New Study Explores How Risk and Support Shape Youth Mentoring Outcomes

/in , , /by

Meldrum, M., & Lyons, M. D. (2026). Exploring profiles of risk and protective factors among youth mentees: For whom does mentoring work? Prevention Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-026-01878-3

Introduction

Mentoring research has long reported small but consistent positive effects, alongside wide variation in outcomes. Meldrum and Lyons (2026) ask whether this variability reflects differences not only in youth risk, but in the social supports youth already possess when they enter mentoring programs. Guided by the Phenomenological Variant of Ecological Systems Theory (PVEST), the study reframes vulnerability as a configuration of risk and perceived social support, rather than a simple accumulation of deficits.

Methods

The authors analyzed data from 494 adolescents enrolled in Big Brothers Big Sisters of America programs across the United States. Youth completed surveys at program entry and again approximately 1 year or school semester following initial data collection. Baseline indicators included structural risk factors such as family composition, free- or reduced-price lunch (FRL) status, and parental incarceration, as well as perceived support from caregivers, peers, and natural mentors. Follow-up outcomes assessed academic self-efficacy, academic achievement, and educational expectations. Latent class analysis was then used to identify distinct profiles of risk and support at program entry.

Results

Two profiles emerged:

  • The larger group, Unacknowledged Resilience, showed higher structural risk factors, including “lower likelihood of living in a two-parent home, greater like-lihood of receiving FRL, and greater likelihood of having an incarcerated parent,” alongside high perceived social support (Meldrum & Lyons, 2026). Youth in this group were also more likely to include youth of color.
  • The second group, Masked Vulnerability, showed lower structural risk factors but weaker social support across domains, including “less perceived support from parents, less connectedness with peers, more social dissatisfaction with peers, and a lower likelihood of having a natural mentor in their life” (Meldrum & Lyons, 2026).

Despite these differences, the two groups did not differ significantly on any adaptive coping outcomes at follow-up after controlling for baseline levels.

Discussion

The findings suggest that mentoring programs are largely serving youth with moderate but qualitatively different forms of vulnerability. For youth with unacknowledged resilience, mentoring may work alongside existing supports, building on relational capacities already in place. For youth with masked vulnerability, mentoring may serve as a form of social scaffolding that was previously absent. Mentoring appeared equally effective across profiles, indicating that existing social support may shape how youth engage with mentoring rather than whether they benefit from it.

Implications for Mentoring

Programs should assess social support as carefully as risk during intake and matching. Youth whose needs are less visible due to lower structural risk may still benefit from mentoring, while youth facing substantial adversity often arrive with strengths that programs can build upon rather than overlook.

Read the full paper here