Girls (and Boys) Just Want to Have Fun: A Mixed-Methods Examination of the Role of Gender in Youth Mentoring Relationship Duration and Quality

Abstract

This prospective, mixed-methods study examined the role of gender in youth mentoring relationship duration and quality. Participants were 67 gender-matched pairs of adult mentors and youth participating in community-based mentoring programs as well as the youths' guardians. Mentors and youth completed surveys and qualitative interviews at multiple time points. At baseline, male youth reported stronger relationships with their guardians. Analysis of the survey data from the 3-month follow-up revealed that male mentors and youth reported stronger mentoring relationship quality. Male matches were more likely to last at least 1 year. Further, male youth whose matches lasted at least 1 year reported better relationships with their guardians at baseline and reported stronger mentoring relationships after 3 months, compared to both females whose matches lasted greater than a year, and females whose matches lasted less than 1 year. Examinations of the qualitative interviews from a sub-sample of matched pairs (n = 29) showed that male and female youth and male mentors held similar expectations for the relationship, mainly to engage in fun activities, while female mentors were more often looking for a close relationship to develop quickly, which resulted in a disconnect between female mentees' and female mentors' expectations. Findings highlight the importance of developmentally appropriate relationships for youth and suggest that mentoring programs may be able facilitate longer, more effective matches for girls by tempering female mentors' expectations for how close and quickly those relationships will develop.

It Takes a Village to Break Up a Match: A Systemic Analysis of Formal Youth Mentoring Relationship Endings

“…Once all three interviews from a trifecta were coded, the coder produced a narrative summary (Maxwell & Miller, 2008;Way, 1998) integrating information from the coded interviews with the agency case notes. Narrative summaries were originally intended as a way to analyze data from a single reporter but have been adapted by Spencer and colleagues to examine the development of youth mentoring relationships, integrating data from multiple sources (e.g., Spencer at al., 2017;Spencer et al, 2018). Coders first explained the nature and development over time of the four main relationships examined in the interviews: mentor-youth, mentor-PG, mentor-MSS, PG-MSS.…”

“Who Knows Me the Best and Can Encourage Me the Most?”: Matching and Early Relationship Development in Youth-Initiated Mentoring Relationships with System-Involved Youth

“…Mentor retention is another significant challenge in the promotion of close and enduring formal youth mentoring relationships. Many adults enter into mentoring with high expectations for the experience and the difference they will be able to make in the life of a child (Spencer, 2007; Spencer, Basualdo-Delmonico, et al, 2017; Spencer, Drew, Walsh, & Kanchewa, 2017). The reality of mentoring, however, can be much more mundane and challenging, particularly in the early stages when mentors and youth may struggle to find common ground (Spencer, 2007).…”

Determinants of Motivation for Mentoring Among Adults Volunteering to Mentor Youth

“…Consequently, it may be that males feel more external pressure from members within their social network (e.g., peers, community, significant other) to become volunteers/mentors (Stukas et al, 2014). Another possibility stems from research about gender differences in expectations for mentoring, which has indicated that males tend to expect to have fun in their relationships and may enter into mentoring focused on this aspect of the relationship (Spencer et al, 2018). Agencies may want to consider the messaging in their recruitment efforts and/or tailor the messaging addressing how the volunteer opportunity may meet the motivations of prospective volunteers, particularly if they wish to increase their volunteer pool or target specific groups of volunteers (Dolnicar & Randle, 2007;Cornelis et al, 2013;Coursey et al, 2011).…”