Youth Risk and Mentoring Relationship Quality: The Moderating Effect of Program Quality

Introduction. Because youth mentoring programs are easily implemented into community settings and among diverse youth populations, it comes with no surprise that these interventions are becoming more popular with higher-risk youth (e.g., youth involved in the juvenile justice system). Yet recent studies and meta-analyses suggest that the effects of mentoring programs appear to vary widely and may demonstrate differential effects based on youth’s level of risk (DuBois et al., 2002, DuBois et al., 2011). As such, this study examines (1) whether risk is associated with the quality of the mentoring relationship (a key mechanism of change in mentoring programs) and (2) whether indicators of youth program quality (e.g., opportunities to belong) moderate the association between youth risk and mentoring relationship quality.

Method. The current study includes 272 adolescents (11-18 years old; 40.1% female) and their mentors who were recruited for a randomized controlled trial of a site-based mentoring intervention for at-risk youth, known as Campus Connections (CC). Using structural equation modeling, we tested the effect of youth’s level of individual risk (e.g., poor academic, social, and behavioral functioning) and exposure to environmental risk (e.g., low socioeconomic status, family conflict) on mentoring relationship quality (youth- and mentor-report). We then tested the moderating effect of youth program quality indicators (opportunities to belong, opportunities for skill building, safety, appropriate structure, supportive relationships, positive social norms, and support for self-efficacy and mattering) as assessed via the Youth and Program Strength Survey on the relationship between risk and mentoring relationship quality.

Results. Our results indicated that individual and environmental risk have a direct, negative effect on mentoring relationship quality. We also found that all indicators of quality programs (except safety) significantly moderated this relationship such that the presence of these indicators of program quality buffered against the negative impact of risk.

Conclusion. Youth’s level of risk negatively impacts the mentoring relationship, which likely has implications for the impact of mentoring on outcomes. However, the presence of opportunities to belong, opportunities for skill building, appropriate structure, supportive relationships, positive social norms, and support for self-efficacy and mattering seems to mitigate this relationship. As such, in order to increase the likelihood of a quality mentoring relationship among high risk youth, overall program quality must be considered. Possible implications for mentoring practice will be provided with discussion on future directions.