Skip Navigation

Strengthen the Evidence for Maternal and Child Health Programs

Sign up for MCHalert eNewsletter

Evidence Tools
MCHbest. Adult Mentor.

MCHbest Logo

Strategy. Match Between Mentor and Mentee

Approach. Encourage mentorship programs to focus on the match characteristics between a mentor and mentee to improve the outcomes of the program.

Return to main MCHbest page >>

Overview. The effectiveness of the mentor relationship can be optimized by focusing on the qualities of the match itself.[1] Ensuring that the mentor and mentee have shared characteristics, traits, and interests lend itself to be more successful.[1, 2, 3] In fact, having a shared dislike of an activity can be more impactful than similar interests.[1] A key element is having the mentor provide a wide range of support, and tailoring that support to the specific circumstances of the mentee.[2] This can be best accomplished by providing training, monitoring and coaching for mentors.[2, 3]

Evidence. Moderate Evidence. Strategies with this rating are likely to work...

Access the peer-reviewed evidence through the MCH Digital Library or related evidence source.

Potential Data Sources. Data to support this strategy can be accessed through:

  • Match Characteristics Questionnaire (MCQ)
  • Mentorship duration and premature termination data
  • Goal-setting and achievement records

Outcome Components. This strategy has shown to have impact on the following outcomes (Read more about these categories):

  • Quality of Care. This strategy promotes the degree to which healthcare services meet established standards aimed at achieving optimal health outcomes.
  • Utilization. This strategy improves the extent to which individuals and communities use available healthcare services.

Detailed Outcomes. For specific outcomes related to each study supporting this strategy, access the peer-reviewed evidence and read the Intervention Results for each study.

Intervention Type. Coalition-Building (Read more about intervention types and levels as defined by the Public Health Intervention Wheel).

Intervention Level. Community-Focused

Examples from the Field. There are currently no ESMs that use this strategy. Search similar intervention components in the ESM database.

Sample ESMs. Here are sample ESMs to use as models for your own measures using the RBA framework (see The Role of Title V in Adapting Strategies).

Quadrant 1:
Measuring Quantity of Effort (“What/how much did we do?”)

  • Number of mentor-mentee matches that are created based on a holistic assessment of compatibility factors, such as personality and communication style. (Assesses application of multi-dimensional matching approach)
  • Number of mentorship program staff and participants trained on the importance of match characteristics and strategies for fostering positive mentor-mentee relationships. (Shows capacity building and training efforts around matching)

Quadrant 2:
Measuring Quality of Effort (“How well did we do it?”)

  • Percent of mentorship programs that have clearly defined criteria and process for assessing and prioritizing mentor-mentee compatibility in the matching process. (Measures formalization and systematization of matching approach)
  • Percent of mentorship program staff who demonstrate proficiency in applying evidence-based matching strategies and utilizing assessment tools to inform mentor-mentee pairings. (Shows staff competency and data-driven approach to matching)

Quadrant 3:
Measuring Quantity of Effect (“Is anyone better off?”)

  • Number of mentor-mentee pairs that report high levels of satisfaction, rapport, and personal connection with their match. (Measures perceived quality and compatibility of mentor-mentee relationships)
  • Number of mentor-mentee pairs that demonstrate consistency, longevity, and positive development in their mentoring relationships over time. (Assesses durability and effectiveness of matching on mentoring relationship outcomes)
  • Number of mentorship programs and initiatives that adopt and scale evidence-based matching practices as a core component of their program design and operations. (Measures uptake and integration of effective matching practices across the field)
  • Number of youth development organizations and systems that integrate mentor-mentee matching best practices into their training, quality improvement, and evaluation frameworks. (Assesses institutionalization and broad influence of matching research and practice)

Quadrant 4:
Measuring Quality of Effect (“How are they better off?”)

  • Percent of mentor-mentee pairs that report high levels of satisfaction, rapport, and personal connection with their match. (Measures perceived quality and compatibility of mentor-mentee relationships)
  • Percent of mentor-mentee pairs that demonstrate consistency, longevity, and positive development in their mentoring relationships over time. (Assesses durability and effectiveness of matching on mentoring relationship outcomes)
  • Percent of mentorship programs and initiatives that adopt and scale evidence-based matching practices as a core component of their program design and operations. (Measures uptake and integration of effective matching practices across the field)
  • Percent of youth development organizations and systems that integrate mentor-mentee matching best practices into their training, quality improvement, and evaluation frameworks. (Assesses institutionalization and broad influence of matching research and practice)

Note. When looking at your ESMs, SPMs, or other strategies:

  1. Move from measuring quantity to quality.
  2. Move from measuring effort to effect.
  3. Quadrant 1 strategies should be used sparingly, when no other data exists.
  4. The most effective measurement combines strategies in all levels, with most in Quadrants 2 and 4.

Learn More. Read how to create stronger ESMs and how to measure ESM impact more meaningfully through Results-Based Accountability.

References

[1] Raposa EB, Ben-Eliyahu A, Olsho LEW, Rhodes J. Birds of a feather: Is matching based on shared interests and characteristics associated with longer youth mentoring relationships? J Community Psychol. 2019 Mar;47(2):385-397. doi: 10.1002/jcop.22127. Epub 2018 Sep 11. PMID: 30203843.

[2] Alison L. Drew, Renée Spencer, Mentors’ approach to relationship-building and the supports they provide to youth: A qualitative investigation of community-based mentoring relationships, Children and Youth Services Review, Volume 121, 2021, 105846, ISSN 0190-7409, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105846. (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0190740920322684)

[3] De Wit DJ, DuBois DL, Erdem G, Larose S, Lipman EL. Predictors of mentoring relationship quality: Investigation from the perspectives of youth and parent participants in Big Brothers Big Sisters of Canada one-to-one mentoring programs. J Community Psychol. 2020 Mar;48(2):192-208. doi: 10.1002/jcop.22244. Epub 2019 Sep 15. PMID: 31523831.

This project is supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under grant number U02MC31613, MCH Advanced Education Policy, $3.5 M. This information or content and conclusions are those of the author and should not be construed as the official position or policy of, nor should any endorsements be inferred by HRSA, HHS or the U.S. Government.