Three research-based recommendations for improving youth and mentors’ engagement in programs

One barrier to participation is that youth in low-income neighborhoods often have limited or no access to mentorship programs (Deschenes et al., 2010). Research demonstrates that youth in neighborhoods with greater resources have more opportunities to participate in mentorship programs, whereas youth in neighborhoods with higher community violence traditionally have limited programs available (Wesely et al., 2017).

The negative repercussions of lack of access to mentoring programs are compounded by challenging environments. Youth living in neighborhoods with higher rates of community violence and poverty are often subject to more complex and ongoing trauma than those in lower crime neighborhoods (Beardslee et al., 2019, Richards et al., 2016). Oftentimes, the trauma experienced by youth in these environments has lifelong effects on their personal and professional development (Bulanda et al., 2013). Youth and their caregivers must consider violence and safety as they make decisions about where and whether youth travel outside the home (Jacoby et al., 2017, Shedd, 2015). Youth who live in neighborhoods with high poverty are more likely to engage in violence as witnesses, victims, and, more rarely, perpetrators, experience more health and mental health challenges, have lower academic achievement, and are more likely to live in poverty in adulthood (Beardslee et al., 2019, Duncan and Kawachi, 2018; N. R. Karcher et al., 2021, Machell et al., 2016, Murry et al., 2011, Nieuwenhuis et al., 2017, Smart et al., 2021). These issues illuminate the importance of providing youth from lower resource communities access to youth mentorship programs…

Past research has demonstrated the significance of ‘dosage,’ operationalized as attendance, as a predictor of positive outcomes in peer-mentoring programs (M. J. Karcher et al., 2006). Mentoring program infrastructure plays a role in youth engagement and attendance (M. J. Karcher & Berger, 2017). Organizational considerations include screening, ongoing training, structured activities, explicit feedback, frequent check-ins, and other supports for mentors (Jarjoura et al., 2018).

Demographic factors may also impact participation. One important factor is violence in a youth’s neighborhood (Harden et al., 2015, Mikhail and Nemeth, 2016). Oftentimes, youth identify safe and unsafe areas in their home neighborhoods, which impact their interactions with neighbors, relatives, and community members and help them navigate violence (Deane et al., in preparation, Dill and Ozer, 2016, Shedd, 2015). Current research on this topic suggests that youth who experience community violence may utilize cross-age and adult-youth mentorship programs to access places and people they consider safe (Deane et al., in preparation, Dill and Ozer, 2016). Transportation issues, such as access to public transportation and the funds to afford it, may impede participation of youth (Coller & Kuo, 2014). One study found that competing family responsibilities such as babysitting or chores may influence attendance for mentees (Terzian et al., 2009). Additionally, youth who identify as male and who also experience adolescent social pressures may be less likely to participate as frequently in youth mentorship programs as they age than youth who identify as female (Coller and Kuo, 2014, Sánchez, Pinkston, et al., 2018). However, exactly why programs fail to engage male youth of color needs further understanding (Terzian et al., 2009)..

Research shows that several factors may enhance youth attendance in a mentorship program. One is community involvement. When families, parents, and caregivers of youth are invited to social events sponsored by a mentorship program, the participation of youth improves (Coller and Kuo, 2014, Garringer and MacRae, 2008; M. J. Karcher & Berger, 2017). The mentor relationship is equally important for increasing participation, as mentors and mentees receive mutual peer support (Kiyama & Luca, 2014).

Research highlights the importance of recognizing differences between mentors and mentees in cross-age peer mentorship programs, primarily in their stage of development (M. J. Karcher and Berger, 2017, Schenk et al., 2020). Youth social and behavioral maturity benefited both mentor and mentee attendance (Garringer & MacRae, 2008). In addition, mentors participate less consistently if their respective mentee possessed behavioral issues (M. J. Karcher & Berger, 2017). Mentors and mentees who score higher on the Social Interest Scale are also more likely to regularly participate in mentorship programs (Garringer, 2015). For mentee participation, it is important for parents or guardians to be well informed about the program (Garringer, 2015).

The current study addresses the gap in the literature around correlates of attendance in peer mentoring programs for youth of color in under-resourced communities.

Method

Two datasets were combined for this study: The Saving Lives, Inspiring Youth (SLIY) mentoring program dataset and a neighborhood database created by the authors. A sample of 132 low-income, urban mentees aged 9–16 (M = 11.53 years, 56.6% female) was recruited to participate in SLIY mentoring program treatment group. Similarly, a sample of 148 high school mentors aged 14–21 years (M = 16.72 years, 60.6% female) was recruited for the treatment group.

Findings