1

Mentoring

Mentoring programs have received extensive coverage during the past several decades as a 

preventive measure for at-risk youth. Mentoring is designed to offer such youths a protective 

factor to counter the risks they face in their daily lives (OJJDP 1998). Although the exact nature 

of the mentoring relationship varies from program to program and over time, it is generally 

defined as follows: 

A relationship over a prolonged period of time between two or more people where an older, caring, 

more experienced individual provides help to the younger person as [he or she] goes through life. 

(CSAP 2000, 2)

Mentoring as a form of prevention dates back to the late-19th century, when the Friendly 

Visiting campaign recruited hundreds of middle class women to work with poor and 

immigrant communities (Freedman 2008). Today, a well-known incarnation of mentoring is Big 

Brothers Big Sisters (BBBS), a program that began in 1904 when a court clerk in New York City 

began finding volunteers for boys coming through his courtroom. During the same period, a 

group of women began a similar movement to mentor girls, which began the Big Sisters 

movement. In 1997 the two groups joined, to form Big Brothers Big Sisters of America. Since 

their beginning, BBBS agencies have connected middle class adults with disadvantaged youths 

to provide them with socialization, guidance, and positive role models. BBBS has a network of 

nearly 400 agencies across the country and serves 250,000 children and adolescents annually. It 

is the largest mentoring organization in the United States.

Target Population

In addition to serving at-risk children living in high-poverty neighborhoods, some of today’s 

mentoring programs also concentrate on specific segments of the high-risk population—

including children of prisoners (Goode and Smith 2005), children in foster care (Ahrens et al. 

2008), abused and neglected youths, youths who have disabilities, pregnant and parenting 

adolescents, academically at-risk students, and adolescents involved in the juvenile justice 

system (Britner et al. 2006).

Mentoring programs have been supported by private and federal funds. Private entities such as 

BBBS agencies have been responsible for a large percentage of mentoring programs. Since 2001, 

federal legislation has provided major mentoring programs, including

• The Mentoring Children of Prisoners program

• The Safe and Drug-Free Schools Mentoring program for children at risk of educational 

failure, dropping out of school, or involvement in delinquent activities

• The Mentoring Initiative for System-Involved Youth, for youth in foster care and 

juvenile justice system (Fernandes 2008)

Several other federally funded mentoring programs also exist.
2

Theoretical Foundation

Nonparental adults play an important role in promoting healthy development for youth. For 

high-risk youths who have limited access to informal mentoring by positive role models, 

structured mentoring programs can play an important role in promoting healthy development. 

The goal of mentoring programs is to provide youth with positive adult contact and, thereby, 

reduce risk factors (e.g., early antisocial behavior, alienation, family management problems, 

lack of commitment to school) by enhancing protective factors (e.g., healthy beliefs, 

opportunities for involvement, and social and material reinforcement for appropriate behavior). 

According to the U.S. Department of Justice, mentors 

... can provide a youth with personal connectedness, supervision and guidance, skills training, career 

or cultural enrichment opportunities, a knowledge of spirituality and values, a sense of self-worth, 

and, perhaps most important, goals and hope for the future. (OJJDP 1998, 10)

Early research findings on the protective effects of close relationships with nonparental adults 

(Werner 1995) and the results of the BBBS mentoring program evaluation conducted by 

Public/Private Ventures that demonstrated the positive effects of nonparental adult 

relationships with high-risk youth (Tierney, Grossman, and Resch 1995) have formed the basis 

for the proliferation of mentoring programs now serving thousands of youths each year.

Mentoring Models 

There are various mentoring models in use today. Informal mentoring occurs whenever a youth 

has an ongoing relationship with an older person, (e.g., a teacher, coach, or family friend) who 

provides guidance to the young person. These informal mentoring relationships result from 

frequent, unstructured contacts with the adults. Informal mentoring has been an important 

force in the life of young people for centuries. Formal mentoring occurs when programs provide 

volunteer mentors for at-risk youth. The formal mentoring relationship between a youth and 

the volunteer is fostered through a structured program operated by community agencies, faithbased programs, schools, afterschool programs, and other youth-serving organizations. The 

organizations or agencies usually have a structured program that includes recruitment of youth 

and volunteers, training of volunteers, guidelines for matching volunteers and youth, and

ongoing monitoring and training. Once a volunteer is matched with a youth, the pair agrees to 

meet over time to engage in various activities.

Several models of formal mentoring have emerged during the past several decades. Communitybased mentoring (CBM), the traditional model, matches a carefully screened volunteer with an atrisk youth. The pair agrees to meet regularly, usually for at least 4 hours per month. In many 

cases, the mentoring relationship endures beyond a year. The pair engages in a variety of 

activities (e.g., sports, games, movies, visiting a library or museum) within the community. 

Because of a dramatic increase in other formal mentoring programs, CBM programs mow 

account for only about 50 percent of all structured mentoring programs (DuBois and Rhodes 

2006).

More recently, school-based mentoring (SBM) has become a popular alternative to CBM. SBM also 

involves the pairing of a young person with a positive role model. In the case of SBM, however, 

the role model may be an adult or an older student. This model is sometimes called site-based 

mentoring (DuBois and Rhodes 2006) because, unlike CBM, the mentor and mentee meet at a 
3

specific location rather than engage in activities in various places within the community. The 

SBM pair usually meets at school in a supervised setting for about 1 hour once a week during or 

after school. In a few cases, SBM is provided through a community agency, and the youth meets 

with his or her mentor at a community center. The mentoring activities tend to be concentrated 

on academics, along with social activities. The relationship usually lasts only about 9 months 

during 1 school year. In a few cases, the pair meets during the summer or even in the following 

school year (Herrera et al. 2007). Thus, youths in SBM programs meet with their mentors for 

considerably less time per month and for a shorter duration than youths in CBM programs do.

Some less popular and more recent mentoring models include group mentoring, wherein one 

mentor meets with a group of youths; e-mentoring, in which the two individuals communicate 

over the Internet; and peer mentoring, wherein students are used as mentors (DuBois and Rhodes 

2006).

Outcome Evidence

Since mentoring is one of the mostly commonly used preventive measure for at-risk youth, 

there has been ongoing concern about the extent of its effectiveness for preventing delinquent 

and other high-risk behaviors. Numerous evaluations of mentoring programs have been 

conducted, and several meta-analyses have attempted to summarize findings from these 

studies. A meta-analysis published in 2002 concluded, “[F]indings provide evidence of only a 

modest or small benefit of program participation for the average youth” (DuBois et al. 2002, 

157). More highly structured programs that included support for mentors yielded the strongest 

effects. A more recent meta-analysis of 39 mentoring programs found modest positive outcomes 

for delinquency and aggressive outcomes, while outcomes related to school and substance use 

were somewhat smaller (Tolan et al. 2008). The authors also note that there was great variation 

in outcomes across studies and that studies using random assignment had greater positive 

outcomes than other studies. A review of 18 evaluations of mentoring of juvenile offenders 

found variation in outcomes, with some studies demonstrating small positive effects on 

recidivism rates and some showing no effects. Again, mentoring that was combined with other 

supports such as weekly meetings showed slighting higher positive effects on reoffending.

Reviewers authoring these meta-analyses have attempted to determine whether moderators to 

positive outcomes exist and what they are. However, many studies, including recent ones, 

provide limited information on potential moderators of outcomes such as the criteria for 

selecting participants, use of other interventions in the study, support for mentors, key 

processes of mentoring interventions, and assessment of the quality or fidelity of the 

intervention. Even the length of the mentoring relationship is often not reported. Grossman and 

Rhodes (2002) analyzed the data from the national BBBS mentoring programs and found that 

the outcomes of mentoring varied with their duration. For those in matches that lasted for 3 

months or less, the youths experienced a decline in self-worth. However, youths engaged with a 

mentor for more than 12 months reported a significantly higher level of self-worth and 

scholastic competence. According to these researchers, the mentoring relationship could 

actually be harmful if it ends earlier than expected.

A review of three randomized trials of school-based mentoring was conducted recently to 

determine those aspects of the programs that contributed to positive outcomes (Wheeler, Keller, 

and DuBois 2010). The three studies were mentoring programs implemented by BBBS affiliates 
4

(Herrera et al. 2007); Communities in Schools of San Antonio, Texas (Karcher 2008); and 

grantees of the U.S. Department of Education’s Student Mentoring Program (Bernstein et al. 

2009). The review concluded that school-based mentoring

... can be modestly effective for improving selected outcomes (i.e., support from nonfamilial adults, 

peer support, perceptions of scholastic efficacy, school-related misconduct, absenteeism, and 

truancy). Program effects are not apparent, however, for academic achievement or other outcomes. 

(Wheeler, Keller, and DuBois 2010, 1)

Even among these three evaluations of school-based mentoring programs, great variation 

existed regarding the program characteristics and the information provided about the 

programs. The reviewers caution those implementing school-based mentoring programs to 

consider characteristics of the program, outcomes of interest, and the design of program 

evaluations. These same cautions extend to agencies implementing community-based and other 

mentoring models.

Given the consensus from studies that the effects of mentoring are limited to small to moderate 

outcomes, it is not surprising that researchers have suggested that the extensive support given 

to implementing mentoring programs for at-risk youth is based on unsubstantiated claims 

about these programs’ effectiveness (Rhodes and Lowe 2008).

Thoroughly documenting protocols for implementing mentoring programs, developing training 

and support programs for mentors, developing strategies for reducing attrition of volunteers, 

and designing rigorous studies to evaluate outcomes and moderators of outcomes are among 

the recommendations put forth by researchers of mentoring programs for at-risk youth.

References

Ahrens, Kym R., David Lane DuBois, Laura P. Richardson, Ming–Yu Fan, and Paula Lozano. 

2008. “Youth in Foster Care With Adult Mentors During Adolescence Have Improved 

Adult Outcomes.” Pediatrics 121(5):e246–52.

Bernstein, Lawrence, Catherine Dun Rappaport, Lauren Olsho, Dana Hunt, and Marjorie Levin. 

2009. Impact Evaluation of the U.S. Department of Education’s Student Mentoring Program: 

Final Report. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.

Britner, Preston A., Fabricio E. Balcazar, Elaine A. Blechman, Lynn Blinn–Pike, and Simon 

Larose. 2006. “Mentoring Special Youth Populations.” Journal of Community Psychology

34(6):747–63.

(CSAP) Center for Substance Abuse Prevention. 2000. Mentoring Initiatives: An Overview of 

Mentoring. Rockville, Md.: Center for Substance Abuse Prevention, Substance Abuse and 

Mental Health Services, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

DuBois, David Lane, Bruce E. Holloway, Jeffrey C. Valentine, and Harris M. Cooper. 2002. 

“Effectiveness of Mentoring Programs for Youth: A Meta-Analytic Review.” American 

Journal of Community Psychology 30(2):157–97.

DuBois, David Lane, and Jean E. Rhodes. 2006. “Introduction to the Special Issue: Youth 

Mentoring: Bridging Science With Practice.” Journal of Community Psychology 34(6):647–

55.

Fernandes, Adrienne L. 2008. Report to Congress: Vulnerable Youth: Federal Mentoring Programs 

and Issues. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service.
5

Freedman, Marc. 2008. The Kindness of Strangers: Adult Mentors, Urban Youth, and the New 

Volunteerism. San Francisco, Calif.: Jossey–Bass.

Goode, W. Wilson, and Thomas J. Smith. 2005. Building From the Ground Up: Creating Effective 

Programs to Mentor Children of Prisoners—The Amachi Models. Philadelphia, Pa.: 

Public/Private Ventures.

Grossman, Jean Baldwin, and Jean E. Rhodes. 2002. “The Test of Time: Predictors and Effects of 

Duration in Youth Mentoring Relationships.” American Journal of Community Psychology

30:199–219.

Herrera, Carla, Jean Baldwin Grossman, Tina J. Kauh, Amy F. Feldman, Jennifer McMaken, and 

Linda Z. Jucovy. 2007. Making a Difference in Schools: The Big Brothers Big Sisters SchoolBased Mentoring Impact Study. Philadelphia, Pa.: Public/Private Ventures.

Karcher, Michael J. 2008. “The Study of Mentoring in the Learning Environment (SMILE): A 

Randomized Evaluation of the Effectiveness of School-based Mentoring.” Prevention 

Science 9(2):99–113.

(OJJDP) Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 1998. Juvenile Mentoring Program 

1998: Report to Congress. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice 

Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Rhodes, Jean E., and Sarah Ryan Lowe. 2008. “Youth Mentoring and Resilience: Implications for 

Practice.” Child Care in Practice 14(1):9–17.

Tierney, Joseph P., Jean Baldwin Grossman, and Nancy L. Resch. 1995. Making a Difference: 

An Impact Study of Big Brothers/Big Sisters. Philadelphia, Pa.: Public/Private Ventures.

Tolan, Patrick H., David B. Henry, Michael Schoeny, and Arin Bass. 2008. “Campbell Report on 

Mentoring Interventions to Affect Juvenile Delinquency and Associated Problems.” In 

Campbell Systematic Reviews. Oslo, Norway: The Campbell Collaboration.

Werner, Emmy E. 1995. “Overcoming the Odds.” Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics 15:131–

36.

Wheeler, Marc E., Thomas E. Keller, and David Lane DuBois. 2010. “Review of Three Recent 

Randomized Trials of School-Based Mentoring.” Social Policy Report 24(3):1–27.

Last Updated: February 2011

Suggested Reference: Development Services Group, Inc. 2011. “Mentoring.” Literature Review. 

Washington, DC.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

http://www.ojjdp.gov/mpg/litreviews/Mentoring.pdf

Prepared by Development Services Group, Inc., under Contract #2010-MU-FX-K001.