Literature Review Outline:
A Brief Natural Mentoring Intervention for Trauma-Exposed Youth
McKenna Parnes, MS
Suffolk University
Statement of Purpose:
According to findings from a nationally representative survey, rates of childhood trauma
in the United States are alarming. More than two thirds of youth indicated exposure to at least
one traumatic event by age 16, and more than one third indicated experiencing multiple trauma
exposures (Copeland, Keeler, Angold, & Costello, 2007). Research on developmental trauma
suggests that access to a responsive social support system is one of the most important factors in
determining child outcomes following trauma exposures (Cook, Spinazzola, Ford, et al., 2017).
Access to social support has been shown to promote resilience in the face of childhood trauma
exposure and prevent lasting, life-long negative impacts (Hyman, Gold, & Cott, 2003). Within
this context, mentoring relationships may be particularly beneficial in promoting resilience
amongst trauma-exposed youth. Research on mentoring interventions for at-risk youth and youth
in the foster care system highlight the benefits of such relationships (e.g., Munson & McMillen,
2008; Taussig & Weiler, 2017). These findings suggest that trauma-exposed youth would likely
benefit from a similar intervention aimed at supporting youth in developing skills to recruit
natural mentors, training identified natural mentors in trauma-informed mentoring practices and
facilitating stronger bonds between the identified mentor-mentee dyads. Therefore, a natural
mentoring intervention for trauma-exposed youth will be proposed to understand the potential
impacts of mentoring relationships for these youths.
Outline (total proposed length of paper: 65 pages):
I.
Introduction and Statement of Purpose
a. Childhood Trauma and Social Support
i.
Prevalence of childhood trauma
• Almost 35,000,000 children in the United States have experienced
childhood trauma (National Survey of Children’s Health, 2012)
• More than two thirds of youth indicate exposure to at least one
traumatic event by age 16, and more than one third indicated
experiencing multiple trauma exposures (Copeland, Keeler,
Angold, & Costello, 2007; NSCH, 2012)
ii. Why are we concerned?
• Research indicates a significant dose-response relationship
between childhood trauma and poor outcomes later in life
(Stevens, 2013)
• More prevention, trauma-informed, resiliency training programs to
prevent children from suffering from chronic disease and mental
illness long-term
iii. Benefits of social support for childhood trauma
• Research on developmental trauma (chronic abuse, neglect, or
harsh adversity) suggests that access to a responsive social support
system is one of the most important factors in determining child
•
•
II.
outcomes following trauma exposure (Cook, Spinazzola, Ford, et
al., 2017)
Access to social support has been shown to promote resilience in
the face of childhood trauma exposure and prevent lasting, lifelong negative impacts (Hyman, Gold, & Cott, 2003).
Within this context, mentoring relationships may be particularly
beneficial in promoting resilience amongst trauma-exposed youth.
Mentoring for at-risk youth and trauma exposed youth
a. Research on the impact of mentoring for at-risk youth is emerging
i.
Findings from research on formal mentoring programs and natural
mentoring
• Positive interpersonal relationships with older adults may serve as
protective factors for vulnerable youth (e.g., Greeson &
Thompson, 2017; Herrera, DuBois, & Grossman, 2013; Taussig,
Weiler, Rhodes, et al., 2015).
• Current literature on mentoring for at-risk youth suggests that these
supportive relationships can promote positive youth development
across a range of outcomes, including psychological well-being,
school functioning and academic attainment, peer relationships,
and life satisfaction (Herrera, DuBois, & Grossman, 2013; Munson
& McMillen, 2009; Taussig & Weiler, 2017).
ii. Research on mentoring for trauma-exposed youth
• The majority of literature evaluating mentoring for trauma-exposed
youth has examined this within the context of youth in foster care
(e.g., Greeson, Usher, & Grinstein-Weiss, 2010; Greeson, Weiler,
Thompson, & Taussig, 2016; Spencer, Collins, Ward, &
Smashnaya, 2010; Thompson, Greeson, & Brunsink, 2016).
• A initial randomized controlled trial (RCT) of a mentoring and
skills group program for preadolescent foster youth found that
participation in the intervention was associated with more
placement stability and permanence (Taussig, Culhane, Garrido, &
Knudtson, 2012).
• Another RCT recently examined the feasibility of a novel natural
mentoring intervention for older youth aging out of foster, in
which natural mentoring relationships are identified, mentors are
trained in trauma-informed and effective mentoring practices, and
youth and mentors work together in supervised dyads to promote
the development of growth-fostering relationships.
• Despite evidence indicating that many youths within the foster care
system have experienced trauma (Osterling & Hines, 2006), it is
inappropriate to assume that all children in foster care have been
maltreated or that they are representative of all trauma-exposed
youth.
• Thus, more research is needed to examine the potential impacts of
mentoring relationships for youth exposed to trauma.
III.
Formal mentoring vs natural mentoring for trauma-exposed youth
a. Formal mentoring relationships: relationships develop through formal matching
programs
i.
Formal mentoring limitations
• Formal mentoring programs often struggle with lack of volunteer
mentors, and those who do volunteer often do not share similar
backgrounds or understandings of youth experiences (Herrera,
DuBois, & Grossman, 2013).
• Bridging such cultural and economic differences can be
challenging, particularly with youth who have been exposed to
trauma (e.g., Herrera, DuBois, & Grossman, 2013).
• Moreover, many trauma-exposed youth experience interpersonal
challenges (Alexander & Anderson, 1994; Bowlby, 1988), and
thus may have trouble connecting with matched mentors.
• Research on youth with behavioral problems has found that greater
internalizing and externalizing behaviors are associated with
difficulties in the mentoring relationship, including poorer mentor
perceptions of relationship quality (Raposa, Rhodes, & Herrera,,
2016) and premature match closures (Kupersmidt, Stump, Stelter,
& Rhodes, 2017).
• While these studies did not focus specifically on youth with trauma
exposure, such behavioral challenges are common among this
population (Cook, Spinnazola, Ford, et al., 2017; Shafa, 2016).
• Premature match closures are particularly damaging for
traumatized youth, as they may reinforce patterns of insecure
attachment and lack of trust in relationships, ultimately leading to
even worse developmental outcomes.
b. Natural mentoring relationships: develop within youth’s natural social network
(Inzer & Crawford, 2005; Zimmerman, Bingenheimer, & Behrendt, 2005)
i.
Natural mentoring for trauma-exposed or vulnerable youth
• Munson and McMillen (2008) examined the associations between
natural mentoring relationships and psychosocial outcomes for
youth transitioning out of foster care, some of whom reported
maltreatment history.
• Findings indicated that two-thirds of youth had identified a natural
mentor and these mentoring relationships were associated with
more positive psychosocial outcomes compared to youth without
mentors. Results were even stronger for youth who reported longlasting relationships.
• These findings are consistent with other studies highlighting the
benefits of natural mentoring for youth in the foster care system
(e.g., Ahrens, DuBois, Richardson, Fan, & Lozano, 2008; Greeson
& Bowen, 2008; Greeson, Weiler, Thompson, & Taussig, 2016;
Munson, Smalling, Spencer, Scott, & Tracy, 2010).
ii. Barriers to natural mentoring relationships for trauma-exposed youth
•
•
•
•
IV.
While relationships with natural mentors are shown to be highly
beneficial for at-risk youth, not all youth have equal access to or
skills for cultivating such relationships (Rhodes, Bogat, Roffman,
Edelman, & Galasso, 2002).
The ability to cultivate natural mentoring relationships often
depends on youth social capital and help-seeking behaviors. Social
capital is considered a critical resource for promoting youth wellbeing (Raymond-Flesch, Auerswald, McGLone, Comfort, &
Minnis, 2017; Whitlock, 2003).
However, research has shown that youth with high rates of trauma
have significant difficulty with social connectedness, and in turn,
building social capital (Kwong, Smith, & Hayes, 2014).
Moreover, youth with disrupted attachment following trauma
exposure have dysregulated help-seeking behaviors, either related
to excessive help-seeking and dependency or increased social
isolation and lack of engagement in relationships (Cook,
Spinazzola, Ford, et al., 2005).
Conclusion: Where do we go from here?
a. Summaries of findings
i.
Available research
• Given the clear benefits of supportive relationships for traumaexposed youth, and the challenges these youths may face in
building and maintaining such relationships, there is a need for
more research on potential ways to promote help-seeking skills and
access to social capital within this population.
• An initial randomized controlled trial (RCT) of a mentoring and
skills group program for preadolescent foster youth found that
participation in the intervention was associated with more
placement stability and permanence (Taussig, Culhane, Garrido, &
Knudtson, 2012).
• Another RCT recently examined the feasibility of a novel natural
mentoring intervention for older youth aging out of foster, in
which natural mentoring relationships are identified, mentors are
trained in trauma-informed and effective mentoring practices, and
youth and mentors work together in supervised dyads to promote
the development of growth-fostering relationships.
• Overall, the results suggest this intervention holds great promise
for supporting natural mentoring relationships for older youth in
foster care (Greeson & Thompson, 2017).
b. Addressing gaps in literature
i.
Need for intervention with trauma-exposed youth to understand benefits
of mentoring relationship in context of trauma
ii. Literature currently only focuses on relationships for foster youth
•
Though research indicates high prevalence rates of complex
trauma for foster youth within the child welfare system (Greeson,
Briggs, Kisiel, et al., 2011)
c. Current research proposed:
i.
Adapt current natural mentoring interventions for foster youth in context
of trauma-exposed youth in residential treatment settings
ii. Assess mentoring needs of trauma exposed youth to inform training,
design, and implementation of mentoring and skills program
References
Ahrens, K. R., DuBois, D. L., Richardson, L. P., Fan, M. Y., & Lozano, P. (2008). Youth in
foster care with adult mentors during adolescence have improved adult
outcomes. Pediatrics, 121, e246-e252.
Alexander, P. C., & Anderson, C. L. (1994). An attachment approach to psychotherapy with the
incest survivor. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 31, 665-675.
Bowlby, J. (1988). The role of attachment in personality development. A secure base: Parentchild attachment and healthy human development, 119-136.
Cook, A., Spinazzola, J., Ford, J., Lanktree, C., Blaustein, M., Cloitre, M., … & Mallah, K.
(2017). Complex trauma in children and adolescents. Psychiatric annals, 35, 390-398.
Copeland, W. E., Keeler, G., Angold, A., & Costello, E. J. (2007). Traumatic events and
posttraumatic stress in childhood. Archives of General Psychiatry, 64, 577-584.
Greeson, J. K., & Bowen, N. K. (2008). “She holds my hand” The experiences of foster youth
with their natural mentors. Children and Youth Services Review, 30, 1178-1188.
Greeson, J. K., Briggs, E. C., Kisiel, C. L., Layne, C. M., Ake III, G. S., Ko, S. J., … & Fairbank,
J. A. (2011). Complex trauma and mental health in children and adolescents placed in
foster care: Findings from the National Child Traumatic Stress Network. Child
welfare, 90, 91-108.
Greeson, J. K., & Thompson, A. E. (2017). Development, feasibility, and piloting of a novel
natural mentoring intervention for older youth in foster care. Journal of Social Service
Research, 43, 205-222.
Greeson, J. K., Usher, L., & Grinstein-Weiss, M. (2010). One adult who is crazy about you: Can
natural mentoring relationships increase assets among young adults with and without
foster care experience?. Children and Youth Services Review, 32(4), 565-577.
Greeson, J. K., Weiler, L. M., Thompson, A. E., & Taussig, H. N. (2016). A first look at natural
mentoring among preadolescent foster children. Journal of community psychology, 44(5),
586-601.
Herrera, C., DuBois, D. L., & Grossman, J. B. (2013). The Role of Risk: Mentoring Experiences
and Outcomes for Youth with Varying Risk Profiles. MDRC.
Hyman, S. M., Gold, S. N., & Cott, M. A. (2003). Forms of social support that moderate PTSD
in childhood sexual abuse survivors. Journal of family violence, 18(5), 295-300.
Inzer, L. D., & Crawford, C. B. (2005). A review of formal and informal mentoring: Processes,
problems, and design. Journal of Leadership Education, 4(1), 31-50.
Kupersmidt, J. B., Stump, K. N., Stelter, R. L., & Rhodes, J. E. (2017). Predictors of premature
match closure in youth mentoring relationships. American journal of community
psychology, 59(1-2), 25-35.
Kwong, T., Smith, M., & Hayes, D. (2014). Adverse Childhood Experiences and their influence
on social connectedness (Doctoral dissertation, Yale Universit
Munson, M. R., & McMillen, J. C. (2009). Natural mentoring and psychosocial outcomes among
older youth transitioning from foster care. Children and youth services review, 31(1),
104-111.
Munson, M. R., & McMillen, J. C. (2008). Nonkin natural mentors in the lives of older youths in
foster care. The journal of behavioral health services & research, 35(4), 454-468.
National Survey of Children’s Health (2012). NSCH 2011/12. Data query from the Child and
Adolescent Health Measurement Initiative, Data Resource Center for Child and
Adolescent Health website. Retrieved 11/19/18 from www.childhealthdata.org.
Osterling, K. L., & Hines, A. M. (2006). Mentoring adolescent foster youth: Promoting
resilience during developmental transitions. Child & Family Social Work, 11(3), 242-253.
Raposa, E. B., Rhodes, J. E., & Herrera, C. (2016). The impact of youth risk on mentoring
relationship quality: Do mentor characteristics matter?. American journal of community
psychology, 57(3-4), 320-329.
Raymond-Flesch, M., Auerswald, C., McGlone, L., Comfort, M., & Minnis, A. (2017). Building
social capital to promote adolescent wellbeing: a qualitative study with teens in a Latino
agricultural community. BMC public health, 17(1), 177.
Rhodes, J. E., Bogat, G. A., Roffman, J., Edelman, P., & Galasso, L. (2002). Youth mentoring in
perspective: Introduction to the special issue. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 30(2), 149-155.
Shafa, V. (2016). Family relationship factors and their effects on resilience in adolescents
maltreated by adult caregivers(Doctoral dissertation, Alliant International University).
Spencer, R., Collins, M. E., Ward, R., & Smashnaya, S. (2010). Mentoring for young people
leaving foster care: Promise and potential pitfalls. Social work, 55(3), 225-234.
Stevens, J. E. (2013) Nearly 35 million U.S. children have experienced one or more types of
childhood trauma. ACES Too High. Retrieved 11/19/18 from https://acestoohigh.com/
Taussig, H. N., Culhane, S. E., Garrido, E., & Knudtson, M. D. (2012). RCT of a Mentoring and
Skills Group Program: Placement and Permanency Outcomes for Foster
Youth. Pediatrics, 130(1), e33-e39.
Taussig, H., Weiler, L., Rhodes, T., Hambrick, E., Wertheimer, R., Fireman, O., & Combs, M.
(2015). Fostering Healthy Futures for Teens: Adaptation of an Evidence-Based
Program. Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research, 6(4), 617-642.
Taussig, H., & Weiler, L. (2017). Mentoring for youth in foster care. National Mentoring
Resource Center Population Review.
Thompson, A. E., Greeson, J. K., & Brunsink, A. M. (2016). Natural mentoring among older
youth in and aging out of foster care: A systematic review. Children and Youth Services
Review, 61, 40-50.
Zimmerman, M. A., Bingenheimer, J. B., & Behrendt, D. E. (2005). Natural mentoring
relationships. Handbook of youth mentoring, 143-157.
Advisor Signature:
Student Signature: __________________
The full paper due for Assignment Two (on 04/27/20) is expected to be 10-15 pages in length
double-spaced typed.
The First Assignment (of two assignments). Note that the parts for the first assignment are meant
to complement one another and flow in a logical sequence. Part of what you are being graded on
is how well the pieces of your paper fit together, and, how successfully you are using instructor
feedback for the second assignment. You should be able to demonstrate a mastery of the relevant
scientific vocabulary and an ability to understand and interpret the primary sources you review.
You are required to hand in all the graded material from assignment one with assignment two. A
project folder is required for this purpose, and loss of credit will ensue for students who do
not hand in all the assignment one materials with assignment two.
Assignment One of your individual research paper is due March 9th, 2020, and is worth 20
points. Please carefully review the steps for Assignment One.
Assignment One. Part One- Identify the topic for the paper, the portion of the text it is relevant
to, the type of studies you will be reviewing, and the position you are going to take. You will be
graded on how well your topic follows from the text chapter, whether the type of studies you
propose to review are feasible and relevant, and the quality of the position you are going to take.
Note that you could receive feedback to change or modify your topic if the instructor thinks that
is in your best interest. Use of glossary or bolded terms in the text may serve as ‘keywords’ in
your electronic searches for information resources (Highwire is a good neuroscience search
engine, and can be accessed thru the Sawyer Library). Once you start to find appropriate sources,
key words from those sources may help you to complete your search.
Assignment One. Part Two- Provide a 5-8 article reference section (in APA-style; see APA
web-site). These articles must all be peer-reviewed. Content from web-pages (like Wikipedia)
and science blogs are not acceptable. Please note that you are being asked to develop a coherent
review paper. You will be evaluated on the quality of the citations (that they are scientific and
from credible peer-reviewed journals), as well as how relevant those citations are to your topic
and the position you are taking, and how well the citations fit together. One way to judge the
appropriateness of your references is how well you can tell a coherent story from them. Hand in
hard copies of your articles along with your reference section. Hand-written notes in the margins
show that you have been actively digesting your sources.
Assignment One. Part Three-Provide a detailed outline of your review paper and an abstract.
You should carefully read the abstract example before writing the abstract, and make sure you
follow the scientific writing style and tone. Note that you should be able to substantiate your
outline points based on your reference section. You will be evaluated on how successfully you
use the suggested outline format, how well you integrated your citations, how well your citations
appear to substantiate your outline, and the quality of the overview you achieve in your abstract
(expressing the essential points in an organized manner). You should hand in hard copies of your
sources along with evidence you have actively read them (e.g., underlining, notes in the margins,
etc.).
Please see the grading rubric posted on Blackboard to see how you will be evaluated. As part of
the grading rubric you will receive a feedback sheet that will assist you in improving and
modifying your work into the final draft phase of the assignment. Please note that your review
paper should follow APA-format throughout the text, in terms of citations, and in the reference
section as well.
Assignment Two. Preparing the final version of the paper.
The final draft of your paper is due 04/27/20 and is worth 18 points towards your grade. This
will be a 10-15 review paper- done in APA-style- that follows from the content you developed in
Assignment One. You will be evaluated on your degree of success in applying the feedback from
your first assignment toward your second assignment. This may take various forms, includingenhanced organization of your work, sharpening your take-home message or position, adhering
more to APA-style, more careful editing of your writing, etc.
The Blackboard folder provides you with a grading rubric so that you can anticipate the
expectations under which your paper will be graded.
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
Why Choose Us
- 100% non-plagiarized Papers
- 24/7 /365 Service Available
- Affordable Prices
- Any Paper, Urgency, and Subject
- Will complete your papers in 6 hours
- On-time Delivery
- Money-back and Privacy guarantees
- Unlimited Amendments upon request
- Satisfaction guarantee
How it Works
- Click on the “Place Order” tab at the top menu or “Order Now” icon at the bottom and a new page will appear with an order form to be filled.
- Fill in your paper’s requirements in the "PAPER DETAILS" section.
- Fill in your paper’s academic level, deadline, and the required number of pages from the drop-down menus.
- Click “CREATE ACCOUNT & SIGN IN” to enter your registration details and get an account with us for record-keeping and then, click on “PROCEED TO CHECKOUT” at the bottom of the page.
- From there, the payment sections will show, follow the guided payment process and your order will be available for our writing team to work on it.