Beyond the mentor-youth dyad: the role of parents and mentoring program staff in predicting volunteer mentor persistence
Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning
ISSN: 1361-1267 (Print) 1469-9745 (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/cmet20
Beyond the mentor-youth dyad: the role
of parents and mentoring program staff in
predicting volunteer mentor persistence
Alexandra Werntz, Megyn Jasman, Jordan Cherry, Aidan Borer, Andrew Johnston, Megan Meany, Jessie Stettin, Terrence McCarron & Jean E. Rhodes
To cite this article: Alexandra Werntz, Megyn Jasman, Jordan Cherry, Aidan Borer, Andrew Johnston, Megan Meany, Jessie Stettin, Terrence McCarron & Jean E. Rhodes (13 Feb 2026): Beyond the mentor-youth dyad: the role of parents and mentoring program staff in predicting volunteer mentor persistence, Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, DOI: 10.1080/13611267.2026.2632131
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13611267.2026.2632131
Published online: 13 Feb 2026.
Submit your article to this journal
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cmet20
MENTORING & TUTORING: PARTNERSHIP IN LEARNING
https://doi.org/10.1080/13611267.2026.2632131
Beyond the mentor-youth dyad: the role of parents and mentoring program staff in predicting volunteer mentor persistence
Alexandra Werntz a, Megyn Jasman a, Jordan Cherrya, Aidan Borerb, Andrew Johnstonb, Megan Meanyb, Jessie Stettinb, Terrence McCarronc and Jean E. Rhodes a
aCenter for Evidence-Based Mentoring, University of Massachusetts Boston, Boston, MA, USA; bC Space, Boston, MA, USA; cBig Brothers Big Sisters of Eastern Massachusetts, Boston, MA, USA
ABSTRACT
Volunteer mentors’ reasons for match termination were examined, focusing on challenges with mentees’ parents and program staff. Understanding mentors’ reasons for end ing the match will allow programs to provide targeted sup port. Participants (N = 120) were former mentors who served in a Big Brothers Big Sisters mentoring program. Quantitative and qualitative responses to survey items were examined to explore associations between mentors’ satisfaction with sup portive relationships and the length of the relationship. Mentors cited three challenges to match persistence: exter nal, match-related, and parent/staff-related. Although exter nal reasons were cited most frequently for reasons for termination, match length was positively associated with mentors’ perceptions of stronger relationships with their mentees’ parents. Results highlight the critical role of men tors’ perceptions of their relationships with parents and pro gram staff on their decision to continue working with their mentees. Recommendations for programmatic support for mentors are discussed.
ARTICLE HISTORY
Received 10 May 2024 Accepted 10 February 2026
KEYWORDS
Youth mentoring; match length; youth outcomes; volunteer mentors; program support
Considerable resources are devoted to recruiting volunteer mentors to promote a range of positive developmental outcomes in youth. Mentoring programs vary widely, but most share the goal of pairing children and adolescents with volunteers, supported by program staff (e.g. match advocates), to provide consistent support and guidance. Close and enduring volunteer mentoring relationships are associated with positive academic, social, emotional, and behavioral outcomes for youth. Nonetheless, the overall effect size for mentor ing programs remains highly variable across programs (Christensen et al., 2020; Raposa et al., 2019), suggesting that some have a greater impact on youth outcomes than others. One factor that affects relationship quality and youth
CONTACT Alexandra Werntz ude.bmu@ztnreW.xelA Center for Evidence-Based Mentoring, University of Massachusetts Boston, 100 Morrissey Blvd, Boston, MA 02125, USA
© 2026 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 A. WERNTZ ET AL.
outcomes is match duration. This study, using data from a Big Brothers Big Sisters (BBBS) program in a major northeastern U.S. city. examines mentors’ qualitative and quantitative survey responses describing their relationships with mentees’ parents/guardians, match advocates, and overall program support as factors potentially contributing to premature match closure in formal youth mentoring relationships.
Background
In BBBS community-based programs there is an expectation of a year-long commitment to the mentoring relationship, and research has shown that match duration is positively associated with mentor- and mentee-reported relationship quality (Rhodes et al., 2017). Results from a large, randomized evaluation of Big Brothers Big Sisters (BBBS) (N = 1138) indicated that youth in mentoring relationships that lasted at least a year had the strongest benefits, whereas youth in matches that prematurely closed experienced either fewer benefits or even negative outcomes (Grossman & Rhodes, 2002). Premature match closure is common (e.g. Bernstein et al., 2009; DeWit et al., 2016), drawing the attention of researchers to the examination of predictors of both match success (Pedersen et al., 2009) and premature closure (Spencer, 2007).
Naturally, there is a major focus on the relationship between mentor and mentee when considering match success; however, other individuals have an effect on the relationship. In his systemic model of mentoring, Keller (2005) argued that there are four roles within the mentoring system: mentee, mentor, mentoring program staff, and parent(s)/guardian(s), all of which influence the strength of the mentoring relationship. Drawing from family systems perspec tives, Keller highlighted the importance of each role in the system, in addition to the context the agency or program provides. Building on this theory, Keller and Blakeslee (2013) described how the mentoring system is situated within an even larger social network, further demonstrating the importance of studying the broader context rather than just the mentor and mentee dyadic relationship.
The quality of mentors’ relationships with parents or guardians (hereafter referred to as parents) may influence the effectiveness of the mentor–mentee relationship. Keller (2005) emphasized the importance of establishing a collaborative partnership among mentors, mentees, and parents to support positive mentoring outcomes. Such alignment ensures that mentoring efforts are responsive to the mentees’ needs and consistent with family values, which can enhance both the efficacy and sustainability of the mentoring relationship.
The relationship can also be compromised if mentors and parents do not communicate effectively (Spencer, 2007). In a survey of over one thousand mentoring relationships, Herrera et al. (2013) found that many mentors struggled with factors intertwined with family life, such as mentees’ cancella
tions, behavioral problems, and other difficulties. Caregivers play a pivotal role
MENTORING & TUTORING: PARTNERSHIP IN LEARNING 3
in scheduling and arranging meetings, which can be complicated and time consuming for both parties (Courser et al., 2017; Spencer et al., 2023). Additional logistical difficulties (e.g. parent unable to assist with transportation; Spencer et al., 2023) can further weaken the match, as can mentor-parent disagree ments. Surveys also reveal that dealing with youth’s individual emotional and behavioral needs, plus struggles with youth’s families, may cause some mentors to feel overwhelmed (Herrera et al., 2013).
Program staff also play a pivotal role in the mentor–mentee relationship; however, they have been largely underrepresented in the literature (Keller, 2007). They serve as a liaison between the agency and mentor with the goal of supporting the mentee’s growth and development through a successful match (Keller, 2005). Unfortunately, the reality is that match support staff often have large caseloads – ranging anywhere from 40 matches (Karcher et al., 2023) to 150 for site-based programs (Garringer et al., 2017) – which can make it difficult for them to intensively supervise and help mentors when challenges arise. Keller et al. (2020) found that mentors reported that in some cases contact with match support lasted 10 minutes or less, and that brief contact (or none at all) was related to more negative perceptions of the mentor experience than longer contact. Other researchers have found that many men tors receive just one to two hours for both pre- and post-match support (Garringer et al., 2017; Jarjoura et al., 2018), with several receiving no post match coaching (Garringer et al., 2017). Staff attrition also affects the support that mentors receive. One evaluation found that less than half of staff respon dents believed their program had enough staff to address demands, with more than 60% emphasizing their concerns for staff attrition (Jarjoura et al., 2018).
Oftentimes, mentoring programs are working with youth who experience emotional, cognitive, and/or behavioral challenges (e.g. Herrera et al., 2013; Jarjoura et al., 2018). Limited contact and frequent staff turnover negatively affects mentors’ ability to effectively support their mentees, especially when mentees’ needs are complex. Ongoing training and staff support (Kupersmidt et al., 2017a, 2017b) may help mentors navigate potential misunderstandings with parents and help bridge the economic, racial, ethnic, and cultural differ ences that often exist between mentors and the youth and families they serve. Training and support are related to mentors reporting that they are likely to stay in their role as a mentor (McQuillin et al., 2015) and to more enduring matches (Kupersmidt et al., 2017a). Unfortunately, many programs struggle to provide the oversight necessary to support and retain their volunteers. Mentor training and support can be costly and challenging for programs with restricted bud gets, particularly as the number of volunteers and frequency of contacts increases (Garringer et al., 2017).
Program staff also acknowledge the important role that parents play in the success of the relationship. Results from focus groups with BBBS staff show that staff perceive three major approaches to working with families (Spencer &
4 A. WERNTZ ET AL.
Basualdo-Delmonico, 2014). Staff involve families by providing them with infor mation about the role of the program and conveying program expectations. They also engage and serve families by addressing families’ needs; this may involve building relationships with families, engaging parents in agency pro gramming, or providing community resources as needed. Finally, staff collabo rate with families by partnering with them in the mentoring process. Families are seen as the experts on their own child and assets in the mentoring relationship.
Although mentors are one connection within the youth’s network, some times mentors feel their role extends ‘beyond the dyad,’ that is, they see themselves and their role as compensating for deficits or challenges in other domains of their mentees’ life (Lakind et al., 2015, p. 54). Taken together, the mentor’s relationships with parents and staff affect match duration and may lead to early match closure rates of nearly 35% (e.g. DeWit et al., 2016). Of course, other external factors to the relationship, such as moving, can lead to match closures, but coachable challenges are an important contributor to terminating the match (Spencer et al., 2021). McQuillin and Lyons (2021) found premature termination significantly associated with the ongoing training and level of support from staff or program coordinators. In fact, among several possible predictors (e.g. program characteristics, youth demographics), the only significant predictor of early termination was ongoing training and level of support from staff. Preventing early terminations is particularly important, given the potentially negative consequences (Grossman & Rhodes, 2002).
Following Keller’s (2005) system model, additional research is needed to determine the factors that differentiate relationships that endure from those that close prematurely, including the role of relationships with parents and staff as well as training and support. Although qualitative studies have provided valuable insights, few quantitative studies have explored mentors’ intentions and reasons for termination.
Present study and hypotheses
Using both qualitative and quantitative approaches, data from a BBBS program evaluation survey were analyzed to characterize self-reported, retrospective reasons why mentors left the BBBS program and to examine whether these responses corresponded with match length and the mentors’ relationship with program staff and mentees’ parents. Data were initially collected by an external consulting firm for program improvement of a community-based BBBS program in a large city in the northeastern United States. This program pairs youth with trained, adult volunteer mentors in one-to-one relationships with the expecta tion that the relationship will last at least one year.
In this secondary data analysis, qualitative responses to an open-ended question asking why mentors ended their involvement with BBBS were coded
MENTORING & TUTORING: PARTNERSHIP IN LEARNING 5
guided by content analysis (Ryan & Bernard, 2000). Next, response codes were examined as categorical predictors of match length and attitudes about men tors’ relationships with staff and parents/guardians using quantitative analyses. This study aimed to examine: (1) mentors’ self-reported reasons for why their relationship with their mentees ended; (2) how self-reported reasons corre spond to the length of the match; and (3) whether there is a relationship between match length and mentors’ reported relationship quality with men
tees’ parents, their match advocates, and the mentoring program. Mentors in shorter matches were expected to report greater relative fre quency of challenges with the program, match advocates, and parents, whereas mentors who had matches longer than a year were expected to report a greater relative frequency of external challenges beyond their control for why the match ended (Hypothesis 1). Related, match length was expected to be sig nificantly positively correlated with mentors’ self-reported relationship quality with parents and match advocates, and attitudes about the program; longer matches were expected be related to more positive relationships and attitudes about the program (Hypothesis 2). Additional exploratory analyses examined whether other patterns of self-reported reasons for ending the relationship by match length emerge in the data. Findings may advance our understanding of how match advocates can support volunteer youth mentors.
Method
Because the data analyzed in this study were originally collected as part of a program evaluation rather than a preregistered research protocol, all analyses should be regarded as exploratory secondary analyses. The analytic plan was registered post hoc to promote transparency rather than to indicate confirma
tory hypothesis testing. Accordingly, p-values are reported descriptively to aid interpretation of observed patterns rather than as formal inferential tests of pre specified hypotheses.
Participants
Participants were former volunteer mentors of a community-based BBBS pro gram in a large city in the northeastern United States (N = 120). Participants reported their age when they were initially matched with their mentee (Mage = 29.28 years, SD = 12.33, age range 18 to 70 years) and their mentee’s age when they were initially matched (Mage = 10.03 years, SD = 2.13, age range 6 to 16 years). Mentors reported their race/ethnicity as Asian (n = 16, 13.3%), Black or
African American (n = 5, 4.2%), Latino/Latina/Latinx (n = 5, 4.2%), White (n = 90, 75.0%), multi-ethnic (n = 2, 1.7%), and Middle Eastern (n = 1, 0.8%). Reported race/ethnicity of mentees was Asian (n = 3, 2.5%), Black or African American (n = 43, 35.8%), Latino/Latina/Latinx (n = 38, 31.7%), White (n = 28, 23.3%), multi
6 A. WERNTZ ET AL.
ethnic (n = 14, 11.7%), and other race or ethnicity (n = 3, 2.4%). Mentors reported the length of their match with their mentee (Mlength = 22.46 months, SD = 19.04, length range 1 to 120 months). Seventy women and 50 men participated as mentors and all were matched with same-gender mentees.
Procedure
Online survey data were collected in the Fall of 2020 by an external consulting firm that worked directly with the mentoring program to implement the survey; the survey was not initially intended for a formal research study and therefore volunteers were not asked to provide informed consent. The purpose of the survey was to help the mentoring organization improve the mentoring experi ence by seeking the feedback of former mentors, given mentors’ time is a valuable resource and the program wants to support youth effectively through strong relationships at least one year in length. The external consulting firm worked with the program to develop and implement the survey. Individuals who previously mentored with the program were eligible for participation; they were identified through program records. Eligible individuals were emailed by the consulting firm in batches until the target number of participants had completed the survey (although no record was kept by the firm for exact number of emails sent to individuals who no longer volunteered with the organization, the firm estimated approximately 2800 individuals were emailed, which would be a response rate of approximately 4%). Individuals were asked to ‘take a survey about the experience you had as a mentor’ and were told that their ‘experience is critical in helping us prioritize the changes that need to be made’ to the program. All participants were compensated. The survey was completely voluntary.
After collecting and doing an initial analysis of the data, the firm also provided feedback to program staff based on results. Then, program staff contacted the research team for additional analyses and interpretation of the survey results. The researchers’ institutional review board (IRB) reviewed the data collection procedures, survey items, and data sharing agreement (among the mentoring program, consulting firm, and researchers) and deemed this exempt. Because participants did not explicitly consent to having their written responses shared in publications or presentations, any quoted material is inten tionally brief to minimize the risk of identification.
Some participants provided identifying information at the end of the survey (i.e. their email address). This was used to link participants’ program data (match dates) with their survey data. Thus, for 77 mentors (64.2%), dates for when the participants mentored were available to the researchers. For those participants, matches started from 2011 to 2020 and ended from 2017 to 2020. Thus, mentors were reflecting on the ending of their mentoring relationship from up to 3 years prior.
MENTORING & TUTORING: PARTNERSHIP IN LEARNING 7
Survey items
The survey was created by the consulting firm in collaboration with the mentoring program staff, current volunteer mentors, and former volunteer mentors (i.e. content experts) for the program to create a survey that cap tured the experiences of mentors. As such, the items have not yet been empirically validated.
Mentor and mentee demographics and descriptive information about the match
Mentors answered questions about their race, ethnicity and age when matched. They did the same for their mentees. Mentors also reported the length of their match in months, the amount of time they expected to be in the mentoring relationship when they started mentoring, and how frequently they thought about ending the relationship with their mentee while participating in the program. Mentors also reported the number of match advocates they worked with during their match.
Relationship with mentee’s parent(s)
Four questions were used to examine the mentor’s perceived relationship with the parent (e.g. ‘My mentee’s parent and I operate like partners in my mentee’s development’) using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). Mentors were also asked to report how frequently they went to their mentee’s parents for support during challenges with their mentee and to celebrate highlights in the relationship with their mentee with two additional questions. Those items used a 6-point Likert scale (1 = never to 6 = always). A sum of the six items was taken for a scale score; greater scores indicate a stronger reported relationship (scores could range from 6 to 32). Cronbach’s alpha was .87, suggesting excellent inter-item consistency.
Relationship with match advocate
Seven questions were used to examine the mentor’s perceived relationship with the match advocate (e.g. ‘My match advocate is effective at coaching me through difficult situations’) using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). Mentors were also asked to report how frequently they went to their match advocate for support during challenges with their mentee and to celebrate highlights in the relationship with their mentee using two additional questions. These two items used a 6-point Likert scale (1 = never to 6 = always). A sum of the nine items was taken to create a scale score; greater scores indicate a stronger reported relationship (scores could range from 9 to 47). Cronbach’s alpha was .89, suggesting excellent inter item consistency.
8 A. WERNTZ ET AL.
Attitudes about the program
Four items were created to capture participants’ attitudes about the mentoring program (e.g. ‘The program recognizes and appreciates my involvement as a mentor’). Items used a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). A sum of the four items was taken to create a scale score; greater scores indicate a more positive attitude about the program (scores could range from 4 to 20). Cronbach’s alpha was .79, suggesting acceptable inter-item consistency.
Frequency of considering ending the match relationship
Mentors were asked to answer the question, ‘How often did you consider ending your match?’ (1 = never to 5 = often).
Reasons for ending the match relationship and not continuing as a mentor At the end of the survey, participants were also asked, ‘Reflecting on your answers, what do you think were some of the primary reasons you elected not to continue as a mentor?’ Participants could write as much or as little as they wished to describe their reasons.
Data preparation and analysis plan
Because the survey was originally developed for program evaluation purposes and preregistration occurred after data collection, all analyses were treated as exploratory secondary analyses. The analytic plan was registered post hoc on the Open Science Framework to enhance transparency rather than to assert confirmatory hypothesis testing (https://osf.io/rvsxc/?view_only= f246662c56624cd384e8edaf2efa5726). In line with recommendations from Wagenmakers et al. (2012), p-values are reported descriptively to assist in interpreting observed patterns rather than as definitive evidence within a confirmatory frequentist framework. The analysis plan was followed, with the following exceptions: qualitative coding was done using content analysis (Ryan & Bernard, 2000), and one of the open-ended questions was removed from the manuscript and results after peer review.1 In the case of missing data, pairwise deletion was used to retain as many participant responses as possible. One mentor did not report match length, so was not included in analyses using that variable.
Descriptive statistics
Frequencies were planned for mentors’ expectations for mentoring, match length, number of assigned match support staff, and frequency of contact
1The question that was removed asked, ‘What factors into your thinking about whether to continue your match or not?’ Given this sample was former mentors who had all terminated their match, this question was very similar to the question we retained, ‘Reflecting on your answers, what do you think were some of the primary reasons you elected not to continue as a Big?’.
MENTORING & TUTORING: PARTNERSHIP IN LEARNING 9
with support staff. Descriptive statistics were planned for mentors’ self-reported relationship quality with parents and match advocates, as well as their overall attitudes toward the program.
Qualitative data coding
The first three authors reviewed all open-ended responses and synthesized responses into categories, guided by content analysis (Ryan & Bernard, 2000). Content analysis allows researchers to identify trends in qualitative data and frequencies that those trends appear within the dataset, often allowing for calculation of percentages or follow-up quantitative analyses to test hypotheses (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Ryan & Bernard, 2000). Open-ended responses were reviewed independently by the first three authors who created initial codes. All coders met to discuss initial ideas for codes. In the discussion, authors agreed to three major reasons for match termination: external challenges, match related challenges, and parent/staff-related challenges. They also created a list of codes within each reason to allow for a more fine-grained analysis of responses. Next, authors independently coded open-ended responses for the major themes and codes. ‘Reflecting on your answers, what do you think were some of the primary reasons you elected not to continue as a mentor?’ was somewhat ambiguous in that mentors could have answered the question with the ending of a specific mentoring relationship in mind and/or ending their participation in the program (and not taking on another mentee after the end of the first match). Given the ambiguity of the question, the authors also rated whether the response was about leaving the program or ending the match. All responses were coded by each author, all discrepancies in coding were resolved through discussion.
Krippendorff’s alpha test (Hayes & Krippendorff, 2007) was used to estimate intercoder reliability. Intercoder reliability was calculated across the three coders for agreement on: presence of external reason(s) in the responses (ɑ = .81, good reliability), presence of the relationship with the mentee as a reason in the responses (ɑ = .65, very low reliability), presence of supportive relation ships as a reason in the responses (ɑ = .68, low reliability), whether the response was about ending the match or leaving the program (ɑ = .48, very low relia
bility), and whether the mentor said they are still in touch with the mentee (ɑ = 1.00, perfect reliability). After discussing all discrepancies, coders agreed on final codes.
Exploratory hypothesis testing
Following qualitative analyses, aim 1 (mentors’ self-reported reasons for ending the match) was descriptive; frequencies of codes were reported. Pearson’s Chi-squared tests were conducted to examine the presence of each reason by length of match (less than one year, n = 30, or a year or longer, n = 89) to test Hypothesis 1 (mentors with self-reported match length shorter than
10 A. WERNTZ ET AL.
a year would report a greater frequency of challenges with the program/match support and guardians, and fewer reported life changes, as reasons for ending the match as compared to mentors with match length of over a year). The program’s minimum requirement of one year was used as the cutoff point for match length.
Correlations between match length and the aggregate scores of the relation ship quality with parents and with the match advocate and the correlation between the match length and aggregated score on the mentors’ attitudes about the program were conducted to test Hypothesis 2 (mentors with shorter matches would report poorer relationship quality with match support, guar dians, and the organization). A multiple linear regression was also conducted to predict match length from the reported relationship with parents and attitudes toward the program. All univariate assumptions for normality were met for predictors.
Additional exploratory analyses
Three Chi-squared tests examining associations between the frequency of con sidering ending the match, while still matched and external-related challenges were conducted as exploratory analyses.
Results
Descriptive statistics
Information about matches
At the point of program enrollment, only six mentors (5.0%) reported expect ing to participate for less than a year, 18 (15.0%) reported one year, and 82 (68.3%) reported more than a year. Fourteen mentors (11.7%) reported having no expectations regarding match length. Of the matches, 19 (15.8%) were reported as lasting 6 months or fewer, 24 (20.0%) as lasting 7‒12 months, 26 (21.7%) as lasting 13‒18 months, 17 (14.2%) as lasting 19‒24 months, and 33 (27.5%) as lasting over 2 years. Almost half of the mentors (58, 48.3%) reported working with one match advocate while mentoring, 37 (30.8%) reported working with two, 14 (11.7%) reported working with three, and 11 (9.2%) reported working with four or more. Mentors reported how frequently they considered ending the match while they were matched; 41 (34.2%) reported never considering ending the match, 22 (18.3%) reported rarely, 24 (20.0%) reported occasionally, 22 (18.3%) reported sometimes, and 11 (9.2%) reported often.
Relationships with parents, match advocates, and the program All participants answered the questions about their relationships with the parents of their mentees (M = 20.39, SD = 6.84, score range was 6‒32) and
MENTORING & TUTORING: PARTNERSHIP IN LEARNING 11
match advocates (M = 35.08, SD = 7.65, score range was 12‒47), and their attitudes about the program (M = 15.74, SD = 2.95, score range was 7‒20).
Qualitative results
Mentors’ self-reported reasons for considering ending the match and No longer participating in the program
See Table 1 for the frequencies of the codes within each reason for write-in responses. Given that the question being coded was somewhat ambiguous (i.e. the question could have been referring to ending a specific match with one mentee or to leaving the program altogether), authors coded their interpreta
tion of the responses. Sixty-three responses (52.5%) were coded as unclear, 44 (36.7%) were coded as being about ending the specific relationship with a mentee, five (4.2%) were coded as about not wanting to be with the BBBS program anymore, and eight (6.7%) seemed to indicate both. However, as the very low interrater reliability estimate indicates, responses were unclear (and mentors seemed to interpret the question differently), thus the responses should be interpreted broadly as reasons why they are no longer a mentor.
External reasons were the most commonly cited reasons for ending the match, with the mentor moving away as the most common response. One mentor reported, ‘I was heartbroken when I could no longer continue, but I had to move back to [another state] because I couldn’t find a job.’ Another mentor also expressed sadness that they had to terminate their match, ‘The only reason I decided not to continue was because of a move. I was quite sad to leave my mentee behind. I hope to be a mentor again in the future.’
Parent and program-related challenges were the second most common reason cited, with challenges with the parent cited most frequently. One mentor said the reason was, ‘The relationship with and expectation of the mentee’s guardian.’ Others mentioned differing values from parents and guardians, including ‘It felt like the mother wanted me to engage religiously with the family and my little [mentee]’ and another stating, ‘Unsupportive guardian. We had different values.’
Among match-related challenges, two were most commonly cited. Some mentors ended the relationship in part because it was developmentally appro priate, with one mentor stating, ‘My mentee was getting a bit old for the program,’ and another, ‘My mentee aged out at 18 years of age. She is now in college and we still see each other when we can.’ The other commonly cited challenge was with the relationship itself. One mentor indicated, ‘My mentee treated me very poorly.’ Another reported, ‘I feel like I would enjoy being a mentor again. I didn’t have the easiest time with my first mentee, but I may have been naive.’
Fifteen mentors (12.5%) indicated they were still meeting with their mentee, despite no longer participating in the program.
12 A. WERNTZ ET AL.
Table 1. Reasons for match termination and frequencies of qualitative responses.
Number of times mentioned in ‘Reflecting on your
answers, what do you think were some of the
primary reasons you elected not to continue as
Code
a mentor?’ n (%)
Reason 1: External Challenges 78 (65.0) Mentor moved away 29 (24.2) Mentee moved away 8 (6.7) COVID or the pandemic was mentioned 8 (6.7)
Travel or logistics to meet with mentee (e.g. mentee’s home location, far distance to travel to meet mentee, difficulties with public transit or ride sharing)
6 (5.0)
Time commitment based on personal reasons 18 (15.0)
Mentor changed job/position/career or employment demands changed
Mentor’s schooling changed (e.g. started graduate school or graduated)
9 (7.5)
15 (12.5)
Mentee changed schools 4 (3.3)
Changes in mentor’s family circumstances or personal life (e.g. mentor had a baby)
Mentee’s home or family situation (e.g. mentor mentioned difficulties at home)
Mentor’s uncertainty for the future (e.g. might be moving)
More money than the mentor expected to spend on mentoring activities
7 (5.8) 5 (4.2) 5 (4.2) 1 (.8)
Other external factors 3 (2.5) Reason 2: Match-Related Challenges 28 (23.3) Mentor didn’t think mentee needed a mentor 2 (1.7)
Developmental reasons, mentee matured, or mentee grew out of needing a mentor
6 (5.0)
Mentee ended the relationship 3 (2.5)
Behavioral challenges with mentee causing difficulties in the relationship
Mentor felt like the mentee wasn’t interested in meeting or in having a mentor
Mentor expressed relationship dissatisfaction (mentor didn’t feel a connection or felt the two were incompatible)
Mentor didn’t feel that they had an impact on the mentee’s life
Mentor and mentee were ready to move on from the relationship
Mentor thought the mentee was reluctant to open up to the mentor
6 (5.0) 3 (2.5) 3 (2.5)
5 (4.2) 1 (.8) 2 (1.7)
Mentor felt unappreciated 3 (2.5) Other relationship issues 3 (2.5) Reason 3: Parent or Program-Related Challenges 50 (41.7)
Challenges with the parent(s) or guardian(s) (e.g. difficulties with scheduling, differences in values)
15 (12.5)
Challenges with match advocate 13 (10.8)
Program demanded too much time from mentor and/or mentee
3 (2.5)
Program ended the match 2 (1.7) Parent/guardian ended the match 5 (4.2) Mentor didn’t know why the match was ended 3 (2.5)
Program changes or inconsistencies (e.g. match advocate changed frequently)
Mentor’s expectations of support were not met or mentor felt misled by the program or match advocate
Program, mentor, and parent/guardian were not aligned in expectations; poor communication between programs and guardians
4 (3.3)
4 (3.3)
6 (5.0)
(Continued)
Table 1. (Continued). Code
MENTORING & TUTORING: PARTNERSHIP IN LEARNING 13
Number of times mentioned in ‘Reflecting on your answers, what do you think were some of the
primary reasons you elected not to continue as
a mentor?’ n (%)
Wasn’t a good match 7 (5.8) Other challenges with supportive relationships 11 (9.2) Combinations of responses
No reasons reported 3 (2.5%) External reasons only 55 (45.8) Challenges with relationship with mentee only 7 (5.8) Challenges with supportive relationships only 22 (18.3)
External reasons and challenges with relationship with mentee
External reasons and challenges with supportive relationships
Challenges with relationship with mentee and challenges with supportive relationships
5 (4.2)
12 (10.0) 10 (8.3)
All three reasons emerged in response 6 (5.0)
Note. Responses could include any number of reasons. Total frequencies for each reason are at the individual level, so if a mentor mentioned multiple codes within a single reason, they would be counted once per reason.
Exploratory hypothesis testing
Hypothesis 1: Reasons reported for ending the match and length of match.
We predicted that mentors in shorter matches would report greater frequency of challenges with the program, match advocates, and parents compared to those in longer matches. There was insufficient evidence to reject the null hypothesis (ps > .287).
Hypothesis 2: Relationship between match length and relationships with parents, match advocates, and the program.
Consistent with our hypothesis, stronger mentor-reported relationships with parents corresponded with a longer match length duration (r[118] = .37, p < .001), and a more positive attitude about the program was asso ciated with a longer match length duration (r[118] = .26, p < .01). Contrary to predictions, we could not reject the null hypothesis regarding the relationship with the match advocate and match length (r[118] = .16, p = .091).
The multiple linear regression model predicting match length from the reported relationship with parents and attitudes toward the program was significant, F(2, 116) = 10.97, p < .001, R2 = .16. With both predictors in the model entered simultaneously, relationship with parents significantly predicted match length (standardized β = .32, t[116] = 3.12, p < .001); however, attitudes about the program did not (t[116] = 1.81, p = .073).
14 A. WERNTZ ET AL.
Additional exploratory analyses
Three Chi-squared tests examining associations between the frequency of considering ending the match while still matched and external-related challenges were significant χ2(4) = 13.31, p = .010. Mentors who reported considering ending the match often were less likely to report external challenges. Likewise, the frequency of considering ending the match and match-related challenges were significant, χ2(4) = 34.31, p < .001. Mentors who reported considering ending the match never or rarely were less likely to report match-related challenges, whereas those who reported considering ending the match occasionally, sometimes, or often were more likely to report match-related challenges. Finally, the frequency of considering ending the match and parent and program challenges were significant, χ2(4) = 16.86, p = .002. Those who reported never considering ending their match were less likely to report challenges with supportive relationships than not. Those who reported sometimes considering ending the match were more likely to report challenges with supportive relation ships than not.
Discussion
In this study of former volunteer youth mentors of a community-based BBBS youth mentoring program in a large northeastern U.S. city, we focused on mentors’ self-reported, retrospective reasons for no longer mentoring, with an emphasis on reasons that were beyond their relationship with their mentee. Content analysis revealed three major reasons that emerged from an open ended survey question: external challenges (e.g. mentor changed jobs or had to move), parent or program-related challenges (e.g. scheduling issues with the mentee’s parent), and match-related challenges (e.g. difficulties with the rela
tionship with the mentee).
Former mentors who were matched with their mentee for less than a year did not differ significantly from those who mentored for at least a year on citing those three reasons for ending the relationship. In other words, external and support-related reasons were not differentially cited as reasons for ending the relationship prematurely, nor were match-related challenges. However, signifi cant associations emerged between match length and the mentor’s relationship factors with the mentee’s parent(s) and the mentor’s attitudes about the BBBS program. A more positive relationship with the parents and a more positive attitude toward BBBS were associated with a longer match length. There was no significant correlation between the mentor’s relationship with the match advo cate and the length of the relationship. When both the relationship strength with the parents and the attitudes about the program were entered simulta
neously into a linear regression predicting match length, only the mentor’s relationship with the parents remained a significant predictor.
MENTORING & TUTORING: PARTNERSHIP IN LEARNING 15
Reasons for terminating the relationship
The most commonly cited reasons for ending the mentoring relationship, as reported by 65% of mentors in this sample, were external circumstances largely beyond the control of mentors or mentees. These included relocating to a different area and changes in personal time commitments. Such reasons were cited across both prematurely closed and enduring matches, suggesting that external challenges arise unpredictably and can affect volunteers regard less of relationship duration. Unfortunately, this sample of mentors is not unique: in another recent study of community-based BBBS matches using a mixed-methods approach, researchers found that 39% of mentors and 93% of mentees reported unanticipated or earlier-than-expected match terminations (Spencer et al., 2021). Although programs like BBBS cannot predict or prevent these types of disruptions, they may mitigate their impact by encouraging mentors to reflect on their future plans and life circumstances. This, however, presents a challenge. While the program requires only a one-year commitment, many mentors form strong bonds with their mentees and continue beyond that period. Programs often ask prospective mentors to consider their short-term availability, yet in successful matches, long-term changes may still lead to unexpected closures. For instance, a college student may reasonably expect to stay in the area through graduation and decide to volunteer. However, even in a positive mentoring relationship, they may need to end the match upon graduating and relocating. This raises a difficult question for programs: restrict ing recruitment to individuals with no anticipated life changes could drastically shrink the volunteer pool. On the other hand, bringing on mentors with a known ‘expiration date’ may risk emotional strain for mentees, particularly those who struggle with trust or attachment. Programs must weigh these trade offs carefully in their recruitment and retention strategies. They must also consider how to encourage mentors and mentees to engage in appropriate termination conversations (Spencer et al., 2021).
Parent or program-related challenges were cited by 41% of mentors when asked why they were no longer mentoring, highlighting the critical nature of the ecosystems of support for the mentoring relationship (Keller, 2005). The most commonly reported issues involved difficulties with parents or guardians and problems with match advocates. These concerns were largely independent – only two mentors described problems with both – suggesting that a breakdown in just one component of the broader support network can be sufficient to disrupt the match. Although match advocate relationships were a common theme in qualitative responses, these perceptions were not mirrored in the quantitative data; for example, mentors’ ratings of their relationship with match advocates were not associated with match length. However, this discre pancy may reflect limitations in the survey. These findings underscore the importance of attending to the full social context – including program staff,
16 A. WERNTZ ET AL.
parents, and other key figures – designed to sustain mentoring relationships (Keller, 2005; Lakind et al., 2015; Varga & Zaff, 2018). To better detect and address emerging issues, programs might benefit from complementing quanti tative assessments with open-ended check-ins that explore how mentors are experiencing each of their support relationships.
Theories of mentoring argue that parents are critical to understanding the mentoring process and key outcomes (Keller, 2005). The present results support these assertions; mentors’ relationships with their mentees’ parents were related to match length, a common key outcome variable for examining matches. Given the finding that match length is predicted by the relationship the mentor has with the parent, but not by the mentor’s attitudes about the program when both variables are entered into the model, it is possible that a mentor’s relationship with the family is more important than the relationship with the program when it comes to mentor persistence. However, future work needs to examine the potential buffering role a mentoring program or match support can have on the mentor–parent relationship. The present study was not designed to test this, but it will be important for future work to further disen tangle the directionality of these various relationships within the mentee’s broader social contexts. Further, the role of match support in providing training and support around interacting and collaborating with a mentee’s family was not examined; however, this is likely a key moderator in the equation.
Fewer than one-quarter of mentors cited problems with mentees as the reason for ending the relationship, but these challenges offer insight into how the relationship can contribute to match closure. Some mentors perceived that the mentee no longer needed a mentor, citing developmental changes or increased maturity. Others reported that the mentee appeared uninterested in continuing the relationship, was reluctant to open up, or ended the match themselves. Additional concerns included behavioral challenges, a lack of emo tional connection or compatibility, and mentors feeling unappreciated or unsure whether they were making a meaningful impact. In some cases, both the mentor and mentee were described as mutually ready to move on. These responses suggest that while mentee-related issues were not the most common reason for ending matches, relational dissatisfaction – particularly around engagement, connection, and perceived value – can still play a role in decisions to discontinue mentoring relationships.
Recommendations for future practice and research
In our sample, mentors most frequently reported that their mentoring rela tionship ended because of reasons external to the relationship. Although program staff cannot predict or eliminate mentors’ major life events, they can provide scaffolding and support for terminating a relationship in the wake of such an event. The most recent version of the Elements of Effective
MENTORING & TUTORING: PARTNERSHIP IN LEARNING 17
Practice for Mentoring (5th Edition) encourages programs to ‘facilitate a relationship celebration and program exit process that ends the mentoring experience on a positive note and provides an opportunity for participants to express gratitude, share feedback, and process the experience of being part of the program’ (Herrera et al., 2025, p. 191). Of course, this requires mentors and mentees to both actively participate in the termination process. Unfortunately, this does not always happen (Spencer et al., 2021). Ghosting, or discontinuing a relationship without a formal goodbye, is a challenge not only in mentoring relationships. In fact, psychotherapists estimate a frequency of up to 50% (mean, 8.89%) in premature dropout in psychother apy (Kullgard et al., 2022). Formal endings can bring up a lot of complicated feelings, so sometimes it may feel easier to ghost the other party. For mentees having challenges with attachment, abrupt termination may rein force beliefs of abandonment (Zilberstein & Spencer, 2017). They may feel complex feelings as a result, including anger, dissatisfaction, or sadness (Spencer et al., 2017). Thus, it is critical for program staff to have conversa tions with mentors, early in and often throughout the relationship, about the importance of a healthy termination and goodbye.
The data also speak to the importance of match advocates providing com prehensive support and training around working with the mentee’s family. With regard to challenges with the parents, frequently cited challenges included difficulties getting in touch with the family, difficulties with scheduling, and differences in values between mentors and parents. Match advocates can monitor early challenges, act as liaison between mentors and families, and provide additional support and training as needed. Match support may also be able to problem-solve, provide alternative viewpoints, and provide context for ongoing challenges with families. For example, mentors may assume that communication barriers with parents are a result of the parents’ indifference, when in reality a family may be experiencing financial difficulties that resulted in losing access to their phones (Spencer et al., 2020). A match advocate’s ability to help a mentor shift their interpretation of ambiguous communication patterns may be the difference between premature termination and a successful men toring relationship.
Staff can also provide support for building a strong relationship with the mentee. Previous research has shown that mentee characteristics predict suc cess of the match; older mentees are more likely to experience premature match closure, as well as mentees who experience anxiety, depression, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and externalizing symptoms (Kupersmidt et al., 2017b). More often than not, mentoring programs are working with youth who experience emotional and other mental health-related challenges (e.g. Jarjoura et al., 2018), and some families may actually turn to mentoring programs to provide their children with mental health support (Vázquez & Villodas, 2019). Thus, training opportunities around mentee mental health may provide
18 A. WERNTZ ET AL.
background and context for mentors who are unsure of how to connect with mentees who may be struggling.
Limitations and conclusions
The present study focused on a secondary analysis of a program evaluation for a large, one-to-one youth mentoring program in the northeast. Critically, the results come from a small proportion (4%) of respondents to a survey, limiting the representativeness of the sample and results. In addition, the measures used in this study were developed by a consulting firm in conjunction with mentors and program staff, thus are not psychometrically validated or empirically tested measures. Additionally, some of the reported analyses only used single-item measures. Although we were primarily interested in understanding self reported reasons for ending the relationship and whether they varied based on whether a mentor fulfilled the program’s year-long minimum requirement, future research could examine these data using other statistical approaches (e.g. taking a median split of the duration data). The survey asked mentors to retro spectively consider their reasons for ending their match, with some mentors recalling information from up to 3 years prior. Memory may differ from in-the moment reasons for termination. Mentors more motivated to provide feedback may have been the ones more likely to opt into the survey, and so mentors were not randomly selected and likely do not fully represent all mentor viewpoints. Mentors were also highly engaged – most mentors participated with the program for over a year. The data were also limited to mentors’ perceptions, and thus neglect perspectives of the mentees, program staff, and parents, which would provide more comprehensive insights into the end of the match. A further limitation concerns the exploratory nature of the analyses. The survey was originally developed for program evaluation purposes, and preregistration occurred after data collection. Consequently, the results should be interpreted as descriptive and theory-generating rather than confirmatory. Following Wagenmakers et al. (2012), p-values are presented to aid interpretation of observed patterns but not as formal tests of hypotheses. These limitations notwithstanding, this study provides insight into reasons mentors consider ending their match and reasons why they no longer wish to serve as a volunteer mentor.
Volunteer youth mentors are often highly motivated to support youth well-being and development. Despite their best intentions, however, many matches terminate early. The results of the present study suggest that the relationship between mentors and their mentees’ parents is critical to match longevity. Thus, match advocates have a critical role to play in supporting the success of mentoring relationships by providing mediation and support to both parties. Programs should provide training for mentors that focuses on effective communication strategies with parents, thereby
MENTORING & TUTORING: PARTNERSHIP IN LEARNING 19
equipping mentors with the skills to navigate potential challenges and misunderstandings. Ultimately, when all parties involved are aligned in their goals and have a shared understanding of their roles, the mentoring experience is more likely to successfully support a mentee’s positive outcomes.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
ORCID
Alexandra Werntz http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2679-8204
Megyn Jasman http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5267-4352
Jean E. Rhodes http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1469-6948
Data availability statement
Data are not publicly available for this manuscript.
References
Bernstein, L., Rappaport, C. D., Olsho, L., Hunt, D., & Levin, M. (2009). Impact evaluation of the U.S. Department of Education’s student mentoring program. U.S. Department of Education. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED504310.pdf
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77‒101. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa Christensen, K. M., Hagler, M. A., Stams, G.-J., Raposa, E. B., Burton, S., & Rhodes, J. E. (2020). Non-specific versus targeted approaches to youth mentoring: A follow-up meta-analysis. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 49(5), 959‒972. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-020- 01233-x
Courser, M., Shamblen, S., Thompson, K., Young, L., Schweinhart, A., Sheperd, C., Hamilton Nance, S., Aramburu, C., & Burreister, C. (2017). Assessing the impact of parental character istics, parental attitudes, and parental engagement on mentoring relationship outcomes. Office of Justice Programs, National Criminal Justice Reference Service. https://www.ojp. gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/grants/251114.pdf
DeWit, D. J., Dubois, D., Erdem, G., Larose, S., Lipman, E. L., & Spencer, R. (2016). Mentoring relationship closures in Big Brothers Big Sisters community mentoring programs: Patterns and associated risk factors. American Journal of Community Psychology, 57(1‒2), 60–72. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12023
Garringer, M., McQuillin, S., & McDaniel, H. (2017). Examining youth mentoring services across America: Findings from the 2016 national mentoring program study. MENTOR. https://www. mentoring.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Mentor_Survey_Report_FINAL_11_15_18_ Sm.pdf
20 A. WERNTZ ET AL.
Grossman, J. B., & Rhodes, J. E. (2002). The test of time: Predictors and effects of duration in youth mentoring relationships. American Journal of Community Psychology, 30(2), 199‒219. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1014680827552
Hayes, A. F., & Krippendorff, K. (2007). Answering the call for a standard reliability measure for coding data. Communication Methods and Measures, 1(1), 77‒89. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 19312450709336664
Herrera, C., DuBois, D. L., & Grossman, J. B. (2013). The role of risk: Mentoring experiences and outcomes for youth with varying risk profiles. Public/Private Ventures. https://files.eric.ed. gov/fulltext/ED544233.pdf
Herrera, C., Garringer, M., & Bennett, R. (2025). Elements of effective practice for mentoring (5th ed.). MENTOR.
Jarjoura, G. R., Tanyu, M., Forbush, J., Herrera, C., & Keller, T. E. (2018). Evaluation of the mentoring enhancement demonstration program: Technical report. Office of Justice Programs, National Criminal Justice Reference Service. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ ojjdp/grants/252167.pdf
Karcher, M. J., Sass, D. A., Herrera, C., Dubois, D. L., Heubach, J., & Grossman, J. B. (2023). Pathways by which case managers’ match support influences youth mentoring outcomes: Testing the systemic model of youth mentoring. Journal of Community Psychology, 51(8), 3243‒3264. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.23010
Keller, T. E. (2005). A systemic model of the youth mentoring intervention. Journal of Primary Prevention, 26(2), 169‒188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10935-005-1850-2 Keller, T. E. (2007). Program staff in youth mentoring programs: Qualifications, training, and retention. In J. Rhodes (Ed.), Research in action (pp. 3–17). MENTOR/National Mentoring Partnership.
Keller, T. E., & Blakeslee, J. E. (2013). Social networks and mentoring. In D. L. DuBois & M. J. Karcher (Eds.), Handbook of youth mentoring (2nd ed., p. 129‒142). SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412996907
Keller, T. E., Drew, A. L., Clark-Shim, H., Spencer, R., & Herrera, C. (2020). It’s about time: Staff support contacts and mentor volunteer experiences. Journal of Youth Development, 15(4), 145–161. https://doi.org/10.5195/jyd.2020.879
Kullgard, N., Holmqvist, R., & Andersson, G. (2022). Premature dropout from psychotherapy: Prevalence, perceived reasons and consequences as rated by clinicians. Clinical Psychology in Europe, 4(2), 1‒16. https://doi.org/10.32872/cpe.6695
Kupersmidt, J. B., Stump, K. N., Stelter, R. L., & Rhodes, J. E. (2017a). Mentoring program practices as predictors of match longevity. Journal of Community Psychology, 45(5), 630‒ 645. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.21883
Kupersmidt, J. B., Stump, K. N., Stelter, R. L., & Rhodes, J. E. (2017b). Predictors of premature match closure in youth mentoring relationships. American Journal of Community Psychology, 59(1–2), 25‒35. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12124
Lakind, D., Atkins, M., & Eddy, J. M. (2015). Youth mentoring relationships in context: Mentor perceptions of youth, environment, and the mentor role. Children and Youth Services Review, 53, 52‒60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2015.03.007
McQuillin, S. D., & Lyons, M. D. (2021). A national study of mentoring program characteristics and premature match closure: The role of program training and ongoing support. Prevention Science, 22(3), 334‒344. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-020-01200-9
McQuillin, S. D., Straight, G. G., & Saeki, E. (2015). Program support and value of training in mentors’ satisfaction and anticipated continuation of school-based mentoring relation ships. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 23(2), 133–148. https://doi.org/10. 1080/13611267.2015.1047630
MENTORING & TUTORING: PARTNERSHIP IN LEARNING 21
Pedersen, P. J., Woolum, S., Gagne, B., & Coleman, M. (2009). Beyond the norm: Extraordinary relationships in youth mentoring. Children and Youth Services Review, 31(12), 1307‒1313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2009.06.001
Raposa, E. B., Rhodes, J., Stams, G. J. J. M., Card, N., Burton, S., Schwartz, S., Sykes, L. A. Y., Kanchewa, S., Kupersmidt, J., & Hussain, S. (2019). The effects of youth mentoring pro grams: A meta-analysis of outcome studies. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 48(3), 423‒ 443. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-019-00982-8
Rhodes, J. E., Schwartz, S. E. O., Willis, M. M., & Wu, M. B. (2017). Validating a mentoring relationship quality scale: Does match strength predict match length? Youth & Society, 49 (4), 415‒437. https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X14531604
Ryan, G. W., & Bernard, H. R. (2000). Data management and analysis methods. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., p. 769‒802). Sage Publications. Spencer, R. (2007). “It’s not what I expected”: A qualitative study of youth mentoring relation ship failures. Journal of Adolescent Research, 22(4), 331‒354. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0743558407301915
Spencer, R., & Basualdo-Delmonico, A. (2014). Family involvement in the youth mentoring process: A focus group study with program staff. Children and Youth Services Review, 41, 75‒82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2014.03.013
Spencer, R., Basualdo-Delmonico, A., Walsh, J., & Drew, A. L. (2017). Breaking up is hard to do: A qualitative interview study of how and why youth mentoring relationships end. Youth & Society, 49(4), 438‒460. https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X14535416
Spencer, R., Drew, A. L., & Gowdy, G. (2023). Going the distance: A longitudinal qualitative study of formal youth mentoring relationship development. Journal of Community Psychology, 51(8), 3083‒3102. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.23006
Spencer, R., Gowdy, G., Drew, A. L., McCormack, M. J., & Keller, T. E. (2020). It takes a village to break up a match: A systemic analysis of formal youth mentoring relationship endings. Child & Youth Care Forum, 49(1), 97‒120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10566-019-09520-w
Spencer, R., Keller, T. E., Perry, M., Drew, A. L., Clark-Shim, H., Horn, J. P., Miranda-Díaz, M., & McCormack, M. J. (2021). How youth mentoring relationships end and why it matters: A mixed-methods, multi-informant study. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1483 (1), 67‒79. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.14290
Varga, S. M., & Zaff, J. F. (2018). Webs of support: An integrative framework of relationships, social networks, and social support for positive youth development. Adolescent Research Review, 3(1), 1‒11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40894-017-0076-x
Vázquez, A. L., & Villodas, M. T. (2019). Racial/ethnic differences in caregivers’ perceptions of the need for and utilization of adolescent psychological counseling and support services. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 25(3), 323‒330. https://doi.org/10.1037/ cdp0000255
Wagenmakers, E.-J., Wetzels, R., Borsboom, D., van der Maas, H. L. J., & Kievit, R. A. (2012). An agenda for purely confirmatory research. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 632–638. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612463078
Zilberstein, K., & Spencer, R. (2017). Breaking bad: An attachment perspective on youth mentoring relationship closures. Child & Family Social Work, 22(1), 67–76. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/cfs.12197
