative efforts among national organizations that have

established commitments to high-quality mentoring for children of incarcerated parents, such as 

MENTOR, BBBS, and Boys & Girls Clubs, are also recommended as these may facilitate useful 

peer sharing and learning not only within, but also across such organizations. Similar supports 

should be instituted for sharing and collaboration for organizations working at local and regional 

levels. 

Invest in research to advance the evidence base for effective mentoring for children 

of incarcerated parents. To achieve desired results, any efforts to enhance the availability and 

effectiveness of mentoring as a support for these youth should be grounded in a strong base of 

research-derived evidence. At present, the evidence base is notably limited in both scope and 

rigor. We therefore recommend that substantial investments be made to address the most critical 

gaps in current knowledge. These include, first and foremost, a better foundational understanding 

and documentation of the effectiveness of mentoring as an intervention strategy for children of 

incarcerated parents. This gap should be addressed by investment in a high-quality, federallyfunded randomized controlled trial so as clarify both the immediate and longer-term effects of 

mentoring program participation for children of incarcerated parents. From the perspective of 

process evaluation, this study should be designed to advance understanding of how best to 

support implementation of key practices in making mentoring available to children of 
42

incarcerated parents as well as how to achieve desired levels of mentor and youth engagement in 

programs. From the standpoint of outcome evaluation, the study should be structured to improve 

knowledge of the ways in which effects on youth outcomes may be contingent on different 

program characteristics and practices (such as, for example, one-on-one vs. group mentoring 

format, types and amount of training provided to mentors), key features of mentoring 

relationships, and the widely varying life circumstances and backgrounds of children of 

incarcerated parents (such as, for example, the youth’s relationship with the incarcerated parent 

and availability of support from existing adults in the youth’s social network). As demonstrated 

in the Listening Session, large numbers of grassroots programs, including those that are faithbased, have a longstanding commitment to mentoring children with incarcerated parents. These 

organizations—many of which have been able to develop and refine their practices over 

extended periods of time—will no doubt continue to be pivotal in making high-quality mentoring 

available to this population. With this in mind, the above-recommended trial should be structured 

to ensure it will shed light on the effectiveness of smaller, locally-based programs, not only those 

that operate on a larger scale. Similarly, there clearly is a need to better understand the role of 

mentoring as an intervention strategy in the context of the much broader array of supports that 

these youth and their families often need and may receive from a number of different 

organizations. Clarifying the circumstances when mentoring is most likely to be a valuable 

complement to other services and how it can be combined most effectively with such supports

will be critical for ensuring that youth and their families derive the greatest benefit possible from 

the investments proposed in this report. 
43
44

REFERENCES

Anderson, A. R., Christenson, S. L., Sinclair, M. F., & Lehr, C. A. (2004). Check &

Connect: The importance of relationships for promoting engagement with school. Journal of 

School Psychology, 42, 95–113. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2004.01.002

Arevalo, E., Cooper, B., & Smith, M. (2006). SAFE (Screening Applicants for 

Effectiveness): Guidelines to prevent child molestation in mentoring and youth-serving 

organizations. Redwood City, CA: Friends for Youth.

Balcazar, F. E., & Keys, C. B. (2014). Goals in mentoring relationships. In D. L. DuBois 

& M. J. Karcher (Eds.), Handbook of youth mentoring (2nd ed., pp. 83–98). Thousand Oaks, CA: 

Sage.

Bayer, A., Grossman, J. B., & DuBois, D. L. (2013). School-based mentoring programs: 

Using volunteers to improve the academic outcomes of underserved students. New York, NY: 

MDRC. Retrieved from www.mdrc.org

Black, M. M., Bentley, M. E., Papas, M. A., Oberlander, S., Teti, L. O., McNary, S., . . . 

O’Connell, M. (2006). Delaying second births among adolescent mothers: A randomized, 

controlled trial of a home-based mentoring program. Pediatrics, 118, 1087–1099. 

doi:10.1542/peds.2005-2318

Black, M. M., Hager, E. R., Le, K., Anliker, J., Arteaga, S., DiClemente, C., . . . Wang, 

Y. (2010). Challenge! Health promotion/obesity prevention mentorship model among urban, 

Black adolescents. Pediatrics, 126, 280–288. doi:10.1542/peds.2009-1832

Bogat, G. A., & Liang, B. (2005). Gender in mentoring relationships. In D. L. DuBois & 

M. J. Karcher (Eds.), Handbook of youth mentoring (pp. 205–219). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
45

Deutsch, N. L., Lawrence, E. C., & Henneberger, A. (2014). Social class. In D. L. 

DuBois & M. J. Karcher (Eds.), Handbook of youth mentoring (2nd ed., pp. 175–187). Thousand 

Oaks, CA: Sage.

DuBois, D. L. (2014). Program evaluation. In D. L. DuBois & M. J. Karcher (Eds.), 

Handbook of youth mentoring (2nd ed., pp. 481–498). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

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. doi:10.1023/A:1014628810714

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. doi:10.1177/1529100611414806

DuBois, D. L., & Silverthorn, N. (2005). Characteristics of natural mentoring 

relationships and adolescent adjustment: Evidence from a national study. Journal of Primary 

Prevention, 26, 69–92. doi:10.1007/s10935-005-1832-4

Eddy, J. M., Cearley, J., Bergen, J., & Stern-Carusone, J. (2014). Children of incarcerated 

parents. In D. L. DuBois & M. J. Karcher (Eds.), Handbook of youth mentoring (2nd ed., pp. 

369–382). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Eddy, J. M., & Poehlmann, J. (Eds.) (2010). Children of incarcerated parents: A 

handbook for researchers and practitioners. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.

Elledge, L. C., Cavell, T. A., Ogle, N. T., & Newgent, R. A. (2010). School-based 

mentoring as selective prevention for bullied children: A preliminary test. Journal of Primary 

Prevention, 31, 171–187. doi:10.1007/s10935-010-0215-7
46

Ensher, E. A., & Murphy, S. E. (1997). Effects of race, gender, perceived similarity and 

contact on mentor relationships. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50, 460–481. 

doi:10.1006/jvbe.1996.1547

Foster, E. M. (2014). Economic evaluation of mentoring programs. In D. L. DuBois & M. 

J. Karcher (Eds.), Handbook of youth mentoring (2nd ed., pp. 499–509). Thousand Oaks, CA: 

Sage.

Glaze, L. E., & Maruschak, L. M. (2009). Parents in prison and their minor children. 

Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice.

Grossman, J. B. (2005). Evaluating mentoring programs. In D. L. DuBois & M. J. 

Karcher (Eds.), Handbook of youth mentoring (pp. 251–265). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Grossman, J. B., Chan, C. S., Schwartz, S. E. O., & Rhodes, J. E. (2011). 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. doi:10.1007/s10464-011-

9435-0

Grossman, J. B., & Johnson, A. (1999). Assessing the effectiveness of mentoring 

programs. In J. B. Grossman (Ed.), Contemporary issues in mentoring (pp. 25–47). Philadelphia, 

PA: Public/Private Ventures.

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, 

199–219. doi:10.1023/A:1014680827552

Herrera, C., DuBois, D. L., & Grossman, J. B. (2013). The role of risk: Mentoring 

experiences and outcomes for youth with varying risk profiles. New York, NY: A Public/Private 

Ventures project published by MDRC. Retrieved from www.mdrc.org
47

Herrera, C., Grossman, J. B., Kauh, T. J., Feldman, A. F., McMaken, J. (2007). Making a 

difference in schools: The Big Brothers Big Sisters school-based mentoring impact study. 

Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private Ventures.

Herrera, C., Sipe, C. L., & McClanahan, W. S. (2000). Mentoring school-age children: 

Relationship development in community-based and school-based programs. Philadelphia, PA: 

Public/Private Ventures (Published in collaboration with MENTOR/National Mentoring 

Partnership, Alexandria, VA).

ICF International. (2011). Mentoring children affected by incarceration: An evaluation of 

the Texas Amachi Program. Fairfax, VA: Author. 

Jarjoura, R. (2005). Indiana’s Juvenile Reentry Program: Aftercare for Indiana through 

Mentoring (AIM). Indianapolis, IN: Aftercare for Indiana through Mentoring.

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. doi:10.1002/pits.20025

Karcher, M. J. & Hansen, K. (2014). Mentoring activities and interactions. In D. L. 

DuBois & M. J. Karcher (Eds.), Handbook of youth mentoring (2nd ed., pp. 63–82). Thousand 

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Karcher, M. J., Roy-Carlson, L., Benne, K., Gil-Hernandez, D., Allen, C., & Gomez, M. 

(2006, March). A mixed methods approach to identifying factors that influenced Latino mentees’ 

changes in connectedness after mentoring. In C. M. Buchanan (Chair), The impact of mentoring 

of Latino youth: Academic outcomes and other developmental assets. Symposium presented at 

the Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research on Adolescence, San Francisco, CA.
48

Keller, T. E., & Blakeslee, J. E. (2014). Social networks and mentoring. In D. L. DuBois 

& M. J. Karcher (Eds.), Handbook of youth mentoring (2nd ed., pp. 129–142). Thousand Oaks, 

CA: Sage.

Klaw, E. L., Rhodes, J. E., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (2003). Natural mentors in the lives of 

African American adolescent mothers: Tracking relationships over time. Journal of Youth and 

Adolescence, 32, 223-232.

Kremer, S. E., & Cooper, B. (2014). Mentor screening and youth protection. In D. L. 

DuBois & M. J. Karcher (Eds.), Handbook of youth mentoring (2nd ed., pp. 411-425). Thousand 

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kupersmidt, J. B. & Rhodes, J. E. (2014). Mentor training. In D. L. DuBois & M. J. 

Karcher (Eds.), Handbook of youth mentoring (2nd ed., pp. 439–456). Thousand Oaks, CA: 

Sage.

Lee, R. D., Fang, X., & Luo, F. (2013). The impact of parental incarceration on the 

physical and mental health of young adults. Pediatrics, 131, e1188–e1195.

doi:10.1542/peds.2012-0627

Lee, S., Aos, S., Drake, E., Pennucci, A., Miller, M., & Anderson, L. (2012). Return on 

investment: Evidence-based options to improve statewide outcomes: April 2012 update.

(Document No. 12-04-1201). Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy. 

Available from http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/rptfiles/12-04-1201.pdf

Liang, B., Bogat, G. A., & Duffy, N. (2014). Gender in mentoring relationships. In D. L. 

DuBois & M. J. Karcher (Eds.), Handbook of youth mentoring (2nd ed., pp. 159–173). Thousand 

Oaks, CA: Sage.
49

Madia, B. P., & Lutz, C. J. (2004). Perceived similarity, expectation reality discrepancies, 

and mentors’ expressed intention to remain in Big Brothers/Big Sisters programs. Journal of 

Applied Social Psychology, 34, 598–623. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2004.tb02562.x

Maruschak, L. M., Glaze, L. E., & Mumola, C. J. (2010). Incarcerated parents and their 

children: Findings from the Bureau of Justice Statistics. In J. M. Eddy & J. Poehlmann (Eds.),

Children of incarcerated parents: A handbook for researchers and practitioners (pp. 33–54). 

Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.

McLearn, K. T., Colasanto, D., & Schoen, C. (1998). Mentoring makes a difference: 

Findings from the Commonwealth Fund 1998 Survey of Adults Mentoring Young People. New 

York, NY: The Commonwealth Fund. Retrieved from 

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Publications/Fund-Reports/1998/Jul/Mentoring-Makes-aDifference--Findings-from-The-Commonwealth-Fund-1998-Survey-of-Adults-MentoringYo.aspx

MENTOR. (2009). Elements of effective practice for mentoring (3rd ed.). Alexandria, 

VA: Author.

Morrow, K. V., & Styles, M. B. (1995). Building relationships with youth in program 

settings: A study of Big Brothers/Big Sisters. Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private Ventures.

Murray, J., Farrington, D. P., & Sekol, I. (2012). Children’s antisocial behavior, mental 

health, drug use, and educational performance after parental incarceration: A systematic review 

and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 138, 175–210. doi:10.1037/a0026407

O’Donnell, C. R., & Williams. I. L. (2013). The Buddy System: A 35-year follow-up of 

criminal offenses. Clinical Psychological Science, 1, 54–66. doi:10.1177/2167702612456907
50

O’Donnell, C. R., Lydgate, T., & Fo, W. S. (1979). The Buddy System: Review and 

follow-up. Child Behavior Therapy, 1, 161–169. doi: 10.1016/S0005-7894(75)80008-6

Parra, G. R., DuBois, D. L., Neville, H. A., Pugh-Lilly, A. O., & Povinelli, N. (2002).

Mentoring relationships for youth: Investigation of a process-oriented model. Journal of 

Community Psychology, 30, 367–388. doi:10.1002/jcop.10016

Pryce, J., Kelly, M. S., & Guidone, S. R. (2014). Mentor and youth tracking. In D. L. 

DuBois & M. J. Karcher (Eds.), Handbook of youth mentoring (2nd ed., pp. 427-438). Thousand 

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Rhodes, J. E. (2005). A model of youth mentoring. In D. L. DuBois & M. J. Karcher 

(Eds.), Handbook of youth mentoring (pp. 30–43). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Rhodes, J. E., & DuBois, D. L. (2006). Understanding and facilitating the youth 

mentoring movement. Social Policy Report, 20, 3–19. Retrieved from http://www.srcd.org/

Rhodes, J. E., Laing, B., & Spencer, R. (2014). Ethical issues in youth mentoring. In D. 

L. DuBois & M. J. Karcher (Eds.), Handbook of youth mentoring (2nd ed., pp. 511–522). 

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Rhodes, J., Spencer, R., Keller, T., Liang, B., & Noam, G. (2006). A model for the 

influence of mentoring relationships on youth development. Journal of Community Psychology, 

34, 691–701.

Sánchez, B., & Colón, Y. (2005). Race, ethnicity, and culture in mentoring relationships. 

In D. L. DuBois & M. J. Karcher (Eds.), Handbook of youth mentoring (pp. 191–204). Thousand 

Oaks, CA: Sage.
51

Sanchez, B., Colón-Torres, Y., Feuer, R., Roundfield, K. E., & Berardi, L. (2014). Race, 

ethnicity, and culture in mentoring relationships. In D. L. DuBois & M. J. Karcher (Eds.), 

Handbook of youth mentoring (2nd ed., pp. 145–158). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Schwartz, S. O., Rhodes, J. E., Spencer, R., & Grossman, J. B. (2013). Youth initiated 

mentoring: Investigating a new approach to working with vulnerable adolescents. American 

Journal of Community Psychology, 52, 155–169. doi:10.1037/a0021379

Spencer, R. (2007). ‘It’s not what I expected’: A qualitative study of youth mentoring 

relationship failures. Journal of Adolescent Research, 22, 331–354.

doi:10.1177/0743558407301915

Spencer, R., & Basualdo-Delmonico, A. (2014). Termination and closure of mentoring 

relationships. In D. L. DuBois & M. J. Karcher (Eds.), Handbook of youth mentoring (2nd ed., 

pp. 469–480). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Spencer, R., Basualdo-Delmonico, A., & Lewis, T. O. (2010). Working to make it work: 

The role of parents in the youth mentoring process. Journal of Community Psychology, 39, 51–

59. doi:10.1002/jcop.20416

Stukas, A. A., Clary, E. G., & Snyder, M. (2014). Mentor recruitment and retention. In D. 

L. DuBois & M. J. Karcher (Eds.), Handbook of youth mentoring (2nd ed., pp. 397–410). 

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Stukas, A. A., & Tanti, C. (2005). Recruiting and sustaining volunteer mentors. In D. L. 

DuBois & M. J. Karcher (Eds.), Handbook of youth mentoring (pp. 220–233). Thousand Oaks, 

CA: Sage.
52

Styles, M. B., & Morrow, K. V. (1992). Understanding how youth and elders form 

relationships: A study of four Linking Lifetimes programs. Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private 

Ventures.

Taylor, A. S. & Porcellini, L. (2014). Family involvement. In D. L. DuBois & M. J. 

Karcher (Eds.), Handbook of youth mentoring (2nd ed., pp. 457–468). Thousand Oaks, CA: 

Sage.

Tolan, P., Henry, D., Schoeny, M., & Bass, A. (2008). Mentoring interventions to affect 

juvenile delinquency and associated problems. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 16.

doi:10.4073/csr.2008.16. Retrieved from 

http://www.campbellcollaboration.org/lib/download/238/

Tolan, P. H., Henry, D. B., Schoeny, M. S., Lovegrove, P., & Nichols, E. (2013). 

Mentoring programs to affect delinquency and associated outcomes of youth at risk: A 

comprehensive meta-analytic review. Journal of Experimental Criminology. Advance online 

publication. doi:10.1007/s11292-013-9181-4

Walker, G. (2005). Youth mentoring and public policy. In D. L. DuBois & M. L. Karcher 

(Eds.), Handbook of youth mentoring (pp. 510–524). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Weinberger, S. G. (2005). Developing a mentoring program. In D. L. DuBois & M. J. 

Karcher (Eds.), Handbook of youth mentoring (pp. 220–233). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

West, H., & Sabol, W. (2008). Prisoners in 2007. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Wheeler, M., Keller, T., & DuBois, D. L. (2010). Review of three recent randomized 

trials of school-based mentoring. Social Policy Report, 24, 1–21. Retrieved from 

http://www.srcd.org
53

Wyman, P. A., Cross, W., Brown, C. H., Yu, Q., Tu, X., & Eberly, S. (2010). 

Intervention to strengthen emotional self-regulation in children with emerging mental health 

problems: Proximal impact on school behavior. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 38, 707–

720. doi:10.1007/s10802-010-9398-x
54

APPENDIX

Mentoring Children of Incarcerated Parents (COIP) 

Listening Session 

September 30, 2013 8:30am – 5:00pm

Eisenhower Executive Office Building, Room # 430

Agenda

8:30–9:00 Welcome and Introductions 

• Tonya Robinson, Special Assistant to the President for Justice and 

Regulatory Policy, Domestic Policy Council 

• Robert L. Listenbee, Administrator, Office of Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention 

• Attendee Introductions

9:00–9:15 Overview and Purpose of the Listening Session

A review of the goals of the listening session, format, and governing principles by 

the facilitators for the session. 

• Dr. David DuBois, Professor, University of Illinois at Chicago

• Dr. Roger Jarjoura, Principal Researcher, American Institutes for Research

9:15–9:45 Research and Background: Children of Incarcerated Parents (COIP) and 

Mentoring 

What do we know about children with incarcerated parents?

• Dr. Rebecca Shlafer, Assistant Professor, University of Minnesota

What do we know about what works in mentoring relationships and programs for 

youth?

• Dr. David DuBois

What do we know about the challenges faced by and the effectiveness of 

mentoring programs that have served COIP? 

• Dr. Roger Jarjoura
55

9:45–10:00 Break

10:00–11:20 Q & A and Discussion of Presentations 

A facilitated discussion allowing participants to react and respond to the 

information presented:

1. What points resonated with what you know from your own experience?

2. Were things presented that you want to get more clarification on?

3. What did you hear that you want to question or challenge?

4. What was missing from the presentations (either that you can provide 

perspective on or that you feel is still an unanswered question)?

11:20–11:30 Congressman Robert C. “Bobby” Scott, U.S. House of Representatives

11:30–12:30 Lunch on your own 

Due to federal regulations, lunch will not be provided. For convenience, there is a 

café/deli on the ground floor of the building. **For security purposes, please do 

not leave the premises for lunch. 

12:30–2:15 Discussion: What characteristics of the mentoring relationship would likely 

best support COIP?

Research points to certain qualities or elements of mentoring relationships as 

being important contributors to better outcomes for youth (see below). This 

discussion will focus on the ways in which these (and potentially other) qualities 

may be important specifically for COIP. 

1. Collaborative/developmental orientation

2. Consistency

3. Longevity

4. Closeness/emotional connection

5. Active guidance

6. Advocacy

7. Modeling of positive behaviors

8. Parent engagement

2:15–2:30 Break
56

2:30–4:00 Discussion: How might high-quality mentoring relationships be best 

supported by programs? 

Does it make more sense to build a stand-alone program for COIP or build the 

capacity of broader mentoring programs with infrastructure and flexibility to 

respond to a variety of youth, including COIP?

How would the qualities of effective mentoring relationships be translated to 

practice within a mentoring program serving COIP? Some aspects to consider 

include: 

1. Recruitment

2. Screening

3. Matching

4. Training

5. Support 

6. Meeting structure

7. Family engagement

8. External partnerships

9. Closure of match

How do we ensure adequate infrastructure of mentoring programs to effectively

serve COIP? Some aspects to consider include: 

1. Written protocols/procedures (manualization and communication)

2. Organizational structure and capacity

3. Training of staff

4. Performance measurement 

5. How mentoring programs can work most effectively with other supports 

and services for COIP and their families.

4:00–4:45 Discussion: Where do we go from here? What needs to happen next? 

What are the take-away points from today’s conversation? 

How can OJJDP and the Administration help build, support, and enhance 

successful mentoring programs for COIP?

4:45–5:00 Closing Remarks

• D. Paul Monteiro, Associate Director, Office of Public Engagement

• Robert L. Listenbee 
57 

NOTES

 

1 Although there may be similarities between individuals incarcerated in both jails and prisons (e.g., history of 

substance use, mental health problems), there are also important differences. The type of offender, sentence length, 

and availability of services may vary considerably between jail and prisons. In general, in comparison to a county 

jail, prisons house more serious offenders, for longer periods of time, and have more space, infrastructure, and staff 

available to provide additional services (e.g., remedial education, chemical health treatment, parenting education). 

Compared to prisons, jails are often closer to the inmate’s residence at the time of arrest, potentially impacting the 

frequency of family visitation. In addition, the format and rules for visitation differ between jails and prisons. These 

differences in the type of setting within which a parent is incarcerated are important to keep in mind when 

considering how the parent-child relationship is maintained during incarceration and the implications that this might 

have for the outcomes of youth with incarcerated parents (Eddy & Poehlmann, 2010) as well as for mentoring 

relationships that may be provided to these youth. 2 Maruschak et al. (2010).

3 Glaze & Maruschak (2009). 4 West & Sabol (2008). 5 Maruschak et al. (2010).

6 Maruschak et al. (2010).

7 Maruschak et al. (2010).

8 Eddy & Poehlmann (2010).

9 Glaze & Maruschak (2009). 10 In their systematic review of the literature, Murray, Farrington, and Sekol (2012) examined evidence on the 

associations between parental incarceration and children's later antisocial behavior (i.e., behaviors that violate 

societal norms and laws such as delinquency, juvenile arrest, persistent lying and deceit), mental health problems 

(e.g., anxiety, depression), drug use, and educational performance. In their meta-analysis, the most rigorous studies 

that controlled for socio-demographic risk factors (e.g., race, education, poverty), children's antisocial behavior 

before parental incarceration, or parental criminality (e.g., prior criminal convictions). Murray and colleagues (2012) 

found that parental incarceration was associated with children's increased risk for antisocial behavior, but not for 

mental health problems, drug use, or poor educational performance (Murray et al., 2012). Although previous studies 

have found parental incarceration to have multiple types of adverse effects on children’s outcomes, results suggest 

that when important co-occurring risk factors are taken into account, the only outcome that appears to be uniquely 

affected by parental incarceration is children’s antisocial behavior. 11 Lee et al. (2013). 12 For comprehensive meta-analytic reviews of youth mentoring program evaluations, see DuBois, Holloway, 

Valentine, & Cooper (2002) and DuBois, Portillo, Rhodes, Silverthorn, & Valentine (2011); for meta-analytic 

reviews of evaluations of youth mentoring program effects on outcomes associated with delinquency, see Tolan, 

Henry, Schoeny, & Bass, 2008; and Tolan, Henry, Schoeny, Lovegrove, & Nichols (2013); and for a meta-analysis 

of evaluations of school-based mentoring programs, see Wheeler, Keller, & DuBois (2010). 13 DuBois et al. (2011). 14 DuBois et al. (2011); Herrera, DuBois, & Grossman (2013). 15 Rhodes (2005). 16 DuBois et al. (2011). 17 DuBois et al. (2011). 18 DuBois et al. (2002, 2011); Tolan et al. (2008, 2013); Wheeler et al. (2010). DuBois et al. (2011) found in their 

meta-analysis that the typical benefit of program participation was equivalent to a difference of 9 percentile points 

from scores of nonmentored youth on the same measures.

19 DuBois et al. (2011). 20 Walker (2005). 21 DuBois et al. (2002, 2011); Tolan et al. (2013). 
58

 22 See, for example, Grossman & Rhodes (2002); Grossman, Chan, Schwartz, & Rhodes (2011); Karcher (2005); 

and Spencer (2007). 23 DuBois et al. (2011). 24 DuBois et al. (2011). Juvenile offending in this context refers to formal involvement with the juvenile justice 

system, and educational attainment would entail outcomes such as completion of high school and postsecondary 

education. Current support for the capacity of mentoring programs to impact these and other outcomes positively 

with high levels of policy interest (e.g., obesity) is for the most part restricted to evaluations of programs that have 

focused specifically on these goals. For juvenile offending, see, for example, Jarjoura (2005); for educational 

attainment, see, for example, Anderson, Christenson, Sinclair, & Lehr (2004); for obesity, see Black et al. (2010); 

for adolescent pregnancy, see Black et al. (2006).

25 A recent randomized controlled study (O’Donnell & Williams, 2013) examined long-term effects of the Buddy 

System, a mentoring program for youth between the ages of 11 and 17, on adult criminal offenses 35 years later. The 

proportions of the control and participant groups with adult arrests did not differ significantly (46.4% and 47.8%, 

respectively, from Table I of O’Donnell & Williams, 2013). The study did find evidence of a significant beneficial 

effect of the program on reducing the likelihood of adult arrest among those who had been arrested in the year 

before program referral as well as a significant effect in the opposite (i.e., harmful) direction among females without 

a history of prior arrest at program referral. These divergent findings, which are similar to variable impacts on arrest 

rates immediately following program participation (O’Donnell, Lydgate, & Fo, 1979), were interpreted by the 

authors as “peer network” effects that had been created during the opportunities the program provided for youth to 

interact with one another during their participation. 

26 See, in particular, Lee, Aos, Drake, Pennucci, Miller, & Anderson (2012). 27 Foster (2014). 28 Rhodes (2005); Rhodes, Spencer, Keller, Liang, & Noam (2006). 

29 Bayer, Grossman, & DuBois (2013); Herrera, Grossman, Kauh, Feldman, & McMaken (2007). 30 DuBois & Silverthorn (2005). 31 Herrera, Sipe, & McClanahan (2000); Morrow & Styles (1995); Styles & Morrow (1992). 32 Karcher, Roy-Carlson, Benne, Gil-Hernandez, Allen, & Gomez (2006). 33 Although whether the youth and mentor share the same racial/ethnic background could be expected to be 

consequential as to whether a positive emotional bond is formed in the relationship, existing research provides little 

support for this (see Sanchez & Colon, 2005; Sanchez, Colon-Torres, Feuer, Roundfield, & Berardi, 2014). The 

consequences, if any, in this regard of mentor and youth being of the same gender (Bogat & Liang, 2005; Liang, 

Bogat, & Duffy, 2014) or sharing comparable socio-economic backgrounds (Deutsch, Lawrence, & Henneberger, 

2014) have received very limited investigation to date. There is evidence, however, to indicate that perceptions of 

similarity (e.g., in interests or personality) may tend to foster stronger and longer-term relationships between 

mentors and youth (Ensher & Murphy, 1997; Herrera et al., 2000; Madia & Lutz, 2004). Likewise, as discussed later 

in this report, research suggests that an emphasis on similarity of interests when pairing youth and mentors enhances 

the effectiveness of mentoring programs in terms of promoting positive outcomes for youth (DuBois et al., 2011). 34 For an in-depth examination of goals in mentoring relationships, a review of relevant empirical literature, see 

Balcazar & Keys (2014).

35 DuBois et al. (2011); Tolan et al. (2013). 36 See, for example, Grossman & Rhodes (2002); Herrera et al. (2000); Klaw, Rhodes, & Fitzgerald (2003); 

McLearn, Colasanto, & Schoen (1998); Parra, DuBois, Neville, Pugh-Lilly, & Povinelli (2002); and Schwartz, 

Rhodes, Spencer, & Grossman (2013). 37 Rhodes & DuBois (2006). 38 See, for example, Elledge, Cavell, Ogle, & Newgent (2010) and Wyman et al. (2010).

39 Grossman & Rhodes (2002). 40 Grossman et al. (2011). 41 These are not the only circumstances under which research indicates mentoring relationships can have a counterproductive or negative influence on youth. Others include inconsistent follow-through on established expectations, 

an overly prescriptive style, and mentors modeling unhealthy behaviors (Rhodes & DuBois, 2006; Rhodes, Liang, & 

Spencer, 2014). These possibilities exist alongside the potential for sexual abuse and other types of overt 

exploitation that, although thankfully rare by all available indications, clearly represent the most egregious of 

possible risks attendant to the trust and emotional investment that a young person places in a mentor figure (Kremer 

& Cooper, 2014). 
59

 42 Keller & Blakeslee (2014). 43 Spencer, Basualdo-Delmonico, & Lewis (2010). 44 Eddy et al. (2014). 45 ICF International (2011). The favorable program effects on outcomes reported in this evaluation involved more 

favorable change from baseline to follow-up assessments for youth assigned to receive mentoring in comparison to 

the change observed for youth assigned randomly to the control group. 46 The proportion of youth with incomplete follow-up data was substantially higher for youth in the treatment 

(mentored) group (61%) than those in the control group (37%). The study report does not address the reasons for 

this differential attrition, which represents a significant source of potential bias in the findings of evaluation studies. 

One possibility is that no concerted effort was made to collect follow-up data from those in the treatment group 

whose mentoring relationships had ended and who were no longer being served by the agency. If this is the case, the 

differential attrition would be of considerable concern because youth with shorter mentoring relationships are likely 

to be less well-adjusted than other youth before mentoring program participation (Grossman & Rhodes, 2002; see 

Grossman, 2005, for an excellent explanation of the bias that can result from systematically excluding such youth 

from study analyses, which is discussed under the topic of “suspicious comparisons”). It is also noteworthy that only 

approximately one-third of parents of eligible youth who were approached agreed to study participation (for them 

and their children). It is thus unclear whether the study’s results generalize to the larger population of children with 

incarcerated parents served by the agencies involved in the research. 

47 Further findings bearing on the effectiveness of mentoring for children of incarcerated parents were reported in a 

recent evaluation that involved seven community-based mentoring programs in the Pacific Northwest (five of which 

were BBBS agencies). The sample for this evaluation included youth ranging in age from 8 to 15 years. Analyses 

tested for differences in estimated program effects based on whether the youths’ parent/caregiver reported that a 

parent or other close family member was incarcerated or had frequent problems with the police. A difference was 

evident for 3 of the 10 outcomes tested: trust in the parent–child relationship, depressive symptoms, and number of 

outcomes showing negative change. In all instances, youth with a family member incarcerated or experiencing 

frequent problems with the law (about one-quarter of the study sample) did not seem to benefit from mentoring 

program participation; whereas significant program benefits were evident for the other youth in the study. For three 

of the remaining outcomes for which differences were not found (perceived social acceptance, grades in school as 

reported by youth, and number of outcomes showing positive change), the benefits of mentoring program 

participation were evident at the level of the overall sample and thus may well have been evident for youth who had 

family members experiencing incarceration or related challenges.

48 In this research, youth assigned to the treatment group also were asked to report on the quality of their mentoring 

relationships using several scales designed for this purpose. In each of the areas addressed—youth-centeredness 

(e.g., taking the youth’s interests into consideration when planning activities), emotional engagement (e.g., feeling 

happy or special when spending time with mentor), and satisfaction (e.g., youth not reporting feeling made fun of by 

the mentor)—ratings were comparable to those obtained for similar, although not identical, versions of the same 

scales in the landmark evaluation of the BBBS community-based mentoring program (see Grossman & Johnson, 

1999).

49 See, in particular, DuBois et al. (2002, 2011); MENTOR (2009). 50 MENTOR (2009), p. 2. 51 DuBois et al. (2011). A notable exception in the current evidence base is the lack of significant research 

examining the effectiveness of e-mentoring. In their meta-analysis, DuBois et al. (2011) were unable to locate 

controlled evaluations of any program that utilized e-mentoring as its primary format.

52 Weinberger (2005). 53 MENTOR (2009). 54 Stukas et al. (2014). 55

http://www.bigbrobigsis.com/site/c.dvKQIaOWImJaH/b.6625367/k.F3E3/Mentoring_Children_of_Prisoners_Progr

am.htm

56 Stukas, Clary, & Snyder (2014). 57 Weinberger (2005). 58 Stukas et al. (2014). 59 Stukas et al. (2014).
60

 60In their review of the research, Stukas et al. (2014) summarized the evidence with regard to the best outcomes 

related to the quality of the mentoring relationship. Higher-quality relationships have been found to be more likely 

when the mentor demonstrated empathy. There is also research that found that mentors were more likely to fulfill 

their commitment to the relationship (i.e., sustained the relationship past the minimum length of time to which they 

committed) when they were abstract thinkers, conscientious, and imaginative. DuBois et al. (2011) found that 

programs were more effective when there was a good fit between the educational or occupational backgrounds of 

mentors and the goals of the program.

61 See http://www.mentoryouth.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/recruitment.ideas. 62 Weinberger (2005). 63 DuBois et al. (2011). 64 Herrera, DuBois, & Grossman (2013). 65 Kremer & Cooper (2014). 66 Kremer & Cooper (2014). Similarly, the Elements identifies a number of benchmarks under the standard of 

Mentor Screening. These include at least one face-to-face interview with the prospective mentor; professional and 

personal reference checks on the applicant; and a “a comprehensive criminal background check on adult mentor, 

including searching a national criminal records database along with sex offender and child abuse registries.” 

(MENTOR, 2009, p. 6) 67 Jarjoura (2005). 68 DuBois et al. (2002); Pryce et al. (2014). 69 Pryce et al. (2014). 70 Pryce et al. (2014). 71 Schwartz et al. (2013). 72 MENTOR (2009). 73 Weinberger (2005). 74 Kupersmidt & Rhodes (2014); Weinberger (2005). Training has been directly linked to mentor retention and 

mentee outcomes. Effective training affects mentoring outcomes by improving mentors’ feelings of closeness, 

support, satisfaction, and efficacy. Some research has identified a link between training and match length, which 

may ultimately affect how much of an impact the mentoring relationship has on positive outcomes. See also Herrera

et al. (2013) and Herrera et al. (2000). Herrera et al. (2000), for example, found that mentors in community- and 

school-based programs who received at least 6 hours of pre-match training reported higher levels of closeness with 

their mentees than those who received less than 6 hours, and that mentor who received less than 2 hours reported the 

lowest levels of closeness.

75 Kupersmidt & Rhodes (2014). 76 Kupersmidt & Rhodes (2014). 77 Kupersmidt & Rhodes (2014). 78 Kupersmidt & Rhodes (2014). 79 Kupersmidt & Rhodes (2014). 80 DuBois et al. (2002). 81 MENTOR (2009). 82 Weinberger (2005). 83 Herrera et al. (2013). 84 DuBois et al. (2002). 85 Grossman & Rhodes (2002); Schwartz et al. (2013). 86 Balcazar & Keys (2014). 87 Tolan et al. (2013). 88 DuBois et al. (2002). 89 Taylor & Porcellini (2014). 90 See, for example, http://www.iyi.org/resources/mentor/pdf/Indiana-Mentoring-Partnership-Brochure.pdf

91 Spencer & Basualdo-Delmonico (2014). 92 MENTOR (2009), p. 16. 93 Spencer & Basualdo-Delmonico (2014). 94 Spencer & Basualdo-Delmonico (2014). 95 Shlafer, Poehlmann, Coffino, & Hanneman (2009) as cited in Spencer & Basualdo-Delmonico (2014). 96 Herrera et al. (2013).
61

 97 Weinberger (2005). 98 Weinberger (2005). 99 Spencer & Basualdo-Delmonico (2014). 100 Weinberger (2005). 101 Weinberger (2005). 102 See DuBois (2014) for an in-depth discussion of process evaluation for youth mentoring programs.