Exploring Profiles of Risk and Protective Factors Among Youth Mentees: For Whom Does Mentoring Work?

TL;DR

This study explores how different groups of youth respond to mentoring programs based on their risk and support factors, finding that race/ethnicity influences these groups but not the program's effectiveness.

Contribution

The study introduces a person-centered approach to identify distinct youth profiles in mentoring programs and examines the role of protective factors.

Findings

Two distinct youth profiles were identified based on risk factors and social support.

Youth of color were more likely to belong to the high-risk, high-support group.

Adaptive coping outcomes did not differ between the two groups.

Abstract

Youth mentoring programs are an increasingly popular intervention and prevention strategy to promote positive youth development and to address a range of youth needs. Past research shows positive, albeit moderate, effects of mentoring across multiple domains, but there is evidence that suggests heterogeneity in treatment outcomes. Several studies have examined the role of risk factors in mentoring outcomes, but less is known about the role of protective factors. This study examines the extent to which ecological factors outside of the mentoring relationship, specifically, youth risk factors and existing social support, play a role in the effectiveness of mentoring in promoting adaptive coping outcomes, as measured by academic achievement, self-efficacy, and expectations. Using a person-centered approach, we examined (1) whether there were distinct profiles of youth participating in mentoring using mentee risk factors and existing social support as indicators; (2) associations between profiles and youth race/ethnicity and gender; and (3) whether profiles differed in post-program adaptive coping outcomes. Two classes of youth were identified. One class reported higher risk factor presence and higher social support and was more likely to be youth of color. The second class reported lower risk factor presence and lower social support. Classes did not differ in their adaptive coping outcomes. The implications of these findings for mentoring programs and further research are discussed.

Figures