Matching Strategies Informed by Participant Characteristics

Evidence Rating for this Practice

Insufficient Research
 

Description of Practice

Matching strategies informed by participant characteristics involves the intentional use of information about mentor and mentee characteristics to inform the mentor-mentee matching process. Characteristics considered can vary and may include (but are not limited to) gender, race, ethnicity, disability, social class, personality, interests/hobbies, goals, strengths, areas of identified need, and life experiences of the mentor and mentee. Both similarities and differences in these types of characteristics between mentors and mentees may be used to inform the matching process (Pryce et al., 2014). Examples of specific strategies to facilitate or support use of information about mentor and mentee information in the matching process include (but, again, are not limited to) the use of matching criteria or guidelines, surveying mentors and mentees to assess their interests or preferences, soliciting and incorporating youth input into the matching decision, engaging parents in the matching process (e.g. pre-match meetings with parents to gather information on youth characteristics), use of technology (e.g., algorithms based on compatibility scores; Pryce et al., 2014), and staff training related to matching procedures. This practice is consistent with recommended benchmarks for Matching and Initiating standards in the Elements of Effective Practice for Mentoring^TM (Garringer, Kupersmidt, Rhodes, Stelter, & Tai, 2015). However, it is distinguished from other matching strategies that do not focus on use of information about the characteristics of mentors and mentees (e.g., compatibility of availability schedules, geographic proximity) as well as those that are geared toward initial development of the mentoring relationship (e.g., program-facilitated initial meeting between mentor and mentee). It also does not include ongoing match support practices that involve assessing match compatibility for purposes such as determining the potential need for match closure or re-matching.

Goals

The primary goal of the practice is to use information about the characteristics of mentors and mentees to inform matching decisions.
 

Target Population/Eligibility of Target Sites

This practice is potentially applicable to all forms of mentoring and the full range of youth who may be served by mentoring programs.

Theory and Background Research

A variety of theoretical perspectives, such as attachment theory and similarity-attraction theory, suggest that both complementary and similar characteristics between mentors and youth have the potential to contribute to more successful mentoring relationships (Liang, Bogat, & Duffy, 2014; Pryce, Kelly, & Guidone, 2014). Similarity-attraction theory, for example, suggests that the more similar a youth-mentor perceive each other to be, the more they like each other (Ensher & Murphy, 1997).

Research relevant to this practice (excluding the studies that are the focus of this evidence review) includes studies that have examined whether similarity between mentees and mentors along various dimensions is associated with differences in relationship or mentee outcomes. In a study of 45 BBBS affiliates with data in the Agency Information Management system, it was found that 78% of programs considered mentor and mentee characteristics (e.g. shared interests) when making matches (Kupersmidt et al., 2016). However, this matching practice did not predict match longevity. Similarly, research not indicated differential relationship or mentee outcomes in relation to whether mentors and mentees are of the same gender or share the same racial or ethnic group (Liang et al., 2014, Kanchewa et al., 2014; DuBois et al., 2002; Grossman & Rhodes, 2002; Park et al., 2016; Sanchez et al., 2014).

Corresponding Elements of Effective Practice

This practice is most relevant to the area of Matching within the Elements of Effective Practice.

Key Personnel

None.

Additional Information

None.

External Validity Evidence

Variations in the Practice
Each of the reviewed studies addresses the implications of whether mentors and mentees were paired so as to be similar to one another on a selected characteristic. The characteristics considered vary and include mentor and mentee interests (DuBois et al., 2011), disability status (Sowers et al., 2016), and racial or ethnic background (Ensher & Murphy, 1997). Available studies do not address utilization of information on other types of mentor and mentee characteristics (e.g., personality) or the potential effectiveness of strategies other than those focused on ensuring similarity or compatibility of the mentor and mentee on a single characteristic (e.g., training of staff to utilize information on a range of mentor and mentee characteristics to inform matching decisions). In sum, the studies reviewed examine only a limited portion of the full range of possible strategies that could be used for this practice.

Youth
Studies reviewed varied in the characteristics of youth involved in the evaluated programs. One study focused on youth with disabilities (Sowers et al., 2016), whereas another (Ensher & Murphy, 1997) focused on youth who were from low socioeconomic backgrounds but had high levels of community involvement. The DuBois et al. (2011) study had a broader scope and thus included studies of samples of youth that varied along dimensions such as age, gender, race/ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. Other than testing for differences in effects of the practice across male and female mentor/mentee pairings in one study (Ensher & Murphy, 1997), studies did not test for possible differences in effects of the practice across differing subgroups of youth. There are also too few studies available to make informed comparisons of findings across studies with respect to possible implications of youth characteristics for effectiveness of this practice.

Mentors
Studies investigating the possible effects of matching informed by participant characteristics included mentors with varying characteristics, including age (adult and adolescent), disability status, and career fields or industries (e.g., STEM). Other than testing for differences in effects of the practice across male and female mentor/mentee pairings in one study (Ensher & Murphy, 1997), studies did not test for possible differences in effects of the practice across differing subgroups of mentors. There are also too few studies available to make informed comparisons of findings across studies with respect to possible implications of mentor characteristics for effectiveness of this practice.

Program Settings/Structures
Studies included in the DuBois et al. (2011) meta-analysis evaluated mentoring programs with varying structures and that were delivered in a range of different types of settings, including those taking place within the community and those occurring at school as well as those using either a one-on-one or group format. The program evaluated in the Ensher & Murphy (1997) study was delivered within the workplace and the one evaluated in the Sowers et al. (2016) study took place within a community setting. None of the studies tested for evidence of possible differences in effects of the practice on the basis of program characteristics. There are also too few studies available to make informed comparisons of findings across studies with respect to possible implications of program setting or structure.

Outcomes
The DuBois et al. (2011) meta-analysis investigated the potential effects of matching informed by participant characteristics on a range of youth outcomes, including delinquency, aggression, substance use, academic achievement, social skills, self-esteem, and obesity. Estimated effect sizes were collapsed across all categories of outcomes, however, when testing for potential effects of the practice. Sowers et al. (2016) assessed effects of the program on STEM related outcomes (e.g., STEM self-efficacy, career preparation, etc.) and Ensher & Murphy (1997) tested for impact on features of the mentoring relationship (e.g., liking between mentor and mentee, satisfaction with mentor, etc.). Overall, available findings provide only a limited basis for understanding potential effects of this practice on the range of outcomes of potential interest.

Resources Available to Support Implementation

Resources to support implementation of matching strategies informed by participant characteristics can be found under the Resources section of this website. These include:

The ABCs of School Based Mentoring – This guidebook offers information that can be used at the individual school or district levels to inform the design and implementation of school-based mentoring program, including information on making matches.

Generic Mentoring Program and Procedure Manual – This resource provides a template for a mentoring program to create its own customized manual to guide both policies and day-to-day services, including guidelines related to developing matching policies and procedures.

Evidence Base

DuBois, D. L., Portillo, N., Rhodes, J. E., Silverthorn, N., & Valentine, J. C. (2011). How effective are mentoring programs for youth? A systematic assessment of the evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 12, 57-91. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100611414806

Ensher, E. A., & Murphy, S. E. (1997). Effects of race, gender, perceived similarity, and contact on mentor relationships. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50, 460–481. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.1996.1547

Sowers, J., Powers, L., Schmidt, J., Keller, T. E., Turner, A., Salazar, A., & Swank, P. R. (2016). A randomized trial of a science, technology, engineering, and mathematics mentoring program. Career Development and Transitions for Exceptional Individuals, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1177/2165143416633426

Additional References

Cavell, T. A. (n.d.). DuBois, D. L., Holloway, B. E., Valentine, J. C., & Cooper, H. (2002). Effectiveness of mentoring programs for youth: A meta-analytic review. American Journal of Community Psychology, 30, 157–197. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014628810714

Garringer, M., Kupersmidt, J., Rhodes, J., Stelter, R., & Tai, T. (2015). Elements of effective practice for mentoring (4th ed.). Boston, MA: MENTOR: The National Mentoring Partnership.

Grossman. J. B., & Rhodes, J. E. (2002). The test of time: Predictors and effects of duration in youth mentoring relationships. American Journal of Community Psychology, 30, 199–219. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014680827552

Kanchewa, S. S., Rhodes, J. E., Schwartz, S. E. O., & Olsho, L. E. W. (20114). An investigation of same- versus cross-gender matching for boys in formal school-based mentoring programs. Applied Developmental Science, 18, 31–45. http://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2014.876251

Kupersmidt J. B., Stump K. N., Stelter R. L., & Rhodes J. E. (2017). Mentoring program practices as predictors of match longevity. Journal of Community Psychology, 45, 630–645. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.21883

Liang, B., Bogat, A., & Duffy, N. (2014). Gender in mentoring relationships. In D. L. DuBois & M. J. Karcher (Eds.), Handbook of youth mentoring (2nd ed., pp. 159–173). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE

Noe, R. A. (1988). An investigation of the determinants of successful assigned mentoring relationships. Personnel Psychology, 41, 457–479. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1988.tb00638.x

Park, H., Yoon, J., & Crosby, S. D. (2016). A pilot study of Big Brothers Big Sisters programs and youth development: An application of critical race theory. Children and Youth Services Review, 61, 83-89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2015.12.010

Pryce, J., Kelly, M. S., & Guidone, S. R. (2014). Mentor and youth matching. In D. L. DuBois & M. J. Karcher (Eds.), Handbook of youth mentoring (2nd ed., pp. 427-438). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE

Raposa, E. B., Rhodes, J. E., & Herrera, C. (2016). The impact of youth risk on mentoring relationship quality: Do mentor characteristics matter? American Journal of Community Psychology, 57: 320–329 https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12057

Sanchez, B., Colon-Torres, Y., Feuer, R., Roundfield, K. E., & Berardi, L. (2014). Race, ethnicity, and culture in mentoring relationships. In D. L. DuBois & M. J. Karcher (Eds.), Handbook of youth mentoring (2nd ed., pp. 145–158). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Practitioners may be surprised that the evidence behind this practice has been rated here as “insufficient research” since the vast majority of mentoring programs do seemingly take things like race and ethnicity, similar interests, shared personal backgrounds and experiences, and other personal traits into consideration when matching youth and volunteers⎯this arguably has been a cornerstone practice of mentoring programs for decades. But what this review highlights as much as anything is how rarely this practice has actually been tested in controlled experiments. In fact, one could argue that this practice is so ubiquitous that it’s prevented researchers from taking much of a look at it. Only three studies met the criteria established by our NMRC Research Board.

But let’s take a closer look at those studies as they provide some positive news and hints for practitioners on how to weigh participant characteristics when making matches.

1. Characteristics matter when matching, but the devil is in the details.

Keep in mind that many successful programs do match along these considerations, as noted quite well in the 2011 meta-analysis. The broadest evidence that this practice has real meaning for match success comes from the 2011 meta-analysis by DuBois and colleagues. This combined analysis of several mentoring program evaluations compared the results of programs that took similarity of mentor and mentee interests into account I matching decisions with those that did not (or at least, appeared not to). The former programs tend to show larger estimated impacts on youth outcomes. Notably, the practice also “earned entry” into a best-fitting prediction equation that took into consideration the potential contributions of many other meaningful program practices (e.g., mentor training).

Given the evidence to suggest the importance of this matching strategy, why is the overall rating so ambiguous about the value?

The other two studies discussed in the review further highlight how little we know about how specific characteristics matter when making matches. These two studies both tried to isolate what was considered to be a key characteristic in the programs in question: race in a program designed to interest youth in careers in media (particularly from minority groups that might be underrepresented in media careers); disability in a program designed to encourage youth with disabilities to consider STEM careers. These studies tested whether same-race matches and matches where mentor and mentees shared disability status, respectively, were more effective across many outcomes than matches where mentors and mentees differed on those dimensions. Nether study found much of any meaningful difference in terms of either match or youth outcomes when comparing these groups.

One implication of these results for practitioners is that when we look at the value of any one participant characteristic in isolation, we may not find much evidence for matching along that one variable alone. Mentoring relationships, like all human relationships, are complicated things that are influenced by many, many factors. Single characteristics like a shared ethnicity or a mutual love of basketball, for example, in a given program may be important, but only one of many factors that contribute to the success of a match. Shared race may not matter all that much if they two don’t have anything in common and personalities that don’t mesh. So a study that tries to focus on the importance of any one characteristic as the determining factor may not find much compared to thinking about multiple characteristics working in concert.

It’s also worth noting that this review’s definition of participant characteristics also excluded other more logistical matching considerations that many practitioners would likely say are critically important for helping to ensure more frequent and longer match activities, such as compatible schedules for meeting and geographic proximity. Although not quite qualifying as “personal characteristics” such logistical factors might outweigh everything else when it comes to making a successful match. A pair that struggles to meet because of logistics seems almost doomed to fail in spite of how well their personal traits match up on paper.

Keeping this in mind, programs might be best taking a tiered approach to thinking about match-making: Starting with an initial filter of meeting compatibility and logistical “fit” and then moving on to factoring in the types of personal characteristics that the program’s theory of change suggest might be meaningful (for example, shared ethnicity in a program designed to help recent immigrants from many cultures integrate into a new community). Even then, the findings of this review suggest that programs will be well-advised in the absence of robust supporting evidence to not assume the importance of any particular personal characteristics for positive match or outcomes, even when doing so may seem quite logical (e.g., disability status in a program for youth with disabilities).

Programs likewise should refrain from assuming that the “insufficient research” rating of this review gives them license to ignore the intersection of personal characteristics of mentors and mentees when matching. If anything, the three studies viewed as a whole beg for even more careful consideration of what characteristics might matter most for what a program is trying to achieve.

2. Remember that good matching starts with good recruitment.

It can be impossible to match effectively across participant characteristics if your program has recruited individuals who don’t possess the right characteristics in the first place. Although many mentoring programs are willing to take any caring adult who can pass the safety checks and participate fully in training and the match itself, other programs may need to be much more intentional in their recruitment. They may find that there are critical personal characteristics⎯a particular background or experience from their own childhood, for example⎯that seem to not only make matching to the youth they serve easier but also help the matches be successful in the long run.

One study not mentioned in the review that perhaps highlights the importance of recruiting with intentionality is the Role of Risk study released in 2013. This research project sought to advance understanding of the capacity of mentoring programs to be of benefit for youth with elevated risk profiles and the conditions or practices most likely to foster that goal. For the most part, the study’s findings suggested that programs were able to serve higher risk youth as effectively as lower risk youth. However, mentors paired with higher-risk youth were more likely to report several challenges associated with their matches. These included mismatched personalities and interests and a lack of preparation for and experience with the types of individual and environmental risk factors that youth were facing. With potential direct relevance to these perceived obstacles, the report authors noted that “only 12% of mentors reported having experienced poverty” and that only “two fifths reported that they had not faced any of the challenges we asked about in our survey (including family struggles, school challenges and problems with parent or peer relationships).” Almost a third had no experience even working with youth of these backgrounds. Only 9% of mentees, furthermore, were matched with a mentor who shared their race and ethnicity.

The study itself did not test to see if these mismatches across personal backgrounds and characteristics were predictive of match failure or whether matching along similarities boosted outcomes. The question is unanswered therefore as to whether these programs were matching effectively or whether these were mentors with the right lived experience to connect with these youth in the first place. Still, it is worth noting that 28% of mentors said differences in interests and personalities were a challenge in the match, with 21% and 15% noting challenges around bridging racial and socioeconomic differences respectively.

And to the point made above, 66% of mentors noted that it was their schedule to meet that was a major challenge, with 48% citing logistical challenges in arranging and executing meetings as being a challenge. Those logistical challenges seem to be prominent for many mentors, even when the personal characteristics are well-matched.

3. Don’t forget about the factor of participant expectations.

Another challenge noted in the Role of Risk study was mentor’s inaccurate expectations about what the experience would be like. Almost a quarter of mentors said they did not anticipate the types of needs the youth had or how much time and effort it would take to establish a relationship. Almost half indicated that the needs of the youth’s family were a surprise.

The impact of the experience of mentoring not matching participant expectations is a subject addressed recently on the NMRC website with the release of Tools to Strengthen Match Support and Closure. One of the consistent themes in the mentoring research into failed matches is that of participants reporting that they have abandoned relationships because the experience differed too dramatically from what they were expecting. A recent OJJDP-funded study of matches, has also shed considerable light onto this issue, including how parent and youth expectations for the mentoring experience may also lead to match struggles if they do not align with how the interactions with mentors and program staff play out over time. (Watch the NMRC site for more information on this study as the final report is released in late 2017.)

In the wake of this research suggesting the importance of clarifying participant expectations heading into the match, the NMRC has developed a set of questions programs can ask to help clarify what everyone in a potential match wants the experience to be like. Answers to these questions may not exactly count as personal “characteristics” but they are highly personal information about what everyone wants to experience. Just like those logistical factors discussed above, these participant expectations also may be part of the complicated stew of matching the right youth and parent with the right mentor and even the right staff member who will be providing support. Practitioners are thus encouraged to take a fairly holistic view of matching criteria and give ample consideration to all three buckets of information: logistics, characteristics, and expectations. Relying too heavily on any one of these factors might lead to matches that face an uphill battle in connecting and enduring.

For more information on research-informed program practices and tools for implementation, be sure to consult the Elements of Effective Practice for Mentoring™ and the “Resources for Mentoring Programs” section of the National Mentoring Resource Center site.