District-led initiatives to improve instruction and enhance school communities by developing partnerships with local universities, businesses, and/or community-based organizations;►Community-school efforts that provide additional supports for students by building relationships among parents, communities, and schools and by offering a wide range of services within schools to develop the whole child;

Furthermore, cultural practices that emphasize the value of nuclear family relationships (related to Component 2, nuclear family belongingness) are part of this strengths-based mindset that promotes belongingness and buffers youth against threats of poor mental health. This can be especially powerful for emigrants from racial and ethnic minority families when youth feel less supported by peers at school but feel strong belongingness in their nuclear families at home. This can encourage school personnel to improve family ties through parent outreach and more emphasis on conferences with families. It also encourages family inter-ventions in the community, such as family therapy, that move beyond the school.

Also, potentially potent in strengthening belongingness is individual coun-seling that encourages adolescents to find strength in relationships with family members, such that they are able to maintain these relationships even as they move from school to school. For each of these interventions, a student’s ability to find belongingness through healthy relationships, and gain strength from them, can be emphasized. Thus, by building belongingness through building healthy relationships, students can become resilient against negative threats. These are the types of interventions that can be supported by the result that belongingness is an effective moderator of the influence of peer acceptance on loneliness. In this way, these findings support Gysbers’s (2004) and Forrest’s (2004) encouragement for counseling psychology research to be informative for school counselors

for the outcome of loneliness, and revealed belongingness as a moderator for this outcome (Table 2), is valuable in the establishment of belongingness as noteworthy for the social lives of adolescents. The graphing of the post hoc analysis of this relationship (Figure 1) further clarifies the importance of belongingness. This informs an understanding of the social environment of a multicultural middle school by showing that while those who have low peer acceptance are at risk, those who are strong in belongingness are some-what buffered against such consequences. Thus, belongingness appears to be a protective factor. Because the loneliness questionnaire, the CLS, targeted loneliness in the school environment, it was logical to expect that peer acceptance would be significantly correlated to loneliness, which it was. That students with high belongingness levels showed essentially no impact from peer acceptance levels on loneliness at school is notable. It suggests that high levels of belongingness can buffer the negative effects of low peer acceptance. This begins to establish belongingness as important in the lives of adolescents and as a promising factor in promoting resilience.

The relationship between loneliness and depression was steeper for low belongingness than for high belongingness, meaning that students with low belongingness were more vulnerable to depression in relation to feelings of loneliness than were their high-belongingness counterparts

With only loneli-ness in the equation with depression, the relationship was significant (R2= .28, p< .001). When belongingness was introduced, there was an increase in the strength of the equation (R2 increased by .02, p= .005). Finally, the interaction between belongingness and loneliness was significant with levels of depres-sion (R2 increased by .03, p= .001). Thus, there is support for Hypothesis 2, that belongingness does moderate the influence of loneliness on depression.

This shows that belongingness was a moderator of the influence of peer acceptance on loneliness, supporting Hypothesis 1

The relationship between loneliness and peer acceptance was plotted at three levels of belongingness: low (-1 SD), medium (M), and high belongingness (+1 SD). With low belong-ingness, there is a somewhat steep relationship between loneliness and peer acceptance. This means that students who had limited belongingness were highly vulnerable to feelings of loneliness from rejection by their peers. At medium levels of belongingness, the relationship between peer acceptance and loneliness was not as steep, yet peer acceptance still had a clear influ-ence on loneliness. At high levels of belongingness, the line representing the relationship between loneliness and peer acceptance was nearly horizontal. In regard to loneliness, this reveals that students who were high in belong-ingness were almost unaffected by their level of peer acceptance, whereas students who were low in belongingness were susceptible to experiencing loneliness at low levels of peer acceptance

One possibly important strengths-based moderator for children and adolescents is belongingness. Feeling a sense of belongingness to a wider social group is considered a ubiquitous need (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Osterman, 2000). This notion is rooted in Maslow’s (1987) conceptualization that humans, like other animals, have the need “to herd, to flock, to join, and to belong” (p. 20). Belonging may be established in peer groups at school, but youth may also find belongingness through other social channels, such as teachers, parents, extended family, or community groups. This is supported by research from Appleton, Christenson, Kim, and Reschly (2006) that links the social context of students to academic, social, and emotional outcomes. Furthermore, it is important to differentiate belongingness from other allied variables associated with interpersonal functioning, such as social support and peer acceptance. While social support and peer acceptance connote a passive engagement of the individual with the social network, a sense of belonging represents a more active engagement and an internal experience of a strong psychological connection to a group (Brown, Alpert, Lent, Hunt, & Brady, 1988; Mallinckrodt, 1992; Mallinckrodt & Wei, 2005). Belongingness then involves a dyad, group, or community that one senses one’s current active membership completes. When individuals belong (have belongingness), they believe a dyad, group, or community is not complete without them, and they are not complete without the dyad, group, or community.

We conclude, then, that the present state of the empirical ev-idence is sufficient to confirm the belongingness hypothesis. Theneed to belong can be considered a fundamental humanmotivation

The need to belong also appears to conform to motivationalpatterns of satiation and substitution. People need a few closerelationships, and forming additional bonds beyond those fewhas less and less impact. Having two as opposed to no closerelationships may make a world of difference to the person'shealth and happiness; having eight as opposed to six may havevery little consequence. When a social bond is broken, peopleappear to recover best if they form a new one, although eachindividual life tends to involve some particularly special rela-tionships (such as filial or marital bonds) that are not easilyreplaced. People without intimate partners engage in a varietyof activities to find partners, but people who have partners al-ready are much less active at seeking additional relationships,consistent with the satiation hypothesis

Abundant evidence also attests that the need to belong shapesemotion and cognition. Forming or solidifying social attach-ments generally produces positive emotion, whereas real, imag-ined, or even potential threats to social bonds generate a varietyof unpleasant emotional states. In short, change in belong-ingness is a strong and pervasive cause of emotion in ways thatsupport the hypothesis of a need to belong. It is also evident thatpeople think a great deal about belongingness. They devote adisproportionate amount of cognitive processing to actual orpossible relationship partners and interaction partners, andthey reserve particular, more extensive, and more favorable pat-terns of information processing for people with whom theyshare social bonds.Deficits in belongingness apparently lead to a variety of illeffects, consistent with the view that belongingness is a need(as opposed to merely a want). Both psychological and physicalhealth problems are more common among people who lack so-cial attachments. Behavioral pathologies, ranging from eatingdisorders to suicide, are more common among people who areunattached. Although most of these findings are correlationaland many alternative explanations can be suggested, recentefforts have begun controlling for these other factors, and thepure, primary effects of belongingness appear to remain strong.It appears, then, that belongingness is not only pleasant but alsoapparently very beneficial to the individual in multiple wa

Interaction without an ongoing bond of caring should alsobe only partly satisfactory. Two predictions can be made.First, insofar as the need to belong requires that some interac-tions reflect a relationship context, it can be predicted thatinteractions with changing series of partners should be lessthan satisfying. Second, if the interactions are supposed toreflect the context of positive emotional concern, then peopleshould not be satisfied by interactions within the context ofan ongoing relationship or social bond that is not marked bypositive caring. We look for evidence for the specifically mu-tual nature of the bon

The effects of belongingness on mental illness parallel thoseon physical illness. Rejected children have a higher incidence ofpsychopathology than other children (Bhatti, Derezotes, Kim,& Specht, 1989; Hamachek, 1992). Children who grow upwithout receiving adequate attention from caregivers showemotional and behavioral pathologies, as demonstrated experi-mentally by Harlow, Harlow, and Suomi (1971) with animalsand as corroborated by observations of human children byBowlb

Yet another highly aversive emotional state is guilt. Despite along tradition of analyzing guilt in terms of self-evaluation accord-ing to abstract moral standards, recent work has increasingly em-phasized the interpersonal structure of guilt (Baumeister, Stillwell,& Heatherton, 1994; Cunningham, Steinberg, & Grev, 1980;Jones & Kugler, in press; Jones, Kugler, & Adams, 1995; Miceli,1992; Tangney, 1992). Empirical studies of how people induceguilt in others have found that such inductions are almost entirelyconfined to close interpersonal relationships and that a major rea-son for inducing guilt is to cause one's partner to exert himself orherself more to maintain the interpersonal relationship (e.g., byspending more time with or paying more attention to oneself;Baumeister, Stillwell, & Heatherton, in press; Vangelisti, Daly, &Rudnick, 1991). Many episodes of guilt can thus be understood asresponses to disturbances or threats to interpersonal attachments

The belongingness hypothesis predicts that people shouldgenerally be at least as reluctant to break social bonds as theyare eager to form them in the first place. A variety of patternssupports the view that people try to preserve relationships andavoid ending them. In fact, Hazan and Shaver (1994a, p. 14)recently concluded that the tendency for human beings to re-spond with distress and protest to the end of a relationship isnearly universal, even across different cultures and across theage span.Some relationships are limited in time by external factors,and so these are logically the first place to look for evidence thatpeople show distress and resistance to breaking bonds. En-counter groups and training groups, for example, are often con-vened with the explicit understanding that the meetings will stopat a certain point in the future. Even so, it is a familiar observa-tion in the empirical literature (e.g., Egan, 1970; Lacoursiere,1980; Lieberman, Yalom, & Miles, 1973) that the members ofsuch groups resist the notion that the group will dissolve. Eventhough the group's purpose may have been fulfilled, the partici-pants want to hold on to the social bonds and relationships theyhave formed with each other. They promise individually andsometimes collectively to stay in touch with each other, theyplan for reunions, and they take other steps to ensure a continu-ity of future contacts. In actuality, only a small minority of theseenvisioned reunions or contacts take place, and so the wide-spread exercise of making them can be regarded as a symptomof resistance to the threatened dissolution (

The fact that people sometimes form attachments with for-mer rivals or opponents is itself a meaningful indicator of a gen-eral inclination to form bonds. Cognitive consistency pressuresand affective memories would militate against forming positivesocial bonds with people who have been rivals or opponents.Yet, as we have already noted, the Robbers Cave study (Sherifet al., 1961 /1988) showed that people could join and work to-gether with others who had been bitterly opposed very recently,and Wilder and Thompson (1980) showed that social contactcould overcome established intergroup prejudices and stereo-types. Orbell, van de Kragt, and Dawes (1988) likewise showedthat impulses toward forming positive attachments could over-come oppositional patterns. In their study using the prisoner'sdilemma game, having a discussion period led to decreasedcompetition and increased cooperation, as a result of either theformation of a group identity that joined the potential rivalstogether or explicit agreements to cooperate. Thus, belong-ingness motivations appear to be able to overcome some antag-onistic, competitive, or divisive tendencies

Festinger, Schachter, and Back (1950) found that mereproximity was a potent factor in relationship formation; peopleseemed to develop social bonds with each other simply becausethey lived near each other. Nahemow and Lawton (1975) repli-cated those findings and also showed that pairs of best friendswho differed by age or race were particularly likely to have livedvery close together, suggesting that extreme proximity may over-come tendencies to bond with similar others. Wilder andThompson (1980) showed that people seem to form favorableviews toward whomever they spend time with, even if these oth-ers are members of a previously disliked or stereotyped out-group. In their study, intergroup biases decreased as contactwith members of the out-groups increased (and as in-groupcontact decreased)

This preferential treatment of in-group members does notappear to be due to inferred self-interest or to issues of noveltyand uncertainty about the task (Brewer & Silver, 1978; Tajfel,1970; Tajfel & Billig, 1974). Inferred similarity of self to in-group members was a viable explanation for many of the earlyfindings, but Locksley, Ortiz, and Hepburn (1980) ruled thisout by showing that people show in-group favoritism even whenthey have been assigned to groups by a random lottery. Thus,patterns of in-group favoritism, such as sharing rewards andcategorizing others relative to the group, appeared quite readily,even in the absence of experiences designed to bond people tothe group emotionally or materially

we propose that the need to belong can, in principle, be directedtoward any other human being, and the loss of relationship withone person can to some extent be replaced by any other. Themain obstacle to such substitution is that formation of new re-lationships takes time, such as in the gradual accumulation ofintimacy and shared experience (see Sternberg, 1986, on thetime course of intimacy). Social contact with a long-term inti-mate would therefore provide some satisfactions, including asense of belonging, that would not be available in interactionswith strangers or new acquaintances.

The likely result of this evolutionary selection would be a setof internal mechanisms that guide individual human beingsinto social groups and lasting relationships. These mechanismswould presumably include a tendency to orient toward othermembers of the species, a tendency to experience affective dis-tress when deprived of social contact or relationships, and a ten-dency to feel pleasure or positive affect from social contact andrelatedness. These affective mechanisms would stimulate learn-ing by making positive social contact reinforcing and social de-privation punishing

Competition for limited resources could also provide a pow-erful stimulus to forming interpersonal connections. There areseveral potential, although debatable, advantages to forming agroup under conditions of scarcity. For example, groups mayshare resources and thus prevent any individual from starving(although sharing deprives other group members of some oftheir resources), and groups may appropriate resources fromnonmembers (although there is the problem of how to distrib-ute them in the group).

hildren who de-sired to stay together with adults (and who would resist beingleft alone) would be more likely to survive until their repro-ductive years than other children because they would be morelikely to receive care and food as well as protection. Cues thatconnote possible harm, such as illness, danger, nightfall, anddisaster, seem to increase the need to be with others (see alsoRofe, 1984), which again underscores the protective value ofgroup membership. Adults who formed attachments wouldbe more likely to reproduce than those who failed to formthem, and long-term relationships would increase thechances that the offspring would reach maturity and repro-duce in turn

At the interdisciplinary level, the belongingness hypothesismight help psychology recover from the challenge posed by cul-tural materialism. Cultural materialism (e.g., Harris, 1974,1978, 1979) is based on the assumption that human culture isshaped primarily by economic needs and opportunities, and sohistorical, anthropological, sociological, and other cultural pat-terns should mainly be analyzed with reference to economiccauses.

. The need to belong shouldtherefore be found to some degree in all humans in all cultures,although naturally one would expect there to be individualdifferences in strength and intensity, as well as cultural and in-dividual variations in how people express and satisfy the need.

we propose that a need to belong, that is, a needto form and maintain at least a minimum quantity of interper-sonal relationships, is innately prepared (and hence nearlyuniversal) among human beings.

In contrast, the belongingness hypothesiswould suggest that human culture is at least partly adapted toenable people to satisfy the psychological need to live together(along with economic needs, to be sure), thereby assigningsome fundamental causal power to psychological forces. Wesuggest that belongingness can be almost as compelling a needas food and that human culture is significantly conditioned bythe pressure to provide belongingness.

belongingness needs do not emergeuntil food, hunger, safety, and other basic needs are satisfied, butthey take precedence over esteem and self-actualization.

Interac-tions with a constantly changing sequence of partners will beless satisfactory than repeated interactions with the sameperson (s), and relatedness without frequent contact will also beunsatisfactory.

the belongingness hypothesis is that human be-ings have a pervasive drive to form and maintain at least a min-imum quantity of lasting, positive, and significant interpersonalrelationships. Satisfying this drive involves two criteria: First,there is a need for frequent, affectively pleasant interactionswith a few other people, and, second, these interactions musttake place in the context of a temporally stable and enduringframework of affective concern for each other's welfare.

It is now the job of social workers to promote these sorts of relationships for low-income young people, so we can best support their economic success.

Another limitation of the overall dissertation work is the limited attention paid to the role of race. Although we know that the racial ethnic makeup of a young person is strongly associated with their chances to be upwardly mobile (Chetty et al., 2018), this work focused on the role of their income instead, only considering race as a matching variable in all propensity score matching. This is because the income-based achievement gap is growing more rapidly than the race-based achievement gap, suggesting that income may have a stronger association with economic upward mobility

This type of mentoring model has shown to provide a wide array of supports to young people who are traditionally harder to support through traditional mentoring programs, including those aging out of the foster care system and those involved in the juvenile justice system

By addressing the issue of low-income youth not having capitalmentors by stocking the pond and teaching young people to "fish", social workerscan greatly contribute to low-income young people's economic successthrough the provision of capitalmentors.

not wantingtotake any more of a teacher's time. These types of courses teach young people that they have every right to build a network of support, and should be motivated to do so by their own potential for success

Teach Them to FishFindings from this dissertation highlighted that (1) low-income youth were less likely to be mentored than their middle-income peers and (2) when mentored, low-income youth were not likely to have the kinds of mentors that can promote upward mobility. Because of this, young people may need to be taught how to cultivate the specific type of mentoring relationships, capitalmentors, which can promote mobility. One model of how to do this is an actual course on how to identify and seek out this particular type of mentor

Because the majority (57%) of young people met their capitalmentor through school, focused efforts should be made to create "mentor-rich environments" (Freedman, 1993, p. xxiv) in and around school. Social workers are in a prime position to take on this task, as social workers are already working in the school setting and have relationships with key potential mentors, including teachers and other school personnel. To "stock the pond," social workers should consider trainingteachers and school personnel toacknowledge their potential asa capitalmentor. This could include trainingteachers andschool personnelto recognize the power they have to connect young people to resources they do not have access to in their current social circles, and to proactivelyengage with these young people. School social workers should also advocate for institutional support of informal mentorship, including the creation of opportunities for one-on-one connections and rewarding teachers for prioritizing mentorship

The findings of the dissertation suggest that those who are interested in promoting economic mobility for low-income and other vulnerable youth should thus promote capitalmentoring relationships for these young people.

Low-income young people pursuing economic mobility may find themselves in situations that their core mentors and family members cannot help with and do not have experience with. These situations may include applying to college, pursuing financial aid for college, interviewing for a high-wage position and investing.Capitalmentors, who are more likely than other mentors to provide good advice, may help young people navigate these situations and help in to promoting upward mobility for low-income young people.

Capitalmentors, however, were more likely to provide bonding capital. Capitalmentors range from close members of the community (neighbors, friends' parents, etc.) to associates far outside the young person's inner-most group (teachers, employers, etc.). Youth described these mentors in ways that indicated they had boosted their relationships with common networks, including neighborhoods, friend groups, school, and work. Paired with the fact that capitalmentors are also more likely to provide bridging capital, this finding highlights the importance of network manipulation in the pursuit of social capital. Although core mentors may be promoting all kindsof psychosocial benefits in young people, they are not adapting, bolstering, and expanding young people's social network, like capitalmentors are. This seems to be a key piece to promoting mobility, as capitalmentors are providing social capital and are associated with upward mobility for low-income youth.

An unexpected finding was that capitalmentors provided both bridging and bonding capital. Previous research suggested that bonding capital would be likelier found in relationships with family,

The potentially promising finding from this dissertationis that although low-income youth were significantly less likely than their middle-income peers to report a capitalmentoring relationship, they were significantly likely to be upwardly mobile when they did. There is a type of mentor, the capitalmentor, whocan make a difference on economic upward mobility for those who need itmost.

The capitalrelationship is likely with someone from outside the family, and is not marked by feelings of closeness or frequent communication.Young people go to capitalmentors for sound advice. These relationships connected young people to new resources and bolstered young peoples'feelingsof connectedness to a common group.

in these data informal mentors were no more likely to promote upward mobility among youth living in areas of higher poverty than among those residing in other neighborhoods

Without this, I am unable to truly understand therelationship between neighborhood context and the informal mentor, and thus cannot truly test the mentor's ability to moderate neighborhood effects

This dissertation found that while both core and capital mentors provide various forms of support that is meaningful to young people, only capital mentors were associated with upward mobility for low-income youth

This study found that havingan informal mentor was associated with economic mobility for middle income youth. These mentors are one of many resources these young people have that may contribute tothese youth beingmore likely to be mobile than their low-income peers (Putnam, 2015; Mitnik et al., 2015). This suggests that mentors fit well into the profile of resources middle-income youth have that promote economic mobility in adulthood

Overall, this study found that some, but not all, mentors can promote upward mobility for low-income youth. Specifically, capital mentors, those from outside the family who provide social capital and informational support can promote economic mobility for those who are least likely to be mobile. This important finding acknowledges the potential impact of individual relationships in the promotion of individual economic mobility. This potentially promising finding is still, however, on the most-micro level of potential interventions for economic mobility, focusing on building blocks leading to mobility.

Informal mentorship was captured using the following retrospective question from Wave 3 of the AddHealth data: "Other than your parents or step-parents, has an adult made an important positive difference in your life at any time since you were 14 years old?" Based on this question, I created a binary indicator for mentorship coded 1 if the young person had an informal mentor and 0 if they did not. Respondents were then asked "How is this person related to you?", and given response options like "family,""teacher/counselor,""friend's parent,""neighbor,"and "religious leader.

Middle-income subsample 3,158

1. "Middle-income" is defined as anyone living in a household making two-thirds to double the median income (Pew Research Center, 2016). In 1994, the median income for a family of four was $46,757(US Bureau of Statistics, 1996). Thus, "middle-income" families would be those making between $30,860 and $93,514. Because I only have data available in $25,000 increments, I am defining middle-income families as those making between $25,000 and $100,000 a year in Wave 1.

Defining low-,middle-, and high-income groupsDue to the limitation in the data described above, all incomes had to be converted in to categorical responses, with the smallest possible category size of $25,000 dollars. This created five categories for all incomes:

Wave 1 income was collected as a continuous variable, with an average of $45,728, (N=15,351, SD=$51,616). Low-income respondents (with incomes below $25,000) had an average of $9,837 (N=3,049, SD=4,633). Wave 4 income was recorded as a categorical variable, however, where respondents indicated if they made under $5,000, between $5,000 and $10,000, between $10,000 and $15,000, etc. These categories were of different sizes, getting larger as the income grew larger. Therefore, in order to create comparable measures between Wave 1 and Wave 4, both incomes were converted to 5 groups, (1) household income of less than $25,000, (2) household income of $25,000 to $49,999, (3) household income of $50,000 to $74,000, (4) household income of $75,000 to $99,000, and (5) household income of over $100,000

stratum. This sampling method yielded a sample of 20,745 students in 7thto 12thgrade, with oversampling of some minority racialethnic groups, students with disabilities, and twins(Harris, 2018). Data were also collected from the parents of the in-home survey respondents, with an 85% success rate (Chen & Chantala, 2014).Wave 1 participants also reported their home address, which was then linked to a number of state-, county-, and Census tract-level variables from other sources. The present study used the school survey data, the in-home interview data, the parent survey data, and the data that was linked to state, county, and census-tracts, as described above. This study also used data from two subsequent waves of in-home interviews, specifically waves 3 and 4 (no new information relevant to the present study was collected in Wave 2). For each subsequent wave, AddHealth survey administrators recruited from the pool of Wave 1 respondents, no matter if they had responded to any wave since Wave 1. The present study used Wave 1 data for information about the youth’s socioeconomic status, social capital and other related variables. This wave collected from 1994 to 1995, when most respondents were between11 and 19 years old (n=20,745 youth) (Harris, 2013).This study also used information from the third wave of in-home interview data, namely all questions on informal mentoring. This wave wascollected in 2001 and 2002 when the youth (N=15,197) were 18 to 26 years old. The fourth wave of data was collected in 2008 and 2009, when the respondents were 25 to 33 years old (n=15,701). Data from the fourth wave wereused to calculate economic mobility, the key dependent variable for this study.

DataTo address these questions, this study used three wavesofthe restricted-use version of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (AddHealth). AddHealth is a multi-wave longitudinal, nationally representative study of youth who have been followed since adolescence through to adulthood. The AddHealth data were collected by sampling 80 high schools stratified across region, school type, urbanicity, ethnic mix, and school size during the 1994-1995 academic year. Fifty-two feeder schools(commonly middle schools whose students were assumed to go to these study high schools)were also sampled, resulting in a total of 132 sample schools. (Chen & Chantala, 2014, Harris, 2013). When sample high schools had grades 7 to 12, feeder schools were not recruited, as the lower grades served the role of feeding in younger students (Chen, 2014). Seventy nine percent of schools approached agreed to be in the study (Chen & Chantala, 2014). An in-school survey was then administered to over 90,000 students from these 132 schools. This survey was given during a single day within a 45-to 60-minute class period (Chen & Chantala, 2014). Subsequent recruitment for in-home interviews was done by stratifying students in each school by grade and sex and then randomly choosing 17 students from each

Figure 1: Potential Ways MentorsCanPromote Mobility

The "multiplier effect," from the mobility literature, posits that each step taken towards growing your social network or pursuing upward mobility brings more opportunities towardsthe same goal.

The third function mentors play in promoting upward mobility for young people is the direct effect the provision of social capital (both bridging and bonding capital) has on building blocks of mobility(Ellwood et al., 2016). Bonding capital from a mentor who is also a teacher could foster feelings of school connectedness, which has been demonstrated to lead to academic engagement and ultimately, educational attainment (Ashtiani & Feliciano, 2018; Li, Lerner, & Lerner, 2010). An employer could have a similar effect by providing bonding capital. If a young person feels connected to the workplace or mission of the work place through their mentoring relationships with their employer, they are likely to have higherjob satisfaction and more opportunities for promotion (Ghosh &Reio 2013). Bridging capital can also have a direct effect on key links in the chain. Studies have shown that bridging mentors (commonly teachers and school personnel) were likely to promote educational attainment and employment

Those who report feeling emotionally supported have higher rates of academic competence (Sterrett, Jones, Mckee, & Kincaid, 2011) and strong academic outcomes (Wentzel, Russell & Baker, 2016). Additionally, adults who have achieved upward mobility are more likely to report instrumentally supportive relationships than those who were not mobile (Chan, 2017). Clearly, social support has a direct influence on someof thebuilding blocks of mobility

Social capital gives attention to larger social contexts (e.g., churches, schools, neighborhoods) as important aspects of one's social life. Those who study social support thus credit things like civic engagement and school involvement as important actions supporting social capital. Social support, conversely, focuses almost exclusively on relationships between two individuals.

They proposed 4 main domains of a socially supportive relationship: directive guidance, non-directive support, tangible assistance and positive social interaction. Over time, these have evolvedinto (1) informational support, or advice giving, as directive guidance, (2) emotional support or companionship as non-directive support, (3) instrumental support as tangible assistance, and (4) positive social interaction (i.e., comradery, friendship) (Gottlieb & Bergen, 2010). These are generally the categories used in studies on both mentoring and mobility

social support are part of what a mentor has to offer: "A mentoring relationship is where an adult provides ongoing guidance, instruction, and encouragement aimed at developing the competence and character of a protégé. (Rhodes, 2002)" and"A mentor is someone 1) that you could count on to be there for you, 2) that he or she believes in and care deeply about you, 3) that he or she inspires you to do your best and (4) that knowing him or her has really influenced what you do and the choices you make" (Rhodes, Contreras & Mangelsdorf, 1994 from Barrera & Bonds, 2005)

Social support isbroadly defined as “a flow of emotional concern, instrumental aid, information, and/or appraisal between people” (House, 1981, p. 26). It is a group of resources gained through social relationships that leads to a feeling of well-being (Harber et al., 2007) and feeling cared for (Cobb, 1976). Social support can also serve as a buffer against adverse outcomes (Cassel, 1974; Kerr & King, 2013). The concept of social support originally emerged from the health field, as a way to explain differences in health outcomes between those who were connected to others and those who were not

Putnam (2000) extended the terminology of weak and strong ties to bridging and bonding capital. Bonding capital is typically provided through an emotionally close and long-standing relationship, and strengthens the individual's connection to a common community. For example, if a youth identifies a teacher as their informal mentor, that teacher can build on their common social network (e.g., the school community) and have the youth feel more connected to and a part of the school as a whole.

Bridging capital, akin to weak ties, comes from relationships with acquaintances, and connects the individual to new resources, connections, and information they did not have access to befor

Strong ties, typically found in relationships with family and friends, are marked by frequent interactions and strong emotional bonds (Rademacher & Wang, 2014; Gaddis, 2012). Weak ties are more typical of relationships with acquaintances and tend to be less strong and based on less frequentinteractions. Although weak ties do not provide deep emotional bonds, they foster connections across groups and build large,sparsely connected networks

Because of persistent economic segregation in this country, low-income young people may only have access to those who are in similar economic circumstances as themselves (Albright & Hurd, 2017). Additionally, adolescents tend to only have access to social capital garnered through their relationships with their parents, parents' network, neighbors, and teachers (White & Glick, 2000). Low-income adolescents' access to social capital is thus restricted by their economic segregation, the homogeneity of their parents' network, and their limited access to other relationships(Putnam, 2015). Low-income youth have a clear disadvantage concerning the growth of social capital. An informal mentor, specifically one from outside the young person's community, thus, may play an important and unique role in expanding an adolescent's social capital by compensating for these limitations.

An individual's access to social capital, the total number of resources garnered through social relationships, is determined largely by their socioeconomic status and racial ethnic makeup

Social support is a category of resources provided through social relationshipsand is considered by many to be one important form of social capita

Social capital is defined as the total number of resources (e.g., connections, support) that people haveaccess to through their social relationships.

umulatively, the literature shows that informal mentors may be an important but scarce resource in promoting economic mobility for low-income youth, may differentially support economic mobility for middle-income youth, and that there may be important differences among mentoring relationships, some of which may better promote mobility than others.

compensate for the lack of other resources their peers have, such as expansive connected social networks.

A young person's neighborhood context is associated with their chance of being mentored and their chance of being economically mobile. Young people living in under-resourced neighborhoods are also unlikely to be upwardly mobile (Chetty & Hendren, 2016a; Chetty, & Hendren, 2016b; Chetty, Hendren, Kline & Saez, 2014b; Goldsmith, Britton, Reese, & Velez, 2017). Low-income children are more likely to live in neighborhoods with higher crime and drug use (Abelev, 2009). Young people from these neighborhoods are more likelytohave lower tests scores (McCullock & Joshi, 2001), drop out of high school, and be unemployed (Ainsworth, 2002). This neighborhood effect is cumulative: the more time spent in under

Mentoring relationships differ on how the mentor and mentee met, how often they see each other, how long they have known each other, how close the youth feels to the mentor, and what kinds of support the mentor offers the youth

young people from more advantaged homes and communities as more likely to have an informal mentor.

Black non-Hispanic youth and girls are most likely to be mentored (Bruce & Bridgeland, 2014) as are youth who have a two-parent home with educated parents (Erickson et al., 2009) and not on public assistance (McDonald & Lambert, 2014). Place matters, as having lived in safe neighborhoods (Miranda-Chan, Fruiht, Dubon, Wray-Lake, 2016) and neighborhoods withhigher rates of white, employed individuals not receiving public assistance and living above the poverty line (McDonald & Lambert, 2014) are all associated with a greater chance of reporting a mentor. A young person’s participation in hobbies, organizations, and religious services also leads to higher rates of informal mentorship (Thompson & Greeson, 2017; Schwartz, Chan, Rhodes, & Scales, 2013). Individual qualities such as prosocial behavior (Hagler, 2017), a secure attachment style (Zinn, Palmer, & Nam, 2017), and a likeable personality (Erickson et al., 2009) are associated with having a natural mentor, as does having more friends

Cumulatively, these studies suggest that the potential influence of informal mentors on mobility may be most pronounced for those youth who are facing a disadvantage of some kind (family structure, income, etc.) and/or are a racial ethnic minority. Concerning the focus of the present study, this literature would suggest that informal mentoring may be more strongly associated with upward mobility for low-income youth than for middle-or higher-income youth for whom informal mentoring is

In one study, a low-income child was twice as likely to graduate college when mentored. This is in contrast to previous literature that demonstrates consistent but small associations between informal mentoring and college completion for middle-income children (Reynolds & Parrish, 2018). This suggests that youth from low-income families benefit more from mentorship than those who may have a plethora of positiveresources in their life

For instance, much attention has been paid to informal mentoring and educational outcomes: mentored youth are more likely to feel connected to their school (Black, Grenard, Sussman, & Rohrbach, 2010), have better grades (Chang et al., 2010), attend college (DuBois & Silverthorn, 2005a; Reynolds & Parrish, 2017) and receive a bachelor’s degree (Miranda-Chan, Fruiht, Dubon, & Wray-Lake, 2016; Erickson, McDonald, Elder, 2009). Cumulatively, these studies, along with a 2018 meta-analysis (Van Dam et al.) suggest a strong and consistent relationship between having an informal mentor and positive educational outcomes.

Literature has established that informal mentoring is most commonly associated with psychosocial outcomes such as lower stress levels, higher life satisfaction, and lower rates of depression (DuBois & Silverthorn, 2005a; Chang et al., 2010; Munson & McMillen, 2009) and socioemotional outcomes, including improved social skills, perceived social support, and higher self-esteem (Van Dam et al., 2018; Miranda-Chan et al., 2016).These associations are strong and consistent across studies, suggesting that informal mentoring is positively correlated with positive psychosocial and socioemotional outcomes.

Informal mentors can provide support and role-modeling to these youth without serving as an unwelcomed authority figure, and ultimately influence the fundamental building blocks of mobility (Meltzer, Muir, & Craig, 2016). Previous research has linked informal mentorship toeducational attainment and employment (Erickson, McDonald, Elder, 2009; DuBois & Silverthorn, 2005a), and thusitmay act as a potential catalyst for mobility when used in this key stage of adolescence.

Informal mentoring relationships are also more prevalent than formal ones. One study found that 62% of youth had an informal mentoring relationship, compared to just 15% who reportedhaving a formal mentoring relationship(Bruce & Bridgeland, 2014). There are similar differences in prevalence when asking adults if they have mentored young people: 67% of those who reported mentoring someone in the past year did so informally, while only 31% did so through a formal program, (Oosthuizen, 2017). While coming from a low-income family is one of several risk factors associated withlower exposure toinformal mentors, it is clear that many of these youth are still able to identify caring adults in their lives

10the formal mentoring model, including the mismatching of adult-youth pairs (Spencer et al., 2017), trouble forming a meaningful connection (Freedman, 1993) and relationships ending early and unexpectedly

Formal mentoring involves a program or agency matching a young person to a mentor they usually do not know,based on like qualities

The root of this wide-ranging interest lies in part inWerner and Smith'sinfluentiallongitudinal study (2001), whichfolloweda cohort of high-risk children through adulthood. One of their many findings on what builds resilience in youth was the presence of a caring adult who serves as a mentor. From this initial finding, scholars interested in resilience, positive youth development, and health have all studied the potential power of informal mentoring (Hurd, Varner, & Rowley, 2013; Bowers et al, 2012, DuBois & Silverthorn, 2005a). It is important to note, however, that nostudy to date has directly examined informal mentoring and economic upward mobility as a desired outcome.

The role of informal mentors may be fulfilled by a variety of adults, including teachers, extended family members, coaches, neighbors, or other community members. Connections between youth and mentors may be of shorter or longer duration and may offer a range of supports, such as companionship, instrumental support, or deep emotional bonds

Informal mentoring relationships are naturally-occurring relationships between youth and non-parental adults (Sterrett, Jones, Mckee, & Kincaid, 2011) who care about the young person and to whom the young person can turn to for support

The final type of mobility program, as defined by Ellwood et al.(2016), is an effort that targets "one or several interrelated elements in the long chain of events, institutions, and outcomes that lead to mobility" (Ellwood et al., 2016, p. 5). Such programs focus on one or a few of the key building blocks typically neededfor an individual to be upwardly mobile. Examples of building blocks to mobilityare college enrollment, educational attainment, early employment, and asset accrual in adulthood. Informal mentoring has beendemonstrated to influence some of these building blocksfor mobility(Erickson, McDonald, Elder, 2009; DuBois & Silverthorn, 2005a) and thus fits in to Ellwood et al.'s conceptualization of the many ways we can work to promote economic mobility.

More micro-level programs engage individuals and families over time, with the aim of providing a comprehensive pathway to mobility. These tend to involve an assignedcase manager who works to find the right combination of resources that could help a particular individual or family, ranging from housing vouchers and educational loan programs to engaging with non-profits that provide interview training

On a regional level, partnerships among key stakeholders, such as community leaders, businesses, and local government, can develop to promotemobility in a particular area. Other types of programs focus on alleviating the effect of neighborhood poverty, by either addressing issues in the neighborhood itself, or providing opportunities for residents to access essentials (e.g., education, medical care, housing)outside the neighborhood.

Moving from the most macro-level downwards, the first level at which mobility interventions work is the recent call to combine big data sources, such as income, housing, and healthcare data, in hopesofprovidingtimely information on mobility and sparkingnew innovation. Another macro-level effort is that of economic or political changes, such as policies that promote individual asset accrual or federal grants to pursue higher education.

Informal mentoring fits on the mostmicro-level of a six-level scale of interventions that promote upward mobility, defined by Ellwood and his colleagues (2016). These levels are not always mutually-exclusive, as an interventionmay fit intomore than one of the levelspresented here.A figure representing the six levels of efforts to promote mobility can be found in Appendix Figure 1.

Informal mentoring is one small person-level intervention that can influence economic mobility by potentially increasing young people’s attainment of assets that serve as building blocks for economic mobility, including college enrollment,

Persistent immobility also disproves the idea of the U.S. being a land of equal opportunity. Since the term "the American Dream" was first coined in 1931, it has become a persistent cultural ethos, a wish list of sorts, with a consistent main tenet being the idea that each generation can achieve more than their parents (Samuel, 2012). Yet we know this tenet of the American Dream is no longer true: the chances that a child earnsmore than their parents has decreased in the past 40 years, especially for low-income families

he associations between childhood poverty andupward mobility are cumulative: each year of childhood spent in poverty lowers an individual's chances of being upwardly mobile, as they are less likely to be consistently employed or in school

Children who experienced any childhood poverty are less likely to be economically mobilethan their middle-income peers(Chetty et al., 2016c; Mitnik et al., 2015) and are more than five times likelier to remain poor in adulthood than to make it to the top income quintile

Even a child who spent just one year in poverty is less likely to have a high school diploma, a key step towards economic success

In 2016, 18% of American children were living in poverty, defined fora household of four as living with an annual income of less than $24,755(Semega, Fontenot & Kollar, 2017). Although this is just one snapshot in time, up to 39% of allAmerican children will experience povertyat some point during theirchildhood(Ratcliffe, 2015). Childhood poverty is linked to low educational attainment, socioemotional issues,and development delays. Poor families are likelier to be exposed to food insecurity, homeless, and unsafe neighborhoods. They are also likelier than their middle-income peers to have poorer health and access to health care

Bridging capital, which connectsa young personto new resources they did not have access to before, is linked to educational attainment and employment

3person's feelings of connectedness to an institution of group, in the workplace specifically,leads to more opportunities for promotion

Additionally, the social capital literature suggests that mentors may promote upward mobility in young people by providing bonding and bridging support.

Additionally, there may be important variations in the support mentors provide. The social support literature suggests that relationships providing instrumental, informational, and emotional support may promote economic mobility through a direct association between these types of social support and essential building blocks of mobility (e.g., educational attainment and employment opportunity)

Previousresearch has demonstrated that mentors fromoutside the family, who the young person feels close to, whom they haveknown the young person for a long time, and who sees them often are in the best position to promote positive change

One source of positive relationships are informal mentors, who are caring, non-parental adults whom the youth identify as providingsupport (Sykes, Gioviano, & Piquero, 2014). These mentors have already been associated with key building blocks to mobility, namely increased educational attainment (Miranda-Chan, Fruiht, Dubon, & Wray-Lake, 2016), workforce participation (DuBois & Silverthorn, 2005a), and asset accrual in young adulthood (Greeson, Usher, & Grinstein-Weiss, 2010)

Positive relationships with those in the community may lead to educational attainment and employment, essential building blocks economically mobile people typically have.

Among a number of promising new directions, recent evidence points to positive relationships with caring adultsduring adolescence as potentially promoting upwardmobility

There are over 13 million children and adolescents in poverty in the United States today.

In 2016, close to one-fifth of American children wereliving in poverty (Semega, Fontenot & Kollar, 2017). These millions of children are likely to remain poor throughout their lives, and are less likely to be upwardly mobile than their middle-income peers (Ratcliffe, 2015; Mitnik, Bryant, Weberb & Grusky, 2015).

Low-income youth, however, were less likely to have an informal mentor, and only 45% of those who were mentored had the type that could promote mobility.

Findings from this dissertation demonstrate that some, but not all, informal mentors can promote economic upward for low-income youth. Simply having a mentor did not promote mobility for low-income youth. In order to be upwardly mobile, they needed to have a "capital" mentor, i.e., someone who comes from outside their immediate social circle and connects them to other important relationships and resources. These are incontrast with "core" mentors, long-standing, important relationships from within the family that provide emotional support.

Although structural change is needed in order to redress economic immobility on a large scale, informal mentoring may be one small person-level intervention that can help promote mobility. Informal mentoring (positive relationships with caring non-parental adults), has already been associated with key building blocks to economic success, including educational attainment and early employment. This dissertation is the first study to examine if informal mentors can promote economic mobility for adolescents, asking (1) is informal mentorship associated with upward mobility? and (2) do some mentoring relationships promote upward mobility more than others?