Exploring how intersectional identities shape the quality and duration of their relationships
Jones, K. V., Melton, T. N., Anderson, A. J., Keller, T. E., & DuBois, D. L. (2026). Exploring the intersectional identities of youth mentees and their mentors in shaping the quality and duration of their relationships. Youth, 6(3), 88. https://doi.org/10.3390/youth6030088
Introduction
Community-based mentoring programs, chief among them Big Brothers Big Sisters (BBBS), have accumulated decades of research support for their capacity to improve outcomes among young people, especially those from economically disadvantaged households or minoritized racial backgrounds (Jones et al., 2026). Yet the field has long grappled with an uncomfortable truth: not every match works. The strength and longevity of these one-on-one bonds vary considerably, and researchers have historically examined single traits such as race, gender, or age in isolation. Jones and colleagues (20262) argue this approach misses something important. Drawing on Kimberlé Crenshaw’s intersectionality framework, which holds that overlapping identities such as race, gender, and class produce distinct social experiences rather than simply additive ones, the research team set out to test whether combinations of identity factors, rather than any single trait, better explain why some matches thrive while others falter.
Methods
The team analyzed data from 806 mentor-mentee pairs recruited through 10 BBBS agencies across nine states, drawn from a larger randomized trial (Jones et al., 2026). Mentees averaged 14 years old; mentors averaged about 31. Using classification and regression tree (CART) analysis, the researchers let the data reveal which combinations of age, gender, race, and income predicted six outcomes: five relationship-quality measures and match length, capped at 15 months.
Results
Surprisingly, neither mentor support for coping nor a youth-centered relationship could be predicted by any combination of identity variables tested, suggesting these dimensions of quality operate independently of demographic patterns (Jones et al., 2026). Mentors 22.5 years old or younger consistently produced the weakest relationship scores, and mentees paired with mentors earning above $49,999 reported stronger feelings of safe haven (M = 3.43 versus M = 3.24), and those with mentors earning above $69,999 scored higher on growth-focused measures. Match length followed a similar income pattern, with mentees assigned mentors earning over $99,999 annually averaging the longest matches at 11.70 months, compared to just 9.06 months among mentees whose mentors earned less and were also over 38.5 years old. Mentee family income above $20,000 was tied to matches lasting roughly two months longer on average, and Black mentees paired with mentors between 22.5 and 25.5 years old reported the highest growth-focused relationship scores of any subgroup identified in the entire study (M = 3.50). Mentor circumstances, particularly age and financial stability, appear to carry more weight in shaping relationship quality than mentee demographics alone, though mentee race and family income still made a measurable difference.
Discussion
The authors interpret the income findings through a resource lens. Mentors with greater financial stability may simply have more flexibility, time, and bandwidth to invest in a mentee, echoing earlier work linking volunteer income to relationship persistence (Jones et al., 2026). The finding that mentors in their early-to-mid twenties struggled to build strong relationships with Black mentees in particular, while doing comparatively better with them than older mentors did with other groups, points to something more nuanced than a simple “older is better” story, and the authors caution against over-interpreting this given the exploratory nature of CART analysis. They also raise a harder possibility regarding income and match length: that low-income families may face structural barriers—unstable housing, inconsistent child care, transportation gaps—that make sustaining a 12-month commitment more difficult, or that mentors themselves may hold judgmental attitudes toward lower-income families that erode the relationship over time, drawing on prior qualitative work documenting this dynamic (Jones et al., 2026).
Implications for Mentoring Programs
The findings suggest that agencies might rethink how they support mentors across different income brackets, potentially offering resources such as flexible scheduling guidance or transportation stipends to help lower-income mentors sustain matches. Programs may also want to build in additional support or training for their youngest volunteer mentors, particularly those under 23, given their comparatively weaker outcomes across multiple measures. Finally, the study reinforces the value of examining within-group variation among mentees rather than treating racial or economic categories as uniform, since the same racial identity clearly interacted differently with mentor age across the sample.
Read the full article here
