American Journal of Orthopsychiatry - APA PsycNET

American Journal of Orthopsychiatry Nurturing the Hope of Youth in Care: The Contribution of Mentoring Yafit Sulimani-Aidan, Eran Melkman, and Chan M. Hellman Online First Publication, February 19, 2018. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ort0000320

CITATION Sulimani-Aidan, Y., Melkman, E., & Hellman, C. M. (2018, February 19). Nurturing the Hope of Youth in Care: The Contribution of Mentoring. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. Advance online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ort0000320

American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 2018, Vol. 1, No. 2, 000

© 2018 Global Alliance for Behavioral Health and Social Justice http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ort0000320

Nurturing the Hope of Youth in Care: The Contribution of Mentoring Yafit Sulimani-Aidan

Eran Melkman

Tel Aviv University

University of Oxford

Chan M. Hellman

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

University of Oklahoma Hope has long been viewed as important to individuals attempting to overcome obstacles. Overall hope is the combination of one’s appraisal of capability and determination to achieve goals (Agency) and identifying viable routes to reach them (Pathway) (Snyder, 1994). The main goal of this study was to examine the incremental contribution of mentoring to hope among youth on the verge of leaving care above and beyond related personal characteristics and placement history. The sample included 148 adolescents in residential care in Israel who had adult mentors (ages 16 –19). Results showed that lower levels of parental education and being in a welfare residential placement were associated with decreased levels of hope. Mentoring length and various mentoring functions (“role model,” “parental figure,” and “independence promoter”) were found to have a significant contribution to the prediction of hope above and beyond associated individual and placement variables. Based upon these findings, residential care leaders should recruit and select mentors for longevity, and train mentors to serve as role models and parental figures who focus on independent living in order to influence hope among youth who are about to leave care. Public Policy Relevance Statement Research demonstrates that hope is an important coping resource buffering adversity and stress. This study’s findings suggest that mentoring relationships contribute to the hope of youth in care. Therefore, foster and residential care placements should seek to integrate both hope and mentoring as components in their intervention planning and staff training.

Y

Gwinn, 2017; Valle, Huebner, & Suldo, 2006). Although hope is widely recognized as an empowering resource that helps individuals cope with uncertainty, loss, and major life challenges (Hullmann, Fedele, Molzon, Mayes, & Mullins, 2014; Otis, Huebner, & Hills, 2016), it has scarcely been investigated among youth in care (Sulimani-Aidan, Sivan, & Davidson-Arad, 2017). Earlier studies among adolescents found that hope was associated with successful management of life challenges, self-confidence, and further readiness to invest active effort to attain success (e.g., Horton & Wallander, 2001). Also, higher levels of hope were found to predict psychosocial well-being and academic achievement (e.g., Ciarrochi, Heaven, & Davies, 2007; Lopez, Ciarlelli, Coffman, Stone, & Wyatt, 2000). Therefore, it can serve as an important protective and promotive factor increasing these vulnerable youths’ resilience as they make their challenging transition into adulthood (Arnett, 2000). Based on Snyder’s (1994) hope theory, this article aims to explore hopeful thinking among youth in care and the contribution of mentoring relationships to the youths’ hope on the verge of leaving care while controlling for the youths’ various individual characteristics (e.g., gender, parent’s birth coun-

outh who are about to leave care enter an important time in their lives in which they must plan their future and make complex decisions regarding their selves as independent young adults. Their capacity to hope is especially important on the verge of leaving care, because it could influence their goal setting, motivation to pursue their goals, and ability to identify viable pathways to goal success. In this light, hope is considered a psychological strength buffering stressful life events among adolescents (Cedeno, Elias, Kelly, & Chu, 2010; Hellman &

Yafit Sulimani-Aidan, Bob Shapell School of Social Work, Tel Aviv University; Eran Melkman, Rees Centre for Research in Fostering and Education Department of Education, University of Oxford; Chan M. Hellman, Anne and Henry Zarrow School of Social Work, Center of Applied Research for Nonprofit Organizations, University of Oklahoma. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Yafit Sulimani-Aidan, Bob Shapell School of Social Work, Tel Aviv University, Ramat Aviv, Tel Aviv, Israel 69978. E-mail: [email protected] or [email protected] 1


2

SULIMANI-AIDAN, MELKMAN, AND HELLMAN

try, personal traits) and placement characteristics (e.g., stability in care, number of placements). Literature focusing on the resilience of youth in care has pointed to various individual characteristics and placement characteristics that are associated with higher adjustment during the care period and the transition to independent living (Attar-Schwartz, 2008; Courtney & Dworsky, 2006; Sulimani-Aidan, Benbenishty, Dinisman, & Zeira, 2013). For example, earlier studies indicate that youth with better outcomes are those who are more stable in their placement (Courtney & Dworsky, 2006; Schiff & Benbenishty, 2006; del Valle, Bravo, Alvarez, & Fernanz, 2008). Attar-Schwartz (2008) additionally found that gender, ethnicity, and age were associated with outcomes of youth in care reporting that adolescents who were younger, of female gender, or Jewish had better behavioral and emotional adjustment. In addition, earlier studies showed differences in both background characteristics and outcomes between different type of settings (e.g., Shimoni & Benbenishty, 2012). Due to the importance of those variables to the youths’ resilience, this study will control for their individual and placement characteristics in examining the contribution of mentoring relationships to their hope, including their individual characteristics of age, gender, parent’s birth country, parents education, and parents’ family status, and their placement history of age of their first out-of-home placement, the type of their current placement (foster care, welfare residential setting, or educational residential setting), and the length of stay in their current placement. The literature on mentoring relationships among at-risk youth suggests that the enduring presence of at least one caring and committed adult may be beneficial to their development in many aspects of adult life (Ahrens, DuBois, Richardson, Fan, & Lozano, 2008; Greeson, 2013; Sulimani-Aidan, 2016b). The few studies that investigated mentoring relationships among youth in out-ofhome settings found that mentoring relationships in care were associated with better emotional, educational, and behavioral outcomes in adulthood (e.g., Ahrens et al., 2008; Spencer, Collins, Ward, & Smashnaya, 2010). However, no study had investigated the role of these relationships with regard to hope of youth in care. It is assumed that a nurturing relationship with a mentor allows youth to explore alternative ways of thinking and acting while eventually learning to operate more effectively without their support and guidance (Eby, Rhodes, & Allen, 2007). Since hope is defined as the combination of the willpower that promotes individuals toward their goals and enhances their capacity to generate pathways that could lead to those goals, we hypothesize that positive mentoring relationships would be associated with higher levels of hope among youth in care. The mentoring literature suggests that different components of the mentoring process—including the type of mentoring relationship (i.e., natural vs. professional mentoring), its quality and longevity, and the various functions it serves (e.g., provision of warmth or promotion of autonomy)—all play a role in determining its effectiveness (Greeson, Usher, & Grinstein-Weiss, 2010; Rhodes, Spencer, Keller, Liang, & Noam, 2006; Sulimani-Aidan, 2016a, 2016b). Thus, it has been suggested that longer duration with the mentor and strong emotional connectedness are linked to better outcomes (Spencer, 2006; Sulimani-Aidan, 2016b). Although these components are regarded as essential dimensions in mentoring relationships (Ahrens et al., 2008; Rhodes et al., 2006; Rhodes, Reddy, & Grossman, 2005), no study has examined their

differential contribution to hopeful thinking among youth in care. Therefore, this study explored the potential contribution of various features of the mentoring relationships, including the type of mentoring (formal/informal), the duration of the relationship, and the mentors’ function in the relationship (e.g., “role model,” “parental figure” [warmth], “autonomy promoter”) to the youths’ hope on the verge of leaving care.

Hope and Its Significance for Youth Leaving Care Hope is defined as a positive motivational force that is comprised of positive goal-oriented energy and planning ways to achieve the goals (Snyder, 2000). Hope is manifested in capacities to clearly conceptualize goals (goals thinking), develop specific and viable strategies to reach those goals (pathways thinking), and initiate and sustain the motivation for using those strategies (agency thinking). Therefore, hope is not “wishful thinking”; rather it is an understanding of how intentional thought leads to goal-directed action. Both pathways and agency thoughts are necessary for hopeful thinking (Snyder, Cheavens, & Sympson, 1997). Specifically, agency thinking refers to the appraisal that one is capable of executing the means to attain desired goals. Willpower (agency thinking) is especially relevant to at-risk youth as it motivates problem-solving, self-control, and perseverance in the presence of barriers to goal attainment. While agency thinking is described as the willpower that propels the individual toward his goals, pathway thinking refers to the appraisal that one is capable of generating the pathways that could lead to those goals. Pathway thinking is the way in which the individual creates an image of the future self and one or more mental strategies that connects to goal attainment (Cheavens, Feldman, Woodward, & Snyder, 2006). Although no literature has been found examining hope among youth in care, its beneficial impact has been consistent among studies focused on other vulnerable adolescent populations. For example, Hellman and Gwinn (2017) showed that targeted interventions were associated with increases in hope among traumaexposed youth. Moreover, their study showed significant correlations between increased hope and positive character traits (i.e., self-control, gratitude) among these youths. Research on youth demonstrates that hope is an important coping resource buffering adversity and stress, is associated with adaptive thoughts and behaviors, and is a predictor of their well-being (Cedeno et al., 2010; Ciarrochi, Parker, Kashdan, Heaven, & Barkus, 2015; Valle et al., 2006). Hope has been associated with many other positive outcomes, including self-confidence, self-worth, athletic achievement, and academic achievement. Hope was linked with youths’ capacity to accurately evaluate situations and successful management of life challenges (Bennett, Wood, Butterfield, & Goldhagen, 2014; Ciarrochi et al., 2007; Lopez et al., 2009; Horton & Wallander, 2001; Lopez et al., 2000; Marques, Lopez, Fontaine, Coimbra, & Mitchell, 2015; Snyder, 2000; Valle et al., 2006). Also, youths with higher hopeful thinking were more likely to engage in a positive and goal-oriented way with their families, communities, and society (e.g., Flanagan, 2003; Snyder et al., 1997). These positive and adaptive outcomes emphasize the importance hopeful thinking may hold for youth in care who are about to begin their adult lives and take on the demanding developmental tasks entailed in emerging adulthood (Arnett, 2007; Stein, 2012).


NURTURING HOPE

During the transition from care to independent living, youth must take responsibility for many domains of their adult life, set future goals, and strive to accomplish them despite their potentially limited social and personal capital. Their past adversity, lack of support, and limited independent living skills present challenges in accomplishing their future plans (Sulimani-Aidan, 2014). Also, during this time they are compelled to contemplate on their future and become active in identifying their future goals (both short and long term). Successful youth leaving care will be required to engage their goal-focused willpower (agency thinking) and their resourcefulness and ability to generate workable routes to desired goals (pathways thinking). Therefore, we can assume that youth with higher levels of hopeful thinking will be more motivated toward the future and show greater persistence in pursuing their goals. In this light, hope is an important resource that will help youth not just to survive and endure but to flourish. Therefore, this study aims to add to the existing hope literature and explore hopeful thinking among youth on the verge of leaving care.

Mentoring and Hopeful Thinking Resilience research suggests that a relationship with at least one supportive and caring adult who is not a parent contributes to improved outcomes during the emerging adulthood period (e.g., Garmezy, 1985; Rutter, 1987; Werner & Smith, 2001), especially among vulnerable and at-risk youth (Egeland, Jacobvitz, & Sroufe, 1988; Hines, Merdinger, & Wyatt, 2005). Although mentoring has not been examined in relation to hope among youth in care, meta-analytic studies show a positive association between youth mentoring and improved psychosocial, behavioral, and academic outcomes (DuBois, Holloway, Valentine, & Cooper, 2002). The relatively limited literature on mentoring among youth in care shows associations between the presence of a mentor and improved outcomes. These include asset acquisition, better health outcomes, higher life satisfaction, and lower involvement in risky behaviors, such as unprotected sex, police involvement, and homelessness (Ahrens et al., 2008; Greeson et al., 2010; Courtney & Lyons, 2009; Munson & McMillen, 2009; Sulimani-Aidan, 2016b). These studies illustrated that mentoring serves both as a protective factor and as a promotive factor for youth in and after care and has the potential to improve their developmental trajectories. Therefore, this study aims to explore the link between mentoring and hopeful thinking among youth in care as two potentially important resilience factors that could facilitate these vulnerable youths’ transition into adulthood. Mentoring models assume that adaptive mentoring relationships operate through improving the youths’ social, emotional, and cognitive development and by enhancing positive identity development (Ahrens et al., 2008; Rhodes, 2005). Those aspects are very important during the transitional period from care to independent living and could relate to the youths’ future orientation and hopeful thinking. Indeed, in earlier qualitative studies, youth described how mentoring relationships served to enhance adaptive coping with their life stressors, lead them to set and achieve their goals, and changed their behavioral and mental status for the better (Sulimani-Aidan, 2016a, 2016b). Researchers assert that mentoring relationships fulfill different functions in the youths’ lives, the four most common ones being serving as a “parental figure,” a “role model,” an “independence

3

promoter,” and an “academic and career supporter”; (Ahrens et al., 2008; DuBois et al., 2002; Sulimani-Aidan, 2016a, 2016b). In this regard, mentors likely serve as hope models for youth in care demonstrating the connection among goal setting, pathways development, and agency deployment. In addition, research suggests that effective mentoring may be dependent on the quality of the mentoring relationship, its longevity, or the characteristics of the mentor himself (e.g., the mentor’s gender or academic qualifications; Rhodes et al., 2006). Although these components are regarded as essential in models of mentoring relationships (Ahrens et al., 2008; Rhodes et al., 2006; Rhodes et al., 2005), no study had distinguished between these various aspects or had examined whether or not they have a differential contribution in relation to concrete outcomes or cognitive–motivational outcomes such as hope among youth in care. This distinction is important because different mentoring characteristics’ and functions might predict positive outcomes in one area but not in others. For example, in an earlier study that examined mentoring functions in relation to former foster youths’ assets, it was found that only the mentoring functions of “providing guidance” and “like a parent” were related to better financial outcomes (Greeson et al., 2010). Thus, further investigation is needed regarding the types of mentoring relationships that best address the needs of youth in care (Thompson, Greeson, & Brunsink, 2016). Therefore, this study aims to widen our understanding regarding the multidimensional aspects of mentoring in relation to hopeful thinking. We included the mentoring functions documented in the literature, including “role model,” “parental figure”/warmth, “independence and autonomy promoter,” and “academic and career supporter”; the type of mentoring (informal/formal); and their duration. Specifically, we hypothesize each of the mentoring functions will contribute to the youths’ hope, and that longer duration of the relationships will be associated with higher hopeful thinking. This exploration will narrow the theoretical and practical gap regarding the contribution of various characteristics of mentoring relationships to hopeful thinking of youth in care.

Research Goals The purpose of the present study is to examine the incremental contribution of various features of the mentoring relationship to the youths’ hope—including type of mentoring, duration of the mentoring relationship, and several functions of mentoring—while controlling for individual and placement characteristics. This investigation could contribute to the knowledge concerning the potential psychological strength that links mentoring relationships with an important aspect in the lives of youth toward leaving care—their hopeful thinking for their future. Specifically, the research goals are a) to examine the hopeful thinking of youth in care with regard to their agency thinking (the youths’ cognitions about their ability to begin and sustain goal-directed behavior) and pathways thinking (perceived ability to generate workable routes to desired goals (Snyder et al., 2000); and b) to investigate the contribution of various features of the mentoring relationship including the mentoring function (e.g., role model, parental figure/warmth, independence and autonomy promoter, academic and career supporter), type of mentoring


4

(informal/formal), and duration—to youths’ overall hope and hopeful agency thinking and pathways thinking—while controlling for their individual and placement characteristics.

Method


Participants Participants were from three main types of out-of-home placements in Israel who agreed to participate in the study voluntarily: therapeutic residential care facilities, youth villages, and foster care families. The Ministry of Social Affairs and Social Services supervises therapeutic residential care facilities and foster care. The Ministry of Education supervises educational residential settings called youth villages. Of approximately 9,000 children removed from home annually by the welfare system, about 80% are placed in residential welfare settings (therapeutic settings) and about 20% are placed with foster families. In addition, every year the Ministry of Education places about 19,000 children in youth villages on a voluntarily basis (National Council for the Child, 2009). Each of those out-of-home placements cares for vulnerable youth who come from broken and underprivileged families, mostly from the geographical or social periphery of Israel. Many of these settings also receive adolescent immigrants, mostly from the former Soviet Union and Ethiopia (Mash, 2001). Seven therapeutic residential care facilities and youth villages and 15 foster homes participated in the study. The original sample included 174 adolescents from the state of Israel. Of these, 26 participants had incomplete data on the study variables, and were therefore excluded from the final sample (15% of the total sample). The final study sample therefore comprised 148 adolescents between 16 and 19 years of age (M ⫽ 17.50, SD ⫽ 0.88), of whom 53.1% were girls. The overall majority of participants were nativeborn Israelis (80.8%), with a contingent of immigrants from Ethiopia (10.3%) and from the former Soviet Union (6.8%). The study protocol was reviewed and approved by the ethics committee of the authors’ university, by the Ministry of Education, and by the Ministry of Welfare and Social Services. After obtaining approval from the inspectors of the youth villages, the research assistants contacted the youth villages and coordinated a time to meet the participants in groups in the residential care setting/foster home. Upon arrival, the research assistants explained the study’s goals and asked for consent to participate in the study. The adolescents who agreed to take part in the study were asked to complete a self-report questionnaire while research staff assisted participants who had learning difficulties to fill in the questionnaire.

Instruments The adolescents completed a self-administrated survey consisting of several components: Hope. Youth’s hope was measured via Snyder et al.’s (1997) six-item Children’s Hope Scale. The scale is based on Snyder’s concept of hope as consisting of pathways, which refers to the means of attaining one’s goals, and agency, which refers to the ability and determination to pursue a goal (Snyder, 2000). Three of the items assess agency (e.g., “I think I’m doing pretty well”).

Three refer to pathways (e.g., “I can think of many ways to get the things in life that are most important to me”). Participants are asked to indicate how often each statement describes them on a 6-point scale (1 ⫽ none of the time to 6 ⫽ all of the time). The total score for each of the scales was computed based on the mean of all items. A recent reliability generalization demonstrated strong internal consistency and test–retest estimates across samples of children from both English- speaking and non-English-speaking studies (Hellman, Munoz, Worley, Feeley, & Gillert, in press). In the current study the internal reliability (␣) was 0.90, 0.79, and 0.83 for hope overall, hope agency, and hope pathways, respectively. Mentoring. The mentoring relationship was examined in several ways: 1) Type of mentoring was examined by an open question about the mentors’ identity and role that was coded into natural or professional mentor. 2) The mentoring longevity was examined by one question regarding the duration of the relationship in years. 3) The mentors’ function in the relationship was examined via four inventories all on a 5-point scale (1 ⫽ strongly disagree to 5 ⫽ strongly agree) as follows: a) Mentor as a role model was measured via the Mentoring scale (Darling, Hamilton, Toyokawa, & Matsuda, 2002), which consists of four items . . . (e.g., “you learned from your mentor new things”); b) Mentor as a parent figure was measured by the Father-peer scale (Crowell, Treboux, & Waters, 1999). This scale measures the degree in which the mentor acts toward the youth with love, care, and acceptance and consists of four items (e.g., “the mentor makes you feel loved as you are”); c) Mentor as an autonomy promoter was measured by four items in the Father-peer scale, which measures the degree the mentor encourages the youths’ autonomy and independence (Epstein, 1983) (e.g., “the mentor helps to be more independent”); and d) Mentor as “promoter of academic and career” is a measure based on three items derived from the Influence of Others on Academic and Career Decisions Scale (Nauta & Kokaly, 2001), a 15-item instrument that assesses the degree to which role models or mentors support, model, or inspire the academic and career decisions of their mentees (e.g., “the mentor supports me in the academic and career choices I make”). The total score for each of the scales was computed based on the mean of all items. In this study the internal reliability was ␣ ⫽ 0.67, 0.84, 0.82, and 0.83 for mentor as promoter of academic and career, independence/ autonomy promoter, parent figure, and role model dimensions, respectively. Individual characteristics. Individual characteristics included the following five variables: age, gender, parent’s birth country (Israeli, Ethiopian, former Soviet Union, determined by mother’s country of birth), mother’s education (a 4-point scale ranging from 1 ⫽ elementary or less to 5 ⫽ university degree), and parents’ family status, dummy coded (0 ⫽ divorced/separated/one or both parents deceased, 1 ⫽ living together). Placement history. Participants were asked about the age of their first out-of-home placement, the type of their current placement (foster care, welfare residential setting, or educational residential setting) and the length of stay in the placement.

NURTURING HOPE

Data Analyses

were females (51.4%) and informal, rather than formal mentors (54.1%). The majority (60.1%) had been in contact with these mentors for a period of over 6 years (M ⫽ 3.20, SD ⫽ 1.09). All mentoring functions received scores well above the scale average, with the “promoting academic and career” function receiving the lowest score (M ⫽ 4.19, SD ⫽ 0.86) and the “parent figure” function receiving the highest (M ⫽ 4.53, SD ⫽ 0.68). Hope levels were also high across all measures, with significantly lower levels reported for the pathways dimension (M ⫽ 4.60, SD ⫽ 1.16) compared with the agency dimension (M ⫽ 4.90, SD ⫽ 1.05), t(147) ⫽ ⫺5.14, p ⬍ .001. Table 2 presents the associations among individual, placement history, and mentoring characteristics and the three measures of hope. Of the individual and placement history characteristics, hopeful thinking was found to be positively and significantly related to mother’s education (r ⫽ 0.19, 0.20, and 0.17, p ⬍ .05, for hope overall, agency, and pathways, respectively) and negatively and significantly related to being in a welfare residential setting (rpoint-biserial ⫽ ⫺0.17 and ⫺0.18, p ⬍ .05, for hope overall and agency, respectively). In other words, participants whose mother had a higher level of education and who were in foster or educational residential care, rather than welfare residential care, had higher levels of hope, across its three measures. Age, gender, parent’s birth country (being of former Soviet Union or Ethiopian origin), parents’ family status as well as age of entry in care, length of stay in the current facility, or being in an educational residential setting were not associated with any of the hope measures. Four of the seven characteristics of the mentoring relationship were found to be positively and significantly associated with hope: duration

Data analysis proceeded through a series of three steps. First, descriptive data about the participants’ individual, placement history, and mentoring characteristics, as well as their hope, were conducted. Then, bivariate analyses (Pearson and point-biserial correlations) were conducted to examine the associations between predictive factors and self-reports of hope. Finally, we performed three hierarchical multivariate linear regression where each of the three hope measures (overall, agency, and pathways) were a dependent variable and the independent variables were predictive factors found significant in the bivariate analyses. This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

5

Results Table 1 presents the main features of the adolescents in the study. Almost two thirds of the youth (64.9%) came from families were the parents were not living together, in most cases due to divorce or separation (44.2% of the total sample). About 15% indicated that one or both of their parents was deceased. Similarly, 63.6% of the youth reported their mother’s education to be of secondary level or above, with 18.2% reporting their mother to have a university degree (mother’s education, M ⫽ 2.93, SD ⫽ 1.33). Living arrangements were as follows: 37.4% of the participants were in welfare residential settings, 32.0% in educational residential settings, and the remaining 30.6% in foster care. Approximately half of the youth (53.6%) entered care after the age of 12 (mean age of entry ⫽ 11.68, SD ⫽ 3.91), and most (65.3%) had been in their current placement for 3 years or more (M ⫽ 4.54, SD ⫽ 3.49). With regard to the characteristics of the mentoring relationships, slightly more than half of the youth reported having mentors who

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics of the Study Variables (N ⫽ 137–148) Variable Personal characteristics Age (in years) Gender: female Parent’s birth country: former Soviet Uniona Parent’s birth country: Ethiopiana Mother’s education Parents’ family status: married Care characteristics Placement type: educational residentialb Placement type: welfare residentialb Age of entry into care Length of stay in facility (in years) Mentoring characteristics Mentor’s gender: female Professional mentorc Length of mentoring relationship Mentoring dimension: higher education Mentoring dimension: autonomy Mentoring dimension: warmth Mentoring dimension: modelling Hope Hope: overall Hope: pathways Hope: agency a

Reference category is of native-born Israeli origin. is informal mentor.

b

Mean/percentage

SD

Range

17.50 53.1% 19.7% 15.6% 2.93 35.4%

0.88 — — — 1.33 —

16–19 — — — 1–5 —

32.0% 37.4% 11.68 4.54

— — 3.91 3.49

— 0–18 0–16

51.4% 45.9% 3.20 4.19 4.39 4.53 4.31

— — 1.09 0.86 0.76 0.68 0.81

— — 1–4 1–5 1–5 1–5 1–5

4.75 4.60 4.90

1.05 1.16 1.05

1–6 1–6 1–6

Reference category is foster care.

c

Reference category


6

Table 2. Bivariate Correlations Between Observed Variables and Dependent Variables (N ⫽ 137–148)


Variable Individual characteristics Age (in years) Gender: femalea Parent’s birth country: former Soviet Uniona Parent’s birth country: Ethiopiana Mother’s education Parents’ family status: married Placement characteristics Placement type: educational residentiala,b Placement type: welfare residentiala,b Age of entry into out-of-home care Length of stay in facility (in years) Mentoring characteristics Mentor’s gender: femalea Professional mentora,c Length of mentoring relationship Mentoring dimension: higher education Mentoring dimension: autonomy Mentoring dimension: warmth Mentoring dimension: modelling

Hope: Overall

Hope: Agency

Hope: Pathways

.02 ⫺.03 .09 ⫺.08 .19ⴱ ⫺.02

.05 ⫺.03 .10 ⫺.06 .20ⴱ ⫺.07

⫺.02 ⫺.02 .07 ⫺.09 .17ⴱ .03

.12 ⫺.17ⴱ ⫺.15 .13

.09 ⫺.18ⴱ ⫺.16 .15

.13 ⫺.14 ⫺.13 .09

⫺.01 ⫺.04 .26ⴱⴱ .11 .24ⴱⴱ .17ⴱ .20ⴱ

.03 ⫺.04 .26ⴱⴱ .13 .22ⴱⴱ .17ⴱ .20ⴱ

⫺.04 ⫺.04 .23ⴱⴱ .08 .24ⴱⴱ .15 .18ⴱ

a A dichotomous variable with a point biserial correlation presented. care. c Reference category is informal mentor. ⴱ p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01.

of contact (r ⫽ 0.26, 0.26, and 0.23, p ⬍ .01, for hope overall, agency, and pathways, respectively), the promoting independence function (r ⫽ 0.24, 0.22, and 0.24, p ⬍ .01, for hope overall, agency, and pathways, respectively), the parent figure function (r ⫽ ⫺0.17 and ⫺0.17, p ⬍ .05, for hope overall and agency, respectively), and the modeling function (r ⫽ 0.20, 0.20, and 0.18, p ⬍ .05, for hope overall, agency, and pathways, respectively). We conducted three multivariate hierarchical regressions to explore the combined contribution of the individual, placement history, and mentoring variables to each of the three measures of hope overall, agency, and pathways. Only variables correlated to the hope measures were included in each of the respective analyses. As shown in Table 3, the three models were similar in terms of the individual and mentoring variables found to have a unique and significant contribution to the prediction of each of the hope measures, though slight variations in the magnitude of explained variance were observed across the three models. Of the individual characteristics entered in the first step, only mother’s education was positively related to hope overall, agency, and pathways. The individual characteristics contribution was significant and accounted for 7%, 8%, and 3% of the explained variance in hope overall, hope agency, and hope pathways, respectively. The duration of the mentoring relationship, the only variable introduced in the second step, had a significant positive contribution, accounting for 6% of the explained variance across the three models. The third step added the mentoring functions. Only the promoting independence and autonomy function was found to significantly predict hope above and beyond the variance explained by mother’s education, duration of contact with mentor, or the other mentoring functions (8%, 6%, and 7% for the hope overall, agency, and pathways models, respectively). Overall, the multivariate model accounted for 21%, 20%, and 15% of the variance in hope overall, agency, and pathways, respectively.

b

Reference category is foster

Discussion The existing body of literature on youth leaving care has focused on the individual characteristics and placement characteristics that contribute to resilience and well-being. The present study had two aims that extend existing knowledge. First, we explored the relationship between youths’ individual and placement characteristics and hope. Next, we examined the incremental contribution of mentoring to hope over and beyond related individual and placement characteristics. Of the individual characteristics, parents’ level of education of the parents (as determined by the mothers’ level of education) emerged as a prominent predictor of hope. Youth whose mother had lower levels of education were also likely to have lower levels of both agency and pathways hopeful thinking. This is in line with previous findings that have highlighted the central role parents’ education and socioeconomic status play in determining their childrens’ motivation to pursue goals as well as their ability to develop specific strategies to reach these goals (Snyder et al., 1997). As youth in care typically come from disadvantaged backgrounds, these capacities are hence likely to be hindered, unless they receive proper support from caretakers and other caring adults who will believe in them and show them how to attain what it is they aspire for. In particular need of such assistance are youths in welfare residential settings who were found to be more vulnerable in this respect, compared to youths in foster care. In fact, hope theory suggests that the capacity for hope is learned mainly through a supportive and empathic relationship with an adult (Snyder, 1994). We assumed that youth’s relationships with a meaningful mentor, which can compensate for relationships with parents lacking in attachment or provision of necessary resources, would be beneficial for the youths’ sense of hope. Our results supported this assumption, as we found significant positive associations between hope and the length of the mentoring relationship

NURTURING HOPE

7

Table 3. Hierarchical Linear Regression for the Prediction of Hope Overall, Agency, and Pathways (N ⫽ 148) Hope: Overall Variable

B

S.E.B

Mother’s education Placement type: educational residentiala Placement type: welfare residentiala F R2 ⌬R2

.17 .08 ⫺.37

.06 .21 .20 3.79ⴱ .07ⴱ —

Mother’s education Placement type: educational residentiala Placement type: welfare residentiala Length of mentoring relationship F R2 ⌬R2

.18 .10 ⫺.28 .23

.06 .21 .20 .08 9.53ⴱⴱ .13ⴱⴱ .06ⴱⴱ

Mother’s education Placement type: educational residentiala Placement type: welfare residentiala Length of mentoring relationship Mentoring dimension: autonomy Mentoring dimension: warmth Mentoring dimension: modelling F R2 ⌬R2

.20 .04 ⫺.34 .24 .36 ⫺.05 .08

.06 .20 .20 .07 .14 .17 .13 4.52ⴱⴱ .21ⴱⴱ .08ⴱⴱ

Hope: Agency ␤

Hope: Pathways

B

S.E.B

␤

B

S.E.B

␤

.19 ⫺.02 ⫺.50

.07 .24 .23 4.09ⴱⴱ .08ⴱⴱ —

.22ⴱⴱ ⫺.01 ⫺.21ⴱ

.13 — —

.06 — — 4.30ⴱ .03ⴱ —

.17ⴱ — —

.20 ⫺.00 ⫺.40 .26

.07 .23 .22 .08 9.43ⴱⴱ .14ⴱⴱ .06ⴱⴱ

.23ⴱⴱ .00 ⫺.17 .24ⴱⴱ

.15 — — .22

.06 — — .08 8.57ⴱⴱ .08ⴱⴱ .06ⴱⴱ

.18ⴱ — — .23ⴱⴱ

.22 ⫺.07 ⫺.47 .26 .33 ⫺.00 .11

.07 .22 .22 .08 .16 .19 .14 3.96ⴱ .20ⴱ .06ⴱ

.26ⴱⴱ ⫺.03 ⫺.20ⴱ .24ⴱⴱ .22ⴱ ⫺.00 .08

.17 — — .23 .35 — .02

.06 — — .08 .13 — .12 5.84ⴱⴱ .15ⴱⴱ .07ⴱⴱ

.21ⴱⴱ — — .24ⴱⴱ .26ⴱⴱ — .02

Model 1 .22ⴱⴱ .03 ⫺.17


Model 2 .23ⴱⴱ .04 ⫺.13 .25ⴱⴱ

Model 3 .26ⴱⴱ .02 ⫺.16 .25ⴱⴱ .26ⴱ ⫺.03 .06

Note. SEB⫽ standard error for the unstandardized beta. a Reference category is foster care. ⴱ p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01.

as well as the degree to which this relationship provided autonomy, warmth, or modeling. Whereas the importance of the timeframe in establishing significant relationships was evident in earlier studies (Rhodes & DuBois, 2008; Sulimani-Aidan, 2016a), our findings indicate that other mentoring functions are also linked with hopeful thinking. Mentoring functions of autonomy and modeling were related to all hope dimensions (overall hope, agency thinking, and pathway thinking). However, the mentoring function of warmth (parental figure) was associated with overall hope and agency thinking but not with pathway thinking. These findings highlight the important role mentoring plays in hopeful thinking among youths in care and adds to the accumulative literature concerning the contribution of mentoring relationships to the outcomes of this vulnerable group. The findings also suggest that mentoring warmth in itself is not enough if we wish to enhance youths’ pathways thinking. This aspect must be taken into account when designing mentoring-based interventions for youth in care. Little, Snyder, and Wehmeyer (2006) suggested that a sense of hope is established by one’s history of actions and is influenced by various constraints or supports from the context that either hinder or promote goal attainment. The hierarchical regression analyses demonstrated that mentors play a significant role in the development of hope. Various features of the mentoring relationship were found to

have a significant incremental contribution to the explained variance in hope above and beyond related individual and placement characteristics. The associations among mentoring roles, agency thinking, and pathways thinking suggest that although the presence of a mentor contributes to a positive goal-oriented energy (agency), not all roles lead to planning ways to achieve the goals (pathways). Although these findings support the assumption that support is important for hopeful thinking, they suggest that not all types of support are linked with the two components of hope: agency and pathways. Those components are particularly important for youths on the verge of leaving care because of the demanding developmental tasks the transition to adulthood entails and the many challenges that can obstruct the youth from completing them (Arnett, 2007). Our findings emphasize the central role of the mentor as a promoter of independence and autonomy in enhancing to the two components of hope, significantly increasing both the “will” and the “way” to obtain goals. It may be that this mentoring function is important for youth in out-of-home placements, particularly those in residential settings, as they have little opportunity to practice their autonomy. It is also possible that this mentoring function increases youths’ self-efficacy: one’s cognitive appraisal of his ability to organize and execute goal-directed action. Relatedly, self-efficacy has also been de-


8


scribed as an assessment of what a person believes he is capable of doing. As such, self-efficacy is thought to be essential to motivation and is theorized to play a fundamental role in overcoming obstacles (Bandura, 1977) and establishing the capacity to initiate behavior and produce outcomes. Recent studies support the empirical distinctiveness of the cognitive states of self-efficacy and hope (Munoz, Hellman, & Brunk, 2017). Further investigation on the relations among mentoring, self-efficacy, and hope could shed more light on the mechanisms that generate and enhance hopeful thinking among youth in substitute care settings, and those emancipating from them, which in turn would lead to increased resilience and improved outcomes. In summary, our findings indicate that mentoring relationships for youths in care play a significant role in the development of hope. Thus, those with an interest in youths in care should proactively seek strategies to strengthen youths’ relationships with their meaningful adult figures or connect them with new potential mentors in order to support their successful transition into adulthood.

Limitations Whereas this study is among the first to focus on factors associated with hope among youths on the verge of leaving care, several limitations should be considered. First, the current sample represents one country (Israel) and differences in social policy in other countries or systems may produce alternative results. Another limitation is that this study used a crosssectional correlational design which limits the capacity to confidently discuss the impact of mentoring. Future studies should use longitudinal designs to further evaluate the nature of the relationship between mentoring and hope. Also, including a control group of youths in care, matched on individual and placement characteristics, that are not involved in mentoring relationships would allow for an investigation of the meaningfulness of mentoring toward developing hope among at-risk youth in care. In addition, although the study included various types of mentoring features that may be associated with outcomes, other potentially relevant aspects of mentoring were not included (e.g., frequency of contact, closeness). Therefore, further studies should seek to include such additional mentoring characteristics in order to fully assess their contribution to the youths’ hopeful thinking. Finally, while this study focused on those factors associated with hope, the relatively small proportion of explained variance in the multiple regression analyses suggests that other unmeasured factors need to be considered to better understand hope and the incremental contribution of mentoring. Nevertheless, this exploratory study provides a framework by which subsequent research can advance.

Implications for Practice Youths who are about to leave care have been shown to have poorer outcomes as they transition to independent living and early adulthood (Courtney, Piliavin, Grogan-Kaylor, & Nesmith, 2001; Sinclair, Baker, Wilson, & Gibbs, 2005; Stein, 2012; Sulimani-Aidan, 2014). The findings of this study high-

light the meaningful role mentors play in the development of these adolescents’ hope, a resilience resource that has been shown to contribute to various well-being indicators among at-risk youth. Therefore, foster and residential care placements should seek to integrate both hope and mentoring as components in their intervention planning and staff training. The results of this study also emphasize the importance of lasting mentoring relationships that focus on promoting autonomy, warmth, and modeling. Therefore, out-of-home services should recruit mentors for longevity and encourage and train them to facilitate a relationship that models independent living (autonomy) in order to enhance youths’ hope. Keywords: hope; mentoring; youth; residential care; resilience

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. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1542/peds.2007-0508 Arnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood. A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55, 469 – 480. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.5.469 Arnett, J. J. (2007). Afterword: Aging out of care—Toward realizing the possibilities of emerging adulthood. New Directions for Youth Development, 2007, 151–161. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/yd.207 Attar-Schwartz, S. (2008). Emotional, behavioral and social problems among Israeli children in residential care: A multi-level analysis. Children and Youth Services Review, 30, 229 –248. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.childyouth.2007.09.009 Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191–215. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ 0033-295X.84.2.191 Bennett, A., Wood, D., Butterfield, R., & Goldhagen, J. (2014). Finding hope in hopeless environments. International Journal of Child Health and Human Development, 7, 313–324. Cavell, T. A., Meehan, B. T., Heffer, R. W., & Holladay, J. J. (2002). The natural mentors of adolescent children of alcoholics (COAs): Implications for preventive practices. Journal of Primary Prevention, 23, 23– 42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1016587115454 Cedeno, L. A., Elias, M. J., Kelly, S., & Chu, B. C. (2010). School violence, adjustment, and the influence of hope on low-income, African American youth. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 80, 213–226. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1939-0025.2010.01025.x Cheavens, J. S., Feldman, D. B., Woodward, J. T., & Snyder, C. R. (2006). Hope in cognitive psychotherapies: On working with client strengths. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy, 20, 135–145. http://dx.doi.org/10 .1891/jcop.20.2.135 Ciarrochi, J., Heaven, P. C. L., & Davies, F. (2007). The impact of hope, self-esteem, and attributional style on adolescents’ school grades and emotional well-being: A longitudinal study. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 1161–1178. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2007.02 .001 Ciarrochi, J., Parker, P., Kashdan, T. B., Heaven, P. C., & Barkus, E. (2015). Hope and emotional well-being: A six-year study to distinguish antecedents, correlates, and consequences. Journal of Positive Psychology, 10, 520 –532. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2015.1015154 Courtney, M. E., & Dworsky, A. (2006). Early outcomes for young adults transitioning from out-of-home care in the USA. Child & Family Social Work, 11, 209 –219. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2206.2006.00 433.x Courtney, M. E., & Lyons, S. (2009, January). Mentoring relationships and adult outcomes for foster youth in transition to adulthood. Paper session


NURTURING HOPE presented at the 13th annual meeting of the Society for Social Work and Research, New Orleans. Courtney, M. E., Piliavin, I., Grogan-Kaylor, A., & Nesmith, A. (2001). Foster youth transitions to adulthood: A longitudinal view of youth leaving care. Child Welfare, 80, 685–717. Crowell, J. A., Treboux, D., & Waters, E. (1999). The adult attachment interview and the relationship questionnaire: Relations to reports of mothers and partners. Personal Relationships, 6, 1–18. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1475-6811.1999.tb00208.x Darling, N., Hamilton, S., Toyokawa, T., & Matsuda, S. (2002). Naturally occurring mentoring in Japan and the United States: Social roles and correlates. American Journal of Community Psychology, 30, 245–270. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1014684928461 del Valle, J. F., Bravo, A., Alvarez, E., & Fernanz, A. (2008). Adult selfsufficiency and social adjustment in care leavers from children’s homes: A long-term assessment. Child & Family Social Work, 13, 12–22. 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. http://dx.doi .org/10.1023/A:1014628810714 Eby, L. T., Rhodes, J. E., & Allen, T. D. (2007). Definition and evolution of mentoring. In T. D. Allen & L. T. Eby (Eds.), The Blackwell handbook of mentoring: A multiple perspectives approach (pp. 7–20). Chichester, UK: Wiley. Egeland, B., Jacobvitz, D., & Sroufe, L. A. (1988). Breaking the cycle of abuse. Child development, 1080 –1088. Epstein, S. (1983). The mother–father—Peer scale. Unpublished manuscript, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Flanagan, C. A. (2003). Trust, identity, and civic hope. Applied Developmental Science, 7, 165–171. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S1532480XADS 0703_7 Garmezy, N. (1985). Children in poverty: Resilience despite risk. Psychiatry, 56, 127–136. Greeson, J. K. (2013). Foster youth and the transition to adulthood the theoretical and conceptual basis for natural mentoring. Emerging Adulthood, 1, 40 –51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2167696812467780 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, 565–577. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j .childyouth.2009.12.003 Hellman, C. M., & Gwinn, C. (2017). Camp HOPE as an intervention for children exposed to domestic violence: A program evaluation of hope, and strength of character. Child & Adolescent Social Work Journal, 34, 269 –276. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10560-016-0460-6 Hellman, C. M., Munoz, R. T., Worley, J. A., Feeley, J. A., & Gillert, J. E. (In Press). A reliability generalization on the children’s hope scale. Child Indicators Research. Hines, A. M., Merdinger, J. M., & Wyatt, P. (2005). Pathway to college for former foster youth: Understanding factors that contribute to educational success. Child welfare, 84, 867– 896. Horton, T. V., & Wallander, J. L. (2001). Hope and social support as resilience factors against psychological distress of mothers who care for children with chronic physical conditions. Rehabilitation Psychology, 46, 382–399. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0090-5550.46.4.382 Hullmann, S. E., Fedele, D. A., Molzon, E. S., Mayes, S., & Mullins, L. L. (2014). Posttraumatic growth and hope in parents of children with cancer. Journal of Psychosocial Oncology, 32, 696 –707. http://dx.doi .org/10.1080/07347332.2014.955241 Little, T. D., Snyder, R., & Wehmeyer, M. L. (2006). The agentic self: On the nature and origins of personal agency across the lifespan. In D. Mroczek & T. D. Little (Eds.), The handbook of personality development (pp. 61–79). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Lopez, S. J., Ciarlelli, R., Coffman, L., Stone, M., & Wyatt, L. (2000).

9

Diagnosing for strengths: On measuring hope building blocks. In C. R. Snyder (Ed.), Handbook of hope: Theory, measures, and applications (pp. 57– 85). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1016/B978-012654050-5/50006-3 Lopez, S. J., Rose, S., Robinson, C., Marques, S. C., & Pais-Ribeiro, J. (2009). Measuring and promoting hope in schoolchildren. In R. Gilman, E. S. Huebner, & M. J. Furlong (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology in schools (pp. 37–50). New York, NY: Routledge. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1093/oxfordhb/9780195187243.001.0001 Marques, S. C., Lopez, S. J., Fontaine, A. M., Coimbra, S., & Mitchell, J. (2015). How much hope is enough? Levels of hope and students’ psychological and school functioning. Psychology in the Schools, 52, 325–334. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pits.21833 Mash, G. (2001). Characteristics of youngsters in Youth Villages: Research report. Tel Aviv: Ministry of Education (Hebrew). Munoz, R. T., Hellman, C. M., & Brunk, K. L. (2017). The relationship between hope and life satisfaction among survivors of intimate partner violence: The enhancing effect of self-efficacy. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 12, 981–995. 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, 104 –111. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.childyouth.2008.06.003 National Council for the Child. (2009). The state of the child in Israel [in Hebrew]. Jerusalem, Israel: Author. Nauta, M. M., & Kokaly, M. L. (2001). Assessing role model influences on students’ academic and vocational decisions. Journal of Career Assessment, 9, 81–99. Otis, K. L., Huebner, S., & Hills, K. J. (2016). Origins of early adolescents’ hope: Personality, parental attachment, and stressful life events. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 31, 102–121. http://dx.doi.org/10 .1177/0829573515626715 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412976664.n3 Rhodes, J. E., & DuBois, D. L. (2008). Mentoring relationships and programs for youth. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17, 254 –258. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2008.00585.x Rhodes, J., Reddy, R., Roffman, J., & Grossman, J. B. (2005). Promoting successful youth mentoring relationships: A preliminary screening questionnaire. Journal of Primary Prevention, 26, 147–167. Rhodes, J. E., Spencer, R., Keller, T. E., Liang, B., & Noam, G. (2006). A model for the influence of mentoring relationships on youth development. Journal of Community Psychology, 34, 691–707. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1002/jcop.20124 Rutter, M. (1987). Psychosocial resilience and protective mechanisms. American journal of orthopsychiatry, 57, 316 –334. Schiff, M., & Benbenishty, R. (2006). Functioning of Israeli group-homes alumni: Exploring gender differences and in-care correlates. Children and Youth Services Review, 28, 133–157. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j .childyouth.2005.02.010 Shimoni, E., & Benbenishty, R. (2012). Maltreated and neglected children who live in residential care facilities and in the community: Background and results. Jerusalem, Israel: Haruv Institute. Sinclair, I., Baker, C., Wilson, K., & Gibbs, I. (2005). Foster children, where they go and how they get on. London, UK: Jessica Kingsley. Snyder, C. R. (1994). The psychology of hope: You can get there from here. New York, NY: Free Press. Snyder, C. R. (2000). Handbook of hope: Theory, measures, and applications. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Snyder, C. R., Cheavens, J., & Sympson, S. C. (1997). Hope: An individual motive for social commerce. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 1, 107–118. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1089-2699.1.2.107


10


Spencer, R. (2006). Understanding the Mentoring Process between Adolescence and Adults. Youth & Society, 37, 287–315. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1177/0743558405278263 Spencer, R., Collins, M. E., Ward, R., & Smashnaya, S. (2010). Mentoring for young people leaving foster care: Promise and potential pitfalls. Social Work, 55, 225–234. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/sw/55.3.225 Stein, M. (2012). Young people leaving care: Supporting pathways to adulthood. London, UK: Jessica Kingsley. Sulimani-Aidan, Y. (2014). Care leavers’ challenges in transition to independent living. Children and Youth Services Review, 46, 38 – 46. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2014.07.022 Sulimani-Aidan, Y. (2016a). Present, protective and promotive: Mentors’ roles in the lives of young adults in residential care. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. Advance online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10 .1037/ort0000235 Sulimani-Aidan, Y. (2016b). “She was like a mother and a father to me”: Searching for the ideal mentor for youth in care. Child & Family Social Work, 22, 862– 870. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cfs.12306

Sulimani-Aidan, Y., Benbenishty, R., Dinisman, T., & Zeira, A. (2013). Care leavers in Israel: What contributes to better adjustment to life after care? Journal of Social Service Research, 39, 704 –718. http://dx.doi .org/10.1080/01488376.2013.834283 Sulimani-Aidan, Y., Sivan, Y., & Davidson-Arad, B. (2017). Comparison of hope and the child–parent relationship of at-risk adolescents at home and in residential care. Children and Youth Services Review, 76, 125–132. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2017.03.005 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. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2015.12.006 Valle, M. F., Huebner, E. S., & Suldo, S. M. (2006). An analysis of hope as a psychological strength. Journal of School Psychology, 44, 393– 406. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2006.03.005 Werner, E. E., & Smith, R. S. (2001). Journeys from childhood to midlife: Risk, resilience, and recovery. Cornell University Press.