Good Intentions Aren’t Enough: The Hidden Crisis in Youth Mentoring Research

Lohmeyer, B. A., McGregor, J. R., & Sykes, L. A. (2026). Who uses youth mentoring frameworks and guidelines?: A scoping review. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10560-026-01086-6

Introduction

Youth mentoring is widely regarded as an intuitive and effective method of supporting young people through periods of vulnerability. National frameworks have been developed in Australia, the United States, and New Zealand to guide program design and evaluation. Yet, the research literature remains fragmented and inconsistent, often lacking clear definitions or failing to reference these freely available guidelines. Lohmeyer and colleagues (2026) argue that this gap represents not merely an academic oversight, but a potentially serious risk to program quality and participant safety. Their scoping review asks a deceptively simple question: are researchers and practitioners actually using the frameworks designed to help them?

Methods

The authors employed a scoping review methodology incorporating narrative synthesis, following Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) guidance. Using terms combining “mentor,” youth-related language, and benchmark/guideline terminology, four databases were searched: ProQuest, Scopus, Informit, and the Australian Policy Observatory. Searches were conducted in April 2024. Studies were included if published between 2006 and 2024 and based in the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, or Canada. These boundaries reflected both the release timelines of major national frameworks and comparable socioeconomic contexts. Of 318 initial results, 36 studies were ultimately included after duplicate removal and multi-stage screening. Data were inductively coded by the first author using a recursive, reflexive process and organized into a thematic network.

Results

The 36 included studies were organized into three themes. First, 16 studies (approximately 40%) neither referenced an established mentoring framework nor attempted to create new guidelines, yet many inadvertently addressed topics central to existing frameworks, such as mentor training, boundary-setting, and matching. Second, a smaller group referenced an existing framework ( such as Rhode’s model or the Elements of Effective Practice for Mentoring) but engaged with it only superficially, often using it solely to define mentoring rather than to inform program design. Third, another group attempted to develop new guidelines without referencing established frameworks at all, drawing instead on general psychological theories like Social Cognitive Theory or Self-Determination Theory. Across all three groups, common mentoring principles were frequently rediscovered rather than built upon, suggesting significant duplication of effort and missed opportunities for cumulative knowledge development.

Discussion

The authors argue their findings confirm the hypothesis that established youth mentoring frameworks exert minimal influence on contemporary research. Most troubling is not simply the absence of citations, but the downstream consequences: programs reinventing known best practices, potentially exposing young people to substandard or harmful mentoring experiences. Examples in the reviewed literature included mentors self-disclosing traumatic experiences and anonymous online “mentoring” delivered by occupational therapists. These practices are arguably at odds with established guidelines on boundaries and relationship quality.

The authors acknowledge that some programs may have used frameworks without documenting them in publications. Nevertheless, they call for international collaboration to develop a globally recognized, context-sensitive mentoring framework. They suggest that cross-referencing frameworks across national contexts represents, at minimum, a practical and achievable step toward greater accountability in this diverse field.

Implications for Mentoring Programs

For non-research practitioners, these findings carry direct relevance. Program designers should actively consult established national frameworks such as the Elements of Effective Practice for Mentoring (MENTOR, 2015) or Australia’s National Youth Mentoring Benchmarks (Allen et al., 2007) when building or evaluating programs, rather than relying solely on intuition or discipline-specific theory. Documenting framework use in program reports and publications strengthens the collective evidence base and reduces duplication of effort. Practitioners in fields outside social work, such as STEM education or health promotion, should not assume that discipline-specific theory alone is sufficient for responsible mentoring program design. Engaging with mentoring-specific guidelines helps protect participants, supports mentor training, and ensures programs are evaluated against meaningful benchmarks.

Read the full paper here