Helping Those Who Need It the Least: A Counterfactual and Comparative Analysis of Whether Informal Mentoring Promotes Economic Upward Mobility for Low- and Middle-Income Youth

Abstract

Although there have been calls to expand mentoring as way to redress the growing problem of economic immobility in the United States, no study to date has directly examined whether mentoring and economic mobility are related. Using multiple waves of data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health and employing a propensity score matching approach, this quasi-experimental study compares youth who report having had an informal adult mentor in adolescence with those who did not from both low-income ( N = 795) and middle-income ( N = 3,158) samples to test whether having an informal mentor in adolescence is associated with economic mobility in early adulthood. We find that middle-income youth who report having had an informal mentor in adolescence are more likely to be upwardly mobile than those who did not but the same did not hold true for the low-income youth. Implications and directions for future research are discussed.

One of these things is not like the other: Predictors of core and capital mentoring in adolescence

“…There are several variables to consider when hypothesizing which qualities of a young person are associated with core versus capital mentorship. The present study included variables based on conceptual relevance and previous research, all from Wave 1 of data collection (see Gowdy et al, 2021). In addition to demographic variables under consideration (racial‐ethnic status, age, and sex of young person), all included matching variables are organized into five types of resources: parental, peer, school, neighborhood, and personal.…”

“…In accordance to previous studies, we ran a two‐step cluster analysis (Norusis, 2008) based on eight variables in Wave 3 of the Add Health data characterizing the mentoring relationship: mentor role, how youth met mentor, two indicators of relationship duration, two indicators of frequency of contact, two indicators of youth‐rated closeness to the mentor, and support provided by the mentor. This latter variable was derived from open‐ended responses in Add Health and coded for a previous study (Gowdy et al, 2020). Because this previous study then examined the association between mentor type and a Wave 4 dependent variable, only observations who had nonmissing information on this Wave 4 variable were coded up for this typology.…”

Contextual antecedents and well‐being indicators associated with children's and adolescents' access to supportive nonparent adults

“…On one hand, SNPAs are associated with better behavioral, psychosocial, and academic functioning for youth (van Dam et al, 2018; DuBois & Silverthorn, 2005; Sterrett et al, 2011). As they increase in intensity and duration, youth's connections with SNPAs may become mentoring relationships, which can have significant, long‐term impacts on psychosocial development as well as educational and economic success (Gowdy et al, 2021; Hagler & Rhodes, 2018; McDonald & Lambert, 2014). Nationally representative studies also suggest that SNPAs are relatively widespread, estimating that two‐thirds to three‐quarters of youth have at least one SNPA in their lives (Bruce & Bridgeland, 2014; DuBois & Silverthorn, 2005).…”

“…Nationally representative studies also suggest that SNPAs are relatively widespread, estimating that two‐thirds to three‐quarters of youth have at least one SNPA in their lives (Bruce & Bridgeland, 2014; DuBois & Silverthorn, 2005). However, these relationships are unequally distributed, such that social advantage provides certain youth with greater access to SNPAs (Gowdy et al, 2021, 2022; Raposa et al, 2018). Inequitable access to SNPAs creates inequitable access to mentoring—the “mentoring gap” (Bruce & Bridgeland, 2014).…”

Brokering youth learning opportunities in after-school settings: The role of adult social networks and network orientations.

“…Yet it is not fully understood how these relationships function to support marginalized youth or what characteristics of brokers might result in better youth outcomes. In one study, access to an informal mentor was associated with economic mobility for middle-class youth, but not low-income youth (Gowdy et al, 2020), while social class of adults had no effect on youth academic or social outcomes in structured mentorship programs (Gaddis, 2012).…”