There is a long held view in the youth mentoring sector that the longer the mentoring match lasts, the better the outcomes of the relationship. So when Jean Rhodes, a leading mentoring researcher took on this question recently, her findings were quite interesting.

Jean Rhodes, together with Jean Grossman, Christen Chang and Sarah Schwartz looked at the influence of match length and re-matching on the effects of academic achievement and attendance programs. The study looked at 1,139 students in Big Brothers, Big Sisters (BBBS) school based programs and compared young people who were in matches which lasted the required match timeframe (intact relationships) with those whose relationships ended part way through, but were rematched with another mentor.

Some of the rematched relationships lasted longer in length than the long-term, single relationships. If our hypothesis that relationship duration was the single factor in achieving successful outcomes for a young person holds true, one would expect re-matched relationships to be better than intact, shorter relationships. This was not the case.

The study found that young people in re-match mentoring relationships fared worse in their academic scores than their peers  engaged in an original, unbroken mentoring relationship. What was surprising was that young people who were re-matched also scored less than the control group. Now when we say academic scores, we don’t mean that the re-matched young people failed any courses, but that their scores decreased, and decreased more so than those who were not mentored. The final group examined were young people whose matches ended early but were not re-matched – they had the same results as the control group (neutral).

The researchers then wanted to find out why the re-matched young people scored less and they came up with two possible reasons; The first was that mentees may have been rematched too quickly and not given sufficient time to process the breakdown of the first relationship.  If you compare this to a romantic relationship the ‘new’ mentor was like a ‘rebound guy’ – fun at first, but leaving you longing for what could have been.

The other possible reason is that the new mentor may draw attention to a young person and the ‘failure’ of their first mentoring relationship – when really, all the young person wanted to do was quietly withdraw from the program without their peers knowing.

Why did these relationships end early in the first place?

Two patterns emerged in the study. The first related to the quality of the relationship and the quality of the mentor. Those programs that invested time in recruiting mentors with specific characteristics and skills, particularly prior experience working with young people or as a youth mentor, resulted in longer relationships. The life experience of the mentor also counted. It was the college student mentors who were more likely to be in relationships which ended early. The reasons were that college students were generally more transient, with highly changeable schedules and personal circumstances, and that their motivating factors for volunteering in the first place may have been egotistical.

The second pattern related to program models. Programs that expected the pairs to work on very structured academic activities with a narrow focus didn’t fare as well as those that emphasized a more youth centred approach.

What does this mean for mentoring programs in Australia?

Some might say we need to re-look out our national standards and create a new policy for re-matching young people. But I wonder if we need to take a step back first and look at why we’re needing to rematch our young people at all. What is happening in our programs that is causing this breakdown in the first place? Are we recruiting any volunteer for the mentor role or are we ensuring we continue to seek out only the best and most appropriate characteristics in our mentors?

We can then look at what impacts our program structure is having on these relationships? Are we so focused on achieving outcomes, at all costs, that we have lost sight of the ‘very heart of the invention’ – a caring relationship?

So my question to you is not; should we re-match or not re-match, but why do we need to rematch in the first place?

This post is based on the article by Jean Rhodes, Jean Grossman, Christen Chang and Sarah Schwartz. “The Test of Time in School-Based Mentoring: the role of relationship duration and re-matching on academic outcomes.  American Journal of Psychology April 2011