Take Stock In Children mentor Jim Smith meets with junior Darin Redick at Pensacola High School Thursday December 10, 2015 in Pensacola, Florida. Smith has been a mentor to Redick for 5 years. (Michael Spooneybarger/ CREO)

Many studies have examined mentoring relationships and the effects of these programs on youth, their academic performance and behavioral development.

Nearly all of these studies report some positive outcomes associated with these programs, including those that report better outcomes with education and work, mental health, problem behavior and health (Rhodes and DuBois, 254).

But the effects tend to be small.

One report indicates that the reduction in risk for negative outcomes that could be attributed to a mentor relationship was less than 10 percent  (Rhodes and DuBois, 254).

Indeed, some academics have suggested that there is an erosion of benefits after the youth left the programs and the mentor relationships ended (Rhodes and DuBois, 255).

Much of the effectiveness depends on the strength of connection created between mentor and mentee, as well as the length of time the relationship endures (Rhodes and DuBois, 255). Compared to academic and workforce mentor training, results for youth mentoring tend to be much less significant with smaller effect sizes.  

Studies findings show mixed results

Eby et al. analyzed material published from 1985 to 2006, and ultimately focused on 112 studies that fit their five pre-determined eligibility criteria.

They found that mentoring was related to positive outcomes for behavioral, attitudinal, health-related, interpersonal, motivational and career measures (Eby et. al, 260).

The effects were small, but researchers did conclude that mentoring affected some outcomes more than others; for example, psychological stress and strain were less likely to see positive outcomes due to mentoring (Eby et. al, 263).

Of all types of mentoring — academic, social and workplace — mentoring youth had the smallest effect sizes. These results are likely due to most participants in youth mentoring programs are “at-risk” for behavior, social or academic problems and may face more challenges.

Nunez and other co-authors sought to evaluate how effective school-based mentoring was when it worked to increase self-regulated learning in middle-school students. Studies indicate that those habits, such as goal setting and self-monitoring, tend to engage students in more academic tasks (Nunez et. al, 12).

The results of the study suggested that the mentoring program was effective, but the impact varied depending on the measurement time, the programs efficacy and level of analysis.

For example, the biggest impact came after the program was implemented for nine months (Nunez et. al, 19).

Preparation of mentors key

Marshall, Lawrence and Peugh stress that the small effect size may be tied to ineffective program implementation, including ill-prepared mentors.

Their study focuses on college student mentors, who often have competing schedules, potential conflicts and may create detrimental effects through early relationship termination with mentees (Marshall, Lawrence and Peugh, 446).

Their findings suggest that training alone isn’t sufficient to provide quality mentorship opportunities.

A supportive agency or peer network is necessary to increase mentor retention and satisfaction.

Indeed, the findings suggested that having that network or peer support for college-aged mentors positively correlated with mentee self-related improvement (Marshall, Lawrence and Peugh, 455).

Other studies on college-aged mentors suggest that mentors need to feel competent academically, value parents and authority figures, and not feel overly depressed or autonomous in order to be effective for adolescents (Leyton-Armakan et. al, 915).

In another meta-analysis conducted by DuBois and team, researchers found that outcomes for at-risk youth vary due to program characteristics and implementation.

Their recommendations were to adhere to stricter guidelines and best practices to mitigate some of the small effect sizes. Work by Rhodes and DuBois identified some best practices at the model program “Across Ages.” In this program, all mentors are 50 or older; undergo 10 hours of pre-service training; are pre-matched to youth; commit for one year; meet and phone weekly with mentees; meet monthly for additional training or support; and focus on structured activities and goal setting.

This program has much lower volunteer attrition and volunteer matches last much longer than nationwide averages (DuBois and Rhodes, 257).

Amy Webber is a research associate at the Haas Center for Business Research and Economic Development at the University of West Florida.  

Citations:

DuBois, Davis and Bruce Holloway, Jeffrey Valentine, Harris Cooper. 2002. “Effectiveness of Mentoring Programs for Youth: A Meta-Analytic Review.” American Journal of Community Psychology 30 (2): 157-197.

Eby, Lillian et al. 2007. “Does mentoring matter? A multidisciplinary meta-analysis comparing mentored and non-mentored individuals.” Journal of Vocational Behavior 72: 254-267.

Leyton-Armakan, Jen and Edith Lawrence, Nancy Deutsch, Joanna Lee Williams and Angela Henneberger. 2012. “Effective Youth Mentors: The relationship between initial characteristics of college women mentors and mentee satisfaction and outcome.” Journal of Community Psychology 40 (8): 906-920.

Marshall, Jenna, Edith Lawrence and James Peugh. 2013. “College Women Mentoring Adolescent Girls: The Relationship between Mentor Peer Support and Mentee Outcomes.” Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning 21 (4): 444-462.

Nunez, Jose Carlos and Pedro Rosario, Guillermo Vallejo, Julio Antonio Gonzalez-Pienda. 2013. “A longitudinal assessment of the effectiveness of a school-based mentoring program in middle school.” Contemporary Educational Psychology 32: 11-21.

Rhodes, Jean and David DuBois. 2008. “Mentoring Relationships and Programs for Youth.” Current Directions in Psychological Science 17 (4): 254-258.