Support for Match Closure

Evidence Rating for this Practice

Insufficient Research (1 Study and 3 Tests of the Practice)
In the study reviewed, the methodology used for assessing effects of the practice did not meet relevant criteria for rigor. As a result, the study was designated as Insufficient Evidence and the practice as a whole is designated as Insufficient Research. This rating is based on currently available research and may change as new research becomes available.

Description of Practice

Support for match closure involves efforts by the mentoring program to ensure that the relationship ending process is handled in a way that is beneficial to both youth and mentors. Closure constitutes one of the core standards of the Elements of Effective Practice for Mentoring (4^th edition) and is described as follows: “Facilitate bringing the match to closure in a way that affirms the contributions of the mentor and mentee, and offers them the opportunity to prepare for the closure and assess the experience.” Specific goals may be to help the mentee(s) and mentor(s) appreciate positive aspects of their experiences together and to help them identify ways in which they can draw beneficially on these experiences in future relationships (Spencer & Basualdo-Delmonico, 2014). Mentoring programs may seek to support mentoring relationship closure in a variety of ways. These include establishing mentoring relationship closure policies and procedures, training mentors, youth, and parents on healthy approaches to ending mentor-mentee relationships, providing on-going support and guidance to mentors on healthy match closure activities, and setting time for mentors and mentees to discuss the ending of their relationships in a positive and constructive manner with the facilitation of program staff. Program efforts to support mentoring relationship closure can also take the form of setting contingency plans for how closure will be handled under special circumstances, such as when the mentor(s) or mentee(s) involved are unwilling or unavailable to engage in the process or a mentoring relationship is being closed in the best interest of the mentee. Still further possibilities include assessment of relationships status as to the potential need for closure either in response to emergent concerns (e.g., a mentor, mentee, or parent signals relationship problems) or at regular intervals. Information gathered during the relationship closure process may be useful in helping to assess the appropriateness of re-engaging the mentee(s) and/or mentor(s) involved in additional mentoring relationships through the program and, if so, their likely support needs and the characteristics of mentor(s) or mentee(s) with whom they may be most appropriately paired. Support for mentoring relationship closure is distinguished from “re-matching” practices that have these types of determinations as their primary aim.

Goals

The primary goal of the practice is to support healthy closure of mentoring relationships.

Targeted Forms of Mentoring and Youth Populations

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

Theory and Background Research

The focus of this practice on supporting healthy endings to mentoring relationships is consistent with Rhodes’ model of youth mentoring, which suggests that both positive and negative relationship experiences can influence the emotional development of the mentee (Rhodes, 2005; Rhodes et al., 2006). The potential for support for match closure to positively influence the mentee’s perception of the relationship, or at least his or her contributions to the relationship, and to facilitate the mentee’s ability to develop secure attachments to others in the future is also suggested by attachment theory (Spencer & Basualdo-Delmonico, 2014). In line with this idea, research has linked positive relationship experiences to improvements in the mentee’s relationships with others (Rhodes, 2005; Rhodes et al., 2006). It follows, therefore, that mentoring relationships that do not end well (for example, without adequate opportunity for the mentor and mentee to express and explore their feelings about the ending) may negatively influence not only how the mentee and mentor perceive the relationship, but also socioemotional and possibly other outcomes for the mentee (Rhodes et al., 2006). Keller (2005) similarly noted that although a mentoring relationship may come to an end for a number of reasons, including conflict, the end of the program, or a mentee’s move out of the program area, careful management of the termination process in all instances may provide beneficial opportunities for learning as well as for resolving feelings of loss or abandonment, particularly for the mentee.

In a recent qualitative study of several hundred Big Brothers Big Sisters (BBBS) Community-Based Matches (the STAR Project), Keller and Spencer (2017) explored in-depth the contribution of youth and relationship characteristics to match closure with a number of informative results. Their findings, for example, point toward the importance of both the mentor-youth experience and the network of relationships surrounding the match. More specifically, they found that matches ended when mentors and youth did not feel a shared sense of connection, even when the relationships surrounding the match (i.e. the mentor-parent, mentor-MSS, and parent-MSS relationships) were strong. Conversely, even in matches in which the mentor-mentee dyad was able to form a connection, such connections were difficult to sustain when there were disruptions in the other relationships surrounding the dyad. In this analysis, only about one-quarter involved an in-person final meeting between mentor and mentee (Keller & Spencer, 2017), and the risk of early match closure was greatest for mentors who were unsure at the onset how long they wanted the relationship to last, and for parents who wanted the relationship to last less than one year (Keller & Spencer, 2017). Managing relationship expectations (including relationship length) throughout the match is likely to be an important component of reducing risk of early closure and also managing the end of mentoring relationships. An earlier qualitative study of mentoring relationship endings found that even though youth tended to express feelings of disappointment regardless of how the relationship ended, relationship endings that were not executed well (the researchers identified these as endings that were planned but not completed, were abrupt, or were led by the agency due to no contact between mentor and youth over an extended period of time or at the request of the mentor, youth, or parent) appeared to create more pronounced negative feelings among the youth and their parents (e.g., a reversal of prior positive views of the mentoring relationship, a reluctance to get involved in another mentoring relationship) (Spencer et al., 2014).

One practice that may provide additional support to mentors in navigating their role in the match relationship may support from “veteran” mentors affiliated with an agency. In a study of BBBS Community- and Site-Based Matches, peer support from more experienced mentors was found to be associated significantly with longer match relationships and a reduced risk of early match closure (Peaslee & Teye, 2015). In comparison with a control (standard) condition, BBBS mentors receiving peer support were 80.3% less likely to have matches that closed early, and mentors receiving peer support in combination with additional training were 59.6% less likely to have matches that closed early. This type of ongoing support may help newer mentors manage their expectations about their mentoring relationships in a way that lessens the risk of early closure and could also help mentors effectively navigate the ending of match relationships.

Corresponding Elements of Effective Practice

This practice corresponds directly to the area of Closure in the Elements of Effective Practice and is also relevant to the areas of Training and Monitoring and Support.

Key Personnel

The successful implementation of this practice is likely to require staff to have foundational knowledge of the various stages of relationships as well as strong interpersonal skills (e.g., ability to help mentors and mentees identify and explore both negative and positive feelings they may have about their relationships). Of key importance in all instances is likely to be program staff attunement to how matches are developing or progressing and when a match closure may be beneficial.

Additional Information

None.

Resources Available to Support Implementation

Resources to support implementation of support for match closure can be found under the Resources section of this website. These resources include:

Effective Strategies for Providing Quality Youth Mentoring in Schools and Communities: Generic Mentoring Program Policy and Procedure Manual – This guide provides advice and a customizable template for creating an operations manual for a mentoring program, including policy and procedures for mentoring relationship closure.

Going the Distance: A Guide to Building Lasting Relationships in Mentoring Programs – This guidebook provides advice and tools that are intended to help ensure long-lasting relationships in site- and community-based mentoring programs. It identifies match closure as a necessary component of mentoring programs that should be incorporated into policies, procedures, and training.

As with many evidence reviews of specific practices undertaken by the NMRC Research Board, there is a frustratingly small number of studies that have tested the effectiveness and value of supporting matches through the closure process. Almost all programs take this step seriously (although perhaps not always giving it the attention it deserves), but there was only one study available that examined whether specific strategies in the closure process that would make a difference in terms of participant experiences.

But the topic has been getting increased attention from the research and practice communities, including being the featured topic at the 2017 Summer Institute on Youth Mentoring. That event featured a strong blend of new quantitative and qualitative research that highlighted many of the nuances of why matches tend to fall apart and practitioner-sourced ideas for how programs might handle those closures based on different circumstances. The research presented also drew attention to just how often program staff struggle to provide participants with an adequate closure experience and minimize the damage that a poorly ended match can have on youth, parents, and volunteers.

In light of the small body of research we have to draw from, we offer some principles, extrapolated from observational research like that noted above, as well as practice wisdom, that may perhaps enhance the closure experience and minimize the impact of poorly handled closure situations.

1. Clarify expectations around the match up front with all participants.

One of those new research projects that might shed light on the reasons behind match closure is the Study to Analyze Relationships (STAR), funded by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention and led by Dr. Tom Keller at Portland State University with qualitative support from Dr. Renee Spencer of Boston University. Their research into the match lifecycle has revealed some fascinating patterns around the expectations that mentors, youth, and parents all bring to the new mentoring relationship. For example, half of the new mentors at the beginning of the study said they expected their relationship with their “Little” to last either “forever” or “until my Little is grown up.” They thought that this would be a very long-term and emotionally resonant relationship. Yet, the reality is that 30% of these matches closed before the intended initial duration and of those, a third closed “abruptly” with little warning to either the mentee or the mentor. Most of those closures appeared to be stem from life circumstances like moving to a new city. Still, some were clearly related to those unmet expectations around how deeply moving and valuable this experience would be (in fact, analyses in the full STAR report noted that those mentors who thought the match would last “forever” were at greatest risk for early closure relative to all other expectations). That’s a lot to put on a child, especially one you just met!

The STAR interviews with youth and parents also revealed all kinds of expectations about what the relationship would focus on, how the mentor would communicate with the parent, and how program staff would interact with the youth and their parent. In those early-ending matches, findings suggested that it was very common for unmet, but also unexpressed, expectations around the match to lead to friction and tension that ultimately led to the match’s dissolution.

Extrapolating from these findings, we can speculate that all mentoring programs would be well served to not only explore the expectations that each participant has about the experience but to also facilitate the sharing of those expectations so that everyone can get on the same page about how this will go and what it will feel like over time. And certainly program staff have an obligation to rein in mentors when they enter the relationship with expectations (often potentially fueled by lofty marketing language) that are unlikely to be met. Common expectations that may be important to clarify include those relating to:

• The quality and emotional depth of the relationship
• Communication between staff, mentors, youth, and parents, especially between the parent and the mentor
• What closure will look like when it does happen⎯a mentor may be less likely to totally abandon a mentee if he or she has had a conversation with the youth or parent about the harm that could do and know what they expect when the end does arrive.

2. Don’t skimp on match supervision.

It is possible that one of the best ways to avoid harmful closure experience may be to keep matches from disintegrating badly in the first place and sapping the motivation of participants to see the closure process through. This may be especially important in community-based programs where experience tells us that misunderstandings and resentments around those expectations can really mushroom in the absence of staff engagement and intervention (something confirmed in some of the qualitative research presented at the 2016 SIYM). Unfortunately, it appears that many mentoring programs staff their match support roles with relatively inexperienced personnel and high-volume caseloads, making it difficult to meet supervision schedules and offer wise guidance and support when issues are detected (the STAR study also noted high rates of turnover in these positions, resulting in additional gaps in support). The NMRC Research Board has developed a tool to help mentoring programs better calculate exactly how much staff time goes into giving their matches quality support and guidance. This tool will allow programs to allocate resources in a way that better maximizes the help provided to mentors, youth, and parents throughout the experience, including during closure.

3. Program staff must “own” the closure process and ensure it happens.

One of the unfortunate circumstances detailed in the STAR study and other research by Dr. Spencer is the too-common problem of a young person effectively being denied a chance to say goodbye to his or her mentor and process the experience, due either to abandonment by the mentor or a parent pulling their child out of a relationship in frustration. In fact, only 26% of the youth in the study got a facilitated, in-person closure with their mentor—with 52% reporting literally no contact between the mentor and youth to end the match. In other words, half of the study matches offered youth no chance at even a goodbye phone call or letter. Although program staff may not be able to ensure a final “goodbye” meeting in every circumstance or get a reluctant mentor to participate in a closure activity, ethical considerations mandate that they take control of those situations and provide whatever help and support they can, especially to a child who might be grieving over a suddenly ended relationship. From this perspective, leaving a child, parent, or mentor dangling in the wind in the closure process is unacceptable regardless of what research may ultimately be able to reveal about the measurable consequences of such circumstances.

In the 4^th Edition of The Elements of Effective Practice for Mentoring™ MENTOR recommends that all participants go through a closure process, even if it’s just an exit interview with a staff member, that offers:

• Discussion of feelings about closure
• Discussion of reasons for closure, if relevant
• Discussion of positive experiences in the mentoring relationship
• A review of program rules for post-closure contact
• Creation of a plan for post-closure contact, if relevant
• Creation of a plan for the last match meeting, if possible
• Discussion of possible rematching

The first two of those bullets seem likely to be especially critical if our goal as a field is to do no harm and help participants grow from the mentoring experience, even if it went poorly or ended unexpectedly. A youth who walks away from a mentoring relationship feeling bitter or devalued is a youth who may reject future mentors and other, healthier relationships down the road. Practitioners should do everything in their power to keep that from happening and follow through on their closure practices with much care and conscientiousness. The impact of that may last a lifetime.

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.