11: Supporting Mentoring Relationships

Standard of Practice: Programs should require ongoing, consistent check-ins and support opportunities to mentoring participants to minimize risk and maximize the positive impact of the mentoring relationships.

Download Element 11
Download Checklist

Practices Supporting this Standard

The program checks in with participating mentors and youth (ideally with the same staff member supporting both) on key topics at an established and regular frequency to foster high-quality mentoring and program participant relationships.

It is recommended that programs offer both quick “touch-point” check-ins (e.g., emails, texts, communication through social media, written activity logs, brief interactions offering support as needed) and lengthier in-depth support meetings (i.e., deeper synchronous discussions that involve staff sharing resources, suggesting relevant activities, and troubleshooting challenges). The frequency of these check-ins and meetings should reflect the program model and intensity of the work happening between mentors and youth (see Discussion).

  • Assess whether their expectations for program participation are being met.
  • Celebrate milestones.
  • Monitor for risk management concerns.
  • Note relationship growth and progress toward goals.
  • Address challenges as they arise.
  • Inquire about changes in participants’ life circumstances.
  • Gather data relevant to program reporting and evaluation efforts, including feedback on program practices.
  • Share appreciation for their participation.
  • Quick check-ins at least once a month, with each relationship participant, for the first year.
  • In-depth support meetings every month for the first quarter of the relationship and then at least once a quarter for the rest of the program year/cycle.

Once the mentoring relationship is more established, programs can reduce this frequency as needed. However, we strongly encourage programs to keep check-ins to at least once per quarter. (See Discussion for additional guidance on the frequency of check-ins based on the program model.)

The program checks in with the caregivers of youth participants (ideally with the same staff member supporting the mentor and youth) at an established and regular frequency covering the same topics included in mentor and youth check ins.

For young adults, this person may be determined to be someone other than the youth’s primary caregiver. Our recommendations for the timing and format of these check-ins are the same as those for mentors and youth. Note that this practice may be considered less important for site-based programs or those serving youth over 18 years of age, but it is especially important in programs serving younger mentees.

The program uses a standardized protocol for each in-depth check-in so that consistent information is gathered and appropriate support is offered to every participant.

The content of questions in the check-in protocol should reflect the program’s theory of change (see Element 2) and the progress staff would like to see relationships making, in addition to addressing the typical challenges that may arise for participants in the program.

The program documents each check-in with participants, including the information gathered and support given at each instance.

This information can contribute to the creation of a record of the history of the mentoring relationship and ensure that the program can track the nature and content of the support they are providing to participants. Programs should document each outreach attempt to participants (e.g., emails sent, phone calls placed) so that they have a record of their efforts.

The program has a policy governing the frequency of participant check-ins and how to bridge support during staff transitions, as well as a process for tracking the quality and consistency with which staff complete these tasks.

Support can range in quality, particularly when staff leave the program and new staff take over support. To ensure that all matches have access to consistent, high-quality support, the program should have policies in place that govern these key practices.

The program uses the information gathered during participant check-ins to assess the quality of the mentoring relationship at least twice a year and determine whether it is healthy and active or should be considered for a planned ending.

It is equally important to respond quickly if the relationship is no longer a positive or consistent experience for participants. Letting relationships linger in an unhappy limbo may be harmful to youth participants, their caregivers, or mentors.

The program offers additional support or learning opportunities to mentors and youth. In addition to the ongoing training opportunities recommended for youth and mentors in Elements 7 and 8, programs are encouraged to offer additional supports (e.g., mentor support groups, online discussion forums, special events, etc.) to participants to increase satisfaction and deepen program engagement.

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 support and strengthen mentoring relationships in a variety of contexts.

GROUP MENTORING MODELS

Group mentoring programs will need to provide relationship support in some ways that differ from one-to-one models, given the complexity of the relationships involved and the importance of structured activities in most group programs. We recommend that check-ins with group participants happen one-to-one when possible to help youth and mentors feel comfortable expressing any concerns they have. If one-to-one check-ins are impractical due to the number of youth served, meeting with youth and mentors in groups separately to check on progress is an alternative approach. We also recommend the following additional practices for group mentoring programs:

The frequency of these observations will vary depending on many factors (e.g., overall length of program, group meeting locations), but these observations can give staff tremendous insight into how the group experience is unfolding, the skill level of mentors in managing the group, and the relationships that are forming among participants. This kind of observation can also be helpful in programs in which groups are working on complex tasks or activities — staff can answer questions or help to keep the group focused.

In “team mentoring” models where two or more mentors are working together with a group, there is an extra layer of relationships that needs attention: the relationships between the mentors themselves. Co-mentors are unlikely to be effective if they are not getting along or are having points of friction or disagreement. Programs are encouraged to ask questions that get at how well mentors are collaborating (e.g., Do you feel there is an appropriate distribution of “work” across your team? Do you feel like your skills complement each other? Does the way you set up task sharing allow both of you to develop relationships with group participants?).

This is a layer of complexity that group models should pay attention to during check-ins: the relationships formed between youth group members. While young people will certainly benefit from the wisdom and support of their mentors in a group program, they also benefit from the bonds formed with their peers — an important “active ingredient” that can drive program outcomes.

Group mentoring programs often rely heavily on structured activities and conversations that keep the group on track toward achieving program goals and outcomes. But it can be challenging to ensure that each group, and each youth in those groups, is getting the program experience they should if participation in, and completion of, group activities is not being tracked. Mentors should be encouraged to collect and share information with staff about participation by group members (e.g., attendance as well as engagement) and their progress through recommended or required activities. This will allow staff and mentors to “course correct” throughout the program cycle to ensure that youth within and across groups have similar program experiences.

Group models are most impactful when the group itself becomes more than the sum of the individual experiences of participants. Program staff can get a better sense of how a group is forming and developing if they assess the group experience using a survey or other data collection tool that captures feelings of group belonging, perceptions of trust and connection, and disruptions to a group’s “cohesion” and togetherness. Collecting this type of information once the group has been established allows the program to step in and address problems before they negatively impact the program experience for the entire group.

It can be disruptive and challenging to integrate new youth or mentors into the group. Program staff should work with mentors and youth to understand the dynamics of the group and determine the best ways to integrate new participants into established groups.

PEER MENTORING MODELS

The support of mentoring relationships in peer models takes on increased importance for the simple reason that the mentors themselves are less experienced young people who may not know how to handle challenging situations or ask for help when it’s needed. The heavy use of structured activities in many of these programs also can create a need for tracking activity participation and progress through required activities, as it does in group models, discussed above. For these reasons, we recommend that peer mentoring models engage in the following additional practices:

Ideally, the program will have two staff members available to observe and support peer mentoring activities at any given time: one to lead the activity or get mentors and youth working together and another to problem-solve and provide real-time support.

Peer mentors can provide invaluable feedback about what’s working or not in a program’s activities. Check-in times provide an opportunity to get this input (with an eye on continuous improvement for future program cycles), as well as to go over instructions and responsibilities for upcoming activities or projects. This gives peer mentors a sense of ownership of the program and builds leadership and communication skills.

Peer mentoring relationships may deviate from planned activities more often than adult-youth relationships. Thus, it is important to track the progress of peer relationships through any activity curriculum to ensure a consistent mentoring experience for all youth. Make sure peer mentors know how and where to log this information, as well as who to turn to for help (e.g., staff or experienced mentors who could troubleshoot) if they fall behind or need to deviate from a planned activity.

E-MENTORING MODELS

Mentoring services delivered virtually will require a few additional practices by program staff to make sure participants are having a positive experience. We recommend the following:

This can include internet connectivity issues, bugs or glitches in program software or platforms, or other challenges related to hardware or software. Integrating these kinds of tech-support questions into relationship check-ins can identify issues that may be impacting not only individual relationships but also participants more broadly.

Even when technology is working perfectly, the online setting can lead to communication misunderstandings and challenges. Virtual communications may come across differently than intended, and these missteps can be detrimental to a mentoring relationship. Asking about how mentors and youth are perceiving their interactions with one another can help identify topics for ongoing training on virtual communication or the need to clarify program rules and expectations.

Even for the strongest mentor-youth relationships, the virtual setting can make it easy to forget to respond or engage more deeply in mentoring conversations and activities. Unfortunately, “out of sight, out of mind” can influence the development of a strong mentoring connection. To mitigate this potential issue, program staff are encouraged to review upcoming activities that mentors and youth should be engaging in, as well as offer suggestions for optional activities and conversation starters for when participants are unsure of what to do or talk about. In addition to these prompts, staff should offer reminders of important dates, deadlines, and events, as these can be more easily overlooked in a virtual program experience.

SCHOOL- AND OTHER FORMAL SITE-BASED MODELS

For the most part, many of the additional practices noted under group and peer models above will also apply to school- or site-based programs: the need to observe and support mentors and mentees while they are meeting, the importance of tracking activity participation and completion, and the gathering of feedback on completed activities (and preparation for those that are upcoming) are all relevant to formal site-based programs. It is also important to note that even when program staff are present for all match interactions, brief individual check-ins in a private space are still warranted to ensure that mentors and youth have the opportunity to voice concerns and address challenges — which may not be as easily done with other participants present. We further recommend that school- or site-based programs also support participants in the following ways:

Essentially, use check-ins to ensure that participants aren’t navigating challenges with the program location or non-mentoring personnel on their own.

This is especially important in school-based programs where frequent school closures and breaks may negatively impact relationship development or frustrate participants.

INFORMAL MENTORING MODELS

Even when mentoring is offered as an informal support by staff members in a youth development organization or setting, it can be helpful to offer support to those relationships, even if they are being offered in the absence of a formalized mentoring program. Site directors or supervisors can help problem-solve challenges and ensure that youth are having a positive experience. They can also make sure that the mentoring role is working for staff and that they have access to information or training that can help them build their mentoring skills. The following recommendations can help these programs support mentoring that’s happening less formally:

Essentially, don’t leave staff unsupported if they take on a mentoring role in addition to their other job duties. Build in support of mentoring as a key supervision activity and make sure site leaders are knowledgeable about good mentoring practice, including red flags to look for that might indicate a negative mentoring experience for youth or staff.

When mentoring is an optional and informal form of support, it can be easy to assume that things are playing out smoothly. But, like all relationships, informal mentoring relationships will have inevitable ups and downs. Make sure a staff member, other than the mentor, is checking in with youth and caregivers (as relevant) about the mentoring experience.

This can be important from both a risk management perspective (e.g., knowing when and where youth and mentors met) and for outlining how the mentoring experience complements the other services and supports offered by the organization. This information can also help focus mentoring activities and provide insight into the optimal staffing levels needed to provide the mentoring at a high level of quality, even if informally.

  • How can we ensure that young people from all backgrounds have the experience with our services they need and deserve? What structures do we need to have in place to check in with youth regularly and support their engagement?
  • In what areas are our mentors likely to face challenges? Are there aspects of their role for which they may need additional support or coaching? How can we assess this at the start of program cycles so that we aren’t caught off-guard by their needs?
  • How can we handle situations in which young people or mentors are not participating as intended? What problem-solving structures might we create so that we can address issues as they arise? How can we shift gears if they tell us the relationship is not working?
  • Who is responsible for checking in with mentors and youth? How can we ensure that this critical practice is done consistently by staff even when staff leave our program?
  • What are the relevant questions to ask when we check in with youth, caregivers, and mentors? How might these questions and check-ins change as matches and youth develop over time? And where will this information be stored after we check in?
  • How does our program support critical moments in our young people as they learn more about themselves during the course of their relationships and as a result of their stages of development? How do we keep meeting them “where they are” in our relationship check-ins and supports?
  • How do we celebrate the successes of the young people in our program? Of our mentors? Whether it’s individual achievement or a successful group action, what ideas do we have to ensure that the growth and accomplishment of our mentoring family is honored along the way, not just at the end of the year?
  • What are the barriers to providing support to our mentoring relationships? How can we remove those barriers and create efficiencies around ongoing support?
  • What policies can we put in place to end matches that we are unable to reach? 
  • Ask mentors and youth to provide feedback on program activities so that they can be refined over time.
  • See if mentors or caregivers can help coordinate and deliver “support session” type activities that provide those who have been in the program a while an opportunity to support newer participants.
  • Have mentors, youth, and caregivers (or alumni from these groups) inform the questions that staff ask during relationship check-ins. What would they have wanted to have been asked along the way in their mentoring journey?
  • Ask experienced “expert” mentors to lead an online discussion group on a particular topic they developed expertise in through their relationship.
  • Ask a mentor and alumni youth to help you create a “blog” to share with other matches or use in training, about how they were able to overcome specific challenges in their relationships.

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

  • The average length of time spent on participant check-ins (both attempts to contact and actual check-ins).
  • The percentage of participants who receive check-ins at the required frequency.
  • The percentage of check-ins in which all required information is gathered and entered into program records.
  • The percentage of required activities participants report completing.
  • The average frequency and duration of mentor-youth meetings reported in check-ins.
  • The topics of ongoing support and guidance requested by mentors, youth, and caregivers.
  • Mentor, youth, and caregiver ratings of the quality and utility of support provided.

Sample Check-In Form for Mentees. Little Lights Mentoring Program via MENTOR Virginia.
Sample questions that can be used during staff check-ins with mentees.

Sample Check-In Forms for Mentors and Parents/Guardians. Story Mentoring Program, MENTOR Virginia. 
Sample questions that can be used during staff check-ins with mentors and parents/guardians.

Tips and Tools for Supporting Healthy Matches. MENTOR. 
This webinar provides an overview of strategies and tools for supporting matches to be healthy and successful.

Tools to Strengthen Match Support and Closure. National Mentoring Resource Center.
This includes a guide to help assess different dimensions of mentoring relationship health and strategies to enhance match support.