What Do School-Based Mentoring Programs Actually Accomplish? New Systematic Review of the Evidence
Tiraieyari N and Krauss S (2026) Outcome domains and assessment measures in school-based youth mentoring programs: a systematic review. Front. Educ. 11:1518053. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2026.1518053
Introduction
School-based mentoring (SBM) programs pair adult mentors with students to support academic, social, and emotional growth within the school setting. While such programs have grown considerably in popularity, the research evaluating them has remained fragmented. Prior meta-analyses and systematic reviews were limited in scope, often examining only a handful of studies or focusing narrowly on specific populations. Critically, no prior review had examined which outcome domains researchers actually prioritize when evaluating SBM programs, nor what measurement tools they use to assess those outcomes. Tiraieyari and Krauss (2026) set out to fill that gap, arguing that understanding current evaluative priorities is essential for ensuring program quality, fidelity, and future development.
Methods
Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, the authors searched five major databases (Scopus, EBSCO, ERIC, PsycINFO, and Science Direct) for peer-reviewed empirical studies published between 2010 and January 2025. Studies were included if they featured a school-based mentoring program, served youth between ages 6 and 19, and included a quantifiable program evaluation using pre/post assessments or a control group comparison. From an initial pool of 719 articles, 27 studies met all inclusion criteria. Study quality was appraised using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT; Hong et al., 2018). Qualitative thematic analysis was then applied to extract and categorize outcome domains and measures across all 27 studies.
Results
The review identified four primary outcome domains across the literature. School functioning was the most frequently assessed domain, appearing in 18 of 27 studies and encompassing subdomains including academic performance (most commonly measured via GPA and credit attainment), school discipline, learning skills, classroom engagement, and attitudes toward school. Psychological well-being was the second most common domain, with studies measuring self-esteem, self-efficacy, emotional and psychological disorders, future aspirations, life satisfaction, and coping skills. Social and interpersonal functioning formed the third domain, covering conflict resolution, connectedness, social skills, and communication. The fourth and least-studied domain was substance use and behavioral conduct, including delinquency, alcohol and drug use, and aggressive attitudes. Of the 27 studies, 23 found SBM interventions effective for at least one outcome, with effect sizes generally ranging from small to medium. Five studies found no significant benefits.
Discussion
The authors observe that the field’s heavy emphasis on school functioning outcomes is both understandable and limiting. Academic and behavioral outcomes are visible, aligned with program goals, and transparent to stakeholders, making them natural evaluation targets. However, this focus risks undervaluing domains like psychological well-being and social functioning that are equally central to positive youth development. The authors also note that many studies lacked a clearly articulated theoretical foundation, which may explain why outcome selection often appeared ad hoc rather than driven by a theory of change or logic model. On the question of program effectiveness, the evidence is cautiously optimistic: most programs produced meaningful gains, but effect sizes were modest. Programs that failed typically shared identifiable implementation problems, including poor mentor training, scheduling conflicts, mentor-mentee mismatches, and insufficient program duration. Importantly, a small number of studies documented potential iatrogenic effects, meaning that poorly implemented programs could actually harm students, underscoring the need for rigorous design and oversight.
Implications for Mentoring Programs
Evaluation frameworks should span multiple outcome domains rather than defaulting to academic metrics alone, since growth in self-efficacy, conflict resolution, or life satisfaction can be just as meaningful as a GPA change. Programs must also invest in mentor training and fidelity monitoring, as implementation quality was the most consistent predictor of success or failure. Notably, a small number of studies documented potential iatrogenic effects, meaning poorly implemented programs could actually harm students. Finally, the field needs measurement tools designed specifically for youth mentoring contexts, as most existing scales were developed for other populations, limiting the precision and comparability of evaluations across programs.
