BEST PRACTICES IN YOUTH
MENTORING
PRESENTATION TO 5TH ANNUAL
“CONNECTIONS COUNT” SUMMIT
APRIL 8, 2010
Patricia North & Steven Wilson
Purdue University
Today’s Agenda





Definitions of Youth Mentoring
Review of Research Literature
Three Key Conclusions
Evidence-Based Best Practices
Conclusions/Implications
Definitions of Youth Mentoring
“Mentoring is a structured and trusting
relationship that brings young people
together with caring individuals who offer
guidance, support and encouragement
aimed at developing the competence and
character of the mentee.
A mentor is an adult who, along with
parents, provides a young person with
support, counsel, friendship, reinforcement
and constructive example.
Mentors are good listeners, people who
care, people who want to help young
people bring out strengths that are
already there.
A mentor is not a foster parent, therapist,
parole officer, or cool peer.”
Mentor/National Mentoring Partnership, 2010. Retrieved from
http://www.mentoring.org/mentors/about_mentoring/
Mentoring is “a relationship between an
older, more experienced adult and an
unrelated, younger protégé –a
relationship in which the adult provides
ongoing guidance, instruction, and
encouragement aimed at developing the
competence and character of the
protégé.”
Jean Rhodes, 2002, p. 3 from her book Stand by me: The risks and
rewards of mentoring today’s youth, Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Definitions of Youth Mentoring

1.
2.
3.
Most definitions of youth mentoring have three core
elements (see David Dubois and Michael J. Karcher, Handbook of Youth
Mentoring, 2005, p. 3-4):
The mentor is someone with greater experience or wisdom
than the mentee.
The mentor offers guidance or instruction that is intended
to facilitate the mentee’s growth and development.
There is an emotional bond between mentor and mentee,
a hallmark of which is a sense of trust.
Definitions of Youth Mentoring


Scholars do not all agree on single definition
Varied definitions raise questions:
 Must
the mentor be older? If so, by how much?
 Must the mentor be unrelated to mentee?
 Can a mentor be paid?
 How long must a relationship last for it to be considered
mentoring?
 What is the relationship between mentoring and
tutoring? (developmental/instrumental mentoring)
Types of Mentoring Relationships
Natural/Informal


Formal
Natural or informal mentoring relationships can (though do
not necessarily) evolve out of a variety of roles that adults
play in the lives of youth (e.g., extended family members,
neighbors, coaches, religious group leaders)
We will focus on more formal programs that are designed
to match mentees and mentors.

Such programs aim to foster relationships that benefit youth in the
same ways that natural mentoring relationships can benefit youth.
Research Literature

DuBois, D.L., Holloway, B.E., Valentine, J.C., &
Cooper, H. (2002). Effectiveness of mentoring
programs for youth: A meta-analytic review.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 30,
157-197.
Research Literature: The Method



Meta-analysis combines (quantitatively) results from many individual
studies on the same topic to see how similar/different findings are
across studies
Meta-analysis gives us an idea of the big picture: by combining
many studies, we see how much impact youth mentoring has on a
much larger scale (vs. just in single study)
Meta-analysis clarifies which aspects of mentoring programs
influence their impact –


e.g., comparing the impact of mentoring programs on different outcomes
(academic vs. social)
e.g., comparing programs that had clearly defined expectations for the
minimum level of mentor/mentee contact that should occur per week vs.
programs that did not set such expectations
Research Literature: The Method

DuBois analyzed evaluation studies of programs meeting the following criteria. To be included in the metaanalysis, a program must have involved:
1. mentoring in a one-on-one relationship; programs where mentoring occurred on a small group basis
(1mentor, 5 mentees) were not included
2. mentors who were older or more experienced than the mentees; peer tutoring programs were not
evaluated, but programs where older youth mentored younger children were included
3. mentors whose official job responsibility was not working professionally with the mentee
(e.g., not a social worker assigned to the youth)
4. mentees who, on average, were younger than 19 years old
5. assessment of program outcomes either by: (a) preprogram vs. post-program comparison of mentored
youth or (b) comparison of mentored youth with youth who did not receive mentoring
Research Literature: The Method

Based on these inclusion criteria, the meta-analysis
included:
 60
independent samples (from 55 published studies)
 Samples ranging in size from 40 to 1000+ youth
 8 of the 60 samples were from BBBS programs
Research Literature: The Method

Each study also was coded on multiple characteristics
divided into 6 categories:
1. report information (e.g., year)
2. evaluation methodology (e.g., type of research design)
3. program features (e.g., program goals, geographic location,
setting, compensation of mentors)
4. characteristics of youth (e.g., gender, at-risk status)
5. mentor-mentee relationships (e.g., frequency of contact)
6. assessment of outcomes (e.g., type of outcome, timing of
assessment)
Research Literature: The Method


DuBois developed a list of theory-based best practices based on
previous recommendations for establishing effective youth mentoring
programs.
Based on the meta-analysis, DuBois identified empirically-based best
practices. Two of these were not included on the theory-based list.
The others confirmed some of the theory-based practices.

Using both procedures, he identified a total of 12 best practices

He divided studies into those programs that


Included at least half of the best practices (6+ out of 12) vs.
programs that included fewer than half (5 or less of the 12).
Research Literature

Three Key Conclusions:
 Overall
impact of youth mentoring is modest
 Programs that incorporated best practices had greater
impact on youth
 Mentoring can have no impact or even negative impact
on youth
Conclusion 1: Overall of youth
mentoring impact is modest


“Based on available findings…youth mentoring
programs do indeed have significant capacity to
reproduce through more formal mechanisms the
mentoring relationship between youth and adults.”
HOWEVER, “Results further indicate…that it may be
most appropriate to expect the typical youth
participating in a mentoring program to receive
benefits that are quite modest in terms of absolute
magnitude.” The amount of impact is small when
compared to evaluations of other types of interventions
with youth (e.g., family counseling or social skills
training).
Conclusion 2: Some programs had
neutral impact to negative impact

Example: Did programs assess the fidelity of program
implementation? (i.e., did they assess whether key program
principles actually were being followed on an ongoing basis?)




15 programs did not describe any methods they used to assess the
fidelity of program implementation
When combined, these 15 programs had no positive impact on mentees’
academic, social, and/or emotional outcomes (pre vs. post-program, or
in comparison to youth who did not receive a mentor)
45 programs included some assessment of fidelity of program
implementation
These 45 programs had modest positive impact on mentees academic,
social, and/or emotional outcomes
Conclusion 3: Utilizing best practices
enhances program effectiveness



Just more than half (33) of the 60 programs
followed the majority (6+ of the12) of the best
practices
Programs that followed the majority of best
practices had modest positive impacts.
Programs that did not follow the majority had no
positive impact (i.e., neutral).
Evidence-Based Best Practices

Recruiting, Matching & Training Mentors
1) Programs should screen prospective mentors (e.g., background checks, inperson interviews, home visits and/or psychological testing)
2) Consider recruiting mentors (volunteers) with ‘helping’ backgrounds

Larger impact shown for mentors with helping backgrounds or from helping
professions (e.g., teachers, parents/caretakers)
3) Carefully match mentors/mentees based on a variety of factors (i.e., in
addition to considering gender/race, also consider interests, physical
limitations or other characteristics of potential match)
4) Utilize pre-match training to prepare mentors for relationship (e.g.,
instructor led, group or individual, utilized prepared materials, self study)
Evidence-Based Best Practices

Developing Mentoring Relationships
5)
Set expectations for frequency of contact and length of
relationship

Larger impact shown for programs that set expectations regarding
frequency of contact
6)
Plan for supervision of mentors during mentoring relationship (e.g.,
in-person meetings, telephone conversations, mail)
7)
Provide ongoing training for mentors (e.g., cover additional
training topics pertinent to youth)

Larger impact shown for programs that continued to train mentors
Evidence-Based Best Practices

Developing Mentoring Relationships (cont’d)
8) Develop support groups for mentors (e.g., allowing mentors to share
challenges and successes of mentoring relationships may prevent mentor
frustration/drop out)
9) Provide structured activities for mentor/mentees (e.g., Halloween party,
members from local college football team lead ‘training camp’)

Programs that offered activities resulted in larger impact
10) Ensure mechanisms for parental involvement; parents should be aware of
mentoring relationship and familiar with mentor/activities but not an
active part of mentor/mentee meetings

Programs that encouraged support or involvement from parents showed larger impact
Evidence-Based Best Practices

Evaluating Program Implementation & Impact
11)
Monitor program implementation to ensure
intended program practices are followed
 Programs
that monitored program implementation had
positive impact on youth
Evidence-Based Best Practices

Planning at the Program Level
12) Consider the setting (e.g. school-based, community-based)

Research suggests smaller impacts for school-based programs; perhaps due
to shorter periods of contact and/or shorter relationship lengths that result
from academic schedule (e.g., summer vacation)

For established programs, it may be useful to consider the unique characters
of a setting that are beneficial or challenging to fostering mentoring
relationships.


e.g., School-based programs can benefit from mentors and mentees being in the
presence of peers. This can provide opportunities for mentor to give positive
feedback to mentee and/or model behavior in front of peers.
At the community level, this may mean thinking about the mix of mentoring
types available to youth. Mostly community based? Mostly school based?
Where are the gaps?
Conclusions/Implications





Youth mentoring is not a panacea (culturally, we want to believe it works,
but that alone does not guarantee positive outcomes for youth)
There’s no “magic set” of evidence-based best practices (lists will evolve as
program evaluation research continues to grow)
As with all best practices, the application of these practices will vary
depending on program goals, participants, resources, etc.
Ongoing conversations between program providers and
prevention/evaluation researchers about best practices are crucial
Hopefully, the ideas about best practices presented here will promote
useful discussion throughout the summit and beyond