Retention in Mentoring Programs for Children: A Comparison Study

Introduction: Mentoring is one of the most popular interventions for children, and is often advocated for children who are perceived to be “at risk” for later life problems. Recent meta-analyses of mentoring programs have found positive effects, albeit the average effect size is small. Retention is a key aspect of any intervention, and a particular challenge with many youth-centered programs. If mentors and children do not meet with each other over a period of time, the essence of mentoring -- the development of a relationship -- has little chance of developing s and influencing the child’s life trajectory. Here, we examine intervention retention rates for mentoring programs, with a particular interest in comparing two types of programs -- volunteer mentoring versus professional mentoring. Volunteer mentoring is the most common program type, and has been studied in numerous randomized trials, including a large scale trail of one of the most popular programs, Big Brothers Big Sisters. Professional mentoring, where mentors are hired to work, and preferably full time as mentors, has been round for decades and has been studied in a few randomized trials, including a recent trial of Friends of the Children.

 Methods: Reports of programs retained in peer-reviewed meta-analyses of mentoring programs for children were examined in terms of various descriptive characteristics of the program and the sample and the retention of youth. Volunteer and professional mentoring programs were compared on these variables using various methods, including survival analysis. Professional mentoring data came from the Child Study Data which examines the impact of Friends of the Children a professional mentoring program. The study participants were 156 “at risk” boys and girls attending kindergarten or first grade identified through an intensive collaborative school-based screening process. Students were assigned to the FOTC intervention condition. The program was delivered through established nonprofit organizations operating in four U.S. urban neighborhoods. Recruitment took place across a 3-year period. Retention was measured through five years of participation in FOTC. We also examined retention rates of those with the highest level of risks.

Results: The retention rates for volunteer and professional programs were relatively high during the period of time they can be compared (i.e., approximately one year). Most volunteer programs ended at that point, but several professional programs extended for many more years, and retention rates remained high. Comparisons on various program characteristics suggest that professional mentoring may be able to overcome certain difficulties present in volunteer mentoring programs, including developing and maintaining a diverse pool of mentors. There was no differential attrition based on risk levels in the FOTC group.

Conclusions: Professional mentoring may have advantages in terms of working with the most “at risk” children. Examining retention, and predictors of retention, is important for informing policies and practices related to mentoring children.