The Effects of Youth Mentoring Programs: A Meta-analysis of Outcome Studies
Mentoring programs, which pair youth with caring, non-parental adults with the goal of promoting positive youth development, are an increasingly popular strategy for early intervention with at-risk youth. However, important questions remain about the extent to which these interventions improve youth outcomes. The present study involved a comprehensive meta-analysis of all outcome studies of intergenerational, one-on-one youth mentoring programs written in the English language between 1975 and 2017, using rigorous inclusion criteria designed to align with developmental theories of youth mentoring. Analysis of 70 mentoring outcome studies, with a sample size of 25,286 youth (average age of 12 years old), yielded a statistically significant effect of mentoring programs across all youth outcomes. The observed effect size fell within the medium/moderate range according to empirical guidelines derived from universal prevention programs for youth, and was consistent with past meta-analyses of youth mentoring. Moderation analyses indicated that programs serving a larger proportion of male youth, deploying a greater percentage of male mentors or mentors with a helping profession background, and requiring shorter meetings yielded larger effect sizes, as did evaluations that relied on questionnaires and youth self-report. Taken together, these findings provide some support for the efficacy of mentoring interventions, while also emphasizing the need to remain realistic about the modest impact of these programs as currently implemented, and highlighting opportunities for improving the quality and rigor of mentoring practices.
KeywordsMeta-analysis Youth mentoring Relational theory
This work was supported by funding from the MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Connected Learning and MENTOR: The National Mentoring Partnership.
E.B.R. led data management and analysis, wrote the first draft of the manuscript, and coordinated draft revisions; J.R. conceptualized and designed the study, oversaw study execution, and contributed to drafts of the manuscript; G.J.J.M.S. and N.C. consulted on study coding and conducted the statistical analyses; J.K. led the development of the outcome coding scheme; S.S. reviewed and contributed to the final draft of the manuscript; and S.B., L.Y.S., S.K., and S.H. conducted literature searches and then identified and coded relevant studies. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Data Sharing and Declaration
The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are not publicly available but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All research reported on in the manuscript was conducted in compliance with APA ethical principles. The study consisted of secondary analyses of de-identified data, and therefore did not require formal consent or ethics board approval.
- Aos, S., Lieb, R., Mayfield, M., Miller, M., & Pennucci, A. (2004). Benefits and costs of prevention and early intervention programs for youth. Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.Google Scholar
- Bogat, G. A., & Liang, B. (2005). Gender in mentoring relationships. In D. L. DuBois & M. J. Karcher (Eds.), Handbook of Youth Mentoring (pp. 205–217). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
- Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: parent-child attachment and healthy human development. Basic Books, USA.Google Scholar
- Cavell, T. A., & Elledge, L. C. (2013). Mentoring and prevention science. Handbook of youth mentoring, 29–43.Google Scholar
- Cavell, T. A., & Elledge, L. C. (2014). Mentoring and prevention science. In D. DuBois & M. Karcher (Eds.), Handbook of Youth Mentoring (2nd Edn, pp. 29–42). Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
- Cheung, A. C. K., & Slavin, R. E. (2015). How methodological features affect effect sizes in education. Best Evidence Encyclopedia. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University, 1–35.Google Scholar
- Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd edn). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Cummings, L. (2010). Evaluating the influence of participation in a diverse high school-based group mentoring program. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Georgia State University.Google Scholar
- DuBois, D., & Karcher, M. (2013). Youth mentoring in contemporary perspective. In DuBois & M. Karcher (Eds), The Handbook of Youth Mentoring (2nd edn). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
- DuBois, D. L., Portillo, N., Rhodes, J. E., Silverthorn, N., & Valentine, J. C. (2011). How effective are mentoring programs for youth? A systematic assessment of the evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 12(2), 57–91. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100611414806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Everhart, K. (2000). Promoting Resiliency in at-risk children through an integrated adult-child mentoring and character development program: an analysis of mentoring strategies with regard to outcomes. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of South Carolina.Google Scholar
- Jarjoura, G. R. Tanyu, M, Forbush, J., Herrera, C., & Keller, T. (2018). Evaluation of the Mentoring Enhancement Demonstration Program: Technical Report. American Institutes for Research Technical Report. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
- Gatto, M. (2006). The effects of a goal-oriented mentoring group on the self-efficacy of children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Adelphi University, Garden City, New York.Google Scholar
- Garringer, M., Kupersmidt, J., Rhodes, J., Stelter, R., & Tai, T. (2015). Elements of effective practice for mentoring (4th edn). Boston: MENTOR: The National Mentoring Partnership.Google Scholar
- Grossman, J. B., Chan, C. S., Schwartz, S. E. O., & Rhodes, J. E. (2012). The test of time in school-based mentoring: the role of relationship duration and re-matching on academic outcomes. American Journal of Community Psychology, 49(1-2), 43–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-011-9435-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Hedges, L., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical models for meta-analysis. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
- *Herrera, C., DuBois, D. L., & Grossman, J. B. (2013). The role of risk: mentoring experiences and outcomes for youth with varying risk profiles. New York, NY: MDRC.Google Scholar
- *Herrera, C. Kauh, T. J., Cooney, S. M., Grossman, J. B., & McMaken, J. (2008). High school students as mentors: findings from the big brothers big sisters school-based mentoring impact study. Report.Google Scholar
- Herrera, C., Sipe, C. L., & McClanahan, W. S. (2000). Mentoring school-age children: Relationship development in community-based and school-based programs. Philadelphia: Public/Private Ventures.Google Scholar
- Kanchewa, S. S., Yoviene, L. A., Schwartz, S. E. O., Herrera, C., & Rhodes, J. E. (2016). Relational experiences in school-based mentoring: the mediating role of rejection sensitivity. Youth & Society, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X16653534
- *Karcher, M. J., Davis, C., Powell, B. (2002). The effects of developmental mentoring on connectedness and academic achievement. The School Community Journal, 12(2), 35–50.Google Scholar
- Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
- Morrow-Howell, N., Jonson-Reid, M., McCrary, S., Lee, Y., & Spitznagel, E. (2009). Evaluation of Experience Corps: Student Reading Outcomes. St. Louis, Missouri: Center for Social Development: Washington University.Google Scholar
- National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools (2008). Quality assessment tool for quantitative studies. Hamilton: McMaster University. http://www.nccmt.ca/knowledge-repositories/search/14.
- Raposa, E. B., Ben‐Eliyahu, A., Olsho, L. E., & Rhodes, J. (2019). Birds of a feather: is matching based on shared interests and characteristics associated with longer youth mentoring relationships? Journal of Community Psychology. 1–13.Google Scholar
- Rhodes, J. E. (2005). A theoretical model of youth mentoring. In D. L. DuBois & M. J. Karcher (Eds.), Handbook of youth mentoring (pp. 30–43). Thousand Oakes: Sage Press.Google Scholar
- Rhodes, J. E., Reddy, R., Grossman, J. B., & Lee, J. M. (2002). Volunteer mentoring relationships with minority youth: an analysis of same- versus cross-race matches. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32(10), 2114–2133. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2002.tb02066.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Rogoff, B. (1978). Spot observation: an introduction and examination. Quarterly Newsletter of the Institute for Comparative Human Development, 2(2C), 21–26.Google Scholar
- Rosenthal, R. (1979). The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 639–641.Google Scholar
- Sutton, A. J., Duval, S., Tweedie, R., Abrams, K. R., & Jones, D. R. (2000). Empirical assessment of effect of publication bias on meta-analyses. BMJ, 320, 1575–1577.Google Scholar
- Tabachnik, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using Multivariate Statistics (6th edn). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
- *Taussig, H. N., & Culhane, S. E. (2010). Impact of a mentoring and skills group program on mental health outcomes for maltreated children in foster care. Archives of Pediatric & Adolescent Medicine, 164(8), 739–746.Google Scholar
- Thompson, R. B., Corsello, M., McReynolds, S., & Conklin-Powers, B. (2013). A longitudinal study of family socioeconomic status (SES) variables as predictors of socio-emotional resilience among mentored youth. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 21(4), 378–391. https://doi.org/10.1080/13611267.2013.855864.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Tolan, P., Henry, D., Schoeny, M., & Bass, A. (2008). Mentoring interventions to affect juvenile delinquency and associated problems. Chicago: The University of Illinois at Chicago.Google Scholar
- Van Dam, L., Smit, D., Wildschut, B., Branje, S. J. T., Rhodes, J. E., Assink, M., & Stams, G. J. (2017). Does natural mentoring matter: a multilevel meta-analysis on the association between natural mentoring and youth outcomes. American Journal of Community Psychology, 62, 203–220.Google Scholar