The author(s) shown below used Federal funding provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice to prepare the following resource: 

Document Title: Synthesis of OJJDP-sponsored Mentoring 

Research 

Author(s): David L. DuBois, Ph.D.; Fasika Alem, Ph.D.; 

Naida Silverthorn, Ph.D. 

Document Number: 252166 

Date Received: October 2018 

Award Number: 2016-MU-MU-K001 

This resource has not been published by the U.S. Department of 

Justice. This resource is being made publically available through the 

Office of Justice Programs’ National Criminal Justice Reference 

Service. 

Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and 

do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. 

Department of Justice. 
 

 

 

OJJDP Mentoring Research Synthesis - 1 

Synthesis of OJJDP-sponsored Mentoring Research 

David L. DuBois, PhD 

Fasika Alem, PhD 

Naida Silverthorn, PhD 

September 2018 

This synthesis was prepared by the National Mentoring Resource Center, for which Dr. DuBois serves as 

Chair of the Research Board. The Center is funded by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention (OJJDP) through a cooperative agreement with MENTOR: The National Mentoring 

Partnership (2016-MU-MU-K001). The viewpoints and conclusions represented in this report do not 

necessarily represent those of either OJJDP or MENTOR. Special thanks are extended to Jennifer Tyson, 

OJJDP Senior Social Science Analyst, for her assistance with securing the project reports that serve as the 

basis for this synthesis. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OJJDP Mentoring Research Synthesis - 2 

Introduction 

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) within the U.S. Department of 

Justice has a long history of providing significant programmatic funding to support mentoring initiatives 

for youth, dating back to funding of the Juvenile Mentoring Program in 1996. The OJJDP website 

provides the following overview: 

Youth mentoring - a consistent, prosocial relationship between an adult or older peer and one 

or more youth - can help support the positive development of youth. Mentoring has been shown to 

improve self-esteem, academic achievement, and peer relationships and reduce drug use, 

aggression, depressive symptoms, and delinquent acts. Many young people have access to mentors 

(both naturally occurring and program supported); however, many more do not. In addition, there 

continues to be documented variation in both the quality of mentoring and its impact on youth 

outcomes. 

OJJDP has long supported mentoring programs, awarding more than $834 million in grants to 

mentoring organizations from FY 2008 to FY 2017. OJJDP's mentoring work aims to both increase 

opportunities for youth to have mentors and improve the quality and impact of the mentoring they 

receive. Through its research, programmatic grants, training and technical assistance, and 

publications, OJJDP provides financial incentives and national leadership to support the delivery of 

high quality mentoring to a diverse and growing population of youth. The OJJDP National 

Mentoring Resource Center (NMRC) has been developed as a key research and practice resource 

for the mentoring field. 

As one of the primary supporters of youth mentoring at the federal level, OJJDP values 

partnerships with other federal agencies, mentoring programs, and research institutions as well as 

direct family and youth engagement in its mentoring initiatives. OJJDP has also established a 

Mentoring Subcommittee of the Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention to help advance mentoring collaboration across the federal government and develop 

deliverables in support of mentoring efforts. 

As noted in this overview, OJJDP also has awarded significant funding for research on youth 

mentoring. An overview of these funding initiatives is provided in Table 1 . The primary purpose of this 

report is to provide a summary and synthesis of the original research projects (where principal 

investigators generally collected and analyzed data about mentoring programs) supported through 

these initiatives and completed to-date (i.e., have a final report as of February 2018). An overview of 

these 24 projects is provided in Table 2.1 However, OJJDP has also supported research-related work and 

products through the National Mentoring Resource Center (NMRC). The NMRC was established in 2014 

by OJJDP and has been funded through a competitive solicitation process since that time.2 Its purpose is 

providing the mentoring field with comprehensive resources to advance the implementation of 

evidence- and research-based mentoring practices. As part of that mission, the NMRC produces a 

1 One project, conducted by Jarjoura et al. (2013), was a listening session rather than a traditional research study; 

it is therefore, not included in Table 2 or the remainder of the report. 

2 Under this solicitation, OJJDP has entered into a series of cooperative agreement with MENTOR: The National 

Mentoring Partnership. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

OJJDP Mentoring Research Synthesis - 3 

number of research-based products that advance understanding of effective mentoring practice. 

Consequently, those products are considered within this report. 

Coding of Information and Findings for the OJJDP-Funded Research Projects 

For purposes of facilitating extraction and later analysis of pertinent information from the final 

reports for each of the projects included in the synthesis, we developed a standardized coding guide. 

This guide drew from the CrimeSolutions scoring instrument and the Study Design and Implementation 

Assessment Device (DIAD; Valentine & Cooper, 2008). The major categories and subcategories of 

information coded for each project were as follows: 

 Report identification 

 Core mentoring program information 

o Background and setting 

o Program development 

o Program components and activities 

o Mentor-mentee relationships 

o Mentor-mentee matching 

o Training/orientation & supervision 

 Program enhancements (if any) under study 

 Description study participants and mentoring relationships 

o Mentors 

o Youths 

o Mentor-mentee relationships 

 Study methodology 

o Design 

o Measurement 

o Analyses 

o Validity threats (quantitative) and trustworthiness (qualitative) 

 Study findings 

o Implementation of program or enhancement 

 Levels and quality 

 Predictors 

 Associations with mentoring relationships or youth outcomes 

o Effects of mentoring programs or practices 

 Youth 

 Mentors 

 Mentoring relationships 

o Mentoring relationship characteristics 

 Predictors 

 Associations with youth outcomes 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
OJJDP Mentoring Research Synthesis - 4 

Table 1 

OJJDP Solicitations Associated with Mentoring Research Projects Included in this Synthesis 

Solicitation Title Purpose of Solicitation # Awards 

Total Funds 

Awarded 

OJJDP FY 2009 Mentoring Research Program To support the evaluation of the effectiveness of paid versus 

volunteer mentors within existing delinquency prevention 

mentoring programs using both a process and an outcome 

evaluation. 

1 $3,499,898 

OJJDP FY 2010 Mentoring Research Best 

Practices 

To fund research studies on juvenile mentoring that will inform the 

design and delivery of mentoring programs and further the 

understanding of evidence-based and effective practices in 

mentoring programs that serve at-risk youth. 

3 $2,716,108 

OJJDP FY 2010 Group Mentoring Research 

and Evaluation Program 

To support evaluation of the effectiveness, implementation, and 

impact of the following nontraditional mentoring programs 

implemented by local Boys and Clubs across the country: Project 

Learn, Gang Prevention Through Targeted Outreach, and SMART 

Leaders. 

1 $1,972,955 

OJJDP FY 2011 Research on Best Practices for 

Mentoring 

To support research studies that will inform the design and delivery 

of mentoring programs by enhancing what is understood about 

mentoring as a prevention strategy for youth who are at risk of 

involvement or already involved in the juvenile justice system. 

5 $2,218,963 

OJJDP FY 2012 Mentoring Best Practices 

Research 

To enhance what is understood about mentoring as a prevention 

strategy for youth who are at risk of involvement or already involved 

in the juvenile justice system. 

7 $2,862,200 

OJJDP-Library of Congress 2012 Contract: 

Evaluation of the Mentoring Enhancement 

Demonstration Program 

To support the evaluation of the Mentoring Enhancement 

Demonstration Program, a collaboration of qualified, established 

mentoring program sites in the implementation of advocacy and 

teaching roles for mentors via enhancement strategies that focus on 

matching youth and mentors, training for mentors, and ongoing 

mentor support. 

1 (nondisclosed 

total 

amount) 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
OJJDP Mentoring Research Synthesis - 5 

Solicitation Title Purpose of Solicitation # Awards 

Total Funds 

Awarded 

OJJDP FY 2012 Community-Based Violence 

Prevention FIRE Programa 

To support methodologically rigorous research and evaluation 

studies that inform what is understood about how communities can 

prevent and reduce violence involving youth, including the factors 

that may influence youth violence and youth violence prevention 

efforts, the effectiveness and cost efficiency of existing communitybased violence prevention programs, and identification and 

evaluation of new or emerging community-based violence 

prevention models. 

1 $500,000 

OJJDP FY 2013 Mentoring Best Practices 

Research: 

Category 1: Secondary Data Analysis and 

Long-Term Follow-up 

To support studies proposing secondary data-analysis of existing 

mentoring data or additional data collection to examine long-term 

outcomes of mentoring to enhance what is understood about 

mentoring as a prevention and intervention strategy for youth who 

are at risk of involvement or already involved in the juvenile justice 

system. 

5 $1,496,377 

OJJDP FY 2013 Mentoring Best Practices 

Research: 

Category 2: New Mentoring Research and 

Evaluations 

To support applicants to conduct new research studies and 

evaluations of mentoring programs to enhance what is understood 

about mentoring as a prevention and intervention strategy for youth 

who are at risk of involvement or already involved in the juvenile 

justice system. 

5 $2,474,398 

OJJDP FY 2014 High-Risk Youth Mentoring 

Research: 

Category 1: Secondary Data Analysis and 

Long-Term Follow-up 

To support research and evaluations to further examine how certain 

characteristics, components, and practices of mentoring programs 

can best support youth who are at particularly high risk for 

delinquency using secondary data-analysis of existing mentoring 

data or additional data collection to examine long-term outcomes of 

mentoring. 

2 $599,808 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
OJJDP Mentoring Research Synthesis - 6 

Solicitation Title Purpose of Solicitation # Awards 

Total Funds 

Awarded 

OJJDP FY 2014 High-Risk Youth Mentoring 

Research: 

Category 2: New Mentoring Research and 

Evaluation 

To support research and evaluations to further examine how certain 

characteristics, components, and practices of mentoring programs 

can best support youth who are at particularly high risk for 

delinquency using new research that is generalizable to additional 

jurisdictions with priority given to multi-site study samples with 

rigorous and scientifically valid methods to examine the quality of 

implementation, the implementation process, and outcomes. 

1 $998,194 

OJJDP FY 2014 Practitioner-Researcher 

Partnership Mentoring Children of 

Incarcerated Parents Demonstration Program 

Category 2: Evaluation 

To support a practitioner-researcher partnership to develop and 

evaluate new mentoring practices to serve the needs of youth 

whose parents are incarcerated 

To support a multi-site evaluation that utilizes random assignment of 

subjects and rigorous and scientifically valid methods to examine the 

quality of implementation, the implementation process, and 

outcomes. 

1 $2,499,597 

OJJDP FY 2016 Practitioner-Researcher 

Partnership in Cognitive Behavioral 

Mentoring Program 

Category 2: Evaluation 

To evaluate the design, implementation, and outcome of innovative 

mentoring approaches that incorporate practices informed by the 

research on cognitive behavioral interventions and techniques for 

high-risk youth, including youth in juvenile justice diversion 

programs, community-based alternatives, and/or on probation; 

detained and incarcerated youth; youth with mental health 

disorders; children/youth exposed to violence; youth who have been 

sexually exploited; tribal youth; or other routinely underserved, 

high-need populations. 

2 $2,497,272 

OJJDP FY 2017 Mentoring Research Partners 

Program 

The goal of the program is to advance the independent evaluation 

activities of OJJDP-funded mentoring programs in order to improve 

the implementation and impact of the mentoring services OJJDP 

supports. 

1 $149,999 

a

This solicitation/grant was not for mentoring research projects; however, one project funded through this solicitation involved a mentoring project 

and was included in this synthesis. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
OJJDP Mentoring Research Synthesis - 7 

Table 2 

OJJDP-sponsored Mentoring Research Projects Included in this Synthesis 

Final 

Report 

Authors & 

Project Title Awardee Funding Stream 

Award 

Amount 

Publication 

Year Aims 

Mentoring Program 

Name 

Insights into Recruiting Male Mentors: 

Motivations, Concerns and the Role of 

Payment 

Research Triangle Institute 

(RTI) 

OJJDP FY 09 

Mentoring Research 

Program 

$3,499,898 Hawkins et al. 

(2015) 

 Mentoring program practices 

 Implementation/process 

evaluation 

Big Brothers Big Sisters 

(BBBS)-Triangle NC 

Region 

Investigation of the Integration of 

Supports for Youth Thriving into a 

Community-Based*†

The Board of Trustees of 

the University of Illinois 

OJJDP FY 10 

Mentoring Research 

Best Practices 

$999,907 DuBois & 

Keller (2017) 

 Mentoring program 

effectiveness 

 Implementation/process 

evaluation 

10 participating Big 

Brothers Big Sisters of 

America (BBBSA) 

affiliates 

Project Research to Action in 

Mentoring 

Curators of the University 

of Missouri on Behalf of the 

University of Missouri-St. 

Louis 

OJJDP FY 10 

Mentoring Research 

Best Practices 

$716,301 Johnson 

(2014) 

 Mentoring program 

effectiveness 

Alliance for Families & 

Communities Affected 

by Incarceration (AFCAI) 

and Better Family Life 

(BFL) 

Researching the Referral Stage for 

Mentoring in Six (6) Juvenile Justice 

Settings 

National Mentoring 

Partnership, Inc. 

OJJDP FY 10 

Mentoring Research 

Best Practices 

$999,900 Miller et al. 

(2012) 

 Mentoring program practices 

 Mentoring program 

effectiveness 

Varied programs 

An Evaluation of Advocacy-Based 

Mentoring as a Treatment Intervention 

for Chronic Delinquency 

The University of Texas at 

San Antonio 

OJJDP FY 11 

Mentoring Research 

Best Practices 

$283,987 

Karcher & 

Johnson 

(2016) 

 Mentoring program 

effectiveness 

Youth Advocate 

Programs, Inc. (YAP) 

Investigation of the Effectiveness of a 

Developmental Mentoring Model as an 

Intervention / Prevention Strategy for 

Juveniles of Varying Levels of Risk 

Among Middle School Youth in Metro 

Louisville 

University of Louisville 

OJJDP FY 11 

Mentoring Research 

Best Practices 

$500,000 Sar & Sterrett 

(2014) 

 Mentoring program 

effectiveness Unnamed 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
OJJDP Mentoring Research Synthesis - 8 

Project Title Awardee Funding Stream 

Award 

Amount 

Final 

Report 

Authors & 

Publication 

Year Aims 

Mentoring Program 

Name 

Understanding the Role of Parent 

Engagement to Enhance Mentoring 

Outcomes 

The Research Foundation 

of SUNY, University at 

Albany 

OJJDP FY 11 

Mentoring Research 

Best Practices 

$497,095 Kaye & Smith 

(2014) 

 Mentoring program 

effectiveness BBBS - Capital Region 

Testing the Impact of Mentor Training 

and Peer Support on the Quality of 

Mentor-Mentee Relationships and 

Outcomes for At-Risk Youth 

James Madison University 

OJJDP FY 11 

Mentoring Research 

Best Practices 

$438,229 Peaslee & 

Teye (2015) 

 Mentoring program 

effectiveness 

 Mentoring relationships 

BBBS - Harrisonburg 

Rockingham County 

Improving Relationship Outcomes Using 

Additional Training and Enhanced 

Match Support for Mentors* 

Pacific Institute for 

Research & Evaluation 

(PIRE) 

OJJDP FY 11 

Mentoring Research 

Best Practices 

$499,652 Courser et al. 

(2014) 

 Mentoring program 

effectiveness 

 Implementation/process 

evaluation 

BBBS - Kentuckiana 

Future Selves, Motivational Capital, and 

Mentoring Toward College: Assessing 

the Impact of an Enhanced Mentoring 

Program for At-Risk Youth†

Big Brothers Big Sisters of 

Metro Atlanta 

OJJDP FY 12 

Mentoring Best 

Practices Research 

$466,673 

Brezina, 

Kuperminc, & 

Tekin (2016) 

 Mentoring program 

effectiveness BBBS - Metro Atlanta 

Evaluation of Big Brothers Big Sisters 

School-Based Mentoring Program 

Regents of the University of 

Minnesota 

OJJDP FY 12 

Mentoring Best 

Practices Research 

$239,978 Beckman et 

al. (2017) 

 Implementation/process 

evaluation 

BBBS - Greater Twin 

Cities 

Mentee Risks Status and Mentor 

Training as Predictors of Youth 

Outcomes†

Innovation Research and 

Training, Inc. 

OJJDP FY 12 

Mentoring Best 

Practices Research 

$499,994 

Kupersmidt, 

Stump, & 

Stelter (2017) 

 Mentoring program practices 

BBBSA in one of two 

studies and varied 

programs in the other 

study 

Horizons Expand as Relationships 

Evolve: An investigation of personality, 

social-cognitive, and relationship-based 

predictors of positive youth mentoring 

outcomes 

The Family Center 

OJJDP FY 12 

Mentoring Best 

Practices Research 

$396,484 Reich & Hudis 

(2017) 

 Mentoring program 

effectiveness 

Family Center's 

Mentoring Program 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
OJJDP Mentoring Research Synthesis - 9 

Project Title Awardee Funding Stream 

Award 

Amount 

Final 

Report 

Authors & 

Publication 

Year Aims 

Mentoring Program 

Name 

Prediction and prevention of premature 

closures of mentoring relationships: 

The study to analyze relationships 

(STAR Project)*†

Portland State University 

OJJDP FY 12 

Mentoring Best 

Practices Research 

$499,894 

Keller & 

Spencer 

(2017) 

 Mentoring relationships 

BBBSA (and 4 local 

BBBS agencies -

unidentified) 

Long-term Follow-up Effects of the Big 

Brothers Big Sisters Community-Based 

Mentoring Program 

The Board of Trustees of 

the University of Illinois 

OJJDP FY 13 

Mentoring Best 

Practices Research: 

Category 1: 

Secondary Data 

Analysis and LongTerm Follow-up 

$299,999 

DuBois, 

Herrera & 

Rivera (2018) 

 Mentoring program 

effectiveness 

BBBSA and 8 affiliates 

(Philadelphia, PA; 

Rochester, NY; 

Minneapolis, MN; 

Columbus, OH; Wichita, 

KS; Houston, TX; San 

Antonio, TX; and 

Phoenix, AZ) 

Extending a randomized trial of 

mentoring for youth in foster care: 

Evaluating intervention components, 

differential risk, and long-term effects 

on delinquency†

Portland State University 

OJJDP FY 13 

Mentoring Best 

Practices Research: 

Category 1: 

Secondary Data 

Analysis and LongTerm Follow-up 

$299,654 Blaskeslee & 

Keller (2018) 

 Mentoring program 

effectiveness My Life 

Assessing the Impact of Parental 

Characteristics, Parental Attitudes, and 

Parental Engagement on Mentoring 

Relationship Outcomes 

Pacific Institute for 

Research & Evaluation 

(PIRE) 

OJJDP FY 13 

Mentoring Best 

Practices Research: 

Category 2: New 

Mentoring Research 

and Evaluations 

$482,618 Courser et al. 

(2017) 

 Mentoring program 

effectiveness 

 Mentoring program practices 

 Mentoring relationships 

BBBS - Kentuckiana 

Several programs 

Mentoring Best Practices Research: 

Effectiveness of Juvenile Offender 

Mentoring Programs on Recidivism 

University of Cincinnati 

OJJDP FY 13 

Mentoring Best 

Practices Research: 

Category 2: New 

Mentoring Research 

and Evaluations 

$496,165 Duriez et al. 

(2017) 

 Mentoring program 

effectiveness 

(Youth Advocate 

Program; Catholic 

Charities; I Dream 

Academy; David's 

Challenge; Community 

for New Direction; 

Sunlight Village 

Network, Inc.) 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
OJJDP Mentoring Research Synthesis - 10 

Final 

Report 

Authors & 

Project Title Awardee Funding Stream 

Award 

Amount 

Publication 

Year Aims 

Mentoring Program 

Name 

OJJDP FY 13 

Twelve-Year Professional Youth 

Mentoring Program for High Risk Youth: 

Continuation of a Longitudinal 

Randomized Controlled Trial†

University of Washington 

Mentoring Best 

Practices Research: 

Category 2: New 

Mentoring Research 

$496,922 Eddy et al. 

(2015) 

 Mentoring program 

effectiveness 

 Mentoring relationships 

Friends of the Children 

(FOTC) 

and Evaluations 

OJJDP FY 14 HighRisk Youth 

Long-Term Impact of Mentoring on 

Juvenile Offender Recidivism and 

Prosocial Outcome 

Baylor College of Medicine 

Mentoring Research: 

Category 1: 

Secondary Data 

Analysis and LongTerm Follow-up 

$299,808 

Hanten, 

Schmidt, & 

Duron (2017) 

 Mentoring program 

effectiveness ReVision Program 

Environmental and Personal Factors in 

a Community-Based Juvenile Offender 

Intervention 

Baylor College of Medicine 

OJJDP FY 12 

Community-Based 

Violence Prevention 

FIRE Program 

$500,000 

Hanten & 

Schmidt 

(2017) 

 Mentoring program 

effectiveness ReVision Program 

Cross-age peer mentoring to enhance 

resilience among low-income urban 

youth living in high violence Chicago 

communities. 

Loyola University of 

Chicago 

OJJDP FY 14 HighRisk Youth 

Mentoring Research: 

Category 2: New 

Mentoring Research 

$998,194 Richards et al. 

(2017) 

 Mentoring program 

effectiveness 

Saving Lives, Inspiring 

Youth (SLIY) 

Evaluation of Mentoring Initiative for 

System Involved Youth 

Pacific Institute for 

Research & Evaluation 

(PIRE) 

FY2006 Evaluation of 

Mentoring Initiative 

for System Involved 

Youth 

$499,982 Courser & Kirk 

(2014) 

 Mentoring program 

effectiveness 

The Aftercare Academy 

(Oakland, California) 

The Economic 

Mentoring Program 

(Chicago, Illinois) 

Mentor Match 

(Hampton, Richmond 

and Winchester, 

Virginia) 

Mentor Portland 

(Portland, Oregon) 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
OJJDP Mentoring Research Synthesis - 11 

Final 

Report 

Authors & 

Project Title Awardee Funding Stream 

Award 

Amount 

Publication 

Year Aims 

Mentoring Program 

Name 

A Comprehensive Evaluation of Boys & 

Girls Club Mentoring Programs Grant Fundamentals, LLC 

OJJDP FY 10 Group 

Mentoring Research 

and Evaluation 

Program 

$1,972,955 

Mentzer, Fox, 

& Jenkins 

(2015) 

 Mentoring program 

effectiveness 

 Implementation/process 

evaluation 

Boys and Girls Clubs of 

America 

*Change in title since award 

†Project has published article(s) or conference presentations. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OJJDP Mentoring Research Synthesis - 12 

o Tests of mediation 

o Tests of moderation 

o Descriptive findings (e.g., what was done for match closures) 

o Theory testing 

o Other 

 Author conclusions and recommendations for future research 

In addition to this overall coding of the contents of each project report, each of the specific findings 

of the analyses that addressed the main aims of each project was coded. The information coded for 

each finding generally included the variables involved as well as the statistical significance, strength, and 

direction of the finding. Provisions also were included to capture descriptive and qualitative results as 

well as the pattern of more complex findings, such as tests for moderation or mediation. 

If published research articles based on project data were available, these were used to supplement 

coding for that project. The guides used for both types of coding are available upon request as 

supplemental documents to this report. 

Organization of This Report 

In the remainder of this report, we begin by providing a descriptive summary of OJJDP-funded 

research on youth mentoring (limited, as noted above, to the projects shown in Table 2 for which final 

reports are available). The next section provides a synthetic overview of the findings of these projects. 

Our emphasis in doing so is on identifying key trends in results across projects. Those interested in 

summaries of the findings of individual projects are encouraged to consult the final technical reports for 

projects that are available through the National Criminal Justice Reference Service. The next part of the 

report provides information on the research-related activities and products of the National Mentoring 

Resource Center. The final two sections provide conclusions as well as next steps for building on the 

work of the current report. 

Descriptive Overview of OJJDP-Funded Research Projects on Youth Mentoring 

Award Information 

The bulk of the awards made for research on youth mentoring that are included in this synthesis 

(83%; n = 20) were made during a 4-year period from Federal FY 2010 to FY 2013. The median award 

amount is $498,374, with a range from $239,979 (Beckman et al., 2017) to $3,499,898 (Hawkins et al., 

2015). 

A number of these awards were made under the auspices of solicitations with relatively broad 

parameters (see Table 1). Illustratively, the Mentoring Best Practices and High-Risk Youth Mentoring 

Research solicitations of FY 2013 and 2014, respectively, each sought proposals within the categories of 

“mentoring research and evaluations” and “secondary data analysis and long-term follow-up.” Other 

solicitations had more specific parameters, such as evaluating the effectiveness of paid mentoring or a 

particular programmatic initiative of OJJDP (e.g., Mentoring Initiative for System-Involved Youth). 

As shown in Table 2, most of the aims of funded projects fell within four broad categories: 

Mentoring program effectiveness, Mentoring program practices, Mentoring relationships, and 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OJJDP Mentoring Research Synthesis - 13 

Implementation/process evaluation. Aims concerning mentoring program effectiveness included efforts 

to evaluate moderators and mediators of program effects on youth outcomes.3 

Aims focused on mentoring program practices involved investigating both existing and new or 

“experimental” practices. Typically the focus within these investigations was on examining the effects 

that different practices (e.g., mentor training) within an overall program might have on mentoring 

relationships and/or youth outcomes. 

Aims pertaining to mentoring relationships addressed predictors of relationship quality and 

longevity, relationship processes, and associations between relationship characteristics and outcomes 

for mentored youth. Finally, aims relating to implementation or process evaluation aims were 

concerned with fidelity and dosage issues.4 

Researcher Information 

The most common primary disciplinary affiliation of the lead researcher on each project was 

psychology (25%; n = 6), followed by social work (17%; n = 4), criminal justice/criminology (13%; n = 3) 

and political science (13%; n = 3). The remaining affiliations included, but were not limited to, sociology, 

education, public health, and medicine. These varied affiliations are consistent with the multidisciplinary nature of research on youth mentoring more generally. 

Researchers generally did not have a role in designing or developing the mentoring programs that 

were the focus of their investigations (83%; n = 20) and where involvement was indicated their role was 

collaborative rather than as primary designers/developers (8%; n = 2; for 4 projects the researcher role 

in program development was not able to be coded). This suggests a significant level of independence 

between researchers and programs, which is generally desirable especially in the context of program 

evaluation research. 

Mentoring Program Characteristics 

Nearly half of the projects (46%; n = 11) were conducted with Big Brothers Big Sisters (BBBS) 

mentoring programs. No other program was the focus of more than 2 projects. 

The most common primary aim of the programs, where this could be discerned from reports, was 

to enhance positive youth development (63%; n = 15); closely related aims of promoting prosocial 

behavior (n = 2), positive health behavior (n = 1), and youth asset development (n = 1) were also 

represented. Delinquency prevention, both with youth who have had involvement with the juvenile 

justice system (17%; n = 4) and those who have not (8%; n = 2; i.e., primary prevention) was a primary 

aim of 1 in 4 of the programs. 

3 Moderators are pre-existing factors that condition or influence program effectiveness, such as a program being 

more or less effective for youth experiencing a particular type of risk factor like parental incarceration; mediators 

are intervening experiences or intermediary outcomes in pathways leading to outcomes of interest, such as gains 

in self-esteem for youth participating in a mentoring program contributing, in turn, to higher levels of academic 

achievement. 

4 Fidelity refers to the extent and quality with which a program is implemented according to plan, such as whether 

and how well planned mentor support contacts occur; dosage refers to the amount of program services that are 

received by intended beneficiaries of a program, such as the number of hours of contact that youth have with their 

program-assigned mentors. For additional discussion of fidelity and dosage in relation to research on mentoring 

interventions, see DuBois (2014). 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OJJDP Mentoring Research Synthesis - 14 

It is not unusual for formal mentoring to be provided in conjunction with other distinct services or 

support activities within a program or organization. Meta-analytic findings have not indicated 

differential effectiveness for these types of multicomponent programs (DuBois, Holloway, Valentine, & 

Cooper, 2002, DuBois, Portillo, Rhodes, Silverthorn, & Valentine, 2011), perhaps reflecting the 

challenges of implementing/delivering several distinct types of programmatic activities with fidelity 

(Kuperminc et al., 2005). In one-fourth of the funded projects (25%; n = 6), mentoring was provided to 

participating youth in conjunction with other distinct services. The additional services or supports were 

varied in nature and included academic tutoring/assistance (n =1), social or life skills training (n = 2), 

family services (n = 1), after-school program (n = 1), mental health services or counseling (n = 2), and 

peer outreach workers (n = 2). 

About half of the programs (n = 13) were tailored to youth with specific characteristics. With the 

exception of BBBS, nearly all of the programs were tailored to specific youth populations. These included 

male youth (n = 1), youth in foster care (n= 2), youth underperforming academically (n = 2), and youth 

engaged in problem behavior (n = 4). It should be noted that tailoring was not inferred simply by 

program participant characteristics or eligibility criteria, but rather from mentoring or other program 

activities that were adapted or structured specifically for a particular population of youth. 

Of the programs involved in the funded projects, only the BBBS community-based and schoolbased mentoring programs had been previously reviewed for CrimeSolutions.gov; CrimeSolutions.gov is 

the National Institute of Justice’s web-based clearinghouse for programs that have undergone rigorous 

evaluation and is co-funded by OJJDP. As explained later in this report, CrimeSolutions.gov is used by the 

NMRC in reviewing the evidence base for different mentoring programs. The BBBS community-based 

program received a rating of Effective, whereas the school-based program received a rating of 

Insufficient Evidence. It appears that the remaining programs associated with the funded projects for 

the most part had not previously been the focus of rigorous evaluations. 

In three-quarters of the programs (n = 18), mentoring took place in the community at-large. 

There were also several programs in which mentoring occurred in the school setting (n = 1) or a 

community-based organization (n = 3). Only two projects involved mentoring based in a workplace (n = 

1) or juvenile justice setting (n = 1) and none incorporated mentoring within a faith-based setting. 

Interestingly, although mentoring programs can vary considerably in the planned or minimum 

expected duration of the mentoring relationships that are established, these differences to date have 

not been associated with variation in estimated effects on youth outcomes (DuBois et al., 2002, 2011). 

Reflecting the large proportion of projects conducted with the BBBS program, nearly two-thirds of the 

funded projects (67%; n = 15) looked at programs in which the minimum expected length of the 

mentoring relationship was one year. In the case of the BBBS programs, it should be noted that 

relationships can extend over longer periods of time, essentially until the youth ages out of the program 

(typically at age 18). In the remainder of the projects, minimum expectations for relationship duration 

were less than one year (n = 1), more than one year (n = 1), varied across multiple programs included in 

the research (n = 4), or unspecified (n = 3). In some programs, the youth’s mentoring relationship and/or 

participation in the program can extend beyond the minimum expected length of the initial mentoring 

relationship. This was the case for all the BBBS programs, in which relationships may be supported as 

long as the youth remains within program age limits (typically up to age 18) and youth may be rematched with a new mentor after their initial relationship ends. In the Friends of the Children program, 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OJJDP Mentoring Research Synthesis - 15 

the minimum commitment of mentors was 3 years, but the program commits to the children for 12.5 

years 

There was weekly expected frequency of contact between mentor and youth within 9 of the 

projects (36%) and bi-weekly expected contact in 6 projects (24%). Expected frequency of contact was 

variable or unspecified within the remaining 10 projects. In comparison, with MENTOR’s national 

program survey, a large majority of programs (80 percent) expected mentors and mentees to meet 

either at least once a week or two-to-three times a month. 

Mentoring programs vary in the extent to which they are intentional in fostering differing types of 

support roles for mentors through program practices such as mentor recruitment, training, ongoing 

support contacts, and agency-sponsored events. Support of this nature for certain roles, most notably 

emotional support (e.g., caring, concern, empathy, sympathy), teaching/information provision support 

(explicit instruction on skills or tasks, providing information on specific topics), and advocacy (e.g., 

connecting youth to other supports and resources, representing or acting on behalf of the youth’s 

interests), has been correlated with stronger estimated effects of programs on youth outcomes; DuBois 

et al., 2011; Tolan). To varying degrees, support for each of these roles was incorporated into programs 

that were the focus of the OJJDP-funded mentoring research being examined in this synthesis. In threefourths of the projects, (n = 18), programs were intentionally designed to foster emotional support. To a 

lesser extent, programs also were geared toward fostering mentoring activities that involved 

teaching/information provision (21%; n = 5) and/or advocacy (29%; n = 7). The remaining roles of 

modeling (learning by observation, task rehearsal, or role playing) and acting as identification figure 

(exposing mentee to mentors or aspects of the mentor’s life that mentees may be inspired by or seek to 

emulate) were supported by design in programs within 4 (17%) and 2 (8%) projects, respectively. For 

eight of the funded projects (33%), none of the above types of mentoring activities were coded as being 

supported by the program under consideration. To some extent, this may be a function of the level of 

detail with which programs were described in final reports of projects rather than of the programs 

themselves. 

In a recent national survey of mentoring programs (Garringer, McQuillin, & McDaniel, 2017), 

approximately equal numbers of youth were reported to be served in a one-to-one or group mentoring 

model (about one-third of all youth served in each case), respectively, with a significant proportion also 

served in a model that blended the two formats. In the funded projects, a large majority of the programs 

provided mentoring in a one-to-one format (88%; n = 21), with a much smaller number including a group 

mentoring format (clearly indicated for programs in two of the projects, one of which was a study of 

mentoring provided within Boys & Girls Clubs, Mentzer et al., 2015, and the other of which was a 

comparison of one-to-one and group mentoring). The contrast with the above referenced national 

survey data may reflect a trend toward increased utilization of group mentoring within the field since 

the time period during which most projects were proposed and funded. 

The mentor eligibility criteria for the programs considered in projects were difficult to discern in 

most instances. However, in 4 projects mentors needed to be either male (n = 2) or female (n = 2) and in 

two other projects mentors were exclusively high school students (n = 2). 

Mentors within the programs examined generally were specified to be volunteers (63%; n = 15), 

although there several instances in which mentors received some form of payment (21%; n = 5). In the 

remaining projects, mentor volunteer versus paid status was not specified. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OJJDP Mentoring Research Synthesis - 16 

Provision of training and ongoing support or supervision to mentors are recommended core 

practices within mentoring programs for youth (Garringer, Kupersmidt, Rhodes, Stelter, & Tai, 2015). In 

addition to their importance from a safety and child protection perspective, research suggests that 

these practices can enhance the quality and longevity of mentoring relationships as well as effectiveness 

of the program in promoting positive youth outcomes (see, e.g., DuBois et al., 2002; Herrera, DuBois, & 

Grossman, 2013; Herrera, Kauh, Cooney, Grossman, & McMaken, 2008). In most of the funded projects, 

the report provided sufficient information to conclude that mentors had received training and/or 

orientation (n = 16); similarly, it was clear that programs included supervision/ongoing support for 

mentors in half the projects (n = 12). More detailed information regarding potentially influential 

considerations such as the content and amount of training provided or the frequency of supervision 

contacts, however, was often lacking, making it difficult to discern more specific trends in mentor 

training and support. 

As can be seen in Table 2, several of the projects (n = 5) focused on investigating potential 

enhancements to mentoring programs. All of these projects were conducted with BBBS programs. The 

modifications tested were focused variously on enhancing mentoring relationship quality (n = 4) or 

longevity (n = 3) and on strengthening program effects on delinquency (n = 1) or other youth outcomes 

(n = 4). 

Table 3 provides a more detailed overview of the potential program enhancements investigated in 

the five projects. Although varied in their specific features, the tested enhancements most often 

involved additional training provided to mentors prior to or after being paired with their mentees, 

modifications to the type or amount of supervision/ongoing support that mentors received, having 

mentors and youth engage in particular types of activities, and parent engagement activities. Notably, in 

all but one of the projects, program modifications involved multiple areas, with 3 of the projects making 

modifications in 3 or more of the areas. It seems clear, furthermore, that in all of the projects the 

program modifications resulted in new roles, responsibilities, or other demands for program staff and 

mentors. 

Study Methodology 

Research design and validity. All but 2 of the projects (n = 22) had primary aims of evaluating 

mentoring program effectiveness or the effects of mentoring program practices or modifications. About 

half of these projects (59%; n = 13) featured either an experimental (i.e., random assignment; n = 6) or 

quasi-experimental (i.e., two groups but not random assignment to groups; n = 7). The other evaluation 

projects utilized some type of pre-experimental design (e.g., pre- and post-test data for a single group), 

which is generally not regarded as a rigorous approach to establishing program effectiveness. The two 

projects that had aims other than program or practice evaluation (e.g., investigating mentoring 

relationships) utilized both quantitative and qualitative data and thus were mixed method in design. 

Notably, 4 of the evaluation-oriented projects also included a qualitative component and thus were 

arguably mixed method in design as well. 

For each project, ratings were made of the extent to which there were threats to internal validity 

(degree to which observed associations reflect intended cause-effect relationships), external validity 

(degree to which findings are likely to generalize to the target population, settings, 

outcomes/constructs, and time frames of assessment, such as end of program participation and later 

points in time), and statistical conclusion validity (accuracy of conclusions drawn from statistical tests, 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

OJJDP Mentoring Research Synthesis - 17 

such as whether a relationship exists between the two variables of interest).5 For internal validity, the 

majority of projects (63%) were rated as having either no identified validity threats (n = 1) or only 

marginal threats (n = 14). The remaining projects were for the most part rated as having moderate 

threats to internal validity (n = 7), although two were rated as having serious threats (n = 2). The most 

commonly identified threats to internal validity were attrition (63%; n = 15; attrition involves loss of 

study participants during the course of the study and is especially a threat to internal validity when the 

rate of attrition differs systematically based on factors such as treatment versus control group 

membership or participant demographic characteristics) and selection (58%; n = 14; in program 

evaluations, this threat occurs when the groups to be compared differ on factors besides the 

treatment). These threats are common within applied research and, in the context of the funded 

projects, may reflect specific challenges such as locating and contacting “higher risk” families for followup assessments and ensuring group equivalence when random assignment is not feasible. 

The proportion of projects rated as having either no or only marginal identified threats to external 

validity was somewhat smaller (46%; n = 4 no threats; n = 7 marginal threats), with all the remainder 

rated as having moderate threats to this form of validity. The most common threats to external validity 

within projects were not testing for differences in findings (e.g., program effects) across participants or 

settings (83%; n = 20; i.e., moderator analyses) and, in the context of program evaluation studies, not 

testing the extent to which effects on youth outcomes were consistent over time (e.g., several months 

or, ideally, years after program participation had concluded). The broader evaluation and prevention 

literature has similarly emphasized a need for greater attention to participant subgroup and settinglevel variation in program effectiveness as well as greater attention to follow-up studies of effectiveness 

(Flay et al., 2006). 

Finally, for statistical conclusion validity, half the projects were rated as having marginal threats 

(50%, n = 12), with the remainder having ratings of no (n = 1), moderate (n = 8), or serious (n = 3) 

threats. The most common threat to this type of validity was lack of consistency of intervention 

implementation across participants (71%; n = 17). When implementation falls below a threshold 

required for impact for a significant proportion for participants in a program evaluation, for example, 

study analyses may fail to detect an effect of the intervention due to lack of sufficient implementation 

fidelity. The next most common threat to statistical conclusion validity was and low statistical power 

(42%; n = 10). DuBois and Silverthorn (2005) similarly observed that many evaluations of mentoring 

programs appeared to lack the sample sizes necessary for sensitivity to detecting their effects on youth 

outcomes, especially given that these are likely to be of modest size or magnitude. 

Ratings were also made of the methodological rigor of the qualitative components of studies where 

applicable, along each of the following four recognized dimensions of “trustworthiness” for qualitative 

5 Internal validity is the degree to which observed associations reflect intended cause-effect relationships, such 

effects of program participation on an outcome. External validity involves the degree to which findings are likely to 

generalize to the target population, settings, outcomes/constructs, and timeframes of assessment, such as periods 

of time after program participation has ended. Statistical conclusion validity refers to the accuracy of conclusions 

drawn from statistical tests, such as whether a relationship exists between the two variables of interest. For 

further discussion of these differing types of validity, see Shadish, Cook, & Campbell (2002). 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

OJJDP Mentoring Research Synthesis - 18 

Table 3 

Overview of Potential Enhancements Tested in OJJDP-Funded Projects 

Project 

Brief Description of Potential 

Enhancement(s) 

Enhancement Areas 

Staff training and 

support Mentor training Mentor-youth activities 

Match support/ 

supervision Other 

Investigation of 

the Integration of 

Supports for 

Youth Thriving 

into a 

CommunityBased Mentoring 

Program (DuBois 

& Keller, 2017) 

Integration of adapted Step-ItUp-2-Thrive model materials 

and activities within 

community-based mentoring 

relationships in the Big 

Brothers Big Sisters (BBBS) 

community-based mentoring 

(CBM) program 

 initial and midproject in-person 

training for staff 

 individual 

coaching and 

support for 

Implementation 

Liaison at each 

agency 

 one session 

training on the 

intervention 

model 

 training in use of 

rubrics for 

tracking 

development of 

goal 

setting/pursuit 

skills 

 group activities and 

individual match 

activity/discussion 

guides 

 staff briefings for 

parents on aspects 

of the model 

 brief orientation to the 

model for mentor, 

parent, and youth at 

initial match meeting 

 12 month anniversary 

meeting for mentor, 

youth, parent, and 

match support 

specialist 

Understanding 

the Role of 

Parent 

Engagement to 

Enhance 

Mentoring 

Outcomes (Kaye 

& Smith, 2014) 

Parent Engagement Model 

(PEM) designed to engage 

parents in mentoring and 

increase mentors' cultural 

understanding of families 

served by the program, 

implemented within the BBBS 

program 

 Energizing the 

Connection (ETC) 

mentor training 

 match support for 

mentors on 

enhanced topics 

 orientation and 

handbook for parents 

 biannual family events 

as opportunities for 

the youth, mentor, 

and parent to come 

together 

 monthly parent post 

cards for each 

enhancement topic 

Testing the 

Impact of Mentor 

Training and Peer 

Support on the 

Quality of 

Mentor-Mentee 

Relationships and 

Outcomes for AtRisk Youth 

(Peaslee & Teye, 

2015) 

Additional training for 

mentors, peer support for 

mentors, or both additional 

training and peer support 

within BBBS CBM and SBM 

programs. 

 initial and 

ongoing webbased training 

modules 

delivered within 

the first 6 months 

of the match 

(training portion 

of the 

enhancement) 

 informal monthly 

support for 

mentors from peer 

mentors with at 

least 6 months of 

mentoring 

experience (peer 

support portion of 

the enhancement) 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
OJJDP Mentoring Research Synthesis - 19 

Project 

Brief Description of Potential 

Enhancement(s) 

Enhancement Areas 

Staff training and 

support Mentor training Mentor-youth activities 

Match support/ 

supervision Other 

Improving Additional training and support  orientation  bimonthly  monthly newsletter 

Relationship opportunities for mentors in training for structured and resources 

Outcomes Using the BBBS CBM program mentors opportunities for 

Additional  3 core training mentor networking 

Training and workshops within and peer support 

Enhanced Match the 1st 9 month  match support and 

Support for focusing on skills case management 

Mentors (Courser for 

et al., 2014) communicating 

and working with 

diverse youth 

 Supplemental 

topical trainings 

Future Selves, 

Motivational 

Capital, and 

Mentoring 

Toward College: 

Assessing the 

Impact of an 

Enhanced 

Mentoring 

Program for AtRisk Youth 

(Brezina et al., 

2016) 

The Mentoring Towards 

College (MTC) program added 

to the BBBS CBM program 

 mentoring activities 

based on curriculum 

designed to support 

academic success and 

college access, 

delivered through a 

combination of 

activity guides, 

workshops and 

seminars 

 customized action 

plan for youth, 

developed by 

match support 

specialist and 

delivered by 

mentor 

Note. The information provided for each project is based on content of the final technical report for the project and thus may not be comprehensive. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OJJDP Mentoring Research Synthesis - 20 

research results (Lincoln & Guba, 1985): credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability.6 

Each type of validity was rated on a three point scale: No, Somewhat, or Yes. Of the five relevant 

projects, either 2 or 3 received the lowest rating of “No” for each type of validity. Likewise, no more 

than 1 project received the highest rating of “Yes.”

Measures. Nearly all projects (n = 23) included measures of one or more potential youth outcomes. 

Most commonly included were measures falling into the following domains: psychological or emotional 

(n = 19), school/academic (n = 19), problem behavior (n = 19), social relationships (n =13). Less common 

were measures in the domains in the areas of community involvement and prosocial behavior (n = 3), 

employment (n = 3), and physical health (n = 2). All of these studies with outcome measures included 

measures in at least two of the aforementioned domains and a substantial number (n = 9) included 

measures within four or more of the domains. The diversity of outcomes assessed and frequency with 

which multiple domains of outcomes were measured within the same project are consistent with the 

diversity of outcomes that mentoring has shown evidence of being able to influence, with youth in a 

given sample often showing impacts across multiple domains (see, e.g., DuBois et al., 2002, 2011; Eby 

2008; Tolan et al., 2014). 

Most, but not all studies (75%; n = 18) included measures of mentoring relationships such as their 

quality or duration. Other types of measures included in projects included measures of mentor 

characteristics beyond basic demographic information (n = 8), risk and protective factors not likely to be 

influenced by mentoring, but which may, for example, moderate its effects (n = 9), and program 

implementation (n = 11). 

The most common source for measures was youth self-report surveys, with about 3 in 4 projects 

making use of this type of measures (79%; n = 19). Surveys of mentors were also utilized in more than 

half of the projects (58%; n = 14). Records obtained from mentoring programs (42%, n = 10) and other 

sources such as schools and the juvenile justice system (n = 8) were utilized relatively less often. 

Ratings of the quality of the measures utilized in the studies, with respect to reliability (extent to 

which a measure produces the same results repeatedly when expected to do so) and validity (extent to 

which a measure assesses what it is intended to measure), were made on a 4-point scale: Excellent, 

Adequate, Below Average, or Insufficient Information. The measures used in about three-quarters of the 

projects received ratings of either Excellent (n = 3) or Adequate (n = 9), whereas ratings for the 

remaining projects were split evenly between Below Average (n = 3) or Insufficient Information (n = 3). 

Participating youth. The sample sizes of youth varied considerably across projects, from less than 

100 in a few instances to several thousand in a few projects at the other end of the continuum. For the 

most part, though, samples were in the neighborhood of a few hundred youth. 

The most commonly included age groups of youth were children ages 8 to 10 (n = 12), older 

children ages 11 to 12 (n = 15), early adolescents ages 13-14 (n = 16), and middle adolescents ages 15 to 

17 (n = 15). Smaller numbers included children age 7 or younger (n = 3) or older adolescents ages 18 to 

21 (n=18). Information regarding the racial or ethnic group membership and socioeconomic 

6 Credibility refers to the degree of confidence in the “truth” of research findings. Transferability involves the 

extent to which findings have applicability to other contexts. Dependability involves the degree to which findings 

are consistent and could be repeated. Finally, confirmability refers to the extent to which the findings of a study 

show neutrality, such as not being shaped by bias, motivation, or interest on the part of the researchers. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OJJDP Mentoring Research Synthesis - 21 

backgrounds of youth was not reported consistently, with approximately one-third of project reports 

including limited or no information of this nature. For the remaining projects, Latinx, AfricanAmerican/Black, and White youth were each included in nearly all study samples. American Indian or 

Alaskan Native youth were reported as included in the study samples for only three projects. 

Based on the descriptions provided in reports, the risk status of youth included in the studies 

was rated in each of the following areas: contextual (having to do with the youth’s current life 

circumstances and environment), processual (having to do with the youth’s relationships with parents, 

peers, or others), individual (having to do with the youth’s behavior or other characteristics), and

historical (having to do with experiences taking place earlier in the youth’s development). These were 

each rated on a 4-point scale: None, Low, Moderate, and High. Information was lacking to arrive at a 

rating of overall processual risk in all of the project reports and similarly for historical risk for all but 2 

projects. Among 17 projects for which ratings of contextual risk exposure were feasible, the youth 

involved in these studies were rated as having moderate (n = 7) or high (n = 10) level of risk. For 

individual risk with ratings of risk (n = 9), projects received ratings of low (n = 4), moderate (n = 2), or 

high (n = 3) risk. 

Specific risk factors also were coded as present when applicable to at least half of the sample. For 

contextual risk, the factors most frequently were present were low family socioeconomic status (n = 9), 

single-parent home (n = 7), and parent incarceration (n = 5), involvement in the juvenile justice system 

(n = 4), and involvement in the child welfare system (n = 3). No single individual risk factor was reported 

as present for more than two projects. Those applicable to youth within one or two of the projects 

included learning disability, intellectual/developmental disability, poor social skills, low academic 

achievement, truancy/absenteeism, and delinquent behavior. 

Characteristics of mentors and mentoring relationships. For projects where information about the 

age of mentors involved in the research was provided, similar numbers included mentors within each of 

the following age ranges: 18-21 (n = 8), 22-29 (n = 9), 30-54 (n = 9), 55 and older (n = 9). Four projects 

included younger teen-age mentors. About two-thirds of projects (n = 17) provided information about 

the race and ethnicity of mentors involved in the research. A majority of these projects (n = 11) reported 

that Latinx, African-American, and White mentors were all included in the research. The socioeconomic 

backgrounds of mentors may also be a significant consideration (Deutsch, 2014). However, this 

information was not provided in the majority of reports (n = 17). 

Information about mentoring relationships, such as their composition (e.g., same vs. crossrace/ethnicity) and frequency of contact, was included inconsistently and in varying formats across 

projects, making it difficult to discern trends in this area. Information regarding the proportion of 

mentoring relationships that ended prematurely -- that is, before the minimum expected or desired 

duration – was the information reported most consistently. These data typically indicated that 

substantial percentages of relationships did not reach established program milestones. For example, 

more than one-third of relationships typically ended prior to one-year in studies of BBBS communitybased programs in which the minimum volunteer time commitment is one-year. Research suggests that 

program benefits for youth may be dependent to a significant extent on mentoring relationships 

reaching these types of benchmarks (see, e.g., Grossman, Chan, Schwartz, & Rhodes, 2012; Grossman & 

Rhodes, 2002). 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OJJDP Mentoring Research Synthesis - 22 

Findings of OJJDP-Funded Research Projects on Youth Mentoring 

Overall, 2,388 distinct findings from the funded research projects were coded. The number of 

coded findings ranged from 7 to 522 across projects, with an average of 108.55 coded findings (SD = 

127.42). 

Mentoring Program Effectiveness7 

Overall effects of mentoring program participation. Seven projects, 3 using randomized control 

designs and 4 using a quasi-experimental design (QED), examined effects of mentoring program 

participation on youth outcomes in intent-to-treat analyses (i.e., all youth in the treatment group were 

analyzed regardless of the extent or quality of mentoring that they received in the program under 

study). Among the 131 tests of program effects in these studies, 26 were significant (i.e., at least p < .10, 

two-tailed)8

. All but one of these findings was in a direction of superior outcomes for mentoring 

program participants; each of the randomized control trials and one of the QED studies (Karcher & 

Johnson, 2017) reported multiple significant findings. 

Three of these projects examined outcomes over significant periods of time: the first 6 years of 

participation in the Friends of the Children Program (Eddy et al., 2017), which targets youth at high-risk 

for poor outcomes and begins when children are in kindergarten and continues through grade 12, up to 

2 years after participating in My Life (Blakeslee & Keller, 2018), a mentoring program for youth in foster 

care, and approximately 20 years after participating in the BBBS community-based mentoring program 

(DuBois et al., 2018). The fourth (Karcher & Johnson, 2016) examined effects of receiving advocacyoriented mentoring for youth involved in the juvenile justice system at the end of service provision, 

which typically lasted from 4 to 6 months. Illustrative outcomes with significant differences favoring 

mentoring program participants include arrest as a juvenile, lifetime smoking, and grit (self-reported 

consistency and perseverance in pursuit of goals) in the case of BBBS, parent-report measures of 

externalizing problems, school behavior, and strengths in the case of FOTC, and self-reported selfdetermination skills, involvement in post-secondary education or training, and days spent in jail in the 

case of the My Life mentoring program, and connectedness to friends, teachers, and school, 

expectations for attending college, and self-reported misconduct in the advocacy-oriented mentoring 

program for those with juvenile offenses. Although not systematically coded, the direction of nonsignificant findings in these studies appears to be predominantly in a favorable direction (i.e., better 

outcomes for mentored youth). The remaining two projects were QED evaluations of mentoring for 

youth with juvenile system involvement (Duriez et al., 2017; Hanten & Schmidt, 2017) and reported nonsignificant findings on recidivism/re-offending, the only outcome tested. 

7 We do not consider results from single-group pre-post designs in this section due to the serious threats to 

internal validity that are posed by factors such as maturation (developmental changes) and history (intervening 

events other than the program) when utilizing these types of designs as a basis for causal inferences regarding 

program effects (Shadish et al., 2002). 

8

Statistical significance indicates that there is enough evidence that a relationship observed in the data are unlikely 

to be due to chance. A p-value of less .10 indicates that the probability the result obtained was due to chance is 

less than 10%. A criterion of p < .10 was used instead of the more conventional p < .05 both in the interest of 

identifying potentially important trends for further investigation and because this threshold was utilized in the 

majority of reports. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OJJDP Mentoring Research Synthesis - 23 

Several projects also reported qualitative findings related to youth outcomes associated with 

mentoring. Interviews with mentees participating in a Boys and Girls Club of America (BGCA) group 

mentoring program (Mentzer et al., 2015) revealed that mentees believed that the program provided a 

good opportunity for them to learn positive social skills. Mentees also identified the BGCA clubs as a 

place where they had good friends. Similarly, preliminary analyses of photo documentaries from a nearpeer mentoring program in Chicago (Saving Lives, Inspiring Youth; Richards et al., 2017) revealed that 

participants considered their mentoring relationships provided safe spaces. Courser and Kirk (2014) also 

reported staff impressions of both short- and long-term improvement in the youth’s communication

skills. Finally, in Kaye and Smith (2014), parents discussed ways in which mentoring impacted their 

children, including improvements in the child’s ability to talk to the parent. Taken together, these 

qualitative findings suggest types of outcomes that may be especially important to consider when 

evaluating varying modalities and contexts of mentoring (for example, social competence and peer 

support in the case of group mentoring and after-school program settings) as well as the potential value 

of less commonly utilized sources of outcome data (e.g., photovoice, staff ratings) 

Moderation. All but one of the seven projects that tested overall effects of mentoring program 

participation reported results of moderator analyses (i.e., tests of whether estimated effects differed as 

a function of baseline variables). The moderators examined included youth demographic characteristics 

such as gender, race/ethnicity, and age, measures of contextual circumstances in the youth’s life such as 

family income and living in an urban neighborhood, and measures of the youth’s adjustment or 

functioning such as involvement in problem behavior and assessed risk for re-offending. Overall, findings 

generally did not indicate significant moderation of program effects (8 out of 190 tests); there were no 

consistent patterns to these results within or across studies, suggesting they may well reflect chance 

associations. One project (Duriez et al., 2017) reported descriptive data consistent with stronger effects 

of mentoring of recidivism for parole sample sites with higher scores on a measure of mentoring quality, 

but associated tests of significance were not reported (most likely due to the small number of sites; n = 

3) and a similar pattern was not apparent across probation sample sites. 

Mediation. No studies tested for mediation of the effects of mentoring program effectiveness. 

Mentoring Program Practices 

Experimental tests of potential enhancements to mentoring programs. Five projects, four of 

which used randomized control designs and one of which used a quasi-experimental design, examined 

effects of potential enhancements to existing mentoring programs (see Table 3). Of 127 tests of effects 

of the potential enhancements on mentoring relationships and youth outcomes, 6 were statistically 

significant. These latter statistically significant findings were all in the direction favoring the 

enhancements. In research examining the impact of mentor training and peer support on mentoring 

relationship and youth outcomes, for example, Peaslee and Teye (2015) found that the mentor receiving 

peer support from a more experienced mentor was associated significantly with longer mentoring 

relationship duration and a reduced risk of early closure (i.e., relationship ending prior to minimum 

program expectation of at least one year). It should be kept in mind, however, that only a small 

percentage of results were statistically significant. Thus, for the most part, enhancements did not show 

evidence of improving mentoring relationships or youth outcomes. Furthermore, the significant findings 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

OJJDP Mentoring Research Synthesis - 24 

that were obtained could be attributable, at least in part, to chance factors that can lead individual 

findings to reach statistical significance when a large number of tests is conducted. 

Levels and correlates of exposure to potential enhancements. Three of the studies reported on 

measures that address how much mentors and youth were exposed to the enhancements under 

investigation. Levels of exposure were categorized as very low (less than 25% of mentors or youth), low 

(25-50%), moderate (51-75%), and high (more than 75%). Using these thresholds, levels of exposure to 

planned enhancements ranged from very low (mentor support meetups) to moderate (mentor trainings) 

in Courser et al. (2014), from very low (all 6 thriving support activities) to moderate (at least 2 of the 6 

activities) in DuBois and Keller (2017), and very low (mentor training utilization) to moderate (mentor 

coaching utilization) in Peaslee and Teye (2015). 

Each of these studies also examined predictors of variations in exposure to enhancements as well 

as whether these variations were related to mentoring relationship or youth outcomes. Youth and 

mentor demographic characteristics and indices of match composition (e.g., same-race or cross-rate) 

generally did not predict variations in enhancement exposure. DuBois and Keller (2017) found, not 

surprisingly, that premature match endings (either within the first six months or after this point but prior 

to one year) were predictive of less exposure to enhancements. Courser and colleagues (2014) similarly 

found that slower progression to match closure was associated with greater likelihood of the mentor 

participating in at least one of the post-match enhancement trainings that were part of the 

enhancement condition. These findings may, to some extent, reflect not only fewer opportunities to 

partake in enhancement activities within mentoring relationships of shorter duration, but also the 

enhancement activities contributing to greater longevity of matches (Courser et al., 2014). 

Overall, few significant findings emerged in the analyses examining indices of exposure to 

enhancements as a predictor of mentoring relationship and youth outcomes. Courser and colleagues 

(2014), for example, found that among mentors in the enhancement condition, extent of participation in 

enhancement trainings or support activities generally failed to show association with measures of either 

mentoring relationship quality or youth outcomes. DuBois and Keller (2017) did find that youth in the 

enhancement condition who were exposed to at least 2 of the 6 types of thriving support activities being 

tested in their mentoring relationships showed greater improvement in their reported levels of support 

from adults for thriving relative to a matched group of youth in the standard BBBS mentoring condition. 

Moderation. Only one project (Brezina et al., 2016), an investigation of the effects of adding the 

Mentoring Toward College (MTC) program to the standard BBBS community-based program, tested 

moderators of the effects of mentoring program enhancements. Looking at gender of the youth as a 

moderator, results indicated that the enhancement was effective for males, but not females, with 

respect both to fostering differing types of mentor-mentee interactions, including discussions of 

academics and work on life skills, as well as with respect to influencing youth problem behavior 

involvement (measures of aggressive behavior, school delinquency, and general delinquency) and 

victimization. Interestingly, however, for grade point average, effects of the enhancement for males 

were significant in the direction of worsening academic performance relative to males receiving 

standard BBBS programming. 

Mediation. No projects tested mediation of the effects of mentoring enhancements in intent-totreat analyses. DuBois and Keller (2017), however, did find test and find support for a mediational model 

in which receiving and responding positively (i.e., finding helpful or enjoyable) to at least 3 of the 6 types 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OJJDP Mentoring Research Synthesis - 25 

of thriving support activities increased adult support for thriving which, in turn, promoted greater youth 

thriving and, finally, reduced problem behavior (conduct problems and delinquent behavior). Findings 

thus suggested both that improvements in adult support for youth thriving served as an intervening 

process through which the thriving enhancements being investigated were able to contribute to gains in 

youth thriving and that this increased thriving was a pathway or process that contributed to reduced 

problem behavior. 

Correlational studies of mentoring program practices and characteristics. Five projects examined 

mentoring program practices or characteristics (e.g., community- vs. school-based) as predictors of 

mentoring relationship and/or youth outcomes using a correlational study design. About one-third of 

these analyses yielded significant associations (14 of 37 findings). Mentor training emerged as a 

significant correlate of mentoring relationship or youth outcomes in each of the 4 projects in which it 

was examined (Courser et al., 2014, 2017; Kupersmidt et al., 2017; Miller et al., 2012). Miller and 

colleagues, for example, found that among programs serving youth referred from juvenile justice 

settings, those that reported providing training to mentors also reported a greater percentage of 

mentees as reaching their personal goals. Similarly, Kupersmidt et al. (2017) found that program reports 

of alignment with Standards for Training in the Elements of Effective Practice for Mentoring (Garringer et 

al., 2015) were predictive of greater average match length. Findings were not entirely consistent in this 

area, however. Courser et al. (2017), for example, found that having a mentor who had received training 

was not related significantly to change on any of a wide range of youth outcome measures. 

Of further note, Kupersmidt et al. (2017) found that program report of practices aligned with EEPM 

standards for recruitment, screening, and relationship closure, considered separately, was not a 

significant predictor of average match length. Other analyses looking at total numbers of such practices 

did show associations with match duration. These results could suggest that different practices each 

made small, but cumulative contributions to prediction of match duration, but alternatively they also 

could be attributable to the aforementioned association of mentor training with match duration. 

In the only project to look at moderation or mediation involving program practices and 

characteristics, Kupersmidt et al. (2017) found that having specific goals for the children of incarcerated 

parents (COIP) youth population was not associated with any mentoring relationship or youth outcomes, 

but that having specialized mentor training and additional funding was differentially predictive of some 

outcomes for COIP. COIP from programs that reported having specialized training for this population, for 

example, had longer matches and greater mentor-reported mentoring relationship quality than their 

counterparts in programs not reporting this type of training. Having additional funding for serving COIP 

also was predictive of longer match length for this population of youth. 

Mentoring Relationships 

The funded studies also variously examined predictors of mentoring relationship quality and 

longevity, mentoring relationship processes, and associations between mentoring relationship 

characteristics and outcomes for mentored youth. Findings from some of these analyses are addressed 

in preceding sections (e.g., mentoring program practices as predictors of mentoring relationship quality 

or duration) and will not be considered again in this section. 

Predictors of mentoring relationship quality and longevity. Four projects (Courser et al., 2017; 

Keller & Spencer, 2017; Kupersmidt et al., 2017; Peaslee & Teye, 2015) examined predictors of 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

OJJDP Mentoring Research Synthesis - 26 

mentoring relationship quality or duration. Predictors examined included youth and mentor 

demographic characteristics, expectations of mentor and parent for the match, match composition (e.g., 

same- or cross-gender), and indices of youth functioning or risk status prior to start of the relationship. 

Kupersmidt et al. (2017) found that numerous indices of youth vulnerability or risk status predicted 

greater likelihood of a premature ending of the mentoring relationship. These included being a child 

with an incarcerated parent, being in foster care, being from an immigrant family, having a physical 

disability, reporting greater delinquent behavior, court involvement, and lower self-esteem. Several of 

these factors, particularly those pertaining to family risk and problem behavior, predicted premature 

match closure independent of one another, a pattern that is consistent with a cumulative pattern of 

potential influence. Independent of other predictors, the likelihood of premature match closure was 

substantially greater for youth who were middle school age (11–14) and high school age (14.1–19) in 

comparison to those who were elementary school age (6-10.9). 

In their qualitative study, Keller and Spencer (2017) explored in-depth the contribution of youth 

and relationship characteristics to match closure with a number informative results. Their findings, for 

example, point toward the importance of both the mentor-youth experience and the network of 

relationships surrounding the match. More specifically, they found that matches ended when mentors 

and youth did not feel a shared sense of connection, even when the relationships surrounding the 

match (i.e. the mentor-parent, mentor-MSS, and parent-MSS relationships) were strong. Conversely, 

even in matches in which the mentor-mentee dyad was able to form a connection, such connections 

were difficult to sustain when there were disruptions in the other relationships surrounding the dyad. 

Interestingly, among the common disruptions in the parent-mentor relationships (reported in 53% of 

matches sampled) were negative judgements and deficit-based views of the parent on the part of the 

mentor and mentors’ negative responses to instability in youth’s lives (e.g. inability to connect with 

youth due to phone disconnections and frequent moves led mentors to be frustrated and end 

relationship). Challenges in the parent-MSS relationship (31% of matches) and mentor-MSS relationships 

(42% of matches sampled) were also frequently evident, however, underscoring the researchers’ 

emphasis on the overall network of relationships surrounding the match. 

Mentoring relationship quality and longevity as predictors of youth outcomes. Surprisingly, 

examination of mentoring relationship quality and longevity as predictors of youth outcomes received 

significant attention in only two projects (Courser et al., 2017; DuBois et al., 2018). Notably, in the 

DuBois et al. (2018) follow-up study of the participants in the 1990’s Public/Private Ventures 

randomized control trial of the BBBS community-based mentoring program, having a BBBS relationship 

of one-year or longer duration was a significant predictor of both greater likelihood of post-secondary 

attendance and fewer total arrests as an adult. In other analyses based on survey data collected from 

approximately 30% of the original sample, a report of having had a BBBS mentoring relationship of at 

least one year in duration to whom the respondent felt close was a predictor of a lower likelihood of a 

juvenile arrest as well as less reported stealing, greater reported grit, emotional, psychological, and 

social well-being, and self-rated health during adulthood, and less lifetime use of alcohol. There also 

were several other outcomes in both sets of analyses from this study (e.g., person offenses, 

employment) that did not exhibit other associations with the mentoring relationship measures. In tests 

of moderation, having a one year or longer BBBS relationship was found to be a differentially strong 

predictor of greater likelihood of post-secondary attendance, lower likelihood of a property offense, and 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

OJJDP Mentoring Research Synthesis - 27 

fewer total offenses among racial/ethnic minority group members. In some instances, the pattern of 

moderation took the form of the one-year relationship measure predicting poorer outcomes among 

certain subgroups, such as greater likelihood property and person offenses among White participants. 

Research Activities of the National Mentoring Resource Center 

Funded by a cooperative agreement from OJJDP, The National Mentoring Resource Center (NMRC) 

was launched in January 2014. It is intended to serve as a comprehensive and reliable resource for 

mentoring tools, program and training materials as well as to facilitate access to no-cost training and 

technical assistance. While accessible to the general public, the primary audience for the National 

Mentoring Resource Center is youth mentoring practitioners looking for support in more deeply 

incorporating evidence-based practices to support positive youth outcomes. 

The Research Board of the NMRC is comprised of researchers who have expertise in areas that are 

representative of the diversity in youth mentoring practice with regard to program models, settings for 

implementation, and specific populations and outcomes of interest. The primary role of the Research 

Board is to assess and report on the evidence that bears on the effectiveness of different mentoring 

programs, practices, and resources that are intended to promote positive youth outcomes, particularly 

those relevant to prevention of delinquent behavior, victimization and juvenile justice system 

involvement. 

The NMRC Research Board’s work summarized in the following sections includes reviews

completed as of June 2018 in the following categories: mentoring programs, mentoring practices 

(components of programs, such as mentor training), mentoring resources (specific tools to implement 

different practices), and mentoring models and special populations. The Measurement Guidance Toolkit, 

an ongoing project of the NMRC, is also described. A description of the review process for programs, 

practices, and resources can be found here. 

Program Reviews 

One of the main activities of the NMRC Research Board is to review the research about rigorously 

evaluated mentoring programs to rate their currently demonstrated level of effectiveness. These 

reviews are conducted using the standards and protocols of CrimeSolutions.gov, a resource developed 

by the Office of Justice Programs. 

Programs are rated for effectiveness in one of three categories: 

 Effective: Program has strong evidence that it achieves justice-related goals when implemented 

with fidelity. 

 Promising: Program has some evidence that it achieves justice-related goals when implemented 

with fidelity. 

 No effects: Program has strong evidence that it did not achieve justice-related goals (or had 

harmful effects). 

The listing of each reviewed program on the NMRC website includes its effectiveness classification 

along with a link to the accompanying profile of the program and its evidence base on 

CrimeSolutions.gov. Also included are Insights for Practitioners. These commentaries highlight key 

takeaways, program design considerations, and implementation tips. More information about the 

program review methodology can be found at CrimeSolutions.gov. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

OJJDP Mentoring Research Synthesis - 28 

Table 4 below summarizes the results of reviews of 29 programs completed by the NMRC to date 

(as of June 2018). The NMRC site also includes reviews of 16 additional mentoring programs that were 

completed prior to the creation of the NMRC. 

Of the 29 programs reviewed by the NMRC, 2 were rated as Effective, 16 as Promising, and 11 as 

No Effects. A majority of the evaluations (93%) used randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The majority of 

programs (79%, n=23) reviewed by the NMRC to date have involved one-to-one mentoring relationships. 

About half of these programs (52%, n=15) provide mentoring in school-based setting, while the other 

half do so in a community-based setting. About 31% of reviewed programs use undergraduate or 

graduate students as mentors, 14% use high school students, and 55% use adult mentors. Furthermore, 

in 55% of reviewed programs, mentoring is provided as have multi-component program. 

Both effective programs were based on a 1-1 community-based mentoring model, and both 

targeted a specific population of youth (youth in foster care in one instance and racial/ethnic minority 

youth assessed as being at high risk of negative outcomes in the other). In the promising category were 

a mix of community- and school-based mentoring programs, predominantly involving 1-1 mentoring 

relationships, although one of the promising programs used a group mentoring format. Although most 

programs in the effective and promising categories were in urban (or suburban settings), this can be 

considered to be a function of the majority of programs being reviewed from urban or large suburban 

areas. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

OJJDP Mentoring Research Synthesis - 29 

Table 4 

Summary of NMRC Program Reviews 

Program 

Review 

Outcome 

Geographic 

Setting 

Youth 

Characteristics 

Mentor 

Characteristics Program Characteristics 

Evaluation 

Methodology Findings 

A Stop Smoking No effects Not Youth 12-13 years Program organizer, School-based mentoring Randomized No significant 

in Schools Trial Specified health promotion controlled trial difference between 

(ASSIST) Drug and Alcohol specialists, health 2 days, followed by 10-14 weeks of peer supported intervention group 

Program Prevention promotion trainers, 

peer supporters 

informal conversations and control group for 

odds of smoking in the 

last week, at 2 years 

post-intervention 

Achievement Promising Urban Youth 14-15 Volunteer unpaid School-based 1-1 mentoring Randomized Significant impact on 

Mentoring mentors from school controlled trial discipline referrals, 

Program (AMP) Students At-Risk of 

Academic Failure; 

Minority Students 

faculty and staff Mentors provided with training 

Weekly mentor-youth meetings (15-20 minutes) for 5 

months followed by monthly meetings over the next 

academic year 

Other components: Academic tutoring and assistance 

negative school 

behavior, performance 

in mathematics and 

language arts, and 

other self-reported 

outcomes; No 

significant impact on 

student absences, 

grade point averages, 

or decision-making 

efficacy 

An E-mentoring Promising Urban High School Unpaid college School-based 1-1 mentoring Randomized Significant 

Program for Students (10th-12th student volunteers controlled trial improvement in 

Secondary Grade) Mentors provided with 6 hours of training transition 

Students with Students At-Risk of competency, social 

Learning Academic Failure; Matches meet weekly for 12 weeks connectedness, and 

Disabilities Students with mild 

learning disabilities Other components: Self-advocacy/Empowerment; 

Visiting College Campuses 

self-determination; No 

significant differences 

on outcome measures 

of career/educational 

goals, academic 

connectedness, and 

familial connectedness 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

OJJDP Mentoring Research Synthesis - 30 

Program 

Review 

Outcome 

Geographic 

Setting 

Youth 

Characteristics 

Mentor 

Characteristics Program Characteristics 

Evaluation 

Methodology Findings 

Better Futures Effective Not Youth 16-18 years, Volunteer graduate Community based 1-1 mentoring Randomized Significant 

Program Specified in foster care or 

with mental health 

concerns 

and undergraduate 

students 10-month program including 4-day, 3-night summer 

institute on university campus, one-on-one bimonthly 

peer-coaching session, 5 mentoring workshops with 

peer coaches/professionals, plus additional selfadvocacy and self-empowerment components. 

Controlled Trial improvements in selfdetermination, mental 

health empowerment, 

transition planning, 

career self-efficacy, 

hope, barriers to 

education, 

postsecondary 

preparation, and 

transition planning; no 

significant effect on 

WOL or mental health 

recovery 

Brief 

Instrumental 

School-Based 

Mentoring 

Program 

No Effects Urban Middle School 

Students (Grades 6-

7) 

Students At Risk of 

Academic Failure 

Undergraduate and 

Graduate Students 

School-based 1-1 mentoring 

45 minutes, 1x/week for 8 weeks 

Program based on Brief Mentoring Model (Spencer 

and Rhodes, 2005); Motivational Interviewing (Miller 

and Rollnick, 2002) 

Randomized 

controlled trial 

Significant increase in 

students' math grades 

and life satisfaction; 

No significant effect 

on students' English, 

reading, or science 

grades, measures of 

school connectedness, 

tardiness, or school 

absences 

Brief 

Instrumental 

School-Based 

Mentoring 

Program–

Revised 

Promising Urban 11-14 

Youth at risk of 

academic failure 

Undergraduate and 

graduate students 

Not paid 

School-based 1-1 mentoring 

Mentors provided with training 

Mentors meet weekly with youth (45 minutes) for 8 

weeks 

Other components: Social/personal skills 

training/classes (e.g., interpersonal problem solving, 

coping); Academic tutoring and assistance 

Program based on Brief Mentoring Model (Spencer 

and Rhodes, 2005); Social-Cognitive Theory (Bandura, 

1997); Cognitive-Dissonance Theory (Draycott and 

Dabbs, 1998); Theory of Motivational Interviewing 

(Miller and Ross, 2009) 

Randomized 

controlled trial 

Significantly fewer 

unexcused absences, 

significantly higher 

math and English 

grades and selfreported levels of life 

satisfaction; no effects 

on school-reported 

behavioral infractions 

or grades for science 

or history 

Challenging No Effects Rural, 10-14 Undergraduate School-based 1-1 mentoring Randomized No significant 

Horizons Suburban, Students (9 hours of controlled trial differences between 

Program – Urban Students with training); Graduate 2 hours and 15 minutes, 2x/week throughout the youths in intervention 

After-School ADHD students are site school year group and those in 

Version (CHP- supervisors control group 

After School) 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

OJJDP Mentoring Research Synthesis - 31 

Program 

Review 

Outcome 

Geographic 

Setting 

Youth 

Characteristics 

Mentor 

Characteristics Program Characteristics 

Evaluation 

Methodology Findings 

Challenging No Effects Rural, 10-14 Adult mentors School-based 1-1 mentoring Randomized No significant 

Horizons Suburban, (teachers, school controlled trial differences between 

Program – Urban Students with staff); Program Mentors: 1x/week during school day; Mentors meet youths in intervention 

Mentoring ADHD consultants (school- with program consultants every 2 weeks group and those in 

Version (CHP- employed mental control group for 

Mentoring) health professionals or 

doctoral psychology 

students) 

academic functioning 

and parent/teacher 

ratings of ADHD 

behavior 

Check & No Effects Urban High school Teacher or school staff School-based 1-1 mentoring Randomized Statistically significant 

Connect students referred 

due to unexcused 

absences 

member 

Program 2 or more years in duration; includes 

scheduled and unscheduled meetings of varying 

frequency depending on youth level of risk. 

controlled trial 

(multiple 

studies) 

decrease in absent 

days and significant 

increase in days in 

school; Significantly 

lower math scores; No 

significant differences 

in other academic 

outcomes 

Check & Promising Urban High school Truancy board Community-based 1-1 mentoring Quasi- Students in 

Connect Plus students referred to composed of school experimental intervention group 

Truancy Board community truancy administrators, Truancy specialist meets with students formally and study with were more likely to 

(C&C+TB) board or juvenile 

petition due to 

unexcused 

absences 

volunteers from social 

service agencies and 

local businesses, and a 

juvenile court 

probation officer 

(mentor) 

informally starting in 9th grade and continuing until 

graduation; type and frequency of contact varies by 

student risk level 

comparison 

group matched 

by grade, 

gender, 

academic 

performance, 

and school 

behavior. 

have graduated and 

less likely to have 

dropped out of school. 

Cognitive– Promising Rural 8-12 year old youth Community Mental Community-based 1-1 mentoring Quasi- Significant 

Behavioral with emotional and Health Center Experimental improvements on 

Intervention for behavioral Employees; paid Mentors provided 8 hours of training measures of social 

Children with disturbances mentors. Outcomes: problem solving and 

Emotional and Mentors meet weekly with youth (3 hours/week). Parental behavior problems; No 

Behavioral Minimum program expectation was 8 weeks Attachment significant 

Disturbances 

Other components: Family services (e.g., support, 

parent education); Mental health services; Case 

management 

Externalizing 

Behavior 

Problems 

Internalizing 

Behavior 

Problems 

Parenting 

Stress 

Perceived 

Social Support 

improvements with 

attachment to parents 

and social skills among 

children in 

intervention group 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
OJJDP Mentoring Research Synthesis - 32 

Program 

Review 

Outcome 

Geographic 

Setting 

Youth 

Characteristics 

Mentor 

Characteristics Program Characteristics 

Evaluation 

Methodology Findings 

Cognitive–

Behavioral, 

GroupMentoring 

Intervention for 

Children with 

Emotional and 

Behavioral 

Disturbances 

Promising Rural 8-12 year old youth 

with emotional and 

behavioral 

disturbances 

Community Mental 

Health Center 

Employees; paid 

mentors. 

Community-based group mentoring 

Mentors provided with 24 hours of initial training 

Weekly group mentoring meetings (3-4 hours per 

week) for a 12-week period. 

Randomized 

Controlled Trial 

Children in 

intervention condition 

showed significant 

improvements in 

externalizing and 

internalizing 

problems, social 

problem-solving, and 

frequency of 

appropriate social 

skills and behaviors 

compared with 

children in the control 

group. 

Cross-Age Peer Promising Urban Late elementary- High School Students School-based 1-1 mentoring Randomized Significant 

Mentoring early middle school Controlled Trial improvement on 

Program students 

Students at Risk of 

Academic Failure; 

Youth with Mental 

Health Concerns 

(Maybe? technically 

says "designed to 

serve a mix of 

children who are 

both identified and 

not identified as at 

risk for social 

problems and 

academic 

disengagement." 

Not paid Mentors provided training 

Faraway Model (144 hours): Either Monthly daylong 

sessions over 6 months (96 hours total) or 2-week 

summer program (8 hours a day for 6 consecutive 

days, for a total of 48 hours) OR Nearby Model (144 

hours): 2 hours/day, twice a week across 9 months (72 

hours total) or for 6 hours in quarterly Saturday events 

(24 hours total) + Summer program (48 hours) 

Other components: Social/ personal skills 

training/classes (e.g., interpersonal problem-solving, 

coping); Family services (e.g., support, parent 

education) 

(multiple 

studies) 

measures of spelling 

achievement and 

connectedness to 

school and to parents 

compared with the 

control group; No 

significant difference 

in connectedness to 

reading, future, or 

friends between 

control and mentored 

group 

Early Start to No Effects Urban Youth (14-15 years) College students Community-based 1-1 mentoring Randomized Letter-Word 

Emancipation in foster care, in Controlled Trial Identification 

Preparation – need of Youth and mentor/tutor meet 2 times a week for 2 Calculation 

Tutoring independent living hours in the youth’s home for up to 65 hours Passage 

Program assistance, and 1 to 

3 years behind 

grade level in 

reading and/or 

math 

Mentors/tutors provided with a 1-day training and a 

curriculum handbook 

Comprehension 

School Grades 

Highest Completed 

Grade Level 

High School Diploma 

or GED 

School Behavior 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

OJJDP Mentoring Research Synthesis - 33 

Review Geographic Youth Mentor Evaluation 

Program Outcome Setting Characteristics Characteristics Program Characteristics Methodology Findings 

Eisenhower 

Quantum 

Opportunities 

Effective Suburban, 

Urban 

Ethnic minority 

youth (14-17) 

identified as being 

at high risk 

Young adults/tutors 

Payment Not Specified 

Community-based 1-1 mentoring plus group 

mentoring 

Mentors provided with training 

Length of program 4 years - Per year: 291-410 hours of 

participation (135-180 hours for tutoring/mentoring, 

44-50 hours for community service/youth leadership, 

and/or 112 hours for life skill training) 

Randomized 

Controlled Trial 

Outcomes: GPA 

HS Graduation 

Rates 

College 

Acceptance 

Rate 

Program participants 

had significantly 

higher GPAs, high 

school graduation 

rates, college 

acceptance rates as 

compared with control 

group youths. 

Other components: Academic tutoring and assistance, 

Social/personal skills training/classes (e.g., 

interpersonal problem solving, coping) 

Experience Promising Urban Grades 1-3 (ages 6- Older adult paid School-based 1-1 mentoring Randomized Significantly greater 

Corps 11) at risk of 

academic failure 

volunteers (55 years 

and older) Mentors provided training 

Controlled Trial gains in reading 

comprehension scores 

Matches meet twice per week for 8-10 months 

and teacher-assessed 

reading skills over an 

academic year; No 

Other components: Academic tutoring and assistance significant differences 

in vocabulary and 

work attack scores 

from pre-to-post 

intervention 

Fostering Promising Urban Youth aged 9-11 Social Work and Community-based 1-1 mentoring Randomized Participation in the 

Healthy Futures who were exposed Psychology graduate Controlled Trial intervention was 

Program to violence, had 

mental health 

concerns and who 

students (unpaid but 

received course credit) 

No training provided to mentors 

9-month intervention (Manualized Skill Group: 90 

associated with 

significantly reduced 

mental health 

were in foster care No payment (but 

received credit) 

minutes/week for 30 weeks; One-on-one Mentoring: 

2-4 hours/week for 30 weeks) 

problems and 

measures of 

Other components: Social/personal skills 

training/classes (e.g., interpersonal problem solving, 

dissociation; 

Treatment group 

youth living in 

coping) nonrelative foster 

homes at baseline 

were more likely to 

achieve permanency 

and experience fewer 

placements 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

OJJDP Mentoring Research Synthesis - 34 

Program 

Review 

Outcome 

Geographic 

Setting 

Youth 

Characteristics 

Mentor 

Characteristics Program Characteristics 

Evaluation 

Methodology Findings 

Home-Visiting 

Program for 

Adolescent 

Mothers 

Promising Urban 12-18 

Females; African 

American, 

Adolescent 

Mothers 

Female adults who 

lived in the 

community, had a HS 

degree, experience in 

health care, child 

development, or social 

work 

Payment Not Specified 

Community-based 1-1 mentoring 

Mentors provided with 16 hours/2 days of training 

Mentors met with youth in their home bi-weekly and 

monthly over a period of 2 years. 

Other components: Family services (e.g., support, 

parent education); Social/personal skills 

training/classes (e.g., interpersonal problem solving, 

coping); Sex Education 

Randomized 

Controlled Trial 

Promoted positive 

parenting attitudes 

and school 

continuation; no 

significant influence 

on mental health, 

contraceptive use, or 

repeat teen pregnancy 

KEEP SAFE Promising Urban 10-12 

Girls; Drug and 

Alcohol Prevention; 

Youth in Foster 

Care 

Adult staff members 

Payment Not Specified 

Community-based 1-1 mentoring 

Mentors provided with training 

Mentors meet weekly for 1 year or more 

Other components: Family services (e.g., support, 

parent education); Social/personal skills 

training/classes (e.g., interpersonal problem solving, 

coping); Group mentoring (one mentor and more than 

one mentee) 

Randomized 

Controlled Trial 

Outcomes 

focused on 

substance use 

and delinquent 

behavior 

Participation in 

intervention 

associated with 

Significant decline in 

tobacco, marijuana, 

overall substance use, 

and delinquent 

behavior; no impact 

on girls' alcohol use, 

association with 

delinquent peers, or 

overall delinquent 

behavior 

National Guard No Effects Not 16-18 Mentee-nominated Community-based 1-1 mentoring Randomized Positive impact on 

ChalleNGe Specified Family Members, Controlled Trial employment and GED 

Program Youth with mental 

health concerns 

Family Friends, School 

personnel, or religious 

leaders; mentors were 

paid. 

Mentors provided with training 

Mentor-youth meet at least 4 times during a 1 year 

period 

Other components: 2-week military discipline and 

teamwork training; 20-week residential military 

training 

attainment among 

participating youth as 

compared with control 

group youth but no 

significant effects on 

youths' frequency of 

arrests, marijuana, or 

other illegal drug use, 

delinquent behavior, 

or psychological 

distress 

Peer Group 

Connection 

(PGC) Program 

No Effects Urban 9th Grade Students 

Youth At Risk of 

Academic Failure 

11th and 12th grade 

high school students 

(unpaid volunteers) 

School-based group mentoring 

Mentors provided with training 

Weekly meetings for 1 year, year 2 with mentor-youth 

check-ins 

Other components: Social/ personal skills 

training/classes (e.g., interpersonal problem solving, 

coping) 

Randomized 

Controlled Trial 

No improvements in 

high school graduation 

rates; Significant 

positive effect on the 

graduation rate 

among male students, 

however 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

OJJDP Mentoring Research Synthesis - 35 

Program 

Review 

Outcome 

Geographic 

Setting 

Youth 

Characteristics 

Mentor 

Characteristics Program Characteristics 

Evaluation 

Methodology Findings 

Promotor No Effects Urban 14-24 Adult staff members Community-based 1-1 mentoring Randomized Statistically significant, 

Pathway with >4 years Controlled Trial positive effects on 

Program Drug and Alcohol 

Prevention 

experience with youth 

development 

Paid mentors 

Mentors provided with training 

Mentors and youth meet bi-weekly for 18 months 

Rhodes et al. (2006) model of youth mentoring; 

Promotor Pathway Program model; Empowerment 

Theory (Zimmerman, 2000) 

school enrollment, 

housing stability, and 

births; Statistically 

negative effects on 

getting into a fight and 

binge drinking; No 

effects on 

employment, carrying 

a weapon, 

incarceration, 

marijuana use, or 

perception of control 

over one's life 

Reading for Life 

(RFL) 

Promising Suburban 13-18 

Juvenile Offenders 

Adult volunteers with 

12 week training 

Unpaid 

Community-based team mentoring (multiple youth 

and mentors) plus one-on-one youth-mentor meetings 

Mentors provided 12 weeks training 

Youth and mentors meet twice weekly for 10 weeks 

Other components: Community service 

Randomized 

Controlled Trial 

Outcomes 

focused on 

justice system 

involvement 

Decreased chance of 

prosecution for any 

offense (including 

misdemeanors and 

felonies) and 

decreased arrests than 

with the comparison 

group 

Rochester Promising Urban 5-8 4 female School-based 1-1 mentoring Randomized Significant, positive 

Resilience paraprofessionals Controlled Trial effect on measures of 

Project (RRP) Students At-Risk of 

Academic Failure; 

Youth with Mental 

Health Concerns; 

Drug and Alcohol 

Prevention 

(employed by school 

district) 

Unpaid 

Mentors provided training 

Mentors meet weekly (25 minutes) with youth for 14 

weeks 

Other components: Social/personal skills 

training/classes (e.g., interpersonal problem solving, 

coping) 

Outcomes: 

Task 

Orientation 

Behavior 

Control 

Assertiveness 

versus 

Withdrawn 

Behavior 

Peer Social 

Skills 

Office 

Disciplinary 

Referrals 

Suspensions 

children's task 

orientation, behavior 

control, assertiveness, 

and peer social skills; 

Significant decline in 

average numbers of 

suspensions and office 

disciplinary referrals 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
OJJDP Mentoring Research Synthesis - 36 

Program 

Review 

Outcome 

Geographic 

Setting 

Youth 

Characteristics 

Mentor 

Characteristics Program Characteristics 

Evaluation 

Methodology Findings 

SAM (Solution, 

Action, 

Mentorship) 

Program for 

Adolescent 

Girls 

Promising Urban 13-18 

Females; Drug and 

Alcohol Prevention 

Community and Peer 

Mentors 

School-based group mentoring 

1 hour group sessions (7-8 students), x1/week for 16 

weeks 

Randomized 

Controlled Trial 

Statistically significant 

effect on lowering 

drug use, improving 

social competence, 

increasing knowledge 

surrounding drug use, 

and increasing 

negative attitudes 

toward drug use; No 

statistically significant 

effect on GPA or selfesteem 

School-Based Promising Urban 13-15 School faculty and School-based 1-1 mentoring Randomized Significant decline in 

Mentoring staff Controlled Trial the number of office 

Program for At- Students at Risk of No mentor training disciplinary referrals 

Risk Middle Academic Failure Unpaid Outcomes: and a significant 

School Youth Mentors meet with youth weekly for 18 weeks 

Other components: Social/personal skills 

training/classes (e.g., interpersonal problem solving, 

coping) 

Office 

Disciplinary 

Referrals 

Unexcused 

Absences 

School 

Connectedness 

increase in school 

connectedness; No 

significant impact on 

unexcused absences 

SOURCE No Effects Urban 16-18 Undergraduate and Community-based 1-1 mentoring Randomized Minimally positive 

(Student graduate students Controlled Trial effects on college 

Outreach for Students At-Risk of Mentors provided with training enrollment rates and 

College Academic Failure Paid mentors number of months 

Enrollment) Mentors meet with youth over 12 month period enrolled in California 

Program (frequency not specified) 

Other components: Academic tutoring and assistance 

State University and 

University of California 

campuses; No 

statistically significant 

effects on 2-year, 4-

year, or overall college 

enrollment or months 

of attendance 

Sources of Promising Rural, Urban Youth with Mental Adults and school School-based mentoring Randomized Significant 

Strength Health Concerns staff; Peer leaders 

30-60 minutes, every other week through school year 

Controlled Trial improvements on 

perceptions and 

behaviors pertaining 

to suicide and on 

social connectedness 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
OJJDP Mentoring Research Synthesis - 37 

Program 

Review 

Outcome 

Geographic 

Setting 

Youth 

Characteristics 

Mentor 

Characteristics Program Characteristics 

Evaluation 

Methodology Findings 

YouthNominated 

Support TeamVersion II (YSTII) 

No Effects Urban 13-17 

Youth with mental 

health concerns; 

Youth with recent 

hospitalization 

Mental Health 

Professionals 

(doctoral-level 

psychologists, 

masters-level social 

workers, and 

psychiatric nurses) 

with > 3 years of 

professional 

experience with 

adolescents; mentors 

unpaid. 

Community-based 1-1 mentoring 

Mentors provided with training 

Matches meet weekly for 3 months 

Randomized 

Controlled Trial 

No significant impact 

on participants' 

suicidal ideation, 

depression, negative 

attitudes about the 

future, or parentreported functional 

impairment 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

Practice Reviews 

The NMRC Research Board’s practice reviews are conducted using a customized process similar to, 

but distinct from, the CrimeSolutions.gov program reviews. Many of the practices reviewed can be 

implemented in a variety of program models and settings. 

The resulting profile for each practice reviewed includes a detailed description of the practice and 

its evidence base as well as links to resources that can help practitioners implement or adapt the 

practice for their own programs. Practices are rated for effectiveness in one of four categories (the first 

3 of which are similar to effectiveness ratings for program reviews): 

 Effective: Practice has strong evidence that it achieves desired outcomes when implemented 

with fidelity. 

 Promising: Practice has some evidence that it achieves desired outcomes when implemented 

with fidelity. 

 No effects: Program has strong evidence that it did not achieve desired outcomes (or had 

harmful effects). 

 Insufficient research: Some relevant research may be available but it is inconclusive. More 

research is needed to determine effectiveness. 

More detailed information about the practice review methodology can be found here. 

The 17 practices reviewed by the NMRC Research Board to date are summarized in Table 5. Six of 

these have been rated as Promising based on the available research evidence: 

 Mentor-Mentee Activity Guidance 

 Strategies for Preventing Peer Aggression, Bullying, and Victimization 

 Strategies for Setting and Working on Mentee Goals 

 Support for Mentor Advocacy 

 Support for Youth Thriving 

 Youth Initiated Mentoring (YIM) 

All of these practices involve strategies and activities that staff at mentoring programs or agencies can 

implement to enhance the mentoring experience of mentors, youth, or both through some combination 

of additional training/support for mentors to engage in specific activities as part of their mentoring 

relationship, along with match supervision and support focused on these practice elements. 

The remaining 11 practices have been rated as “Insufficient Research” suggesting that, although 

these are practices of interest and relevance to the field, further research is required to be able to make 

a determination about their effectiveness. Practices related to matching as well as mentor recruitment, 

training, match support, and retention are among those in this latter category. This is noteworthy given 

that these reflect 4 of the 6 standards in MENTOR’s Elements of Effective Practice for MentoringTM. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

OJJDP Mentoring Research Synthesis - 39 

Table 5 

Summary of NMRC Practice Reviews 

Name of Practice Description of Practice Overall Rating Evidence Basea 

Family Engagement The positive engagement of the mentee’s parents and family in the mentoring

relationship and process in order to facilitate mentor-mentee interactions, strengthen 

the mentoring relationship, and promote positive outcomes for mentees. 

Insufficient Research EF: 0 

PR: 0 

NE: 0 

IE: 5b 

Family Support Systematic efforts to provide services and opportunities to the families of mentees, 

including direct services or referrals. This is distinct from practices geared primarily 

toward strengthening the mentor-mentee relationship or mentoring of an entire family 

unit. 

Insufficient Research EF: 0 

PR: 0 

NE: 0 

IE: 1 

Matching Strategies Informed 

by Participant Characteristics 

The intentional use of information about mentor and mentee characteristics to inform 

the mentor-mentee matching process. 

Insufficient Research EF: 0 

PR: 0 

NE: 0 

IE: 3 

Match Support for Mentors Purposeful and ongoing communication between mentoring program staff and mentors 

regarding their relationships with mentees after the relationships have begun. 

Insufficient Research EF: 0 

PR: 1 

NE: 0 

IE: 5 

Mentor-Mentee Activity 

Guidance 

Supporting matches with engaging in particular types of activities or discussions, either 

optional or required, distinct from pre- or post-match mentor training and match support 

as well as one-time events that may be sponsored by programs. 

Promising EF: 0 

PR: 4 

NE: 2 

IE: 2 

Mentor Retention Strategies Efforts to sustain mentor involvement in a program, including ensuring mentor 

participation through an initial commitment period as well as toward extending 

participation beyond initial expectations or agreement; distinguished from practices such 

as mentor training by their intentional focus on mentor retention. 

Insufficient Research EF: 0 

PR: 0 

NE: 0 

IE: 5b 

Mentor Training for Cultural 

Competence 

Guidance that is intended to develop attitudes, behaviors, and practices that enable 

mentors to interact and work effectively with mentees from different cultural 

backgrounds. 

Insufficient Research EF: 0 

PR: 0 

NE: 0 

IE: 2 

Monitoring and Evaluation Monitoring is the routine collection of information as it pertains to individual mentoring 

relationships within a program, often with a focus on determining compliance with 

programmatic expectations or standards. Evaluation involves more systematic collection 

and analysis of information with the aim of assessing need for a program or practice, 

program design and logic/theory, implementation of a program/practice, impact of a 

program/practice, and/or program/practice cost and efficiency. 

Insufficient Research EF: 0 

PR: 0 

NE: 0 

IE: 1 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

OJJDP Mentoring Research Synthesis - 40 

Name of Practice Description of Practice Overall Rating Evidence Basea 

Pre-Match Mentor Training Guidance intended to help prepare mentors to work successfully with their mentees, 

provided before or very soon after beginning their mentoring relationship, with a focus 

on strengthening mentors’ knowledge and skills for how to develop and sustain highquality and effective relationships with their mentees. 

Insufficient Research EF: 0 

PR: 1 

NE: 0 

IE: 5 

Post-Match Mentor Training Providing mentors with structured guidance and instruction after they have begun their 

mentoring relationships with youth. 

Insufficient Research EF: 0 

PR: 0 

NE: 0 

IE: 4 

Strategies for Preventing Peer 

Aggression, Bullying, and 

Victimization 

Intentional program efforts to develop behaviors, skills, and attitudes that reduce or 

prevent engagement in (1) aggressive or bullying behavior and (2) experiencing 

victimization by peers. 

Promising EF: 0 

PR: 1 

NE: 0 

IE: 1 

Strategies for Recruiting Male 

Mentorsc 

Intentional efforts within mentoring programs for youth to increase the number or 

proportion of males who are available to serve as mentors. 

Insufficient Research EF: 0 

PR: 0 

NE: 0 

IE: 0 

Strategies for Setting and 

Working on Mentee Goals 

Systematic efforts within programs to support mentee goal-setting and pursuit in 

mentoring relationships. 

Promising EF: 1 

PR: 3 

NE: 0 

IE: 2b 

Support for Match Closure Efforts by the mentoring program to ensure that the relationship ending process is 

handled in a way that is beneficial to both youth and mentors. 

Insufficient Research EF: 0 

PR: 0 

NE: 0 

IE: 3b 

Support for Mentor Advocacy Practice that focuses on enhancing the actions that mentors may take on behalf of their 

mentees outside of the mentor-mentee relationship itself (i.e., the time they spend 

together). 

Promising EF: 0 

PR: 2 

NE: 0 

IE: 0 

Support for Youth Thriving Intentional program efforts to cultivate attitudes, skills, and behaviors among mentees 

that are widely understood to be centrally important to young persons’ positive

development and capacity to make meaningful contributions to their communities. 

Promising EF: 0 

PR: 3b 

NE: 1b 

IE: 1 

Youth Initiated Mentoring 

(YIM) 

Supporting youth with engaging nonparental adults from their social networks (e.g., 

teachers, family friends, extended family members) in mentoring interactions and 

relationships. 

Promising EF: 0 

PR: 1 

NE: 0 

IE: 0 

a

EF = Effective, PR = Promising, NE = Null Effect, IE = Insufficient Evidence. 

b

The evidence base included at least one study that included more than one empirical test of the practice. 

c Empirical tests of the practice were not available for this review. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

Resource Reviews 

The National Mentoring Resource Center provides a collection of mentoring handbooks, curricula, 

manuals, and other resources that practitioners can use to implement and further develop program 

practices. The resources posted on the NMRC site have all been reviewed by the NMRC Research Board. 

Reviews fall into one of two categories: 

 Tier 1 review is used when a resource has been evaluated for effectiveness in research that 

meets established criteria for rigor. This research is reviewed using a standard protocol and 

scoring instrument to arrive at a classification of the evidence base for the resource in a manner 

similar to programs and practices (see above). Only those resources classified as Effective or 

Promising are listed on the National Mentoring Resource Center website. 

 Tier 2 review is used for any resource that has not yet been rigorously evaluated for 

effectiveness. The purpose of this review is to ensure that the resource does not conflict 

significantly with other relevant research. Only those resources that pass this screening are 

listed on the National Mentoring Resource Center website. 

The listing for each resource on the NMRC website includes a brief description, a summary of 

applicable research (Tier 1 reviewed resources only), and information for accessing and using the 

resource. Most resources are directly available for download from the National Mentoring Resource 

Center website or elsewhere online. More detailed information about the procedures used by the 

Research Board to review resources can be found here. 

Table 6 summarizes the 62 reviewed resources available on the NMRC site. Resources are grouped 

into 6 categories (listed in the table with sample resources noted): 

 Mentor Guides and Handouts 

 Mentor Training Resources 

 Program Management Resources 

 Program Policies and Procedures 

 Recruitment and Marketing Tools 

 Resources for Mentees and Families 

All resources reviewed to date fall into the “Tier 2” category (the resource has not been rigorously 

evaluated for effectiveness). The majority of resources reviewed fall in the categories of “Mentor Guides

and Handouts” (21 resources) and “Program Management Resources” (26 resources).

Reviewed resources are nominated by Research Board members, MENTOR, and nominations 

through the NMRC site. At present, it is unknown if the greater proportion of resources in the two areas 

noted above reflect greater practitioner demand or development work in those particular areas, or 

simply reflects resources that have come to the attention of those nominating them for review. The 

remaining categories with fewer resources (e.g., recruitment and marketing, resources for mentees and 

families) are an area of potential need for further resource development, however, it is unclear at 

present if these resources do exist and have not yet been nominated or if there is practitioner need 

and/or demand for more resources in these areas of mentoring practice. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
OJJDP Mentoring Research Synthesis - 42 

Table 6 

Summary of NMRC Resource Reviews 

Resource Category Number of Posted 

Resources 

Sample Resources 

Mentor Guides and Handouts 21 Growth Mindset for Mentors Toolkit 

Tip Sheet for Mentors: Supporting Children Who 

Have an Incarcerated Parent 

Mentor Training Resources 5 Training New Mentors: Effective Strategies for 

Providing Quality Youth Mentoring in Schools and 

Communities 

Talking it Through: Communication Skills for 

Mentors 

Program Management 

Resources 

26 College and Career Success Mentoring Toolkit 

Seventh Generation National Tribal Mentoring 

Program: Kinship Mentoring Framework Group 

Session Facilitator’s Guide

Program Policies and 

Procedures 

1 Generic Mentoring Program Policy and Procedure 

Manual 

Recruitment and Marketing 

Tools 

3 Effective Mentor Recruitment: Getting Organized, 

Getting Results 

Resources for Mentees and 

Families 

6 Preparing for Your Mentoring Relationship Video 

Mentee Training Toolkit: A Guide for Staff 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

OJJDP Mentoring Research Synthesis - 43 

Model and Population Reviews 

Each Mentoring Model/Population Review is conducted by the NMRC Research Board with the 

intention of examining the full body of rigorous evidence as it pertains to either mentoring for a specific 

population of youth (e.g., youth with disabilities, immigrant youth) or a specific model of mentoring 

(e.g., group mentoring, e-mentoring). Each review is built around a thorough literature review for the 

topic in an attempt to answer key questions about mentoring’s effectiveness, participant characteristics 

and program processes that influence that effectiveness, and successful implementation of relevant 

programs to date. 

Each review also contains an “Implication for Practitioners” section that highlights steps programs 

can take to use or build on this evidence base. A draft version of each review and accompanying 

implications for practice is anonymously reviewed by at least one practitioner and one researcher who 

have expertise in the topic. A Research Board member serves as the coordinating editor for each review 

and makes final decisions regarding the acceptability of its content, prior to submission for final review 

and approval by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 

Table 7 summarizes the 12 reviews completed to date. Three reviews fall under the “model” 

category (E-Mentoring, Group Mentoring, and One-to-One Cross-Age Peer Mentoring). Eight reviews 

reflect mentoring for specific populations of youth (Black Male Youth, Children of Incarcerated Parents, 

Immigrant and Refugee Youth, LGBTQI-GNC Youth, Youth and Young Adults During Reentry from 

Confinement, Youth in Foster Care). One review, specially requested by MENTOR, examines research as 

it relates to mentoring and domestic radicalization. 

Most reviews found evidence favoring the effectiveness of mentoring for positively influencing 

youth outcomes. However, available research typically was limited in scope and rigor and thus sufficient 

to provide only preliminary or tentative conclusions. Gaps in knowledge pertaining to factors that may 

moderate the effectiveness of mentoring as well as causal processes that may link mentoring to youth 

outcomes are especially prominent in the reviews. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

OJJDP Mentoring Research Synthesis - 44 

Table 7 

Summary of NMRC Model & Population Reviews 

Name of 

Review Scope 

Questions Addressed in Review 

Implications for 

Documented Effectiveness Factors Influencing Effectiveness Practice 

Intervening Processes Linking 

Mentoring to Youth 

Outcomes 

Efforts to Reach and 

Engage Targeted Youth, 

Achieve High quality 

Implementation 

Black Male Youth Formal and 

informal mentoring 

relationships and 

activities that take 

place between 

Black boys (i.e., 

mentees) and older, 

more experienced 

persons (i.e., 

mentors) who 

operate in a 

nonprofessional 

capacity to provide 

support for the 

youth’s healthy 

development. 

 Available research points to a 

range of potential benefits of 

both formal and informal 

mentoring for African-American 

boys, including in the areas of 

academic, social-emotional 

well-being, mental health, and 

preventing risky behaviors. 

However, because of limitations 

in the rigor of this research 

(e.g., there have been few 

evaluations in which AfricanAmerican boys are randomly 

assigned to mentoring versus a 

control group), the evidence in 

support of such benefits is at 

present tentative and 

preliminary. 

 It is possible that mentoring 

programs for Black male youth are 

more effective when they take into 

consideration Black/AfricanAmerican culture, history, and 

values in their design and 

implementation (i.e., are culturally 

tailored); research addressing this 

possibility is lacking. 

 Cultural mistrust may influence 

Black boys’ perceptions of their 

White mentors, which may influence 

the quality of their relationships. 

Research directly addressing this 

possibility, however, is lacking. 

 Group mentoring, rather than oneon-one, is a model that may be more 

culturally congruent with AfricanAmerican culture and may be useful 

in promoting brotherhood and 

belonging; research, however, has 

not compared the effectiveness of 

group versus one-on-one mentoring 

for Black boys. 

 Available research suggests that 

mentors and teachers who provide 

feedback to African-American 

students emphasizing that they have 

high expectations of their 

students/mentees, that they believe 

that their students/mentees can 

meet these expectations, and that 

they believe that their 

students/mentees can grow their 

abilities could be more effective in 

improving the academic outcomes 

 Theory and research suggest 

that developing a positive 

ethnic and racial identity could 

be important in linking 

mentoring to positive 

outcomes in other areas (e.g., 

academics) for Black male 

youth; however, research 

directly examining this 

possibility is lacking. 

 Group mentoring programs 

that develop a sense of unity, 

brotherhood, caring, and trust 

among program members may 

be particularly helpful to Black 

male youth; however, research 

on the role of these group 

processes in the outcomes for 

Black boys in mentoring is 

limited. 

 Developing close relationships 

with mentors may benefit 

Black boys by providing them 

with opportunities to develop 

healthy help-seeking strategies 

and to trust and depend on 

others for support; research 

addressing these processes, 

however, is very limited. 

 Mentoring relationships with 

more instrumental and 

emotional support may 

prevent behavioral problems in 

Black boys, but research is 

limited. 

 Various resources are 

available that may be 

helpful to organizations and 

programs in determining if 

they are ready to 

adequately serve Black boys 

within a mentoring 

framework and for building 

their capacity in areas such 

as mentor training and 

recruitment; although in 

many cases informed by 

available research, these 

resources have not been 

examined with respect to 

their potential to benefit 

programs in areas such as 

reach and engagement, 

quality of implementation, 

and sustainability. 

 It appears that Black boys 

may have less access to 

various kinds of informal 

mentors in their 

communities compared to 

Black girls; therefore, the 

need for engagement in 

formal mentoring programs 

may be especially high for 

male youth within the Black 

community. 

 Research suggests that Black 

men are more likely to serve 

as informal rather than 

formal mentors and that 

they experience barriers to 

 Don’t assume that all

Black male youth will 

need the same 

mentoring. 

 Proper training of 

mentors in aspects of 

race and culture may 

be critical. 

 Recruit mentors who 

have the right skills 

and values to mentor 

Black male youth 

effectively. 

 Consider activities 

and strategies that 

get young Black 

males to recognize 

the mentoring they 

do have in their lives 

and to find 

additional mentors. 

 Make sure that 

parents and 

guardians are 

treated as partners, 

not obstacles in the 

mentoring 

relationship. 

 Fight for larger social 

justice goals in your 

community. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

OJJDP Mentoring Research Synthesis - 45 

Name of 

Review Scope 

Questions Addressed in Review 

Implications for 

Documented Effectiveness Factors Influencing Effectiveness Practice 

Intervening Processes Linking 

Mentoring to Youth 

Outcomes 

Efforts to Reach and 

Engage Targeted Youth, 

Achieve High quality 

Implementation 

of African-American youth; research 

addressing these possibilities 

specifically for Black male youth, 

however, has not yet been 

conducted. 

 Mentor gender (i.e., male mentors) 

and similar life experiences (and 

perhaps shared cultural similarity) 

between mentors and mentees may 

be important in the mentoring 

relationships of Black boys; 

however, research addressing these 

possibilities is limited. 

 It appears that mentoring has the 

potential to lessen the negative 

effects of interpersonal racial 

discrimination on Black boys, 

although available research is again 

limited and preliminary. 

 Information and guidance 

provided by mentors may have 

the potential to promote 

positive educational outcomes 

for Black boys, but research is 

again lacking. 

serving as mentors in formal 

mentoring programs. 

Children of Children of Available research suggests that  The existing literature suggests that  For the children of  The literature on mentoring  A networked 

Incarcerated incarcerated program-arranged mentoring the effects of mentoring should not incarcerated parents from for children with approach that deeply 

Parents parents are defined 

as young people 

who have 

experienced the 

incarceration of at 

least one of their 

parents or primary 

caregivers while 

growing up. 

has the capacity to contribute to 

observable improvements for 

children of incarcerated parents 

in their behavior, relationships, 

and their emotional well-being; 

however, the scope and rigor of 

the available evidence are 

insufficient to draw strong 

conclusions. 

be assumed to be similar across 

children of incarcerated parents with 

varying personal characteristics and 

life experiences (for example, 

capacity for trust and resilience, 

strength of relationship between 

child and incarcerated parent, and 

whether caregiver is a biological 

parent or not); available research is 

extremely limited, however, and 

insufficient to provide a basis for 

even preliminary conclusions about 

these possibilities. 

 As is often common in programs 

serving higher risk youth, program 

practices that address critical needs 

within the family and that serve to 

strengthen the relationship between 

the parent and the child, are 

theoretically promising for 

backgrounds characterized by 

the highest levels of 

environmental and personal 

risk, the existing literature 

suggests that the full potential 

of the mentoring relationship 

to lead to positive youth 

outcomes is most likely to be 

realized when the mentor 

becomes integrated with the 

array of services and supports 

necessary to equip the child’s 

household to thrive; to date, 

however, there is no research 

that has explicitly examined 

these causal processes. 

 The disruptions that children 

experience to their 

relationships with incarcerated 

parents are known to shape 

incarcerated parents has 

helped to shine a light on 

the complexities that 

mentoring programs may 

need to address to 

effectively serve this 

population; these include 

the needs and interests of 

the children, which may be 

evident at times in a 

reluctance to enter into a 

trusting relationship with an 

adult mentor, and the needs 

of the caregivers and their 

interest/concerns related to 

having a child in a 

mentoring program; 

however, research that 

addresses the possible 

influence of these factors 

involves parents and 

caregivers is a good 

start. 

 A Positive Youth 

Development 

approach will get 

mentors going in the 

right direction. 

 Training for mentors 

in trust-building and 

communicating with 

the family is a must. 

 Programs may want 

to think about how 

to extend the 

benefits of the 

mentoring 

experience. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
OJJDP Mentoring Research Synthesis - 46 

Name of 

Review Scope 

Questions Addressed in Review 

Implications for 

Documented Effectiveness Factors Influencing Effectiveness Practice 

Intervening Processes Linking 

Mentoring to Youth 

Outcomes 

Efforts to Reach and 

Engage Targeted Youth, 

Achieve High quality 

Implementation 

enhancing the effectiveness of 

mentoring as a support strategy for 

children of incarcerated parents; 

none, however, have yet benefitted 

from systematic investigations of 

their effectiveness. 

 For youth with incarcerated parents, 

positive benefits of programarranged mentoring have been more 

evident while they are actively 

engaged with their mentors, and the 

published research does not provide 

any evidence that the benefits of 

mentoring are sustained over the 

longer-term if the relationship has 

ended. 

the perceptions these children 

have of themselves and their 

own personal identity; as such, 

the ways in which these 

children come to understand 

what it means to be a mentee 

and the potential expectations 

they may have about the value 

of the relationship with their 

mentor appears important for 

understanding how mentoring 

might contribute to positive 

youth outcomes; the degree to 

which this type of pathway is 

important in linking mentoring 

to positive outcomes for these 

youth, however, has not yet 

been systematically studied. 

with respect to engaging 

children with incarcerated 

parents is not currently 

available. 

 Sustaining the length of the 

mentoring relationship for 

young persons with 

incarcerated parents is 

apparently difficult for 

programs serving this 

population. 

 As has been indicated for 

mentoring programs in 

general, and those serving 

higher-risk youth in 

particular, it may be 

critically important for 

match retention to provide 

mentors with high-quality 

pre-match training and 

ongoing support by agency 

staff; research, however, 

has not examined this 

possibility. 

E-Mentoring E-mentoring refers 

to mentoring 

conducted entirely 

or in part using 

electronic 

communication, 

such as email, text, 

social media, 

messaging 

applications, or 

computer 

platforms. This also 

includes the use of 

technology to 

support and/or 

enhance in-person 

mentoring 

 The available evidence on the 

effectiveness of e-mentoring is 

mixed and does not allow one 

to draw conclusions about 

which formats work for which 

types of youth. 

 The evidence also does not 

permit even tentative 

conclusions about the 

effectiveness of e-mentoring 

for different types of youth 

outcomes. 

 Some demographic characteristics, 

including gender, race, 

socioeconomic status, and having an 

educational role model at home, 

may influence the impact of ementoring, although currently 

available research does not suggest 

reasons why. 

 General self-efficacy and motivation 

to participate might be related to 

the development of a positive 

relationship between a mentor and 

mentee in an e-mentoring program, 

but it is not clear if this truly 

moderates program outcomes for 

youth. 

 Studies assessing interaction 

frequency and relationship 

quality in e-mentoring show 

these factors have an influence 

on youth outcomes, such as 

self-efficacy and motivation. 

 While some studies did not 

directly assess what processes 

mediate effects of e-mentoring 

program participation on youth 

outcomes, their results could 

be informative based on the 

consideration given to 

differences in program 

experiences related to 

variation in outcomes for 

participating youth. 

 E-mentoring programs that 

have been implemented 

and sustained seem to 

benefit from clear 

guidelines, structure, and 

organizational tools. 

 Consider how 

mentor-mentee 

interactions will be 

better facilitated, or 

perhaps hindered, by 

electronic 

communication. 

 Consider the role of 

staff in facilitating 

and supporting 

electronic 

communication. 

 Plan carefully for the 

rollout or 

introduction of 

technology into the 

program. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
OJJDP Mentoring Research Synthesis - 47 

Name of 

Review Scope 

Questions Addressed in Review 

Implications for 

Documented Effectiveness Factors Influencing Effectiveness Practice 

Intervening Processes Linking 

Mentoring to Youth 

Outcomes 

Efforts to Reach and 

Engage Targeted Youth, 

Achieve High quality 

Implementation 

relationships (for 

example, using 

email 

communications to 

stay in touch 

between in-person 

meetings or to 

share resources). 

 Interpersonal characteristics such as 

mentoring style and communication 

style might moderate program 

outcomes, but there are no true 

tests of moderation to support this 

qualitative finding. 

 How an e-mentoring program for 

youth is implemented—one-on-one 

versus group—may be an important 

moderator. For gifted girls with 

interests in STEM, group ementoring seems to be more 

effective than a one-on-one format. 

 There are no known studies to date 

assessing how mentoring format—

traditional, e-mentoring, or a 

blended model—affect youth 

outcomes. 

Group Mentoring A broad array of 

“natural” or

programmatic 

contexts in which 

mentoring activity 

takes place 

involving one or 

more mentors and 

at least two 

mentees. The 

activity involved 

must involve group 

process (that is, 

interactions among 

group members). 

 There is evidence that group 

mentoring programs can be 

effective in fostering at least 

short-term improvements in a 

broad range of youth outcomes, 

including those in the 

behavioral, academic, 

emotional, and 

attitudinal/motivational 

domains. 

 Adequate evidence does not 

exist currently to gauge the 

potential longer-term effects of 

group mentoring programs. 

 Adequate evidence does not 

exist currently to gauge the 

potential effects of more 

informal forms of group 

mentoring 

 Because so little research has 

addressed conditional factors that 

may influence the effectiveness of 

group mentoring, only a few very 

tentative conclusions can be offered 

(see below) and none can be offered 

regarding fundamental issues such 

as group composition (including 

group size, number of mentors, 

mentor:mentee ratios), what 

constitutes sufficient duration, 

frequency and intensity of meetings, 

and the extent to which a formal 

curriculum is implemented. 

 There is emerging evidence that 

group mentoring can be effective 

across a wide range of mentee 

characteristics, including age, 

gender, ethnicity, and exposure to 

risk, and there are isolated findings 

to suggest that group mentoring 

might be particularly effective for 

 Because research is only 

beginning to address the 

intervening mechanisms that 

might influence the 

effectiveness of group 

mentoring, only tentative 

conclusions can be offered in 

this area. 

 In addition to whatever role 

may be played by the 

relationships that emerge 

between mentors and mentees 

in the context of group 

mentoring, available research 

suggests that there are 

additional relational processes, 

including group cohesion and 

belonging, mutual help, and a 

sense of group identity, that 

may contribute to more 

positive outcomes for youth in 

this type of mentoring. 

 Research is currently lacking 

to inform understanding of 

factors that may influence 

reaching and engaging 

targeted groups of youth, 

ensuring high quality 

implementation, and 

fostering the adoption and 

longer-term sustainability of 

group mentoring as an 

approach to supporting 

young persons in different 

settings. 

 Available studies suggest 

that key challenges specific 

to group mentoring may 

include managing limited 

resources, maintaining 

mentees’ engagement, 

selecting appropriate 

mentors and creating 

structures to support their 

work, and logistical issues; 

 When first 

considering group 

mentoring, think 

about why the group 

aspect matters. 

 Think about how 

your program can 

build real 

relationships in 

group mentoring. 

 Provide special 

training to mentors 

and compose mentor 

teams carefully. 

 Don’t skimp on 

supervision and 

ongoing mentor and 

mentee support. 

 Emphasize activities 

that get youth 

engaged with each 

other (and the 

world). 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

OJJDP Mentoring Research Synthesis - 48 

Name of 

Review Scope 

Questions Addressed in Review 

Implications for 

Documented Effectiveness Factors Influencing Effectiveness Practice 

Intervening Processes Linking 

Mentoring to Youth 

Outcomes 

Efforts to Reach and 

Engage Targeted Youth, 

Achieve High quality 

Implementation 

youth exposed to higher levels of 

risk. 

 While the research on program 

practices is limited, one area that 

shows promise for enhancing 

effectiveness involves program 

practices that foster peer support 

among mentors (e.g., through 

opportunities for mentors of 

different groups to interact or 

through co-mentorship within 

groups). 

 By simultaneously involving 

multiple types of relationships 

between and among mentors 

and peers, group mentoring 

may provide a context that 

helps build skills, positive 

attitudes, and confidence in 

social interactions; preliminary 

evidence suggests that these 

processes, in turn, contribute 

to positive behavioral 

outcomes over time. 

 Although research to date 

suggests little potential for 

“contagion” effects that have 

been observed for other group 

interventions for adolescents, 

these cannot be ruled out until 

such processes receive more 

direct examination. 

however, systematic data 

are lacking to address best 

practices in these areas. 

Immigrant and The term first-  Available research suggests  Theoretically, the special pre- and  Theory and the broader  Several strategies for  Carefully consider 

Refugee Youth generation 

immigrant and 

refugee youth 

broadly refers to 

foreign-born youth 

with no US 

citizenship at birth. 

This population 

includes youth who 

are naturalized 

citizens, lawful 

permanent 

residents, refugees, 

and asylees, and 

the unauthorized 

(or undocumented). 

mentoring programs can serve 

as a useful form of support for 

FG-IRY, facilitating outcomes in 

the areas of acculturation 

(both language and 

behavioral), social integration, 

and academic performance; 

methodological limitations of 

studies, however, make this 

conclusion highly preliminary. 

 Supportive relationships with 

peers and adults have been 

linked in limited research to 

positive indicators and 

facilitators of school/academic 

engagement among FG-IRY, 

including effort and ability to 

form friendships with fellow 

students. 

post-migration context and 

sociopolitical status of 

undocumented and refugee youth 

give rise to unique needs among 

these two groups within FG-IRY that 

could, in turn, have implications for 

the types of mentoring that are most 

beneficial for these youth; however, 

research addressing this possibility is 

lacking. 

 Some research suggests prementoring relationship training, 

relationship building activities, 

setting clear expectations, mentee 

involvement in choice of activities, 

and family engagement may 

enhance the likely benefits of 

mentoring for FG-IRY; however, the 

implications of these practices has 

neither been tested directly nor has 

research literature suggests 

that facilitation of identity 

development, particularly 

ethnic identity development, 

and fostering a sense of 

belonging could be an 

important process through 

which mentoring can promote 

other desirable outcomes 

among FG-IRY, potentially and 

especially those who have 

been in the new country for 

relatively limited amounts of 

time; however, research 

examining this possibility is 

currently absent. 

 Mentoring may promote 

positive outcomes for FG-IRY 

by creating safe and 

resourceful spaces for them to 

engaging FG-IRY in 

mentoring programs, 

including community-familyschool partnerships and 

offering them at religious 

sites, have been proposed; 

however, research is lacking 

on the extent to which 

these strategies are being 

utilized and serve to 

increase engagement of this 

population of youth in 

mentoring supports and 

services. 

 Close collaboration between 

community leaders, schools, 

and families in mentoring 

programs and support 

services for FG-IRY has been 

argued to be important for 

the nuanced needs 

and specific cultural 

backgrounds of the 

mentees and families 

you wish to serve. 

 Think carefully about 

who should serve as 

mentors. 

 In many ways, 

success in school 

seems to be key in 

helping FRG-IRY 

thrive more 

generally in their 

new country. 

 Select recommended 

resources. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

OJJDP Mentoring Research Synthesis - 49 

Name of 

Review Scope 

Questions Addressed in Review 

Implications for 

Documented Effectiveness Factors Influencing Effectiveness Practice 

Intervening Processes Linking 

Mentoring to Youth 

Outcomes 

Efforts to Reach and 

Engage Targeted Youth, 

Achieve High quality 

Implementation 

it been the subject of in-depth 

investigation. 

 Both cross- and same-culture 

mentoring relationships show 

potential to promote positive 

acculturation and schoolengagement-related outcomes 

among FG-IRY; the cultural 

understanding that same-culture 

mentors bring to the relationship 

and the cultural competency of 

cross-culture mentors each may be 

helpful in forging strong connections 

with FG-IRY. 

 Benefits of mentoring for FG-IRY 

may accrue in part as a result of 

mentors acting as cultural and 

system translators and interpreters 

for behavioral and institutional 

norms of the new country. 

develop, in particular by 

fostering supportive 

relationships with peers and 

adults within systems like 

school and the family; 

however, research examining 

this type of pathway of 

influence is lacking. 

increasing engagement as 

well as facilitating quality 

implementation and longterm sustainability; 

however, research 

addressing this possibility is 

lacking. 

 It appears that natural 

mentoring relationships are 

sources of instrumental and 

emotional support to FGIRY, but that there is an 

unmet need for institutional 

and structural resources and 

mechanisms to facilitate the 

establishment and 

sustenance of these 

relationships. 

LGBTQI-GNC Youth who are 

lesbian, gay, 

bisexual, 

transgender, 

questioning, 

intersex, and 

gender 

nonconforming 

(LGBTQI-GNC) 

 In-person mentoring 

relationships may serve an 

important protective role for 

LGBTQI-GNC youth, helping 

them to confront challenges 

such as lack of acceptance 

from peers and parents; 

however, available research is 

too limited to offer more than 

tentative and very preliminary 

support for this possibility. 

 Informal mentoring 

relationships with adults may 

promote positive educational 

outcomes among LGBTQI-GNC 

youth; however, this 

conclusion is speculative given 

that this possibility has been 

examined within only one 

study. 

 Some subpopulations of LGBTQIGNC youth—including youth of 

color, gender nonconforming youth, 

transgender youth, youth at earlier 

phases of identity development, and 

systems involved youth—may 

experience intersections of risks that 

hinder the development of trust and 

for this reason make it more 

challenging for them to experience 

high quality, effective relationships 

with mentors; research directly 

examining this possibility, however, 

is lacking. 

 Existing research suggests that 

mentors who take youth-centered 

approaches inclusive of the 

experiences and needs of LGBTQIGNC youth may foster greater 

benefits for this population of youth; 

in contrast, mentors who are 

 Support for identity 

development and gender 

identity/expression may be a 

critical pathway through which 

mentoring relationships are 

able to promote positive 

outcomes for LGBTQI-GNC 

youth; however, research 

directly addressing this 

possibility is extremely limited 

and thus inconclusive. 

 Processes that involve mentors 

taking an advocacy role and 

offering emotional, 

informational, and social forms 

of support may be significant in 

contributing to positive 

outcomes for LGBTQI-GNC 

youth, but existing research is 

only broadly suggestive of this 

possibility. 

 Few formal mentoring 

programs appear to exist 

that provide mission-driven 

mentoring services to 

LGBTQI-GNC youth; 

however, research 

documenting the prevalence 

of such programs or the 

success of mentoring 

programs, more generally, 

with engaging LGBTQI-GNC 

youth is lacking. 

 A number of promising 

practices for providing 

services to LGBTQI-GNC 

youth are emerging, offering 

initial clues as to how to 

create safe climates and 

responsive programming for 

this population. 

 Learn the definitions 

behind the acronym 

and become 

culturally and 

linguistically 

competent when 

designing and 

delivering services. 

 Make sure your 

program culture and 

materials are 

welcoming to this 

population. 

 Consider recruiting 

mentors with lived 

experience in this 

area. 

 Set (or augment) 

confidentiality 

policies to address 

information sharing 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
OJJDP Mentoring Research Synthesis - 50 

Name of 

Review Scope 

Questions Addressed in Review 

Implications for 

Documented Effectiveness Factors Influencing Effectiveness Practice 

Intervening Processes Linking 

Mentoring to Youth 

Outcomes 

Efforts to Reach and 

Engage Targeted Youth, 

Achieve High quality 

Implementation 

 At the college level, it appears experienced as unsupportive—  Funding for mentoring around the topic of 

that informal and formal especially with respect to disclosure programs and initiatives sexual orientation. 

mentoring relationships may of feelings or questions regarding focused on LGBTQI-GNC  Train mentors 

be linked with improved sexual orientation —pose the youth is starting to appear. working with 

feelings of well-being, success potential to create harm. LGBTQI-GNC youth in 

as a college student,  There is indirect and preliminary relevant topical 

commitment to the gay evidence that the use of criteria that areas. 

community, and support for are inclusive of—but not limited  Advocate for LBTQIidentity development; to—shared sexual orientation and GNC youth in your 

however, evidence to support gender identity/expression between community and the 

this possibility is preliminary. youth and mentors may be 

important for enhancing the quality 

of mentoring relationships for 

LGBTQIGNC; other relationship 

features with indicated potential to 

be influential (e.g., amount of time 

spent together) are similar to those 

identified as important for 

mentoring relationship quality 

among youth more generally. 

family. 

 When possible, 

contribute to the 

research base. 

Mentoring and Radicalization is the  Preliminary evidence suggests  A wide range of youth and mentor  Available evidence suggests  Partnerships comprised of For “Typical” Mentoring

Domestic process of the potential for program- characteristics and programmatic that several of the processes diverse local community Programs 

Radicalization developing 

extremist 

ideologies and 

beliefs, with 

extremism (in the 

context of liberal 

democracies) 

understood to refer 

to “an ideology that

advocates racial or 

religious supremacy 

and/or opposes the 

core principles of 

democracy and 

universal human 

rights”.

supported mentoring provided 

to youth from marginalized 

communities and those with 

recent immigrant backgrounds 

to enhance indicators of PYD 

that may reduce their 

susceptibility to radicalization 

or violent extremism (e.g., 

rewarding social connections 

with diverse peers, confidence 

in being able to successfully 

pursue postsecondary 

education and obtain 

employment); however, the 

amount and quality of this 

research is notably limited and 

restricted to non-US contexts. 

 Very limited research has 

examined the potential for 

considerations have the potential to 

condition the effectiveness of 

mentoring for prevention or 

reduction of radicalization among 

young people, potentially in 

interaction with one another; 

however, research to address such 

possibilities is lacking. 

 Existing evidence, although 

preliminary, suggests that the 

potential for mentoring to advance 

aims of reducing or preventing 

violent extremism may extend 

across mentors with varying 

backgrounds as well as programs 

utilizing a range of settings and 

strategies directed toward this aim. 

understood to be important in 

connecting mentoring to 

positive youth outcomes more 

generally—such as forging of a 

close and trusting bond and 

engaging in activities to 

promote core aspects of PYD—

can also be significant in linking 

mentoring to prevention or 

reduction of radicalization 

among youth; however, these 

findings are highly preliminary 

due, in part, to a lack of 

examination of the viability of 

potential pathways in their 

entirety (i.e., from mentoring 

to lower levels of 

radicalization). 

government and 

nongovernment entities and 

stakeholders (e.g., 

community activists) may be 

important for facilitating the 

development, 

implementation, and reach 

of initiatives involving 

mentoring that have aims of 

contributing to prevention 

or reduction of 

radicalization among youth. 

 Barriers to the engagement 

of youth in mentoring 

initiatives associated with 

efforts to prevent 

radicalization and violent 

extremism have included 

practical challenges 

 Look for warning 

signs that youth may 

be on a path toward 

radicalization 

 Examine how your 

program brings the 6 

Cs to life through 

mentoring. 

 Help youth expand 

their horizons. 

For Programs Explicitly 

Focusing on Preventing 

Radicalization 

 Using members of 

the mentee’s ethnic 

group or religion as 

mentors. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

OJJDP Mentoring Research Synthesis - 51 

Name of 

Review Scope 

Questions Addressed in Review 

Implications for 

Documented Effectiveness Factors Influencing Effectiveness Practice 

Intervening Processes Linking 

Mentoring to Youth 

Outcomes 

Efforts to Reach and 

Engage Targeted Youth, 

Achieve High quality 

Implementation 

mentoring to help forestall or 

interrupt the emergence of 

attitudes or behaviors that may 

reflect tendencies toward 

radicalization among youth; 

there is, however, limited 

“proof of concept” evidence

for this possibility with respect 

to attitudes for mentoring 

carried out with Muslim youth 

and young adults in varying 

contexts (i.e., faith- or 

community-based). 

 Some of the processes that 

tentatively appear to represent 

viable routes for connecting 

mentoring to prevention or 

reduction of radicalization—

such as direct discussion of 

ideological beliefs and 

engineering of positive 

contacts with members of 

other cultural groups—extend 

beyond those that have been 

most widely addressed in the 

general literature on youth 

mentoring; however, there is 

also preliminary evidence to 

suggest such processes (e.g., 

discussions focusing on culture 

and ethnicity) may prove 

ineffective or problematic 

when initiated with limited 

preparation or response 

planning. 

associated with identifying 

young persons expected to 

be most appropriate for 

participation as well as overt 

resistance stemming from 

sociopolitical concerns, 

including perceptions of 

stigmatization and 

stereotyping. Preliminary 

evidence suggests that the 

effects of such barriers can 

be at least partially offset 

through meaningful 

involvement of young 

persons in programs both as 

peer mentors and in 

leadership roles. 

 The potential in a 

blend of one-to-one 

and group 

mentoring. 

 Carefully evaluating 

how and when you 

might involve law 

enforcement in your 

efforts. 

One-to-One CrossAge Peer 

Mentoring 

A match between 

an older youth 

(mentor) with a 

younger mentee 

where there is an 

age difference of 

two or more years. 

 Evidence of the effectiveness of 

peer mentoring programs is 

very limited, both because 

there are few studies of 

programs meeting the criteria 

for this review and because 

only seven of these programs 

had been tested with rigorous 

research designs. 

 Multiple studies report 

evidence of increasing 

connectedness to family and 

peers, as well as peer 

acceptance and self-esteem. 

 Consistent evidence was found 

regarding the benefits of 

school-based cross-age peer 

mentoring programs on school 

 Teen mentors may need and 

benefit more than adult mentors 

from staff support, program 

structure (e.g., planned activities), 

and ongoing training. 

 Mentors should not be coerced or 

lured into mentoring because of 

the potential negative 

consequences for the mentees to 

whom these disinterested mentors 

are assigned. 

 Mentors who hold more positive 

attitudes toward youth in their 

community, who are motivated to 

help, and who report greater social 

(rather than self-) interest should 

be selected. 

 Although parent involvement has 

not been the specific focus of 

 Establishing a relationship 

first seems critical to 

generating the experiential 

building blocks of a 

mentoring relationship—

empathy, trust, mutuality, 

and reciprocity. 

 For teenage mentors, more 

structure is typically needed 

to create the conditions for 

befriending to occur 

between cross-age peers. 

 Some guidance and activity 

advice (“interaction 

structure”) may be needed 

for mentors to feel 

competent and efficacious, 

but too much could feel 

 Staffing is critical to 

successful program 

implementation and 

sustainability. Effective 

coordinators are interested 

in leading the program, are 

well trained, possess the 

necessary organizational 

and leadership skills, and 

are effective at securing the 

resources they need. 

 Program coordinators (in 

many ways like peer 

mentors) need support, cocoordinators, and an active 

advisory board involved in 

program operations. They 

should also work 

continuously to secure and 

 Lay a strong 

foundation for the 

program by selecting 

the right 

coordinators and the 

right mentors. 

 Select the right 

match activities to 

scaffold relationship 

building. 

 Provide lots of 

training and 

supervision to peer 

mentors. 

 Let the youth lead as 

much as possible. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

OJJDP Mentoring Research Synthesis - 52 

Name of 

Review Scope 

Questions Addressed in Review 

Implications for 

Documented Effectiveness Factors Influencing Effectiveness Practice 

Intervening Processes Linking 

Mentoring to Youth 

Outcomes 

Efforts to Reach and 

Engage Targeted Youth, 

Achieve High quality 

Implementation 

connectedness (or related 

outcomes like school bonding). 

 There is conflicting evidence of 

cross-age peer mentoring 

effects on grades, class 

performance, or achievement, 

as well as on misbehavior and 

misconduct. 

research in cross-age peer 

mentoring programs, evidence 

exists that engaging parents in 

these programs through family 

events may be useful in facilitating 

improvements in mentees’ 

connectedness to their parents. 

stifling and deflating to the 

youth. 

 Teenage mentors may need 

help to become flexibly 

reliant on prescribed or 

curricular activities, and 

require training in how to 

grow the relationship by 

strategically diverting into 

personal discussions instead 

of the provided task. 

maintain buy-in from school 

administrations. 

 Teen mentors, like all 

mentors, need extensive 

initial and sufficient ongoing 

training. This should include 

information on program 

parameters and training on 

all the necessary skills to be 

an effective mentor. 

Training for teen mentors 

should also prepare them 

for responding to potential 

worst-case scenarios. 

Similarly, administrators 

and coordinators should 

develop a response protocol 

for those occasions in which 

mentors make mistakes. 

 When choosing program 

curriculum or other 

activities to organize the 

matches, be sure 

relationship development 

can be prioritized, and 

consider allowing students 

to guide activity 

development to make 

curricula relevant to local 

needs. 

Youth and Young Confinement of a  Insufficient evidence is available  Insufficient evidence is available to  Insufficient evidence is  Insufficient evidence is  A few, and possibly 

Adults During range of lengths to draw conclusions about the draw conclusions about the available to draw conclusions available to draw critical, moderators 

Reentry from and in a range of effectiveness of mentoring, moderators of the effects of about mediators of outcomes conclusions about any of outcomes. 

Confinement settings. Can 

include a period of 

a few hours at a 

police station, a few 

days at the local 

county youth 

services facility, a 

whether delivered in tandem 

with other services and 

supports or not, for youth or 

young adults during reentry. 

mentoring provided to youth during 

reentry from juvenile justice. 

related to mentoring youth 

and young adults at reentry 

aspect of implementing 

mentoring programs and 

supports for youth or young 

adults during reentry 

following confinement; this 

is also true for related 

considerations of 

 Partnerships and 

flexibility may be 

critical in reentry 

work. 

 Preparing for 

challenges in 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

OJJDP Mentoring Research Synthesis - 53 

Name of 

Review Scope 

Questions Addressed in Review 

Implications for 

Documented Effectiveness Factors Influencing Effectiveness Practice 

Intervening Processes Linking 

Mentoring to Youth 

Outcomes 

Efforts to Reach and 

Engage Targeted Youth, 

Achieve High quality 

Implementation 

few months in a successfully engaging working with this 

group home, up to targeted youth in such population 

many months at a programs or support and 

state youth their adoption and 

correctional facility. sustained utilization by host 

settings. 

Youth in Foster 

Care 

Children and 

adolescents in any 

type of courtordered out-ofhome care (i.e., 

non-relative foster 

care, kinship foster 

care, or congregate 

care) due to 

maltreatment, 

including transitionage youth (16 to 25 

years old) as long as 

the studies included 

some participants 

under 18. 

 Although not yet confirmed 

through rigorous evaluation, 

mentees report that both 

natural and program mentors 

provide life-changing 

informational, instrumental, 

and emotional support to 

young people in foster care 

who often lack consistent 

adults to help them navigate 

the many challenges they face. 

 Available research suggests 

that both natural and programbased mentoring for children in 

foster care (across a range of 

ages and mentoring formats) 

can have positive impacts on 

mental health, educational 

functioning and attainment, 

peer relationships, placement 

outcomes, and life satisfaction; 

mentoring demonstrated no 

impact or mixed results for 

other outcomes, including 

social skills, attachment to 

adults, physical health, 

employment and financial 

assets, risky behaviors, and 

associated negative life-course 

outcomes (e.g., substance use, 

delinquency, arrests). 

 Most of the mentoring 

programs serving youth in 

foster care that have been 

evaluated to date have been 

 The existing literature suggests that 

the effects of mentoring may differ 

by children’s demographic 

characteristics, but the literature is 

insufficient to provide firm 

conclusions about their effects. 

 Youth who are at very high levels of 

risk may not benefit as much as 

youth at lower levels of risk, and risk 

may also differentially affect distinct 

outcomes (e.g., psychosocial 

outcomes vs. child welfare 

outcomes). 

 Characteristics of the mentoring 

relationship, including frequency of 

meetings, duration, and quality of 

the match, are inconsistently related 

to mentoring outcomes, although 

few of the rigorously designed 

studies examined these 

characteristics and no studies 

systematically varied these indices 

to test their importance. 

 Studies of natural mentoring suggest 

that mentor characteristics and the 

role mentors play may be linked 

with youth’s receipt of benefits.

 Mechanisms, or processes, 

through which mentoring may 

affect outcomes include 

improving future expectations 

and self-determination and 

increasing time in care, but 

research is extremely limited 

and thus inconclusive. 

 One well-designed study found 

that improvement in prosocial 

skills was critical to avoiding 

some delinquent behaviors, 

but more research is needed to 

generalize these findings to 

other programs and outcomes 

of interest. 

 Both natural and programbased mentoring appear to 

appeal to and engage youth 

who are diverse in 

sociodemographic and 

behavioral/emotional 

functioning, although 

mentoring programs 

(especially those with less 

structure) often have 

difficulty retaining foster 

youth. 

 Studies have not examined 

whether adherence to a 

given program model 

predicts better outcomes 

for youth, although 

alignment of program goals 

and outcomes is reported to 

be important by program 

developers and participants. 

 Although there are many 

conceptual reasons why 

mentoring is an excellent fit 

for youth in foster care, 

there are pragmatic 

challenges, both logistical 

and financial, that make 

widespread implementation 

difficult and no studies have 

been conducted that 

examine program expansion 

or adaptation. 

 Because of the high 

potential for adverse 

 When undertaking 

mentoring with this 

population, 

adequate staffing 

resources, access to 

clinical expertise, 

and knowledge of 

and collaboration 

with foster care 

systems are critical. 

 Train mentors to 

serve as 

“appropriate working

models” of healthy 

relationships. 

 Consider helping 

youth build or 

strengthen “natural”

ties through youthinitiated or networkengaged approaches 

to mentoring. 

 When serving older 

foster youth, think 

about taking a selfdetermination 

approach. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

OJJDP Mentoring Research Synthesis - 54 

Name of 

Review Scope 

Questions Addressed in Review 

Implications for 

Documented Effectiveness Factors Influencing Effectiveness Practice 

Intervening Processes Linking 

Mentoring to Youth 

Outcomes 

Efforts to Reach and 

Engage Targeted Youth, 

Achieve High quality 

Implementation 

multicomponent (i.e., they outcomes among this 

included components other vulnerable population, great 

than one-to-one mentoring, care and coordination is 

such as skills groups) and required for implementing 

utilized mentors who were mentoring programs and 

agency staff members or supporting natural 

university students; thus, we mentoring relationships for 

know less about other program youth in foster care; if done 

models serving this population. well, however, the benefits 

of mentoring appear to 

outweigh the risks and 

foster youth may experience 

positive outcomes across a 

range of domains. 

Youth Involved in 

Commercial Sex 

Activity 

YCSA are young 

persons who have 

current or past 

involvement in (or 

at high risk for 

involvement in) 

commercial sex 

activity, broadly 

defined as any form 

of being sexual in 

exchange for 

money, gifts, safety, 

drugs, or survival 

needs, whether or 

not the young 

person gets to keep 

the money/goods/ 

service. 

 Mentoring is a theoretically 

promising form of support for 

youth with current or past 

involvement in (or high risk for 

involvement in) commercial 

sex activity (YCSA); direct 

evidence of the effectiveness 

of mentoring for this 

population of young persons, 

however, is lacking. 

 Available research suggests 

that relationships established 

between YCSA and staff, 

including those with histories 

of commercial sex involvement 

themselves, can be an 

important component of 

programs to support this 

population of youth. 

 Structured approaches to 

supporting the positive 

development of YCSA through 

mentoring show promise but 

have not yet been adequately 

tested; the same is true of 

psychoeducational programs 

that aim to help YCSA build the 

 The existing literature suggests that 

the effects of mentoring should not 

be assumed to be similar across 

YCSA with varying personal 

characteristics and life experiences 

(for example, age, profiles of risk 

and protective factors, and history 

and current status of involvement in 

commercial sex activity); available 

research is extremely limited, 

however, and insufficient to provide 

a basis for even preliminary 

conclusions about these possibilities. 

 Several practices -- including a 

number that already appear to be in 

common use (e.g., use of peer 

survivors as mentors, coordination 

of mentoring with other supports 

and services) – appear theoretically 

promising for enhancing the 

effectiveness of mentoring as a 

support strategy for YCSA; none, 

however, have yet benefitted from 

systematic investigations of their 

effectiveness. 

 The existing literature directs 

attention to a potential for 

mentoring to be of benefit to 

youth with backgrounds of 

involvement in commercial sex 

activity by virtue of facilitating 

positive growth in areas such 

as personal identity, skills for 

accessing needed resources, 

perceptions of self-efficacy, 

and feelings of hopefulness; 

research bearing directly on 

these possibilities, however, is 

not currently available. 

 A further important way in 

which mentors have the 

potential to prove valuable in 

the lives of youth with 

involvements in commercial 

sex activity is to connect them 

to resources (e.g., persons, 

institutions) that can be of 

direct support in addressing 

their needs in areas such 

education, employment, and 

self-care; the degree to which 

this type of pathway is 

 There is reason to anticipate 

the viability of engaging 

youth with backgrounds of 

commercial sex involvement 

in mentoring supports and 

services, but potentially 

significant challenges with 

sustaining their 

participation over time due 

to high levels of flux and 

instability in their life 

circumstances; the limited 

data available are broadly 

consistent with this 

expectation. 

 Both quality of 

implementation and the 

sustainability of mentoring 

programs for YCSA have the 

potential to be significantly 

compromised by a range of 

issues relating to 

organizational capacity (e.g., 

staff turnover, funding) and 

mentors (e.g., skill levels, 

follow-through on program 

commitment); to date, 

 It’s going to take a 

special kind of 

mentor to serve 

YCSA mentees. 

 Mentors can serve as 

connectors to other 

services and 

community. 

 Not all YCSA may be 

ready to benefit 

from a mentoring 

relationship. 

 Patience is the key to 

mentoring YCSA. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

OJJDP Mentoring Research Synthesis - 55 

Name of 

Review Scope 

Questions Addressed in Review 

Implications for 

Documented Effectiveness Factors Influencing Effectiveness Practice 

Intervening Processes Linking 

Mentoring to Youth 

Outcomes 

Efforts to Reach and 

Engage Targeted Youth, 

Achieve High quality 

Implementation 

skills necessary to foster important in linking mentoring these possibilities have not 

healthy relationships, including to positive outcomes for YCSA, been systematically 

with potential mentors. however, has not yet been 

systematically investigated. 

investigated. 

Youth with Mental Includes youth with  Available research offers  Available research suggests that the  Preliminary evidence suggests  Mentoring programs  Understanding 

Health Challenges a formal diagnosis, 

those experiencing 

internalizing or 

externalizing 

problems, and 

those identified as 

“emotionally 

and/or behaviorally 

disturbed.”

minimal support for the 

effectiveness of mentoring 

programs for youth with 

mental health challenges. 

 The evidence for mentoring 

program effectiveness is 

strongest for programs that 

have had a relatively high 

degree of structure and been 

directed toward higher 

functioning younger children 

(i.e., those receiving outpatient 

mental health services or 

identified as having mental 

health–related challenges 

while still functioning in a 

regular school setting) or 

young adolescents with ADHD. 

 Research on mentoring 

programs for youth with 

mental health challenges show 

the most evidence of having a 

positive effect on mental 

health symptoms and 

academic outcomes, with less 

evidence supporting social and 

life functioning outcomes. 

 Both site-based mentoring 

programs in schools and 

community-based natural 

support teams show 

preliminary evidence of being 

helpful for youth with mental 

health challenges. 

youth’s gender and severity of 

symptoms have the potential to 

condition the impact of mentoring 

on outcomes for youth with mental 

health challenges, with females and 

those with more severe symptoms 

receiving greater benefit than boys 

and those with fewer symptoms, 

respectively. 

 There is some evidence that formal 

mentoring programs (versus natural 

mentoring) may have more of a 

positive impact for youth with 

mental health needs. 

 Qualitative research suggests that 

the relatively high levels of 

interpersonal trauma in the 

backgrounds of youth with mental 

health challenges have the potential 

to constrain their ability to form 

strong mentoring relationships; this 

suggests that interpersonal trauma 

could similarly condition the impact 

of mentoring on the outcomes of 

this population of youth, although 

research does not appear to have 

addressed this possibility. 

 Theoretically, consistency of the 

person (mentor), place (site), and 

program may be important in 

conditioning the effects of 

mentoring for youth with mental 

health challenges; however, 

research has not addressed this 

possibility. 

that decreases in the stress 

level of caregivers represents 

one pathway through which 

mentoring may improve 

outcomes for youth with 

mental health challenges. 

 Relationship quality should be 

further considered as an 

important process linking 

mentoring to positive 

outcomes. 

 Preliminary research with 

young adults experiencing 

mental health challenges 

suggests processes involving 

improvements in trust, socioemotional support, affect 

regulation, and anxiety, among 

others, as potentially 

important ways through which 

mentoring may beneficially 

influence outcomes for this 

population; however, these 

processes have not been 

investigated among younger 

samples. 

intended specifically for 

youth with mental health 

challenges that have 

received rigorous evaluation 

appear to have successfully 

engaged substantial 

numbers of youth on a local 

level; however, these 

programs have not 

apparently been adopted 

and implemented on a 

larger scale and related 

research (e.g., on factors 

influencing adoption and 

sustainability of programs) 

is lacking. 

 There is preliminary 

evidence of the interest and 

amenability of youth 

receiving mental health 

services and their caregivers 

for involving youth in 

mentoring as part of service 

provision, as well as the 

potential for sustained 

engagement of youth and 

families in services with the 

support of mentoring 

relationships that are 

established. 

trauma exposure and 

other negative life 

experiences can help 

you determine the 

role your program 

can play. 

 Determine how your 

program can support 

two key strategies 

noted in this review. 

 Design program 

activities and mentor 

training to emphasize 

potentially important 

additional 

relationship 

characteristics and 

mediators of 

outcomes. 

 Define what success 

looks like for serving 

youth with mental 

health challenges and 

measure accordingly. 

 Select additional 

resources for 

practitioners. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
OJJDP Mentoring Research Synthesis - 56 

Special Projects: Measurement Guidance Toolkit 

The Measurement Guidance Toolkit for Mentoring Programs provides recommended instruments 

for measuring key youth outcomes in mentoring programs as well as several risk and protective factors 

that may be relevant to program outcomes. The recommended instruments are grouped into different 

domains in which mentoring has well-established potential for impact. All recommended instruments 

have been carefully reviewed and selected by a group comprised of members of the NMRC Research 

Board. 

Table 8 summarizes the categories and associated constructs and measures included in the toolkit. 

Measures are grouped into 8 different domains. The newest domain was completed in the current 

project year and recommends 9 measures of Mentoring Relationship Quality and Characteristics. There 

are several domains reflecting areas of program outcomes: Mental and Emotional Health, SocialEmotional Skills, Healthy and Prosocial Behavior, Problem Behavior, Interpersonal Relationships, and 

Academics. The final domain is Risk and Protective Factors. Information in each domain area includes an 

overview (describing key constructs and background research), as well as structured profiles of the 

recommended measures. Within the profile, users will also find a link to use to obtain the recommended 

measure. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
OJJDP Mentoring Research Synthesis - 57 

Table 8 

Summary of NMRC Measurement Guidance Toolkit 

Measurement Domain Construct Recommended Measure 

Mentoring Relationship 

Quality and 

Characteristics 

Multidimensional relationship 

quality 

Youth Mentoring Survey (YMS) and Match Characteristics Questionnaire (MCQ) 

Social Support and Rejection Scale 

Network of Relationships Inventory-Social Provisions Version 

Unidimensional relationship 

quality 

Youth and Mentor Strength of Relationship Scale 

Mentor Youth Alliance Scale 

Specific facets of relationships Group Mentoring Climate Scale 

Mentor Support for Racial/Ethnic Identity 

Youth-Centered Relationship Scale 

Growth-Goal Focus Scale 

Mental and Emotional 

Health 

Life satisfaction Brief Multidimensional Students’ Life Satisfaction Scale – Peabody Treatment Progress 

Battery 

Depressive symptoms Pediatric Depressive Symptoms – Short Form from the Patient-Reported Outcomes 

Measurement Information System (PROMIS) 

Adaptive coping with stress KIDCOPE – Child version 

Hopeful future expectations Abbreviated version of the Hopeful Future Expectations (HFE) Scale 

Self-Esteem Self-Esteem Questionnaire – Global Self-Worth Scale 

Sense of meaning and purpose Meaning in Life Questionnaire (MLQ) – Presence of Meaning Scale 

Ethnic identity Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure – Revised (MEIM-R) 

Social-Emotional Skills Self-control Social-Emotional and Character Development Scale (SECDS) – Self-control subscale 

Social competence Social Competencies Scale of the Youth Outcome Measures Online Toolbox 

Problem solving ability National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health) - Problem-solving items 

Skills for setting and pursuing 

goals 

Global scale of Selection, Optimization, and Compensation (SOC) 

Perseverance EPOCH Measure of Adolescent Well-Being – Perseverance Scale 

Career exploration Vocational Identity Status Assessment – In-Depth Career Exploration Scale 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
OJJDP Mentoring Research Synthesis - 58 

Healthy and Prosocial 

Behavior 

Healthy eating National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health (Add Health) –

nutrition/dietary intake items 

Physical activity Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS)—Physical activity item 

Prosocial behavior Social-Emotional Character Development Scale (SECDS) – Prosocial Behavior subscale 

Civic engagement Active and Engaged Citizenship (AEC) – Civic Participation scale 

Problem Behavior Delinquent behavior Problem Behavior Frequency Scale (PBFS) — the Self-Report Delinquency Scale 

Aggression Modified Aggression Scale (MAS) — Bullying subscale 

School misbehavior Patterns of Adaptive Learning Scales (PALS) – Disruptive Behavior subscale 

Substance use The CRAFFT Screening Questionnaire 

Truancy Recent and Lifetime Truancy Scale 

Interpersonal 

Relationships 

Parent-child relationship quality Network of Relationships Inventory (NRI)-short form — Parent Support subscale 

Very important non-parental 

adult 

Presence of a Very Important Adult 

Peer relationship quality Hemingway Measure of Adolescent Connectedness (MAC) — Connectedness to Peers 

subscale 

Loneliness Loneliness Questionnaire — Short Version (LQ-Short) 

Community connectedness Community Engagement and Connections Survey – Connection to Community Subscale 

Academics Academic performance Academic Performance 

Growth mindset for intelligence Revised Implicit Theories of Intelligence (Self-Theory) Scale 

Academic self-efficacy Patterns of Adaptive Learning (PALS) - Academic Efficacy subscale 

School engagement Engagement versus Disaffection with Learning (EvsD) – Behavioral Engagement 

subscale 

School connectedness The Hemingway Measure of Adolescent Connectedness — School Connectedness 

subscale 

Risk and Protective 

Factors 

Family management Communities That Care (CTC) Youth Survey — Poor Family Management subscale 

Neighborhood risk Communities That Care (CTC) Youth Survey — Community Disorganization subscale 

Deviant peer affiliation Peer Affiliation and Social Acceptance (PASA) Measure — Peer Affiliation subscale 

Peer victimization University of Illinois Victimization Scale – Peer Victimization items 

Out-of-school (OST) structured 

activity time 

Out-of-School-Time Structured Activity Involvement 

Symptoms of trauma exposure Child Post Traumatic Stress Disorder Symptom Scale (CPSS) 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

OJJDP Mentoring Research Synthesis - 59 

Conclusions and Next Steps 

Conclusions 

Reporting gaps and inconsistencies. As noted in various places within this synthesis, there is 

substantial variability in the scope and detail of information that is included in the final reports under 

consideration. This inconsistency is particularly apparent with respect to contextual information, such as 

details concerning mentoring program practices and the characteristics and backgrounds of participating 

youth as well as mentors and program staff, all of which may be important for interpreting and applying 

the research findings (Glasgow). 

Research aims. The projects reviewed were concerned primarily with advancing understanding of 

the effectiveness of mentoring programs in fostering desired outcomes for participating youth. 

Considerably less attention was given to in-depth examination of mentoring relationships formed within 

programs, the individual and contextual factors that may shape them, and the associations of different 

types and longevity of relationships with youth outcomes. Almost entirely absent were aims focused on 

increasing the reach of mentoring programs. Aims of this type might focus on identifying and testing 

promising strategies for mentor recruitment and retention, thus increasing the number of youth able to 

be served by programs and reducing what has been referred to as the “mentoring gap” (Mentoring 

Effect). Equally relevant would be investigation of strategies for increasing representation of vulnerable 

and historically under-served youth populations in mentoring programs would also fit within this can 

identifying strategies that facilitate mentor recruitment. The Research Board of the National Mentoring 

Resource Center (NMRC) has addressed these concerns in a number of its activities, including reviews of 

the evidence to support different mentor recruitment practices and those examining the effectiveness 

and current reach of mentoring as it relates to under-represented populations of youth (e.g., LGBTQI). 

These efforts have been inherently constrained, however, by the limited attention that issues of 

program reach have received to date within the overall research literature on youth mentoring. 

Representativeness of programs. For the most part, the mentoring programs that were evaluated 

or otherwise served as the context for the funded projects considered in this synthesis used a one-toone mentoring model. For the most part, too, programs were affiliates of Big Brothers Big Sisters of 

America (BBBSA). These trends are not surprising considering both that one-to-one mentoring has 

historically been the dominant approach within structured mentoring programs for youth and that 

BBBSA is the largest youth mentoring organization in the U.S. BBBSA, furthermore, has a wellestablished track record of partnering with researchers on numerous studies that have figured 

importantly in the development of the field’s evidence base. Yet, when considered against the backdrop 

of current trends in mentoring, such as what appears to be a growing number and variety of programs 

at the local, regional, and national levels, rapid growth in group-based approaches and various other 

more novel strategies (e.g., youth-initiated mentoring), and efforts initiated to increase the field’s 

capacity to provide more specialized forms of mentoring for certain high-need youth populations (e.g., 

commercially sexually exploited youth), the programs considered in the research reviewed in this 

synthesis are clearly not representative of the current landscape of the field (although they clearly were 

to a notably greater extent at the time the projects involved were proposed and funded). The programs 

reviewed under the auspices of the NMRC for CrimeSolutions.gov are more reflective of this current 

diversity, with programs employing group formats, peer-to-peer approaches, and e-mentoring, for 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

OJJDP Mentoring Research Synthesis - 60 

example, having been reviewed and in many instances determined to have promising evidence of 

effectiveness. 

Research methods. The methods utilized in the reviewed projects were largely rigorous and wellmatched to the research questions of primary interest. These include use of randomized control or 

strong quasi-experimental designs when attempting to discern the impact of mentoring programs or 

modifications and relatively in-depth mixed method and observational methods for investigating 

questions relating to program implementation and mentoring relationship processes. Significant 

methodological limitations of the research, however, are also apparent. These include relatively small 

sample sizes and attrition (loss of participants to follow-up assessments) within quantitative domain as 

well as issues detracting from the rigor of qualitative research. In a number of instances, these types of 

concerns were judged pronounced or numerous enough to result in relatively low ratings of the validity 

or trustworthiness of the findings reported in selected projects. Such limitations are also evident within 

the broader research literature on youth mentoring. This reality is reflected in the significant numbers of 

practices and programs reviewed by the NMRC for which substantive conclusions about effectiveness 

have not been possible due to methodological limitations of the available research. It also contributes to 

the largely tentative and preliminary nature of the conclusions that are reached in the NMRC’s broader 

reviews of mentoring as it relates to particular program models or youth populations. 

Findings. The findings included in the reports considered in this synthesis, in combination with the 

work undertaken by the NMRC Research Board, provide a number of substantive insights that can be 

useful for informing both current practice and future research. Equally noteworthy, as detailed below, 

are topics that, although largely not addressed in the reports, could be investigated in further analyses 

of the data available. 

Evidence supporting mentoring program effectiveness. In line with prior research, the projects 

reviewed provide evidence consistent with the potential for mentoring programs to be of benefit to 

participating youth in a range of areas important to their development. A significant and distinctive 

contribution of the OJJDP-supported research is the preliminary evidence that it provides of the capacity 

for mentoring program involvement to have positive implications for outcomes for the youth involved 

over longer time horizons than has been typical of those investigated in most prior research, including 

those extending well beyond the period of program participation and into adulthood. At the same time, 

neither these nor the other evaluations considered yielded consistent evidence of program effectiveness 

when considering results across the full set of outcomes examined. Similarly, approximately one-third of 

the programs reviewed through the NMRC received ratings of “No Effects,” although it is worth noting 

that even in these instances it has been commonplace for there to be some outcomes for which 

favorable program effects are evident. 

One potentially useful approach for dealing with the breadth of outcomes for which mentoring 

programs may be effective is to utilize more broad-based indices of impact that cut across multiple 

areas or domains of interest. These types of measures may be especially useful when constructed in 

ways that accommodate the reality that youth may vary considerably in the specific areas in which they 

demonstrate change or benefit stemming from program participation. The breadth of outcomes 

examined in many of the projects reviewed makes the data collected well suited to exploring this 

possibility. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OJJDP Mentoring Research Synthesis - 61 

Lack of demonstrated effectiveness of potential program enhancements. The program 

modifications investigated in several of the projects are largely consistent with strategies (e.g., mentor 

training, more intentional mentor-youth activities) that would be expected to hold promise for 

increasing benefits for participating youth. Yet, for the most part, there was very little evidence that 

being selected randomly to receive these potential enhancements served to either strengthen the 

mentoring relationships or improve youth outcomes. Clearly, a host of factors could account for this 

pattern. Some of these are hinted at by the findings of the projects involved, such as limited uptake or 

exposure to the new activities and supports on the part of youth and their mentors and subgroup 

differences in youth responsiveness. These factors could be fruitful to explore on a more consistent 

basis across the projects. It could be useful, as well, to further explore project data that bear on the 

potential implications of more general or foundational practices within mentoring programs. Training of 

mentors appears especially worthy of attention in this regard.9 

It is also worth noting that the program effectiveness reviews completed for the NMRC include at 

least two instances in which a program was modified based on results of an initial evaluation, which 

resulted in “No Effects” finding on CrimeSolutions.gov, and then obtained more favorable results and a 

rating of “Promising” or “Effective” when re-evaluated (see, e.g., Brief Instrumental School-Based 

Mentoring Program and the revised version of this program). More in-depth consideration of these 

programs, the processes involved in their iterative evolution, and the associated evaluations and 

evidence reviews may provide useful insight into conditions that are conducive to success when seeking 

to strengthen or enhance the effectiveness of already existing mentoring programs. 

Implementation challenges. The reports reviewed include abundant evidence of challenges 

involved with program implementation. It is not surprising, in view of the well-established challenges of 

introducing change or innovation into existing programs of essentially any type, that some of the most 

pronounced implementation difficulties have been reported in the context of attempting to evaluate the 

effects of introducing potential enhancements into existing mentoring programs. Existing programs, 

however, were clearly not immune to implementation challenges. These findings highlighted, most 

notably, that programs were often not successful in providing participating youth with mentoring 

relationships that were sustained over intended minimum periods of time. 

Further mining of qualitative data collected within projects could provide further insight into the 

types of challenges encountered, as could additional quantitative exploration of the data available. 

These types of analyses could shed greater light on constellations of youth, mentor, and site or program 

level factors that contribute to implementation variations with respect to both program innovations 

(e.g., adequacy of staff training, willingness and capacity for uptake by volunteer mentors) and more 

fundamental deliverables such as a sustained high-quality mentoring relationship. 

Mixed record of success in serving vulnerable youth within programs. Findings from the funded 

research projects point to the significant complexities and difficulties that programs can encounter 

when seeking to ensure that youth with heightened levels of risk or vulnerability, such as disability, 

parental incarceration, and juvenile justice system involvement, receive high-quality and effective 

9 As noted earlier in this report, NMRC reviews of pre- and post-match training for mentors resulted in evidence 

ratings of “Insufficient Research.” Updating these reviews to incorporate findings relating to mentor training 

included in the projects considered in this synthesis should be a priority. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

OJJDP Mentoring Research Synthesis - 62 

mentoring. There are, however, also encouraging results in this area, such as the evidence of success in 

providing mentoring of long-term benefit to youth in foster care within a program tailored to serving 

this population of youth and enhanced indications of relationship quality in conjunction with specialized 

mentor training and dedicated funding in the case of youth with incarcerated parents. In line with these 

findings, NMRC reviews have highlighted promising evidence of effectiveness for several programs 

designed to serve specific populations of vulnerable youth, such as those with learning disabilities, 

juvenile justice system involvement, or foster care involvement. Yet, results for these types of tailored 

programs have not been consistently favorable. A recurring theme in the center’s reviews of mentoring 

for youth populations understood to be at elevated risk or have special needs, furthermore, is the 

dearth of research that exists to directly inform the design of effective mentoring programs for the 

groups involved. Notably, opportunities to address such gaps in knowledge appear to exist within the 

data sets of some of the OJJDP-projects considered in this synthesis. 

Mentoring relationships. Among the most robust findings in the broader literature is the tendency 

for the characteristics of mentoring relationships and how they are experienced by youth and their 

mentors to vary considerably, even within the same program. The differences observed along several of 

these dimensions, such as emotional closeness and relationship longevity, furthermore, frequently are 

found to be predictive of differences in the outcomes of the youth involved. These considerations 

served as the primary impetus for adding a section on measures of Mentoring Relationship Quality and 

Characteristics to the previously described Measurement Guidance Toolkit of the NMRC. Against this 

backdrop, it is surprising that the reports reviewed do not more consistently and intensively explore 

issues such as influences on mentoring relationship quality and longevity, processes of mentoring 

relationship development and change or stability over time, and consequences of different relational 

features for youth outcomes. The findings reported in the projects that are among the most notable 

exceptions in this regard, such as those indicating an influential role for multiple different types of 

associated relationships (e.g., parent-mentor) as well as youth and family risk and vulnerabilities in risk 

for match closure, suggest the potential value for more in-depth consideration of the mentoring 

relationship data that is available in other projects. 

Limited consideration of more complex and nuanced patterns of influence. It is widely accepted in 

program evaluation research that there is much to be gained by moving beyond the typical overall tests 

of effectiveness to examine both intervening processes that may be instrumental in leading to outcomes 

(mediation) as well as conditioning factors, present from the outset, that may serve to amplify or 

diminish observed program effects (moderation). Mediational analyses may be especially useful for 

purposes of theory testing and development as well as identification of core processes that are 

important for replicating or improving on program effectiveness. These, however, received almost no 

consideration in the reports reviewed. Investigation of possible moderating influences can be valuable, 

among other possibilities, for clarifying the types of youth who are most likely to benefit from 

participation in a given program as well as those for whom effects may be lacking or even harmful. Tests 

of moderators, although included in a number of reports, are typically restricted to limited numbers and 

types of factors relative to those that could be important in conditioning program effects. Limited 

consideration of the relatively complex and more nuanced patterns of influence represented by 

mediation and moderation is similarly apparent in other portions of reports, such as analyses examining 

predictors and outcomes of mentoring relationship quality and duration. Paralleling these trends within 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

OJJDP Mentoring Research Synthesis - 63 

the reports reviewed, NMRC literature reviews have revealed only limited research on intervening 

processes and conditioning factors that may be important for the different mentoring models and 

populations of youth considered. 

Next Steps 

One important next step will be to update this synthesis to incorporate several additional OJJDPfunded projects for which final reports either became available after initiating the present report or are 

anticipated to be completed within the remainder of this year. It is anticipated that these projects will 

both expand the scope and types of mentoring programs considered (e.g., non-BBBS, group mentoring) 

and add further findings on important topics addressed in this report (e.g., tests of program 

enhancements, long-term effects of youth mentoring programs) and in doing so, it will be useful to 

assess the extent to which conclusions provided in this report. Other updates will include additional 

research conducted with data from the projects considered in the current report as well as additional 

research-related work of the NMRC. 

In the interim, it may prove useful to take steps to facilitate utilization of the findings of the present 

synthesis in both practice and research. To facilitate application to practice, it may be useful to develop 

and host a webinar that highlights trends in results most likely to be of interest to programs and in doing 

so to elaborate on their potential implications for program design, implementation, improvement, and 

evaluation activities. In a similar vein, it may be useful to engage past, current, and potential future 

OJJDP-funded researchers in discussion around issues such as opportunities for further analysis of 

existing data sets, consistency and detail within research reports (whether prepared for OJJDP grants or 

other purposes), and promising directions for building on the methods and findings of the research 

considered in this synthesis (i.e., studies directly funded by OJJDP as well as the broader scope of 

research considered through NMRC’s work). We are optimistic that such efforts, in combination with 

periodic updating of the synthesis, will prove useful in strengthening the research evidence base for the 

field and, ultimately, advance both the reach and effectiveness of the mentoring initiatives that are 

implemented to support the positive development of those youth whose welfare is most central to the 

mission of OJJDP. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OJJDP Mentoring Research Synthesis - 64 

References 

DuBois, D. L. (2014). Program evaluation. In D. L. DuBois & M. J. Karcher (Eds.), Handbook of youth 

mentoring (2nd ed., pp. 481-498). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. 

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, S., & 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. 

DuBois, D. L., & Silverthorn, N. (2005). Research methodology. In D. L. DuBois & M. J. Karcher (Eds.), 

Handbook of youth mentoring (pp. 44–64). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 

Eby, L. T., Allen, T. D., Evans, S. C., Ng, T., & DuBois, D. L. (2008). Does mentoring matter? A multidisciplinary meta-analysis comparing mentored and non-mentored individuals. Journal of Vocational 

Behavior, 72, 254–267. 

Flay, B. R., Biglan, A., Boruch, R. F., González Castro, F., Gottfredson, D., Kellam, . . . Ji, P. (2006). 

Standards of evidence: Criteria for efficacy, effectiveness and dissemination. Prevention Science, 6, 

151–175. 

Garringer, M., Kupersmidt, J., Rhodes, J., Stelter, R., & Tai, T. (2015). Elements of effective practice for 

mentoring (4th ed.). Boston, MA: MENTOR: The National Mentoring Partnership. 

Garringer, M., McQuillin, S., & McDaniel, H. (2017). Examining youth mentoring services across America: 

Findings from the 2016 National Mentoring Program Survey. Boston, MA: MENTOR: The National 

Mentoring Partnership. 

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. 

Grossman, J. B., & Rhodes, J. E. (2002). The test of time: Predictors and effects of duration in youth 

mentoring relationships. American Journal of Community Psychology, 30, 199-219. 

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: A Public/Private Ventures project published by 

MDRC. Available on-line: 

http://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/Role%20of%20Risk_Exec%20Sum-web%20final.pdf 

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. 

Philadelphia: Public/Private Ventures. 

Kuperminc, G., Emshoff, J. G., Reiner, M. N., Secrest, L. A., Niolon, P. H., & Foster, J. D. (2005). 

Integration of mentoring with other programs and services. In D. L. DuBois & M. J. Karcher (Eds.), 

Handbook of youth mentoring (pp. 314–339). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. 

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. 

Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for 

generalized causal inference. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. 

Valentine, J. C., & Cooper, H. (2008). A systematic and transparent approach for assessing the 

methodological quality of intervention effectiveness research: The Study Design and 

Implementation Assessment Device (Study DIAD). Psychological Methods, 13, 130–149. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.