Scant empirical attention has been devoted to understanding endings in youth mentoring relationships, despite the frequency with which they occur. This study examined data from a mixed‐methods study of mentoring relationship endings in which youth mentees, the youth's parents or guardians, mentors, and program staff were surveyed about the closure process, and a subsample of program staff, mentors, and parents or guardians also participated in in‐depth qualitative interviews. Findings from a descriptive analysis detailing the perceptions of multiple stakeholders in the closure process as reported in surveys are presented along with case studies derived from a case‐based analysis of in‐depth qualitative interview data. Most relationship endings were initiated by the mentors, and although some matches engaged in an intentional and direct closure process, more often the endings were unclear or even confusing to program participants. Implications for practice are discussed, including recommendations for more training and greater involvement of program staff in the closure process, as are implications for future research.
Formal youth mentoring programs typically rely on volunteers to serve as mentors to young people, with training and guidance from agency staff. A fundamental program practice is to provide ongoing support and supervision to volunteer mentors by engaging in regular contact to monitor the progress of the mentoring relationship and offer guidance and encouragement. Using data from mentors (n = 504) in multiple mentoring programs (n = 55), the current study investigated how the amount of time devoted to these match support contacts was associated with mentor perceptions regarding the nature of their volunteer experience, specifically: the quality of supervision received, the mentoring agency’s organizational culture with respect to engaging volunteers, and satisfaction with their volunteer service experience. Mentors who had no staff support contacts gave the lowest ratings for quality of supervision, organizational culture, and service experience. Further, mentors who typically had the shortest support contacts (1 to 5 minutes) reported lower quality supervision, organizational culture, and service experience compared to mentors with longer support contacts. In most cases, the associations between staff support contact length and mentor-reported outcomes remained significant after controlling for the helpfulness of the support contacts and the frequency of using advice suggested during the contacts. These findings provide evidence that match support contacts are an important practice for youth mentoring programs and suggest that programs should encourage staff to spend time engaging in meaningful conversations beyond quick check-ins. Future research should examine how the content of support contacts influences volunteer mentoring experiences.
This study investigates how the implementation of program‐level practices by formal youth mentoring programs is associated with the quality of youth mentoring relationships as contexts for youth development and also examines whether this connection is mediated by the mentor‐staff working alliance. Using data from mentors (n = 542) participating in multiple programs (n = 55), multilevel path models examined hypothesized direct and mediated effects. Parallel analyses were conducted with assessments of program practices from staff (n = 219). Greater exposure to program practices was associated with higher ratings of mentoring relationship satisfaction, commitment, and security and lower mentor‐youth relationship negativity. The mentor‐staff working alliance either partially or fully mediated these associations. Staff‐reported practices predicted mentoring relationship satisfaction and commitment without mediation by the working alliance. This study suggests program practices contribute to stronger youth mentoring relationships. The findings also highlight the mentor‐staff working alliance in supporting the development of positive mentoring relationships.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.