09: Establishing Mentoring Relationships

Standard of Practice: Mentoring programs create new mentoring relationships, whether between individuals or between mentors and groups of youth, using a standardized procedure and set criteria that increase the likelihood of a successful mentoring experience for participants.

Download Element 9
Download Checklist

Practices Supporting this Standard

The program has established criteria and a process for determining the compatibility and potential “fit” between youth participants and mentors.

We encourage programs to consider the following factors, weighed in accordance with their program model and the youth they serve:

  • shared backgrounds, identities, or lived experience(s);
  • shared interests or hobbies;
  • compatibility of preferred meeting times and locations;
  • mentor characteristics that could support the youth’s pursuit of their specific goals or developmental needs (i.e., skills or professional experiences that are aligned with the youth’s goals or needs).

The program matches youth with mentors using a standardized procedure that includes:

  • sharing information with all participants about their potential mentoring “match” prior to their first mentoring interaction. Before having mentors and youth meet for the first time, programs should share with all parties (including caregivers where relevant) information about the individual (or group) the participant will be matched with. Care should be taken in disclosing potentially sensitive information (e.g., LGBTQIA2S+ status), and participant preferences for disclosing such information should be honored.
  • consideration of participant preference and feedback before moving forward with a proposed mentoring match. There will be instances where the sharing of information with participants about their prospective match may generate more concerns and questions than enthusiasm. It is recommended that programs accommodate these requests and not move toward officially starting a match if it goes against the preferences of any participant (see below for information on the option of starting relationships on a “trial” period, as an alternative way to address this concern)
  • arrangement and facilitation of an initial meeting between mentor and youth in which mentoring roles, participant expectations, and program values are reiterated. Programs should consider helping the new mentoring relationship get off to a good start by having staff arrange and facilitate (i.e., setting up and participating in) a first meeting.
  • having all participants (including caregivers where relevant) sign a match commitment form or similar document that details expectations around the frequency and duration of mentoring activities, areas of focus for the relationship (e.g., goals), how the participants will communicate between mentoring activities, and other details that help clarify expectations for each participant around the mentoring experience. Although participants will have agreed to follow program rules as part of their formal commitment to the program during the enrollment and screening processes, programs may also want participants to commit to each other using a “match commitment” form that outlines key details of the new relationship.
  • The program provides an opportunity for youth and mentors to get to know potential mentoring partners and offer their preferences for who they would like to work with. While many programs will choose to have staff suggest potential good “fits” for new mentoring relationships (e.g., by reviewing information about each participant or observing interactions of the potential match), some programs may wish to give participants more direct involvement in deciding who they will develop a relationship with (e.g., a chance for youth to interact individually with mentors and rank their preference, a “meet and greet” activity that enables youth and mentors to interact and note their preferences for who they might work with).
  • The program offers new mentoring relationships a trial period to see if the relationship is progressing as intended or if participants would benefit from a change. Even when programs invest considerable effort and careful consideration into forming new mentoring relationships, there will be occasional instances of incompatibility or other challenges that suggest the relationship is unlikely to succeed for the long term. Thus, programs may consider starting new mentoring relationships (or a subset of them when there are initial concerns) on a brief trial period before participants fully commit to the relationship.

Because there is tremendous diversity in how and where mentoring is delivered to young people, here we offer additional practices and recommendations related to this Element for some common mentoring contexts. Readers should note that there may be overlap in the following categories (e.g., a peer mentoring program in a school or a Boys & Girls Club offering a group mentoring program on-site) and read all that may be relevant to their work. The next recommendations can help form successful mentoring pairs or groups in a variety of common program types and contexts.

GROUP MENTORING MODELS

There are several ways that the formation of mentoring groups differs from the creation of one-to-one relationships. Not only are programs trying to find compatibility among the youth selected for a group, but for programs where multiple mentors work collaboratively with a larger group of young people (i.e., team models) — there is a need to ensure mentor-to-mentor “fit” as well. Offering these newly formed groups a trial period that allows group members to interact and see how well they mesh before finalizing the makeup of the group may be especially helpful to group models, as it allows for some final tinkering with group membership before fully committing to group assignments (clearly, programs that offer only one group do not have this flexibility).

Group programs are also encouraged to think about mentor-to-youth ratios and total group size when forming groups. Research suggests that a ratio of 3–6 youth per mentor and a maximum total group size in the 12–15 range may create groups that are both cohesive and manageable. See Element 2 for additional information about group size and structure.

Group programs may benefit from these additional recommended practices:

Shared lived experiences can be an asset that helps groups build trust quickly and creates a safe space for youth to challenge one another without fear of judgment. Yet part of what makes group mentoring so impactful is mentees’ exposure to a variety of peers, which can help participants build new friendships, expand their social circles, reflect on biases and prior misconceptions of other youth, and hear new perspectives and points of view. This doesn’t happen if the program has clustered very similar youth into a group or simply recreated existing friendship groups. Creating diverse groups also makes it easier for mentors and staff to manage behavioral challenges and mitigate negative role modeling among peer participants. Both approaches can contribute to strong — or challenging — groups, and programs should consider their approach based on the purpose and goals of the program.  

While programs should strive for diverse groups, in most settings some of the youth will likely have prior histories with one another, both good and bad. Avoid placing youth with a history of disagreements, fighting, or bullying together when possible. Every participant deserves to be in a group that is free of prior interpersonal conflict and other history that would negatively influence their participation. Seeking feedback on group composition from others who know the young people well (e.g., teachers, caregivers, other organization staff) can help identify potentially problematic group dynamics.

Programs may find that mentors can have incompatible styles or differences in how they want to lead the group. Good pre-match training can help with this, but in some cases, the program may choose to change group assignments to avoid mentor incompatibility.

Even when programs put a lot of thought into the composition of groups, there will still be variability, and some may include youth with behavioral challenges or needs that could disrupt mentoring activities. Programs should assign experienced mentors to these groups, as the skills and prior knowledge they bring can help them keep the group on track.

Group mentoring offers an excellent space for young people to create something meaningful together through the norms and traditions they establish with the help of their mentors. But the early stages of a group can be awkward and intimidating. Providing an initial set of conversation starters and processes for establishing the group will help participants overcome any early trepidation and get them collaborating on building their shared “space” together. Initial meetings may be more complicated in group programs where group members may join and leave the group after the group has already started meeting. It is thus important for group programs to outline how they plan to manage these “first meetings” for new group members in established groups in a way that signals an inclusive entry point into established group norms, rules, and culture.

One of the often-overlooked aspects of group mentoring is how the groups will engage with the facilities and with each other. This can be especially challenging in school- or site-based programs where rooms, materials, and other resources are limited or being used by others simultaneously. Privacy for group discussion may be a particularly pressing concern, as group members may not feel comfortable having open conversations that could be overheard by other groups. Simply having too many groups in the same space at the same time can create loud, chaotic environments that get in the way of sharing and bonding. Group programs should consider how they can give each group room to “breathe” within the physical space where mentoring activities happen.

PEER MENTORING MODELS

Most of the general practices recommended above will be meaningful for peer mentoring models, especially those related to matching participants based on shared interests and backgrounds and allowing participants to suggest a potential mentoring “fit” after a meet-and-greet activity where mentors and younger mentees can interact and find connection with one another. In addition, peer mentoring programs should:

While most peer mentoring programs pair youth who have considerable age differences, some models create relationships between youth in the same school — even youth in the same grade. These young people will likely have some history of interaction, and programs should avoid creating a new mentoring relationship with youth who have a negative history with one another.

As noted above for group programs, peer mentoring programs, especially those operating at schools or other sites with limited meeting space, can suffer from chaotic environments and behavioral distractions that make it difficult for individual mentor-youth pairs to work together. In one peer mentoring study (Herrera et al., 2008), mentee ratings of youth-centeredness were lower for matches meeting in the same space as other matches (versus those meeting more independently in different locations), perhaps reflecting the observed tendency for some high school mentors to focus significant attention on friends who were also there mentoring. An emphasis on creative scheduling and use of multiple mentoring spaces can alleviate these challenges. To the degree possible, peer programs should provide a variety of places for youth to meet with their mentors and avoid having too many participants clustered together in a small space, especially those with behavioral challenges. (It is worth noting that peer programs may also find value in group activities that allow for mentoring pairs to engage with one another alongside other pairs. But if the theory of change is focused on the benefits of one-to-one interactions, adequate space must be provided.)

E-MENTORING MODELS

Virtual mentoring models can almost certainly benefit from many of the general practices recommended above, but they may also wish to consider the following additional practices:

This includes experience communicating online (e.g., one is an experienced user while the other is new to digital communication), online “personality” and conversational style (e.g., one loves memes and using humor while the other prefers more formal interaction), and even compatibility of online availability and device accessibility (e.g., the youth’s family places limits on screen time that would limit communication during prime times for communicating with their mentor).

How much writing will the platform require? Will there be videos or content that requires a lot of reading? Youth who experience a great deal of online instruction in school may prefer mostly conversational social interactions with their mentor, and less “learning” content or rigidly structured activity.

(e.g., timeframe to reply, expectations around word count or other markers of meaningful engagement). In e-mentoring programs where participants communicate asynchronously using technology, programs should clarify who is responsible for getting the interactions started and expectations around the promptness and completeness of responses. In almost all cases, this responsibility should lie with the mentors — that is, they should be primarily responsible for initiating and maintaining interactions, at least in the early stages of the relationship. Programs are encouraged to offer conversation starters and emphasize expectations around how it defines high-quality virtual communication as the relationship begins.

SCHOOL- AND OTHER FORMAL SITE-BASED MODELS

School-based and site-based programs will also find the general practices recommended above for this Element to be relevant to their work, but may benefit from considering these additional factors when forming relationships between mentors and youth:

  • mentors’ and youths’ schedules and availability during the operation of the program (e.g., the school day);
  • mentors’ knowledge of particular academic subjects, or relevant aspects of their lived experience, and how those traits fit with the needs, interests, and backgrounds of potential mentees; and
  • mentors’ availability outside of standard program hours (if the program allows such contact).

INFORMAL MENTORING MODELS

In youth development settings where staff offer informal mentoring, it can be unclear when the relationship between a staff member and a youth participant has actually blossomed into something more — an actual mentoring relationship. By definition, these organizational contexts are not making formal “matches” between youth and staff (or volunteers). When the relationship between a staff member and a youth is trending in a mentoring direction, it may be worth having them discuss the deepening relationship, especially if it is resulting in additional time spent together, either during or outside of normal service hours. This can help clarify expectations about the types of support the mentor can offer, when and how they might interact beyond other organizational activities, and the limits of what they can provide in the mentoring role. Caregivers should also be made aware of the new mentoring nature of the relationship. As these informal mentoring relationships take root, it can be helpful to make other staff members aware and ask for their help in supporting the mentoring relationship.

  • What information do we need to share with mentors, youth, and caregivers prior to their relationship starting? How do we share that information? Do we contextualize it for them?
  • How do we invite and respond to feedback on potential youth-mentor pairings? From whom do we gather this feedback and how might that feedback be influenced by the modalities and settings from which we collect the information?  How can we ensure all participants have a voice in the creation of the mentor-youth relationship?
  • To what extent are we considering the many identities youth may bring with them to the program when we pair them with mentors? Which identities may be most relevant for the communities we serve?
  • What processes do we have in place to learn about these identities? How and when are we collecting this information? How are we keeping this information safe and confidential?
  • How are we structuring the initial meeting between mentors and young people to help the relationship get off to a good start?
  • The main way programs can build youth and caregiver engagement into the formation of new matches is to follow the guidance for sharing information about prospective pairings or groupings, honoring youth and caregiver perspectives about who they would like to be matched with in a relationship, and answering questions and addressing concerns before the mentoring relationship is underway.
  • Ask your participants to share what was most difficult or awkward for them about the matching process and how your program might be able to make this easier for new matches. What components did they find helpful?
  • Ask your mentors and young people what questions could be added to your application process that could help in creating strong relationships. What do mentors wish they knew about their mentee before their match started that could have helped jump-start the relationship? And what do mentees wish they had known about their mentors?

Programs may want to set benchmarks and track progress around metrics such as:

  • The percentage of proposed relationships that are accepted and formalized.
  • The percentage of matches not accepted for a given reason or by a given participant (e.g., mentor, youth, caregiver).
  • The number of youth waiting for a mentor in any given month.
  • Number or percentage of youth on the waitlist who participate in special activities offered to them.
  • Average time youth spend waiting to be assigned to a new relationship.
  • Average time mentors spend waiting to be assigned to a new relationship.
  • The percentage of matches made using a given criteria (e.g., shared interests, shared race).
  • Percentage of youth/mentors/caregivers who report satisfaction with the matching process.

“Goal Setting and Support” from Becoming a Better Mentor: Strategies to Be There for Young People. Bowers, E., MENTOR.
This chapter can help mentors and mentoring program staff think about how goal setting can be woven into the work mentors and youth do together.

Mentoring Fact Sheet: Overcoming Relationship Pitfalls. Mentoring Resource Center, U.S. Department of Education.
A brief guide that can help mentors and program staff plan for, and overcome, common challenges that arise throughout a mentoring relationship.

Starting Relationships Right: Topics and Questions to Align Participant Expectations in Youth Mentoring Programs. National Mentoring Resource Center.
This set of pre-match questions can help clarify expectations for the mentoring experience before mentoring begins.