Winter 2008 - Vol. 3 No. 3 - National Association of Extension 4-H ...

mentioned earlier (DuBois et al., 2002; Jekielek et al., 2002). The amount of training adultsreceive before and during mentoring also predicts overall youth-adult relationship quality(DuBois et al., 2002; Jekielek et al., 2002; Karcher, Nakkula, & Harris, 2005).Although numerous studies examine the outcomes of mentoring programs, fewer studiesconsider the quality of mentoring relationships (DuBois et al., 2002; Karcher et al., 2005). Fromexisting research, it appears that, as would be expected, mentor and mentee characteristicsjointly influence relationships quality. In a study of older adolescent mentors, researchers foundthat mentors’ perception of the mentor-mentee relationship was predicted by mentors’ selfefficacyand mentees’ propensity to seek support (Karcher et al., 2005). Additionally, individualswho indicated extrinsic motivations (e.g., building their resume) for mentoring also reportedmore negative perceptions of their mentor-mentee relationships.These findings speak to the need for adequate mentor training in order to increase levels ofself-efficacy, as well as to teach mentors methods of encouraging mentees to seek their helpand support (Karcher et al., 2005). It is interesting to note that these factors are strongerpredictors of relationship quality than mentee’s risk status (Karcher et al., 2005). Findings alsoshow that shared interests between mentor and mentee is the strongest predictor of qualityrelationships, even more so than gender or ethnic matching (Herrera, Sipe, McClanahan, &Arbreton, 2000).While providing training and making good mentor-mentee matches appear to be importantcomponents of quality relationships, mentee characteristics also deserve consideration. Findingssuggest that the types of youth served influences program impact and effectiveness. Forinstance, individuals who come from risky environments appear to experience greater benefitsfrom mentoring than youth from less risky backgrounds (DuBois et al., 2002). These findings donot hold true for youth with individual-level risk factors, although it may mean that mentorsneed additional training in order to effectively work with more behaviorally-challenged youth(DuBois et al., 2002). These results align with Karcher et al.’s (2005) findings discussed earlierwhich show that mentors’ self-efficacy is a better predictor of relationship quality than menteerisk status. In other words, if mentors receive training that increases confidence in their abilityto mentor, they can successfully work with more difficult youth.Mentees perceive their mentoring relationship to be most positive when they have opportunitiesto engage in both social and academic activities with their mentors. This is especially the casewhen mentors allow them to play a role in making decisions regarding activities, thus meetingyouths’ need to experience autonomy and competence (Herrera et al., 2000). Findings from astudy of youths’ perceptions of mentoring relationships show that youth who perceive theirmentor as offering moderate levels of structure and activity participation as well as conditionalsupport experience more positive outcomes than youth whose mentors provide either lowstructure or unconditional support (Langhout, Rhodes, & Osborne, 2004). Mentors were mosteffective when they provided support contingent upon high expectations, while still allowing foractive participation and independence. These findings align with outcomes associated withdifferent parenting styles (Baumrind, 1991; Langhout et al., 2004).Mentoring programs, when structured effectively, have the ability to provide youth participantswith a wide range of positive benefits. It appears that those relationships that best addressyouths’ need to experience relatedness, competence and autonomy provide the greatestbenefits. Certain considerations need to be taken at both the program and individual level inorder to promote the development of positive mentoring relationships. Additionally, and