Why Some Mentoring Programs Scale Nationally While Others Stay Small: A Cross-Cultural Study of Two School-Based Mentoring Programs

Bufali, M. V., Calò, F., Morton, A., & Connelly, G. (2026). Scaling social innovation: A cross-cultural comparative study of school-based mentoring interventions. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 17(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/19420676.2023.2213715

Introduction

School-based mentoring (SBM) programs are widely recognized tools for addressing educational inequality and youth disengagement, yet little research has examined why some programs scale successfully while others remain limited in reach. Bufali and colleagues (2026) address this gap by applying structuration theory, a framework treating social outcomes as products of both individual choices and broader institutional structures, to compare two SBM programs in contrasting national contexts. The central argument is straightforward: scaling outcomes cannot be explained by organizational strategy alone. The surrounding policy environment, cultural norms, and funding infrastructure matter just as much as leadership decisions. This framing suggests that what works in one country may not translate elsewhere, and that understanding the local ecosystem is a prerequisite for any serious growth strategy.

Methods

The study compared two nonprofit-led SBM programs: MCR Pathways (MCR), founded in Glasgow, Scotland in 2007, and Società Umanitaria (SU), an Italian organization that introduced SBM in Milan in 2003. Scotland and Italy were selected to represent contrasting welfare regimes, bureaucratic structures, and cultural orientations toward non-familial mentoring. Data included nine semi-structured interviews with program managers, interviews with 20 volunteer mentors, and a document review of 46 sources including annual reports and evaluation documents. A second researcher independently validated coding across three overarching themes: organizational characteristics and scaling responses, contextual assets and deficits, and system agents’ responses to both.

Results

The two programs followed strikingly different scaling trajectories. MCR expanded rapidly beginning in 2019, reaching 10 local authorities and approximately 1,400 mentors by 2021, ultimately achieving formal Scottish Government institutionalization. SU expanded slowly over nearly two decades, reaching only five local authorities and roughly 200 mentors, with no government institutionalization. Scottish legislation, political will, and corporate social responsibility incentives actively supported MCR’s growth. MCR’s early investment in rigorous monitoring and evaluation (M&E) proved decisive, generating cost-effectiveness evidence that persuaded policymakers and employers alike. SU faced near-opposite conditions: burdensome bureaucracy, inaccessible public funding, and cultural resistance rooted in a family-centered society that frequently misread the mentor role as a parental substitute or remedial tutor. Where MCR built cross-sector coalitions spanning government, corporations, and nonprofits, SU drew partners almost exclusively from within the nonprofit sector, relying on organizational reputation rather than empirical evidence.

Discussion

Neither agency nor context alone explains scaling success. MCR’s rapid expansion reflected leadership and a receptive policy environment, where evidence of cost-effectiveness converted policy obligations into partnership opportunities. SU’s gradual, depth-focused strategy was not a failure of ambition but a rational adaptation to high institutionalization, low openness to external actors in education, and cultural resistance to non-familial youth support. The study introduces a useful taxonomy of scaling risks: MCR faced operational risks from rapid growth, while SU encountered financial self-sufficiency and legitimacy risks rooted in structural and cultural barriers. Critically, these risks emerged not from strategy in isolation, but from the intersection of strategy and context, a distinction with real consequences for how scaling efforts are designed and evaluated.

Implications for Mentoring Programs

Before designing a scaling strategy, practitioners should conduct an honest audit of the ecosystem their program operates within. Programs in policy-supportive environments should invest early in rigorous M&E, as cost-effectiveness evidence can unlock government partnerships and employer buy-in that accelerate growth. Programs in culturally resistant or bureaucratically burdensome environments may find that deeper, more gradual expansion, focused on shifting community perceptions and building procedural credibility, is more realistic and sustainable. No single scaling model is universally transferable, and organizations expanding across regions or internationally must treat contextual analysis as a strategic priority if they hope to grow without sacrificing program fidelity or community trust.

Read the full paper here