The Cost of Rejection: What Happens When Youth-Initiated Mentoring Fails

Dantzer, B., Perry, N., & Church-Duplessis, V. (2026). Youth-initiated mentoring: Exploring the experiences of youth and caregivers who were unable to secure their own mentors. Journal of Adolescent Research. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/07435584261455598

Introduction

Youth-initiated mentoring (YIM) has been gaining ground as an alternative to traditional matched mentoring: instead of a program assigning a volunteer, youth identify adults already in their lives and nominate them as mentors. Dantzer et al. (2026) note that the evidence so far has been largely favorable — youth like choosing their own mentors, relationships tend to last longer, and a meta-analysis found a larger average effect size for YIM (g = 0.30) than for standard mentoring models. Because nominated adults often share the youth’s cultural or demographic background, the resulting relationships are frequently described as more trusting and more practically useful (Schwartz et al., 2013; Spencer et al., 2016, 2018, 2019). Dantzer and colleagues argue that this optimism has outpaced scrutiny of the model’s risks. The very feature that makes YIM appealing—inviting youth to nominate someone personally significant— also means that a rejection carries personal weight in a way that a mismatched formal pairing might not. Prior studies have documented that a modest but real share of youth to secure a nominated mentor, yet only two studies have said much about what that experience is actually like for them. This study set out to close that gap by following three families through the process in depth.

Methods

Using a case-study design, the researchers followed three youth (ages 12–15) and their caregivers, all of whom had been waitlisted for a mentor before trying YIM instead. Families went through a four-step nomination process — building youth’s confidence, mapping their social network, selecting at least three potential mentors, and reinforcing a strengths-based outlook — designed with built-in safeguards against disappointment. Data came from observations during nomination sessions and individual interviews conducted roughly seven months after each family learned no mentor had accepted. Interviews were coded in vivo, then organized into descriptive and pattern codes, with participants themselves reviewing and revising the researchers’ interpretations in a member-reflection process.

Results

Seven themes emerged, organized around three questions: why families joined YIM, whom they nominated and why, and what happened emotionally when nomination failed. Youth were drawn to YIM because they preferred the idea of a mentor they already had some connection to, and families saw YIM as a shortcut past the waitlist. On who got nominated, all three families named a mix of family friends and youth-serving professionals—teachers, a church youth leader, a school custodian— chosen because they were seen as caring, knowledgeable, and playful. All three families experienced disappointment and frustration, tied less to any personal rejection and more to the extended wait for a mentor overall.  None of the families chose to nominate additional adults after their first attempt failed; all opted to return to the standard waitlist instead. And importantly, the risk-mitigation steps built into the program did appear to help—participants generally said the preparation made the eventual “no” easier to process.

Discussion

Dantzer and colleagues read these results as evidence that YIM’s central appeal in choosing one’s own mentor carries a real cost when the nomination doesn’t work out. They argue that youth already sitting on a mentoring waitlist may be a particularly poor fit for YIM, precisely because they are there due to a shortage of natural mentors in the first place, and because prior unreliable experiences with adults may make them more sensitive to a nominee’s rejection than the general population of mentees. The authors are careful to note that the unstructured, family-led contact attempts may have amplified harm in two of the three cases, suggesting the risk is as much about implementation fidelity as about the underlying concept.

Implications for Mentoring Programs

For agencies weighing whether to adopt YIM, the practical lessons are fairly concrete: screen for readiness rather than offering YIM to every waitlisted family by default, keep the actual outreach to nominees squarely in staff hands rather than letting caregivers freelance it, and build structured emotional debriefing into the process regardless of whether a match succeeds. The finding that risk-mitigation steps softened the emotional impact is arguably the most exportable takeaway — it suggests programs don’t have to choose between offering youth autonomy and protecting them from harm, provided the preparation work is done deliberately.

Read the full article here