Mentoring and Social Skills Training:

Ensuring Better Outcomes for

Youth in Foster Care
Charles A. Williams Youth in foster care face significant life chal-
Drexel University lenges that make it more likely that they will
face negative outcomes (i.e., school failure,
homelessness, and incarceration). While the reason(s) for out-
of-home placement (i.e., family violence, abuse, neglect and/or
abandonment) provide some context for negative outcomes,
such negative outcomes need not be a foregone conclusion. In
fact, interventions created to serve at-risk youth could osten-
sibly address the needs of youth in foster care as well, given
that they often face similar social, emotional, and other chal-
lenges. Specifically, the author posits that supporting foster
care youth through the use of mentoring and social skills train-
ing could reduce the negative outcomes far too common for
many of these youth.

Child Welfare • Vol. 90, No. 1 59

Child Welfare Vol. 90, No. 1

F or the roughly 500,000 youth in foster care in America, the

likelihood of facing negative outcomes—i.e., incarceration, low
college attendance, poor health, high school dropout, homelessness,
economic problems, and early parenting—is quite high (Berzin,
2010; Gramkowski, Kools, Paul, Boyer, Monasterio, & Robbins,
2009; Leve, Fisher, & Chamberlain, 2009). “A sizable literature
details the disparities in the child welfare system population com-
pared to the general population on indicators of health, mental health,
and social and economic well-being” (Leve et al., 2009, p. 1870).
Also, Landsverk, Burns, Stambaugh, and Reutz (2009) state that
between one-half and three-fourths of children and youth in foster
care experience behavior and social-emotional problems. Research
also suggests that the transition from placement to independent liv-
ing can place increasing pressure on foster care youth, contributing
significantly to undesirable outcomes (Berzin, 2010; Shaw, 2010).
Homelessness is a particular issue facing many foster care youth who
“age out” of the foster care system (Berzin, 2010; Fowler, Toro, &
Miles, 2009).
The U.S. Congress has attempted to address the multiple needs
facing foster care youth, including homelessness, through the passage
of such federal legislation as the Title IV-E Independent Living
Program, enacted in 1986, and the Foster Care Independence Act of
1999. With these federal laws, the government has attempted to stem
the tide of foster care youth who face the aforementioned negative
outcomes (Fowler et al., 2009). However, some states opt not to draw
down the federal dollars made available through this type of legisla-
tion, and with nearly 24,000 youth aging out of foster care annually,
this has caused concern for many child-serving professionals inter-
ested in ensuring better outcomes for these youth (Fowler et al.,
2009).

Reasons for Placement

Several factors may lead to a child being placed in foster care.
Specifically, Leve et al. (2009) report that the most common reasons

60
Williams Child Welfare

for child placement are parental neglect (67%), physical abuse (16%),
sexual abuse (9%), and psychological abuse (7%), with much of this
taking place in early childhood.
Often, these early child hood experiences can lead foster youth to
develop internalizing and externalizing problems, such as low self-
esteem and a propensity toward aggression—becoming violent
(Stein, 2001). Moreover, while many efforts are made by child wel-
fare professionals to protect children who are in placement from acts
of family violence, abuse, neglect, and maltreatment, far too many
foster care youth report experiencing such things while in foster care
(Stein, 2001). Repeatedly enduring such violence and personal trau-
mas may lead to poor academic achievement, anxiety, posttraumatic
stress disorder, and lower future expectations. It can also lead to higher
rates of emotional difficulties and mental illness (Rich, 2009; Rosario,
Salzinger, Feldman, & Ng-Mak, 2008; Stein, 2001). However, these
challenges are further exacerbated when foster care youth are forced
out of the system and into a new state of independence, which is often
referred to as aging out.

Aging Out
The years between ages 16 through 21, for youth in the child welfare
system, is referred to as the “aging out” period. It is during this period
that youth in foster care are faced with the prospect of losing all or
most of the economic, social, and emotional supports traditionally
provided them, given that they are viewed, legally, as adults and,
therefore, presumed capable of being able to care for themselves
(Stein, 2001). The legal age for adulthood for most states is generally
set at 18. However, many foster youth at the age of 18 do not yet pos-
sess the necessary skills to thrive independent of the child welfare
system; they are often unprepared for the realities of life challenges
(Atkinson, 2008; Shaw, 2010; Stein, 2001). Specifically, youth who
age out face increased pressure to maintain housing, financial sup-
port, health care, and social supports on their own, services which are
traditionally made available to them when they are in care (Atkinson,
2008; Shaw, 2010).

61
Child Welfare Vol. 90, No. 1

A particular challenge is the lack of research available in the child

welfare literature discussing the efficacy of support services offered
to youth in foster care, as a specific cohort (Stein, 2001). In fact,
Kaplan, Skolnik, and Turnbull (2009) state, “A review of the empir-
ical literature indicates that no published, peer-reviewed studies on
youth empowerment have specifically focused on youth in foster
care” (p. 136). This suggests that more work needs to be done in this
area. However, there is another way to view this dilemma. Given that
a general consensus exists that, for reasons previously mentioned,
youth in foster care are in a sense at “at risk,” one could reasonably
posit that such youth might benefit from services provided to other,
non-foster care-involved youth, who have also been identified as
being at risk, such as those who reside in poor urban or rural com-
munities, where fewer resources and supports are available; youth
from single-parent homes; and youth who face significant environ-
mental stressors such as neighborhood crime and high rates of incar-
ceration (O’Donnell, Stueve, & Myint, 2009; Rosario et al., 2008;
Stomfay-Stitz & Wheeler, 2008). Essentially, youth identified as
being at risk are typically offered specific programs and services in
an attempt to decrease the likelihood that they will experience neg-
ative outcomes such as poor academic achievement, psychological
and emotional challenges, and homelessness (McMahon &
Washborn, 2003), outcomes similar for youth in foster care. Lastly,
a significant body of evidence suggests that mentoring and social
skills training may address the needs of at-risk children and youth
facing issues of aggression, behavior problems, mental health disor-
ders, poor social competence, and low academic achievement
(Barron-McKeagney, Woody, & D’Souza, 2002; Farrell, Myer,
Sullivan, & Kung, 2003; Gresham, 1988; Kaplan et al., 2009;
Williams, 2006), challenges that also face many youth in foster care.
The focus of this article is to suggest that the approach used to
address the needs of at-risk youth may also serve youth in foster
care; however, at this time, such a hypothesis would require future
study to be validated beyond that of a general theory.

62
Williams Child Welfare

Mentoring and Social Skills Training: Supporting

Foster Care Youth
Mentoring
According to a report by the Corporation for National and Com-
munity Service titled Mentoring Children in Foster care: considerations
and partnerships for Senior Corp Directors, foster care youth are in need
of mentors or adult role models (Kaplan et al., 2009). Mentoring is
often defined as the contribution of a trusted, nonparental adult in
the life of a child or youth (Gordon, Iwamoto, Ward, Potts, & Boyd,
2009). “The presence of a positive, trusted, adult role model has been
recognized as a protective factor against violence and other mal-
adaptive outcomes for youth” (Cheng, Haynie, Brenner, Wright,
Chung, & Simons-Morton, 2008, p. 944). Once again, while the
purpose of mentoring is to provide a positive influence in the lives
of youth at risk, preventing them from facing negative outcomes, it
may also serve the needs of youth in foster care.
Foster youth in the United States typically range from the ages
of 6 to 15; therefore, support from a positive adult model or mentor
may prove useful in ensuring better outcomes for this particular pop-
ulation of youth (Drolet, Paquin, & Soutyrine, 2007; Flannery &
Williams, 1999). The report on foster care supported by the Cor-
poration for National and Community Service specifically mentions
that foster care youth may benefit from mentors given that
They have problems forming lasting relationships with adults
and peers . . . foster youth may exhibit substance abuse, juve-
nile delinquency and involvement in risky behaviors. Academic
and educational goals often suffer during out-of-home place-
ment. Even the most resilient child can fall into patters of
depression, self-doubt, and isolation when faced with the daunt-
ing world of foster care. (Kaplan et al., 2009, pp. 4–5)
Specifically, mentoring programs work to ensure that youth can
establish and maintain healthy relationships and that they are able
to express feelings and emotions and develop healthy self-esteem.
Other mentoring goals include developing the requisite social skills
as well as the confidence and self-esteem to make healthy choices,

63
Child Welfare Vol. 90, No. 1

and lastly, mentoring programs aim to nurture goal aspirations,

which can lead to high academic achievement or college attainment
(Kaplan et al., 2009). The report goes on further to suggest that im-
proving social skills should be an important goal of mentoring pro-
grams for foster care youth (Kaplan et al., 2009).
Youth who participate mentoring programs are also more likely
to attend college and less likely to engage in delinquent behavior
(Kaplan et al., 2009). Moreover, through mentoring programs youth
can be taught peer mediation skills as a way to address violence-
endorsing attitudes (Sheehan, DiCara, LeBailly, & Christoffel, 1999).
While it is plausible that mentoring may also support the needs of
youth in foster care, as was mentioned, much more research is
required in order to support such a theory.
Mentoring as a Tool to Improve Social Skills
One of the tangible benefits of mentoring has been the development
of social skills in school-aged youth (Cheng et al., 2008; Horn &
Kolbo, 2000; Jones-Brown & Henriques, 1997; Wyatt, 2009; Zand,
Thomson, Cervantes, Espiritu, Klagholz, LaBlanc, & Taylor, 2009).
These significant adults provide positive learning and modeling expe-
riences for children (Bandura, 1965; Hamilton & Hamilton, 1990;
Williams, 2006). However, beyond developing social competence in
youth, mentoring has also been shown to positively affect academic
achievement (Glomb, Buckley, Minskoff, & Rogers, 2006; Gresham,
1988; Williams, 2006). In Whiting and Mallory’s (2007) five-year
longitudinal study of a two-year mentoring program created to serve
at-risk middle school youth, significant improvements were observed
in both social skills and academic achievement for youth participants.
Mentoring for Youth Facing Mental Health Needs
Jent and Niec (2009), in a randomized study, evaluated an evidence-
based mentoring program, using cognitive behavioral techniques,
with a population of 8- to 12-year-olds at a community mental health
center. The mentoring program was developed to address internaliz-
ing behaviors (depression and self-esteem) and externalizing behav-
iors (aggression and violence) in youth being treated for mental health

64
Williams Child Welfare

disorders. Youth who were randomly assigned to the mentoring pro-

gram demonstrated improvements. Specifically, they reported better
problem-solving ability and fewer externalizing or behavior prob-
lems ( Jent & Niec, 2009). This finding was also supported by parent
reporting. The results were significant even after researchers con-
trolled for the possible impact of mental health services, such as
counseling. This could be particularly useful, as child welfare profes-
sionals consider supplemental programs and services for youth in
therapeutic foster care placements. However, as was previously men-
tioned, one of the major positive outcomes of mentoring programs
is the transfer and/or development of prosocial skills, which may
prove useful for youth in foster care.

Social Skills
Social Skills as a Construct
The study of social skills has a rich history reaching back several
decades, with early researchers providing a theoretical template for
both the conceptualization and study of social skills (Quay, 1986). For
example, Stephens (1978) created a comprehensive listing of four
broad categories and 30 subcategories of social skills, which were used
to create a social skills training curriculum; these 30 subcategories
have been used by other theorists and educators to address social skills
issues. These four broad categories are (1) self-related—accepting con-
sequences, ethical behavior, expressing feelings, positive attitude
toward self, responsible behavior, and self-care; (2) environmental
behaviors—care for the environment, dealing with emergencies,
lunchroom behavior, and movement around environment; (3) task-
related behaviors—asking and answering questions, attending behav-
ior, classroom discussion, completing tasks, following directions, group
activities, independent work, on-task behavior, performing before
others, and quality of work; and (4) interpersonal behaviors—accept-
ing authority, coping with conflict, gaining attention, greeting others,
helping others, making conversation, organized play, positive attitude,
toward others, playing informally, and property (own and others’).

65
Child Welfare Vol. 90, No. 1

Social Skills Training

Social skills training has been proven effective in addressing multiple
needs of multiple populations of youth in need (August, Realmuto,
Hetkner, & Bloomquist, 2001; Cole & Carpentieri, 1990; Costi, 2001;
Forrester, 1992; Fraser, Nash, Galinsky, & Darwin, 2000; Gresham,
1986, 1988; Kaplan et al., 2009; Kelly, 1982; Lane, Gresham, &
O’Shaughnessy, 2002; Merrell & Gimpel, 1998; Shure & Spivack,
1982; Williams, 2006). Researchers such as Shure (1992) have demon-
strated (in a 5-year longitudinal study) that social skills training pro-
grams not only can address the needs of a child experiencing marked
social skills deficits, but also may prevent the occurrence of poor social
skills in the first place. This method has been viewed as quite effective,
especially in dealing with youth who report high levels of antisocial
or aggressive behaviors (Farrell et al., 2003), which can be found in
children and youth in foster care (Kaplan et al., 2009; Landsverk et al.,
2009). More importantly, children and youth in foster care are likely
to struggle with low social competence (Landsverk et al., 2009).
Social Skills and Academic Achievement
Social skills training also leads to improved academic competence
skills, as has been previously mentioned (Lane et al., 2002; Shure &
Spivack, 1980; Wentzel & Asher, 1995; Williams, 2006). The influ-
ence of social skills training on academic competence could prove
useful, as it relates to addressing the significant need of ensuring
better academic outcomes for children and youth in foster care.
Specifically, as was mentioned, the research clearly demonstrates that
children and youth in foster care are much more likely to face learn-
ing problems and academic achievement issues (e.g., Berzin, 2010;
Gramkowski et al., 2009; Kaplan et al., 2009; Landsverk et al., 2009;
Leve et al., 2009).

Summary and Recommendations

Overview
As Kaplan et al. (2009) state, there is a clear lack of critical research
being conducted, which highlights the efficacy of positive youth

66
Williams Child Welfare

development activities in preventing negative outcomes specifically

for youth in foster care. Given the few studies available measuring or
highlighting the efficacy of interventions specifically targeting foster
youth, a future study could seek to examine the impact of various pro-
grams and services, such as mentoring and social skills training, on
these youth. However, it does appear that children and youth in the
child welfare system face similar challenges and outcomes as youth
who are generally considered to be at risk (Landsverk et al., 2009).
Specifically, both populations deal with issues of harsh parenting,
which is often linked to poor economic conditions (e.g., O’Donnell
et al., 2009), academic challenges, social and emotional problems,
conduct and behavior problems, and low social competence.
Therefore, one could argue that all children and youth who face such
challenges could, theoretically, benefit from similar services and inter-
ventions, which is the argument posited by the author.
However, beyond specific programs and services, ultimately, there
has to be a paradigm shift, which recognizes that the current culture
under which the child welfare system operates is failing a significant
number of children and youth who enter. This brings to the fore
issues related to discharge planning, the need for specific support
services, and the role of family and juvenile court judges as well as
policymakers.
Long-Term Outcomes: Discharge, Aftercare Planning,
and Follow-Up
There is a need for those child-serving professionals and administra-
tors, who work within the child welfare system, to focus more on dis-
charge and aftercare outcomes. While it is understandable that child
welfare professionals would be somewhat preoccupied with provid-
ing immediate stability and shelter for youth in foster care, a new type
of emphasis has to be placed on long-term outcomes. Essentially,
what happens after placement, within the life of youth who have been
in foster care, has to become a central and important part of the
planning process, which should start at the point of admission.
However, the author believes that, for such a shift to take place,
the current child welfare services model has to expand beyond being

67
Child Welfare Vol. 90, No. 1

merely a “child protective services model” to a model that provides

whatever services and programs are necessary to improve the quality
of life for foster care youth, while simultaneously considering long-
term consequences of decisions made regarding placement, the offer-
ing of both therapeutic and nontherapeutic support services, and
discharge planning. This simply implies that the child welfare sys-
tem’s focus should reach beyond the need to simply remove a child
from a home where there is family violence, substantiated abuse,
neglect or maltreatment, which is more short-term, to a more aggres-
sive long-term vision, aimed at preventing youth who were placed in
foster care from facing such negative outcomes as homelessness
(Fowler et al., 2009). Moreover, the child welfare system should
embrace a more data-driven model, assessing the effects of policy and
service delivery on the populations of youth being served. In this
regard, the immediate safety of the child while in care should no
longer serve as the marker of success; rather, it should be such things
as graduation from high school, the attainment of postsecondary
education or job training, consistent gainful employment, the ability
to secure and maintain housing, the presence of healthy social rela-
tionships, and the absence of a need to rely on various public systems
and agencies to subsidize their existence (i.e., public welfare). One of
the ways in which such outcomes may be achieved could be through
implementing prevention-focused services such as mentoring and
social skills training programs.
Evidence-Based Programming
For children and youth in foster care, given that they are at risk,
mentoring and social skills training can serve as a preventative meas-
ure (Gresham, 1988; Kaplan et al., 2009; Shure & Spivack, 1980;
Shure, 1992; Williams, 2006). As was mentioned, mentoring has been
proven to support the development of prosocial behaviors in children
and youth who may be at risk for a myriad of different negative out-
comes (e.g., Gordon et al., 2009; Horn & Kolbo, 2000; Jent & Niec,
2009; Whiting & Mallory, 2009). Specifically, children and youth
who are aging out of the child welfare system could be offered group

68
Williams Child Welfare

mentoring as a way to ensure a less chaotic and more supportive

transition from system-supported care to independent care. Such a
group mentoring model could allow youth aging out of the system
to meet regularly with other youth who face similar pasts as well as
similar future challenges. This group mentoring model could also be
used to support the needs of youth in foster care who have been
specifically identified as being at risk, due to such things as poor aca-
demic achievement and the presence of emotional and behavioral
challenges. This, for example, could benefit youth placed in thera-
peutic foster care. However, as it specifically relates to aging out
youth—given that research puts the number of youth aging out of
the child welfare system, annually, at roughly 24,000 (e.g., Fowler
et al., 2009)—it would behoove policymakers and child serving pro-
fessionals to pay increased attention to this group of youth. The author
has made similar recommendations before policymakers. Specifically,
when testifying at a special child welfare hearing held before the
Philadelphia City Council Joint Legislative Committees on Public
Health Human Services and Legislative Oversight, mentoring was
recommended as a necessary intervention for youth aging out in
foster care (Clark, 2009). Subsequently, the author has also stated
that youth who age out of the foster care system “muddle” their way
through life’s challenges and that they could benefit from being
matched with a mentor as a way to prevent such an occurrence (Shaw,
2010). Also, as mentioned, various studies have suggested that social
skills training can address the needs of at-risk youth (Gresham, 1988;
Williams, 2006). For example, Shure (2000) has developed an evi-
dence-based social skills training curriculum, I Can Problem Solve
(ICPS), which has been proven effective in addressing social compe-
tence, behavior, and conduct problems for multiple populations of
at-risk youth. The ICPS program was developed using at-risk youth
specifically (Shure & Spivack, 1980). Such programs may prove use-
ful in serving the needs of youth in foster care. However, for a true
paradigm shift to take place as it relates to child welfare outcomes,
those responsible for creating and interpreting laws also have to play
a more responsible and informed role.

69
Child Welfare Vol. 90, No. 1

Family/Juvenile Court Judges and the Role of Policymakers

The role of family/juvenile court judges and policymakers should be
to ensure that evidence-based programs created to serve the needs of
youth in the child welfare system remain supported and made avail-
able to these youth. Family/juvenile court judges and policymakers,
through the power of the gavel or pen, can cause the child welfare
system to move its current focus from placement outcomes (safe hous-
ing, health care needs, and school attendance), to permanency and
postplacement outcomes (long-term, stable housing, job placement,
the availability of a positive social support system, and postsecondary
education and training).
Lastly, policymakers and legislators also play an important role in
ensuring that evidence-based strategies are not only mandated, but
also funded; this may require an infusion of new federal, state, or local
dollars, as well as public-private partnerships. However, this will also
require assessing currently funded programs to be sure they are effec-
tive in ensuring the necessary desirable outcomes. In specific instances
in which programs have been proven to lack efficacy, policymakers
and legislators should have the will and foresight to shift funding
from such programs to new or existing programs that demonstrate
that important outcomes are being met. In too many instances, new
policy mandates and court decrees are issued without the support of
the requisite funding. This, of course, can lead to frustration on the
part of child welfare administrators and practitioners; and when such
key stakeholders are frustrated, the child welfare system experiences
minimal change, lopsided change, or no change at all. Therefore, pro-
viding the requisite funding for new, forward-thinking, outcome-
based programs could serve as a catalyst for a new era of child welfare
practice and policy, leading to better outcomes for a very vulnerable
population of children and youth.

References
Atkinson, M. (2008). Aging out of foster care: Towards a universal safety net for former
foster care youth. Harvard Civil Rights—Civil Liberties Law Review, 43, 183–212.

70
Williams Child Welfare

August, G. J., Realmuto, G. M., Hetkner, J. M., & Bloomquist, M. L. (2001). An integrated
components preventive intervention for aggressive elementary school children: The early
risers program. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 69, 614–626.

Bandura, A. (1965). Influence of models’ reinforcement contingencies on the acquisition of

imitative responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1, 589–595.

Barron-McKeagney, T., Woody, J. D., & D’Souza, H., J. (2002). Mentoring at-risk Latino
children and their parents: Analysis of the parent-child relationship and family strength.
Families in Society, 83, 285–292.

Berzin, S. (2010). Understanding foster youth outcomes: Is propensity scoring better than
traditional methods? Research on Social Work Practice, 20, 100–111.

Cheng, T. L., Haynie, D., Brenner, R., Wright, J. L., Chung, S., & Simons-Morton, B. (2008).
Effectiveness of a mentor-implemented violence prevention intervention for assault-
injured youths presenting to the emergency department: results of a randomized trial.
Pediatrics, 122, 938–946.

Clark, V. (2009, December 16). DHS say adoptions, reunifications up in Phila. Philadelphia
Inquirer.

Cole, D. A., & Carpentieri, S. (1990). Social status and the co-morbidity of child depression
and conduct disorder. Journal of Consulting Clinical Psychology, 58, 748–757.

Costi, M. (2001). Social awareness skills for children. Philadelphia: Jessica Kingsley.

Drolet, M., Paquin, M., & Soutyrine, M. (2007). Strengths-based approach and coping
strategies used by parents whose young children exhibit violent behavior: Collaboration
between schools and parents. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 24, 437–453.

Farrell, A. D., Myer, A. L., Sullivan, T. N., & Kung, E. M. (2003). Evaluation of the respond-
ing in peaceful and positive ways (RIPP) seventh grade violence prevention curriculum.
Journal of Child and Family Studies, 12, 101–120.

Flannery, D. J., & Williams, L. (1999). Effective youth violence prevention. In T. P. Gullotta
& S. J. McElhaney (Eds.), Violence in homes and communities: Prevention, intervention, and
treatment (pp. 207–244). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Forrester, M. A. (1992). The development of young children’s social-cognitive skills. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.

71
Child Welfare Vol. 90, No. 1

Fowler, P., Toro, P., & Miles, B. (2009). Pathways to and from homelessness and associated
psychosocial outcomes among adolescents leaving the foster care system. American Journal
of Public Health, 99, 1453–1458.

Fraser, M. W., Nash, J. K., Galinsky, M. J., & Darwin, K. M. (2000). Making choices: social
problem solving skills for children. Washington, DC: National Association of Social
Workers Press.

Glomb, N. K., Buckley, L. D., Minskoff, E. D., & Rogers, S. (2006). The learning leaders men-
toring program for children with ADHD and learning disabilities. Preventing School
Failure, 50, 31–35.

Gordon, D., Iwamoto, D., Ward, N., Potts, R., & Boyd, E. (2009). Mentoring urban black
middle school male students: implications for academic achievement. The Journal of Negro
Education, 78, 277–289, 362–364.

Gramkowski, B., Kools, S., Paul, S., Boyer, C., Monasterio, E., & Robbins, N. (2009). Health
risk behavior of youth in foster care. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing, 22,
77–85.

Gresham, F. M. (1986). Conceptual issues in assessment of social competence in children.

School Psychology Review, 16, 78–88.

Gresham, F. M. (1988). Social skills: Conceptual and applied aspects of assessment, training
and social validation. In J. C. Witt, S. N. Elliott, & F. M. Gresham (Eds.), Handbook of
behavior therapy in education (pp. 523–543). New York: Plenum Press.

Hamilton, S., & Hamilton, M. (1990). Linking up: Final report on a mentoring program for
youth. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, Department of Human Development and Family
Studies.

Horn, K. A., & Kolbo, J. R. (2000). Using the cumulative strategies model for drug abuse
prevention: A small group analysis of the choices program. American Journal of Health
Studies, 16, 7–23.

Jent, J., & Niec, L. (2009). Cognitive behavioral principles within group mentoring: A ran-
domized pilot study. Child & Family Behavior Therapy, 31, 203–219.

Jones-Brown, D. D., & Henriques, Z. W. (1997). Promises and pitfalls of mentoring as a juve-
nile justice strategy. Social Justice, 24, 212–233.

Kaplan, S. J., Skolnik, L., & Turnbull, A. (2009). Enhancing the empowerment of youth in
foster care support services. Child Welfare, 88, 133–161.

72
Williams Child Welfare

Kelly, J. A. (1982). Social skills training: A practical guide for interventions. New York: Springer.

Landsverk, J. A., Burns, B. J., Stambaugh, L. F., & Reutz, J. A. (2009). Psychosocial inter-
ventions for children and adolescents in foster care: review of research literature. Child
Welfare, 88, 49–69.

Lane, K. L., Gresham, F. M., & O’Shaughnessy, T. E. (2002). Identifying, assessing, and inter-
vening with children with or at risk for behavior disorders: A look to the future. In K. L.
Lane, F. M. Gresham, & T. E. O’Shaughnessy (Eds.), Interventions for children with or at
risk for emotional and behavioral and behavioral disorders (pp. 317–326). Boston: Allyn and
Bacon.

Leve, L., Fisher, P., & Chamberlain, P. (2009). Multidimensional treatment foster care as a
preventive intervention to promote resiliency among youth in the child welfare system.
Journal of Personality, 77, 1869–1902.

McMahon, S. D., & Washborn, J. J. (2003). Violence prevention: an evaluation of program

effects with urban African American students. Journal of Primary Prevention, 24, 43–62.

Merrell, K. W., & Gimpel, G. A. (1998). Social skills of children and adolescents. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.

O’Donnell, L., Stueve, A., & Myint U. A. (2009). Parenting and violence toward self, part-
ners, and others among inner-city young adults. American Journal of Public Health, 99(12),
2255–2260.

Quay, H. C. (1986). Classification. In H. C. Quay & J. S. Werry (Eds.), Psychological disorders

of childhood (pp. 1–34). New York: Wiley.

Rich, J. (2009). Wrong place, wrong time: Trauma and violence in the lives of young black men.
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.

Rosario, M., Salzinger, S., Feldman, R., & Ng-Mak, D. (2008). Intervening processes between
youths’ exposure to community violence and internalizing symptoms over time: The roles
of social support and coping. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41, 43–62.

Shaw, J. ( January 26, 2010). Beneficiary and victim of the system: Sick child, no support . . .
but hope. The Philadelphia Daily News. Retrieved April 22, 2011, from www.philly.com/
philly/hp/news_update/82664922.html.

Sheehan, K., DiCara, J., LeBailly, S., & Christoffel, K. (1999) Adapting the gang model: Peer
mentoring for violence prevention. American Academy of Pediatrics, 104, 50–54.

73
Child Welfare Vol. 90, No. 1

Shure, M. B. (1992). I can problem solve: Preschool. Champaign, IL: Research Press.

Shure, M. B. (2000). I can problem solve. Champaign, IL: Research Press.

Shure, M. B., & Spivack, G. (1980). Interpersonal problem-solving in young children: A cog-
nitive approach to prevention. American Journal of Community Psychology, 10, 341–355.

Shure, M. B., & Spivack, G. (1982). Interpersonal problem solving as a mediator of behav-
ioral adjustment in preschool and kindergarten children. Journal of Applied Developmental
Psychology, 1, 29–44.

Stein, M. (2001). Young people aging out of care: the poverty of theory. Child and Youth
Services Review, 28, 422–443.

Stephens, T. M. (1978). Social skills in the classroom. Columbus, OH: Cedar Press.

Stomfay-Stitz, A., & Wheeler, E. (2008). America’s children are at an environmental cross-
road. Childhood Education, 84(4), 222 K-M.

Wentzel, K. R., & Asher, S. R. (1995). The academic lives of neglected, rejected, popular, and
controversial children. Child Development, 66, 754–763.

Whiting, S., & Mallory, J. (2007). A longitudinal study to determine the effects of mentor-
ing on middle school youngsters by nursing and other college students. Journal of Child
and Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing, 204, 197–208.

Williams, C. A. (2006). The effects of social skills and media on student achievement in elementary
school students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Temple University, PA.

Wyatt, S. (2009). The brotherhood: empowering adolescent African American males toward
excellence. Professional School Counseling, 12, 463–470.

Zand, D., Thomson, N., Cervantes, R., Espiritu, R., Klagholz, D., LaBlanc, L., & Taylor, A.
(2009). The mentor-youth alliance: The role of mentoring relationships in promoting youth
competence. Journal of Adolescence, 32, 1–17.

74
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.