lessons learnt from the mentoring literature – a systematic ... - … · 2017. 10. 17. · simon...

CHARACTERIZING MENTORING PROGRAMS 1

Characterizing Mentoring Programs for Promoting Children and Young People’s

Wellbeing

Bélène Podmore, University College London

Peter Fonagy, University College London

Simon Munk, University College London

Author note

Bélène Podmore, Research Department of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology,

University College London.

Peter Fonagy, Research Department of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology,


Simon Munk, Research Department of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology,


Bélène Podmore is now at the Department of Health Services Research, London School of

Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.

Acknowledgements: The study received no external funding. The authors have

declared that they have no competing or potential conflicts of interest.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Peter Fonagy,

Research Department of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, University College

London, 1–19 Torrington Place, London WC1E 7HB, UK.

E-mail: [email protected]


Abstract

Mentoring programs are widely used to promote wellbeing in children and young people and

to prevent emotional and behavioral difficulties. There is a growing evidence base on

mentoring programs, and research is needed to review and synthesize the extant literature to

examine the characteristics of successful mentoring programs. In this study, a scoping review

adhering to best practice standards was conducted, and four academic databases were

searched for relevant literature. Data were extracted to characterize mentoring programs

along eight domains which were deemed to be most important in the current literature: target

group, design, recruitment, matching, training, the mentoring relationship, support, and

evaluation. Findings from the present review suggest that characteristics of successful

mentoring programs may include recruiting mentees with intermediate levels of difficulties,

providing ongoing training and support to mentors, matching mentors and mentees on

personality styles, fostering an effective mentor–mentee relationship, and routine outcome

monitoring to ensure continual evaluation.

Keywords: Mentoring, child, adolescent, youth, mental health, wellbeing


Mentoring programs have in recent years become a very popular way of seeking to

promote resilience and wellbeing in children and young people. In 2006, for example, there

were more than 5,000 mentoring programs in the United States alone (MENTOR/National

Mentoring Partnership, 2006).

Studies evaluating the effectiveness of mentoring programs have only recently

emerged in the academic literature (DuBois, Holloway, Valentine, & Cooper, 2002). This is

primarily because of the multidisciplinary and applied nature of mentoring, which has meant

that reports have been published predominantly in the grey literature and a significant

proportion have been produced internally by private foundations and other organizations.

While there is now a large body of academic literature on the effectiveness of

mentoring programs, there is a very limited literature on how to deliver effective mentoring

programs (DuBois, Portillo, Rhodes, Silverthorn, & Valentine, 2011). There are very few

experimental or observational studies that report the correlates of good outcomes. Even fewer

studies highlight what factors may be necessary to ensure delivery of a successful mentoring

program (Deutsch & Spencer, 2009; Sipe, 2002). None of the reviews previously undertaken

on features of programs moderating outcome has been systematic.

We undertook this review to bridge this gap in the evidence base and identify

characteristics associated with positive outcomes in terms of (a) the target groups of mentors

and mentees, (b) the design of mentoring programs and their settings, (c) the methods of

recruitment used, (d) the way mentors and mentees were matched, (e) the training provided

for mentors, (f) aspects of the mentor–mentee relationship that were associated with good

outcomes, and (g) the ways effective support could be provided to mentors, with a view to

making recommendations for future research and practice.


Method

Identification of Studies

Articles were retrieved by searching OVID databases (Medline, Embase, Cochrane

Library) and CINAHL Plus for any articles published in the period 1990–2014 that included

mentoring keywords in the title. Articles were also retrieved from grey literature databases

such as PsychExtra and Healthcare Management Information Consortium. Further databases

such as TRIP were also used. We searched for and combined with the Boolean operator “OR”

all relevant subject headings, using the “explosions” function where needed and keywords in

titles and abstracts for two concepts: “mentoring” and “program.”

Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria

The review strategy was informed by the realist review, a model of research synthesis

designed for working with complex social programs (Pawson, Greenhalgh, Harvey, &

Walshe, 2005). References were screened iteratively with increasing depth until a focused

cohort was obtained and reviewed in full. Each article was assessed for inclusion according to

the following criteria: (a) the article was published in the English language in a peer-reviewed

journal; b) the article discussed mentoring programs to improve positive youth development;

and (c) the article focused on programs related to mentoring children and young people up to

25 years of age.

Search Flow

The initial database search yielded 3,860 records; after duplicates were removed,

2400 records remained (see Figure 1). The titles were then screened for meeting the inclusion

criteria. In cases where this was not clear from the title, the abstract was reviewed. In cases

where it was still not clear from the abstract whether the article met the inclusion criteria, the


full-text article was reviewed. After screening, 17 papers were found to have described and

evaluated certain aspects of the delivery of a mentoring program (see Table 1).

The findings were then grouped together into the following eight domains based on

the most common components of a mentoring program: target group, program design and

setting, recruitment, matching, training, the mentoring relationship, support, and evaluation.

Out of the 17 papers identified. 13 were observational studies and 4 were randomized

controlled trials (see Table 2).

Results

Target Group

Mentees

There are different theories about who benefits the most from mentoring programs,

but there is limited evidence on this question. The general assumption is that the most

disadvantaged and/or at risk young people are especially likely to gain from mentoring

programs (Drexler, Borrmann, & Müller-Kohlenberg, 2011; Jekielek, Moore, & Hair, 2002).

For example, mentoring is considered most effective when directed toward young people

who have been identified as exhibiting behavioral difficulties such as delinquent behavior or

discipline problems at school (DuBois et al., 2011).

The most recent meta-analysis suggests that mentoring programs have a stronger

effect when they serve young people who are experiencing either individual (e.g., personal

predispositions in the child, such as genetic risk; Rhodes, 1994) and environmental risk (e.g.

family environment, school environment, extra familial sources of support) simultaneously,

or environmental risk alone (DuBois & Silverthorn, 2005b). Due to the relatively small

number of evaluations, it is not possible to say whether environmental as opposed to

individual risk, or vice versa, is the determining factor underlying likely responsiveness to

mentoring (DuBois et al., 2002).


Another theory is that young people experiencing intermediate levels of difficulties,

rather than those presenting with either severe difficulties or relatively mild problems, are

more likely to benefit from mentoring programs (DuBois & Karcher, 2013; Schwartz,

Rhodes, Chan, & Herrera, 2011).

Mentors

Mentors are recruited from a variety of settings. Most programs use adults from the

local community. Other programs use young adults who are more experienced and may have

more in common with the targeted young people. Recently, however there is growing

recognition that peers might be an untapped source of mentors. While the term “peer”

connotes “of the same age”, mentoring peers are generally at least 2 years older than the

mentee. For example in the Big Brothers Big Sisters school-based programs, mentors tend to

be at least two grades higher (Herrera, Grossman, Kauh, & McMaken, 2011).

Mentors themselves also benefit from mentoring programs. The benefits of mentoring

are thought to include increased self-reflection, increased self-awareness, and improved

interpersonal and communication skills (Herrera et al., 2011). However, little research has

been conducted on understanding the true benefit that mentoring brings to mentors.

Program Design and Setting

Consensus suggests that the geographical location of a mentoring program has a

significant impact on its effectiveness (Pryce, Niederkorn, Goins, & Reiland, 2011). This

may be because of the cultural contexts within which these programs are implemented

(Farruggia, Bullen, Solomon, Collins, & Dunphy, 2011).

Research in this field has focused on school-based mentoring models, and very little

research has been conducted on programs in other environments. Offering mentoring sessions

in school has been found to help students to direct positive feelings about the program toward

the school, improving their overall attitude to school (King, Vidourek, Davis, & McClellan,


2002). This is reinforced by the focus of such programs on attendance and attainment.

Mentoring in schools has its limitations, however; for example, a school setting requires the

program to operate within the confines of the academic calendar. As a result, the mentoring

relationships rarely persist outside the academic calendar and are often less intensive

(Karcher, 2008; Portwood, Ayers, Kinnison, Waris, & Wise, 2005).

Research is increasingly focusing on community-based mentoring programs as an

alternative channel for promoting positive development (Tebes et al., 2007). Community

programs have several characteristics that could make them more effective than school-based

programs, such as longer meetings and mentee–mentor matches of longer duration. Evidence

suggests these might be a viable alternative to school programs, as it has been found that

community-based mentors spend twice as much time with their mentees as school-based

mentors do (Herrera, Sipe, & McClanahan, 2000; Portwood et al., 2005). Given that

relationships of longer duration have yielded better results, one might expect bigger impacts

from community-based programs (Grossman & Johnson, 1999).

Engagement with all stakeholders throughout the process has a positive impact on the

success of the program (Larose, Cyrenne, Garceau, Brodeur, & Tarabulsy, 2010). For

example, involving parents from the start in program design and implementation is beneficial

to the overall success of the program. Certain programs have found that non-supportive

parents can sabotage the mentoring relationships, so it is imperative to engage with parents

from the start (King et al., 2002; Sipe, 2002; Spencer, 2007).

Recruitment

Recruiting mentors and mentees is challenging. Little research has been dedicated to

finding out how best to recruit mentors and mentees. Most of the evidence is based on

working with groups who are able to engage relatively easily, but very little evidence is

available on the process of how to engage so-called hard-to-reach young people—those who


are alienated from educational experiences or other services for children and young people,

activities, or constructive leisure pursuits.

There is general agreement in the literature that it is important to screen prospective

mentors to ensure that they are able to persist in a relationship of longer duration (Barnetz &

Feigin, 2012; Sipe, 2002). In a qualitative study of early ending matches with 31 mentors and

mentees in two community-based mentoring programs, abandonment, lack of interest, and

unfulfilled expectations were identified as the major themes that contributed to prematurely

ending matches. Short-term relationships are associated with negative experiences; thus, it is

imperative that mentors and mentees are both invested and interested in participating in the

program in the long term (Spencer, 2007).

This is why some programs do not rely on chance and prefer to choose mentors on the

basis of recommendations from teachers (DuBois, 2002). Research has suggested that certain

young people with specific backgrounds, for example a helping professional background, are

more likely to be reliable mentors (Bodin & Leifman, 2011; Grossman, Chan, Schwartz, &

Rhodes, 2012). Other programs recruit mentors from the community surrounding the school

(King et al., 2002).

Other more basic factors may encourage participation. When running recruitment

workshops, it has been found that financial reimbursement of mentors and parents for

transportation, providing catering during the workshop, and other basic forms of assistance

may ensure participation and exposure far more than any program content (Pryce et al.,

2011).

Matching

In the studies included in this review, evidence suggests that mentors and mentees

need to be matched appropriately and thoughtfully (DuBois et al., 2002; Schwartz, Rhodes,

Spencer, & Grossman, 2013). The thinking is that having more common ground between


mentors and mentees is likely to make relationships more sustainable. In some programs,

professionals operating the programs are given the responsibility of making the matches after

giving them the opportunity to get to know the available mentors (Barnetz & Feigin, 2012).

Different programs have matched mentors and mentees according to different

characteristics, such as race, gender, or interests. Many programs match according to gender

and ethnicity for practical reasons or due to liability issues. Early research looking at the

effects of cross-ethnicity matches found no empirical evidence for matching according to

ethnicity. In a meta-analysis of matching, race or ethnicity was in fact found to be a predictor

of less favorable effects within the best-fitting model (DuBois et al., 2011). Inter-ethnicity

matches have been shown to be as close and supportive as same-ethnicity matches (Herrera et

al., 2000). The available evidence suggests that optimal matching of mentors and mentees,

however, requires going beyond demographic characteristics, and a deeper and more nuanced

consideration of compatibility.

Increasingly, research suggests that matching mentors and mentees based on similar

interests is more important. There is evidence to suggest that mentors who share similar

interests to their mentee feel closer and more emotionally supportive of their mentee

compared with mentors who do not share similar interests (DuBois et al., 2011; Herrera et al.,

2000; Jekielek et al., 2002). In addition, the evidence suggests that the perception of

similarity tend to foster higher quality and longer term relationships between mentors and

mentees (Ensher & Murphy, 1997; Madia & Lutz, 2004). There are several strategies to

achieve this, for example, by matching based on interests that are most relevant to program

goals, such as career interests in the case of a work-based mentoring program (Rollin, Kaiser-

Ulrey, Potts, & Creason, 2003).


While matching practices have shown to have an impact on the effectiveness of

mentoring relationships, the evidence suggests they are not as critical as screening, training,

and supervision (Herrera et al., 2000).

Training

The general consensus is that it is important to train mentors prior to any activities

(Barnetz & Feigin, 2012; Deutsch & Spencer, 2009; DuBois, 2002; King et al., 2002). It has

been found that mentors who are more confident and knowledgeable tend to have greater

success (Parra, DuBois, Neville, Pugh-Lilly, & Povinelli, 2002).

It is also agreed that ongoing training is imperative to sustaining mentoring

relationships and ensure good-quality relationships (DuBois et al., 2002). It is noteworthy

that providing ongoing training once relationships have begun is not common in mentoring

programs (DuBois et al., 2002). In a qualitative study, lack of mentoring skills was identified

as a major contributing factor to the premature ending of mentoring relationships. Problems

identified were lack of mentee focus, unrealistic or developmentally inappropriate

expectations of the mentee, and low awareness of the mentor’s personal biases and how

cultural differences shape relationships (Spencer, 2007).

Mentors might benefit from training on how to encourage mentees to sustain interest

in the mentoring relationship (Pryce et al., 2011) and to encourage them. As trust builds

between the mentor and the mentee, mentors can then work more independently with their

mentees (Liang, Spencer, West, & Rappaport, 2013).

It has been suggested that it may be of benefit to train other program staff to help in

instances where the mentor’s capacities may falter based on inexperience, fatigue, or

confusion within the complex process of mentoring (Pryce et al., 2011).


The Mentoring Relationship

Effective and enduring mentoring is associated with higher quality social

relationships, greater academic achievement, school engagement, school adjustment, and

more positive views of the future (Rhodes, Spencer, Keller, Liang, & Noam, 2006).

To date, many researchers have attempted to identify the components of mentoring

relationships that are essential for a high-quality mentoring relationship. The main

components of mentoring relationships identified as essential pertain to the youth’s

interpersonal history (Keller & Pryce, 2012), social competence, and developmental stage,

the duration of the mentoring relationship (DuBois & Silverthorn, 2005b; Hurd &

Zimmerman, 2014; Jekielek et al., 2002), program practices that help establish and support

the mentoring relationships, and the youth’s family and surrounding community (DuBois et

al., 2011).

Approaches to the mentoring relationship

Researchers have found that different approaches to mentoring relationships may have

different effects on the success of the relationship. Two main different approaches have been

identified: the developmental approach and the prescriptive approach. In the developmental

approach, mentors initially devote their efforts to building a relationship with the mentee. The

mentor’s perception of the needs of the mentee varies over time. In the prescriptive approach,

the focus is on goals rather than the mentee’s subjective needs. According to this approach,

mentors require the mentee to take equal responsibility for maintaining the relationship.

Research has found that mentees in relationships with mentors who take a more

developmental approach are more satisfied with their relationship and feel closer to their

mentors (Deutsch & Spencer, 2009; Karcher & Nakkula, 2010). This is also true for mentees

whose mentors engage in social activities with them. Engaging youth is not only enjoyable


for the mentor; for the mentee, being given challenging tasks over which they feel a sense of

ownership can serve to promote positive development (Deutsch & Spencer, 2009).

It is also important to consider the type of mentoring relationships the program is

aiming to foster (Spencer, 2004). Research has focused primarily on “formal” mentoring

relationships, which are artificially put in place by a school or external agency. Recently,

however, it has been found that natural mentoring relationships—that is, relationships that are

formed authentically without the help of a school or external agency—may be more

important, as they tend to be relationships that last longer and occur more frequently (DuBois

& Silverthorn, 2005b; Zimmerman, Bingenheimer, & Behrendt, 2005). Existing evidence

suggests that natural mentoring relationships have positive benefits on a range of health-

related outcomes for the mentee (DuBois & Silverthorn, 2005b).We can therefore learn a lot

from examining natural mentoring relationships (DuBois & Silverthorn, 2005b)

Relationship duration

Research suggests that the duration of the mentoring relationship has a significant

impact on its effectiveness (DuBois & Silverthorn, 2005a; Grossman et al., 2012; Herrera et

al., 2011). An analysis of the Big Brothers Big Sisters of America mentoring program found

that beneficial effects were progressively greater as relationships persisted for longer periods

of time. By contrast, mentees in relationships that terminated in less than 3 months showed

declines in some areas (e.g. self-esteem) in comparison with the control group, where no

mentoring took place (Herrera et al., 2011). This evidence suggests that, while enduring

mentoring relationships bring additional benefits, short-lived relationships can actually be

harmful.

Our understanding of the relationship characteristics that are predictive of better

outcomes—such as frequency of contact, emotional closeness, and relationship longevity— is


largely based on qualitative research rather than empirical data. This is perhaps unsurprising

given the difficulties in rigorously assessing the quality of mentoring relationships.

Support for Mentors/Mentees

Support for mentors

The general consensus from the literature is that mentors need ongoing support

throughout the mentoring relationship. This is essential because programs in which mentors

quit prematurely or which provide only short-term mentoring (i.e., 6 months or shorter) have

been associated with negative outcomes (Karcher, 2008).

Structured recreational opportunities and involvement in community-based learning

opportunities seem to provide focus and motivation (Smith, 2007). In the initial stages,

supporting staff might involve providing structured experiences in the form of ice-breakers,

or small-group problem-solving activities during collaborative meetings with mentors and

mentees. The aim is to build some small achievements that develop a sense of mastery among

mentors (Liang et al., 2013).

Providing ongoing support also entails supervision of the mentoring relationships and

monitoring the fidelity of program implementation (DuBois, 2002). It is also an opportunity

to communicate guidelines and help manage mentors’ expectations (DuBois et al., 2002).

Support for mentees

Mentoring has traditionally involved one-to-one relationships, but in efforts to serve

more young people, agencies have developed several innovative approaches to mentoring

such as group mentoring. In the past, program organisersresisted group approaches due to the

risk of contagion among mentees with similar risk factors (Dishion, McCord, & Poulin,

1999). In addition, there are concerns that group mentoring will expose mentees to negative

experiences, such as exclusion from group interactions. The largest study of group mentoring

could not calculate an impact due to the small sample size. However, the authors did find that


mentees participating in group mentoring reported less closeness to mentors, and it seems,

therefore, that group programs may be more beneficial in improving peer relationships and

social skills (Herrera, Vang, & Gale, 2002).

Similarly, mentors cannot provide as much individual attention to individual young

people in a group setting, which may prevent or limit the development of mentor–mentee

relationships (Herrera et al., 2002). However, other authors have more recently argued that

group mentoring may be an effective strategy due to its influence on social skills and focus

on relationship building (Karcher, Kuperminc, Portwood, Sipe, & Taylor, 2006). It has also

has been suggested that group mentoring may constitute a way of reaching young people who

have not been reached by traditional programs owing to discomfort with meeting one-on-one

with their mentor. There is growing evidence that a combination of both group and traditional

approaches may mutually reinforce the mentoring relationship and act in a synergistic fashion

(Pryce, Silverthorn, Sanchez, & DuBois, 2010).

Some researchers have highlighted that it is important to host structured activities for

mentors and mentees to support the development of the mentoring relationship (DuBois,

2002; DuBois et al., 2002; Faith, Fiala, Cavell, & Hughes, 2011). Evidence suggests that

efforts to incorporate more structured teaching or advocacy activities into the work that

mentors do with mentees has a positive impact. Advocacy activities may include helping

young people secure a job and improve academically (DuBois et al., 2011).

Evaluation

Evaluating mentoring programs is important to capture the major findings and the lessons

learned. Many mentoring programs are not fully evaluated, and even when they are, findings

are often not described in detail. However, there is a consensus that evaluators should be

included in the planning stages of a mentoring program, as it is useful to incorporate

evaluative procedures into the core structure of programs themselves (King et al., 2002;


Scannapieco & Painter, 2013). Data should be collected and analyzed in an ongoing process

for continuous quality improvement (Parra et al., 2002; Scannapieco & Painter, 2013).

Research suggests that comparative tests of alternative program models or practices are likely

to be the most useful (DuBois et al., 2011; Pryce et al., 2010). Unfortunately, such

evaluations are currently rare.

Design of the evaluation studies varies, but all evaluations use some variation of

routine outcome monitoring (Coller & Kuo, 2014; Taussig, Culhane, Garrido, & Knudtson,

2012; Thomas, Lorenzetti, & Spragins, 2013). Unsurprisingly, measures used also vary

greatly. Some studies have used more straightforward measures such as academic

achievement and others used validated measures of competencies such as the 25-SF

Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory.

Discussion

This review presents the findings from the current best available academic literature

on what factors are key to delivering successful mentoring programs. Despite the limited

availability of academic literature on correlates of good outcomes in mentoring programs,

there is evidence that certain practices lead to such programs being more effective.

In terms of the target population, young people who present with more intermediate

levels of challenge should be targeted, as they are more likely to benefit from mentoring

programs (DuBois & Karcher, 2013). Peers are a potential source of mentors that should be

considered, but the evidence suggests that the peers should be older than the mentees

(Herrera et al., 2011). The setting of the mentoring program has an important impact on the

efficacy of the intervention, but it is unclear which setting is the most effective (Portwood et

al., 2005). Mentoring programs should include routine outcome monitoring for both mentors

and mentees (Coller & Kuo, 2014). This facilitates both continuous improvement of a

program and also comparison with other programs.


Screening prospective mentors and mentees is important for the effectiveness of the

mentoring program. The evidence suggests that recruiting mentors with specific backgrounds,

such as people with a helping background, increases the likelihood of enduring relationships.

It is also important to consider the basic factors that may encourage participation (Bodin &

Leifman, 2011). These include financial reimbursement, food, access, and transportation

(Pryce et al., 2011). Matching of mentors to mentees should also be carefully considered, as,

on the basis of the published literature, matching based on demographic characteristics

appears to have a limited impact on the effectiveness of the mentoring relationship. Matching

the basis of perceived similarity, in terms of personality or interests, seems to be important

(DuBois et al., 2011).

Mentoring programs need to consider how to promote effective mentoring

relationships. Effective mentors should have sufficient training and support to be able to

develop effective mentoring relationships. Evidence suggests that training mentors before

beginning any activities and providing ongoing training is essential to the delivery of an

effective mentoring program (DuBois, 2002). Experiential learning involving the mentor and

mentee can be an effective way of providing ongoing training. Evidence suggests that

mentors should take a developmental and not a prescriptive approach to the mentoring

relationship (Deutsch & Spencer, 2009). Effective mentoring relationships take time to

develop and last a significant amount of time. Mentors need ongoing support if they are to

build effective and safe relationships with their mentees. It is important to host structured

activities for mentors and mentees to support the development of the relationship (Faith et al.,

2011). Programs should make use of both one- to-one and group activities, as they promote

different competencies.

There are limitations to this review; most studies included are observational studies

and thus present hypotheses only about the characteristics of effective mentoring programs.


This is often because the focus of an evaluation study is on the effectiveness of mentoring

rather than the effectiveness of the delivery of the program. Within each component of a

program, existing approaches that have been observed to be correlates of good outcomes need

to be tested in a systematic way. As such, there is a need for more randomized control trials

to test competing delivery approaches in order to understand which program approaches are

the most effective.

Due to the lack of strong evidence concerning the effective components of mentoring

programs, there may be lessons that can be learned from other bodies of literature around

how to deliver programs to children and adolescents to promote their mental wellbeing.

Mentoring is believed to be one of the most important methods of encouraging positive youth

development (Maslow & Chung, 2013; Theokas & Lerner, 2006). As such, perhaps the

lessons from the literature on programs promoting positive youth development could also be

examined to learn what program practices are effective. The literature around how best to

promote positive youth development is more extensive than that concerning mentoring

programs.

Conclusion

This study presents the results of a literature search pertaining to the delivery of

mentoring programs to children and adolescents to promote mental wellbeing. The review

revealed that there are lessons to be drawn from the mentoring literature despite the academic

literature on what makes a mentoring program effective being limited. These lessons may

include recruiting mentees with intermediate levels of difficulties, providing ongoing training

and support to mentors, matching mentors and mentees on personality styles, fostering an

effective mentor–mentee relationship, and routine outcome monitoring to ensure continual

evaluation. However, further research needs to be conducted to compare different variations

of practices in mentoring programs, to establish which practices are the most effective.


Mentoring program providers should also consider disseminating the lessons they have

learned from their experience of delivering a mentoring program via publications in the

academic literature, as this would add valuable knowledge to the understanding of what

impact mentoring programs can have on children and adolescents. Mentoring providers

should also consider examining the positive youth development literature, which is more

extensive, as it would be useful to understand mentoring programs in the context of positive

youth development.


References

Barnetz, Z., & Feigin, R. (2012). “We didn’t have to talk”: Adolescent perception of mentor–

mentee relationships in an evaluation study of a mentoring program for adolescents

with juvenile diabetes. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 29, 463-483. doi:

10.1007/s10560-012-0273-1

Bodin, M., & Leifman, H. (2011). A randomized effectiveness trial of an adult-to-youth

mentoring program in Sweden. Addiction Research & Theory, 19, 438-447. doi:

10.3109/16066359.2011.562620

Coller, R. J., & Kuo, A. A. (2014). Youth development through mentorship: a Los Angeles

school-based mentorship program among Latino children. Journal of Community

Health, 39, 316-321. doi: 10.1007/s10900-013-9762-1

Deutsch, N. L., & Spencer, R. (2009). Capturing the magic: Assessing the quality of youth

mentoring relationships. New Directions for Youth Development, 2009, 47-70. doi:

10.1002/yd.296

Dishion, T. J., McCord, J., & Poulin, F. (1999). When interventions harm. Peer groups and

problem behavior. American Psychologist, 54, 755-764.

Drexler, S., Borrmann, B., & Müller-Kohlenberg, H. (2011). Learning life skills

strengthening basic competencies and health-related quality of life of socially

disadvantaged elementary school children through the mentoring program "Balu und

Du" ("Baloo and you"). Journal of Public Health, 20, 141-149. doi: 10.1007/s10389-

011-0458-7

DuBois, D. (2002). Life imitates (and informs) meta-analysis: A participatory approach to

increasing understanding of effective youth mentoring practices. Journal of

Prevention and Intervention in the Community, 24, 3-15. doi:

10.1300/J005v24n02_02


DuBois, D., & Karcher, M. J. (2013). Handbook of youth mentoring (2 ed.). Thousand Oaks,

CA: SAGE Publications.

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.

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, 57-91. doi:

10.1177/1529100611414806

DuBois, D. L., & Silverthorn, N. (2005a). Characteristics of natural mentoring relationships

and adolescent adjustment: Evidence from a national study. Journal of Primary

Prevention, 26, 69-92. doi: 10.1007/s10935-005-1832-4

DuBois, D. L., & Silverthorn, N. (2005b). Natural mentoring relationships and adolescent

health: evidence from a national study. American Journal of Public Health, 95, 518-

524. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2003.031476

Ensher, E. A., & Murphy, S. E. (1997). Effects of race, gender, perceived similarity, and

contact on mentor relationships. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50, 460-481. doi:

10.1006/jvbe.1996.1547

Faith, M. A., Fiala, S. E., Cavell, T. A., & Hughes, J. N. (2011). Mentoring highly aggressive

children: Pre-post changes in mentors' attitudes, personality, and attachment

tendencies. Journal of Primary Prevention, 32, 253-270. doi: 10.1007/s10935-011-

0254-8

Farruggia, S. P., Bullen, P., Solomon, F., Collins, E., & Dunphy, A. (2011). Examining the

cultural context of youth mentoring: A systematic review. Journal of Primary

Prevention, 32, 237-251. doi: 10.1007/s10935-011-0258-4


Grossman, J. B., Chan, C. S., Schwartz, S. E., & 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, 43-54. doi:

10.1007/s10464-011-9435-0

Grossman, J. B., & Johnson, A. (1999). Judging the effectiveness of mentoring programs. In

J. B. Grossman (Ed.), Contemporary issues in mentoring (pp. 24-47). Philadelphia,

PA: Public/Private Ventures.

Herrera, C., Grossman, J. B., Kauh, T. J., & McMaken, J. (2011). Mentoring in schools: An

impact study of big brothers big sisters school-based mentoring. Child Development,

82, 346-361. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01559.x

Herrera, C., Sipe, C. L., & McClanahan, W. (2000). Mentoring school-age children:

Relationship development in community-based and school-based programs

Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private Ventures.

Herrera, C., Vang, Z., & Gale, L. Y. (2002). Group mentoring: A study of mentoring groups

in three programs. Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private Ventures.

Hurd, N. M., & Zimmerman, M. A. (2014). An analysis of natural mentoring relationship

profiles and associations with mentees' mental health: Considering links via support

from important others. American Journal of Community Psychology, 53, 25-36. doi:

10.1007/s10464-013-9598-y

Jekielek, S., Moore, K. A., & Hair, E. C. (2002). Mentoring programs and youth

development: A synthesis. Washington, DC: Child Trends.

Karcher, M. J. (2008). The study of mentoring in the learning environment (SMILE): A

randomized evaluation of the effectiveness of school-based mentoring. Prevention

Science, 9, 99-113. doi: 10.1007/s11121-008-0083-z

Karcher, M. J., Kuperminc, G. P., Portwood, S. G., Sipe, C. L., & Taylor, A. S. (2006).


Mentoring programs: A framework to inform program development, research, and

evaluation. Journal of Community Psychology, 34, 709-725. doi: 10.1002/jcop.20125

Karcher, M. J., & Nakkula, M. J. (2010). Youth mentoring with a balanced focus, shared

purpose, and collaborative interactions. New Directions for Youth Development, 2010,

13-32. doi: 10.1002/yd.347

Keller, T. E., & Pryce, J. M. (2012). Different roles and different results: how activity

orientations correspond to relationship quality and student outcomes in school-based

mentoring. Journal of Primary Prevention, 33, 47-64. doi: 10.1007/s10935-012-0264-

1

King, K. A., Vidourek, R. A., Davis, B., & McClellan, W. (2002). Increasing self-esteem and

school connectedness through a multidimensional mentoring program. Journal of

School Health, 72, 294-299.

Larose, S., Cyrenne, D., Garceau, O., Brodeur, P., & Tarabulsy, G. M. (2010). The structure

of effective academic mentoring in late adolescence. New Directions for Youth

Development, 2010, 123-140. doi: 10.1002/yd.353

Liang, B., Spencer, R., West, J., & Rappaport, N. (2013). Expanding the reach of youth

mentoring: Partnering with youth for personal growth and social change. Journal of

Adolescence, 36, 257-267. doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2012.10.002

Madia, B. P., & Lutz, C. J. (2004). Perceived similarity, expectation-reality discrepancies,

and mentors' expressed intention to remain in big brothers/big sisters programs.

Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34, 598-623. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-

1816.2004.tb02562.x

Maslow, G. R., & Chung, R. J. (2013). Systematic review of positive youth development

programs for adolescents with chronic illness. Pediatrics, 131, e1605-1618. doi:

10.1542/peds.2012-1615


MENTOR/National Mentoring Partnership. (2006). Mentoring in America 2005: A snapshot

of the current state of mentoring. Alexandria, VA: Author.

Parra, G. B., DuBois, D. L., Neville, H. A., Pugh-Lilly, A. O., & Povinelli, N. (2002).

Mentoring relationships for youth: Investigation of a process-oriented model. Journal

of Community Psychology, 30, 367-388. doi: 10.1002/jcop.10016

Pawson, R., Greenhalgh, T., Harvey, G., & Walshe, K. (2005). Realist review—a new

method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions. Journal of

Health Services Research and Policy, 10 (Suppl 1), 21-34. doi:

10.1258/1355819054308530

Portwood, S. G., Ayers, P. M., Kinnison, K. E., Waris, R. G., & Wise, D. L. (2005).

YouthFriends: Outcomes from a school-based mentoring program. Journal of

Primary Prevention, 26, 129-188. doi: 10.1007/s10935-005-1975-3

Pryce, J., Niederkorn, A., Goins, M., & Reiland, M. (2011). The development of a youth

mentoring program in the south of India. International Social Work, 54, 51-65. doi:

10.1177/0020872810372559

Pryce, J. M., Silverthorn, N., Sanchez, B., & DuBois, D. L. (2010). GirlPOWER!

Strengthening mentoring relationships through a structured, gender-specific program.

New Directions for Youth Development, 2010, 89-105. doi: 10.1002/yd.351

Rhodes, J. E. (1994). Older and wiser: Mentoring relationships in childhood and adolescence.

Journal of Primary Prevention, 14, 187-196. doi: 10.1007/BF01324592

Rhodes, J. E., Spencer, R., Keller, T. E., Liang, B., & Noam, G. (2006). A model for the

influence of mentoring relationships on youth development. Journal of Community

Psychology, 34, 691-707. doi: 10.1002/jcop.20124

Rollin, S. A., Kaiser-Ulrey, C., Potts, I., & Creason, A. H. (2003). A school-based violence

prevention model for at-risk eighth grade youth. Psychology in the Schools, 40, 403-


416. doi: 10.1002/pits.10111

Scannapieco, M., & Painter, K. R. (2013). Barriers to implementing a mentoring program for

youth in foster care: Implications for practice and policy innovation. Child and

Adolescent Social Work Journal, 31, 163-180. doi: 10.1007/s10560-013-0315-3

Schwartz, S. E., Rhodes, J. E., Chan, C. S., & Herrera, C. (2011). The impact of school-based

mentoring on youths with different relational profiles. Developmental Psychology, 47,

450-462. doi: 10.1037/a0021379

Schwartz, S. E., Rhodes, J. E., Spencer, R., & Grossman, J. B. (2013). Youth initiated

mentoring: Investigating a new approach to working with vulnerable adolescents.

American Journal of Community Psychology, 52, 155-169. doi: 10.1007/s10464-013-

9585-3

Sipe, C. L. (2002). Mentoring programs for adolescents: A research summary. Journal of

Adolescent Health, 31, 251-260.

Smith, E. P. (2007). The role of afterschool settings in positive youth development. Journal

of Adolescent Health, 41, 219-220. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2007.06.010

Spencer, R. (2004). Studying relationships in psychotherapy: An untapped resource for youth

mentoring. New Directions for Youth Development, 2004, 31-43. doi: 10.1002/yd.89

Spencer, R. (2007). "It's not what I expected": A qualitative study of youth mentoring

relationship failures. Journal of Adolescent Research, 22, 331-354. doi:

10.1177/0743558407301915

Taussig, H. N., Culhane, S. E., Garrido, E., & Knudtson, M. D. (2012). RCT of a mentoring

and skills group program: placement and permanency outcomes for foster youth.

Pediatrics, 130, e33-39. doi: 10.1542/peds.2011-3447

Tebes, J. K., Feinn, R., Vanderploeg, J. J., Chinman, M. J., Shepard, J., Brabham, T., . . .

Connell, C. (2007). Impact of a positive youth development program in urban after-


school settings on the prevention of adolescent substance use. Journal of Adolescent

Health, 41, 239-247. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2007.02.016

Theokas, C., & Lerner, R. M. (2006). Promoting positive development in adolescence: The

role of ecological assets in families, schools, and neighborhoods. Applied

Developmental Science, 10, 61-74.

Thomas, R. E., Lorenzetti, D. L., & Spragins, W. (2013). Systematic review of mentoring to

prevent or reduce tobacco use by adolescents. Academic Pediatrics, 13, 300-307. doi:

10.1016/j.acap.2013.03.008

Zimmerman, M. A., Bingenheimer, J. B., & Behrendt, D. E. (2005). Natural mentoring

relationships. In D. L. DuBois & M. J. Karcher (Eds.), Handbook of youth mentoring.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.


Figure 1. Flow Diagram Showing the Identification of Studies in the Literature Search


Table 1

Characteristics referred to in each mentoring program study

Study Target

Group

Program design

and setting

Recruitment Matching Training The mentoring

relationship

Support Evaluation

Barnetz and Feigin (2012) – – + + + – + –

Bodin and Leifman (2011) + – + – – + – +

Coller and Kuo (2014) – – – – – – – +

Drexler et al. (2011) + + – – – – – –

DuBois and Silverthorn (2005a) + – – – – + – –

Faith et al. (2011) – – – – + – + –

Herrera et al. (2011) – + + – – + – –

Karcher (2008) + + – – – + + –

Keller and Pryce (2012) – – – – – + – –

King et al. (2002) + + + – + – – +

Larose et al. (2010) – + – – – + – –

Parra et al. (2002) – – – – + – + +

Portwood et al. (2005) – + – – – – – –

Pryce et al. (2010) – – – – + + + –

Scannapieco and Painter (2013) – – – – – – + +

Schwartz et al. (2011) + – – – – – – –

Schwartz et al. (2013) – – – + – – – –


Table 2

Supplementary information on papers reviewed

Study Aims Participants Primary Outcome Duration Evaluation

Design

Barnetz and

Feigin (2012)

To understand the nature of the

mentor–mentee relationship in helping

mentees cope with the challenges of

diabetes. Evaluation study of a

mentoring program for adolescents

with juvenile diabetes which aims to

create motivation.

Age: 10–17 years

Gender: boys/girls

Size of study (n): 24

Found three themes to be important:

main mentor-mentee relationship

patterns, the central importance of the

mentee’s observation of the mentor’s

behavior and the emotional effects of

the encounter with the mentor

3 years Observational

study (pre–post

comparison)

Bodin and

Leifman (2011)

Randomized effectiveness trial of an

adult-to-youth mentoring program

aimed to prevent substance use in low-

risk youth in Sweden.

Age: 14 years

Gender: mixed


Best practices such as using mentors

with a helping professional

background, an ongoing training of

mentors and close monitoring of the

mentoring relationship may be crucial

for successful program

implementation.

12 months Randomized

controlled trial

Coller and Kuo

(2014)

Evaluation study of a school-based

youth empowerment mentorship

program among Latino children.

Age: 10 years

Gender: mixed

Size of study: 122

After 5 years, the program became a

feasible and sustainable school-based

mentoring program providing long-

term relationships for low-income

Latino children.


study

(retrospective)

Drexler et al.

(2011)

Evaluation study of a mentoring

program aiming to strengthen basic

competencies and health-related

quality of life of elementary school

children.

Average age: 8 years

Gender: mixed


The mentoring program was able to

strengthen basic competencies and

their health-related quality of life and

prevent hazardous health

characteristics.

1 year Observational

study


DuBois and

Silverthorn

(2005a)

To determine the impact of natural

mentoring relationships on health-

related outcomes among older

adolescents and young adults.

Age: 18–26 years

Gender: mixed

Size of study: (n): 3,187

Mentoring relationships are not enough

to meet the needs of at-risk youths and

therefore should be incorporated into

more comprehensive interventions.

– Cross-sectional

survey

Faith et al. (2011) To determine whether mentoring

highly aggressive children was

associated with changes in mentor’s

attitudes, personality and attachment

tendencies.


Gender: mixed

Size of study: (n): 102

Results indicated that there was an

impact on the mentor’s self-reported

self-efficacy, openness, and

agreeableness.

12 months Observational

study (pre–post

comparison)

Herrera et al.

(2011)

To determine the impact of the Big

Brothers Big Sisters school-based

mentoring program.


Gender: mixed

Size of study (n): 1,139

Mentored youths performed better

academically but did not show

improvements in classroom effort, self-

worth and rates of problem behavior.

12 months Randomized

controlled study

Karcher (2008) Randomized evaluation of the

effectiveness of a school-based support

service.


Gender: mixed


Mentoring providers should provide

mentors to the youth most likely to

benefit and bolster program practices

that help to support and retain mentors.

1 year Randomized

controlled study

Keller and Pryce

(2012)

To determine the natural of joint

activities between mentors and

mentees and relationship quality.


Gender: mixed


Findings suggest effective mentoring

relationships are a hybrid between

friendly horizontal relationships and

the different vertical relationships.


study

King et al. (2002) Evaluation study of a mentoring

program, Healthy Kids, in fostering

self-esteem and positive school, peer

and family connections.


Gender: mixed


Significant improvements in self-

esteem post-test and significantly less

likely to be depressed or involved in

bullying or fighting.

5 months Observational

study (pre–post

comparison)

Larose et al.

(2010)

Evaluation of an academic mentoring

program for late adolescents.


Gender: mixed


Structured activities and directive

mentoring approaches see to lead to

more successful outcomes in more

structured programs.


study

Parra et al. (2002) To investigate the use of a process-

oriented model of mentoring.

Average age of mentees: 10 years

Gender: mixed


Mentor’s efficacy predicted greater

contact with mentees and more positive

experiences.


study


Portwood et al.

(2005)

Evaluation of YouthFriends, a school-

based mentoring program.

Age of mentees: 8–18 years

Gender: mixed


Significant difference (pre–post test)

for students receiving mentoring on

sense of school membership.


study (pre–post

comparison)

Pryce et al.

(2010)

Evaluation of a mentoring program for

early adolescent girls with a focus on

the mentoring relationship.

Average age of mentees: 8–18

years

Gender: Female


Can deliver mentoring activities that

are goal-oriented while simultaneously

youth-focused and playful.


study

Scannapieco and

Painter (2013)

Evaluation of a youth in foster care

mentoring pilot program.

Age of mentees: 14+ years

Gender: Mixed


Mentoring programs should be

encouraged for youth aging out of

foster care.


study (non-

experimental

survey)

Schwartz et al.

(2011)

A randomized study of Big Brothers

Big Sisters, a school-based mentoring

program looking at the association

between youth’s relationship profiles

and mentoring outcomes.


Gender: mixed


Mentoring was found to have different

effects depending on the youth’s initial

approach to relationships.

1 year Randomized

controlled study

Schwartz et al.

(2013)

Investigating youth initiated mentoring

as a new approach to mentoring.


Gender: mixed


Results revealed that relationships were

more likely to endure when youth

chose their mentors on their own.


study

lessons learnt from the mentoring literature – a systematic ... - … · 2017. 10. 17. · simon...

Documents