Mentoring Relationships in the Lives of Boys and Young Men

Abstract

In developed countries, males lag females on nearly every educational indicator, from early childhood readiness to postsecondary enrollment and completion (Hurst 2024; Irwin et al. 2024). One contributing factor is their limited access to positive male role models and mentors in their families, schools, and communities (Yu et al. 2021). Although formal mentoring can help bridge these gaps, many programs are not as effective as they could be and suffer from a shortage of male volunteers. I review what research has shown about the need for mentoring and the promise of various mentoring approaches, and I propose several strategies to increase both the effectiveness and availability of male role models and mentors in the lives of boys and young men.

Over the past several decades, the presence of male role models and mentors in the lives of boys and young men in the U.S. and other developed countries has steadily diminished. Between 1970 and 2023, the proportion of U.S. children living in single-parent families more than doubled, largely due to a sharp increase in female-headed households (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 2025). Boys raised in single-mother households experience significantly worse educational, behavioral, and occupational outcomes, including lower academic achievement and higher rates of school and course failure, even after accounting for maternal involvement and socioeconomic resources (McLanahan et al. 2013; Whitney et al. 2017). Importantly, research using natural experiments and rigorous causal designs indicates these effects reflect more than resource deprivation. Children whose fathers have died show different outcome patterns than those whose fathers have left through separation or divorce, despite similar losses to the child’s household income. This suggests that paternal absenteeism carries unique developmental consequences among their children that go beyond material disadvantage (Lang and Zagorsky 2001). Because boys are particularly vulnerable, exhibiting more pronounced deficits in school behavior and disciplinary problems than girls in comparable circumstances do, researchers posit gender-specific mechanisms (Bertrand and Pan 2013). The male role model hypothesis is further supported by evidence that surrogate father figures (e.g., grandfathers, uncles, and coaches) who provide consistent, emotionally engaged mentorship can mitigate negative effects. Likewise, although socioeconomic factors partially account for the association between father absence and child outcomes, studies employing sibling fixed effects and propensity score matching continue to find significant direct effects on high school graduation and social-emotional adjustment, thus indicating that father absence constitutes an independent risk factor rather than merely proxying for economic hardship (McLanahan et al. 2013; Amato 2005).

Relationships with teachers, coaches, after-school staff, clergy, community leaders, and other supportive adults can help offset these family-related risks. Even after accounting for baseline functioning and demographic factors, we find that youth who can identify at least one supportive nonparent adult in their social network show better outcomes across a range of academic, behavioral, and health domains (van Dam et al. 2018).

Mentors can be helpful to all youth, but male mentors may have a particularly strong influence on boys and young men. First, for boys who may lack a father figure at home or have had a fractious relationship with their father, male mentors can provide corrective relational experiences that challenge boys’ negative self-perceptions, demonstrate that positive male connections are possible, and thereby modify their internal working models of attachment and help them regulate emotions more effectively. Second, role models can help scaffold boys’ developing problem-solving skills by stretching their capacity for abstract thinking and modeling effective strategies for navigating academic and social challenges. Third, and perhaps most critical for male development, mentors can facilitate identity formation as boys internalize their mentor’s desirable masculine traits and incorporate their mentor’s appraisals into their sense of self, expanding their repertoire of possible selves and their access to social and cultural capital that challenges restrictive masculine scripts. When relationships are youth-centered, emotionally attuned, and sustained over a sufficient period of time, these processes are amplified, counteracting the developmental vulnerability many boys experience when they lack a consistent male presence in their lives.

Fortunately, naturally forged connections with caring, nonparent adults are relatively common in young people’s lives. A series of analyses of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health (Add Health) data indicates that nearly three-quarters of young adults report having had a natural mentor since age 14, with males and females reporting similar overall rates (Christensen et al. 2019; Raposa et al. 2018; DuBois and Silverthorn 2005; Kraft et al. 2023). These mentors are most often extended family members (43 percent), followed by teachers and guidance counselors (26 percent), with smaller proportions identified as coaches, religious leaders, employers, coworkers, friends’ parents, or neighbors. Youth who nominate natural mentors demonstrate significantly more favorable outcomes, including a greater likelihood of completing high school, attending college, and working at least 10 hours per week (DuBois and Silverthorn 2005). Having a school-based natural mentor is also associated with substantial academic benefits, such as higher GPAs, lower course failure rates, more completed courses, a greater likelihood of college attendance, and nearly an additional year of educational attainment, with the greatest benefits to youth from lower socioeconomic status backgrounds. Kraft et al. (2023) found that only slightly more female students (15.4 percent) than male students (14.8 percent) nominated a school-based natural mentor, though this varied by mentor type. Female students were more likely to nominate teachers and counselors, whereas male students were much more likely to nominate coaches, with 71 percent of coach-mentored students being male (Kraft et al. 2023). Indeed, students in the Add Health study who nominated a coach mentor were significantly associated with a higher likelihood of both high school and college completion, even after controlling for sports participation and baseline academic achievement (Christensen et al. 2019).

At first glance, these findings might suggest that boys have ample opportunities to engage with teachers, coaches, and other male role models in their schools and communities. However, with the decline in the number of teachers and reduced public support for extracurricular programs and enrichment activities, opportunities for extended interaction between boys and caring nonparental male adults have diminished.

The proportion of male public school teachers declined sharply over the past 35 years, from approximately 30 percent in 1987 to 23 percent by 2022 (NCES 2023). Males now represent only 3 percent of preschool teachers, about 20 percent of K–8 teachers, and 43 percent of high school teachers (Miller 2025; NCES 2023). Positive connections with teachers are considered one of the most important ingredients in promoting positive student development (Pianta et al. 2012). One recent nationally representative study using student fixed effects found that simply matching elementary students with same-gender teachers yielded no meaningful gains in boys’ academic, social-behavioral, or executive-functioning outcomes and only modest improvements in girls’ interpersonal skills and approaches to learning; this finding suggests that increasing the number of male teachers alone is unlikely to substantially reduce early gender gaps in achievement or behavior. Other studies, however, have found that same-gender teachers can affect students’ motivation, identity development, and occupational outcomes (Abrams 2023), especially among Black male students (Gershenson et al. 2022).

Moreover, the decline of male teachers in the classroom reduced the availability of male mentors and increased reliance on volunteer coaches rather than traditional teacher-coaches. Today, about only half of school-based coaches are teachers, a departure from historical patterns in which school athletics were predominantly supervised by teacher-coaches, who are better positioned to support students’ academic success. At the same time, as youth sports become increasingly expensive, participation rates among boys from lower-income families are dropping sharply (Drape and Belson 2025; Project Play 2021). More generally, growing income inequality and an overall decline in youth athletic leagues, neighborhood associations, labor unions, church attendance, and community group participation have reduced the availability of male role models. In the absence of consistent access to positive male role models, boys and young men are increasingly influenced by celebrities, athletes, politicians, and online influencers, who may promote and reinforce coarse, harmful masculine behaviors and expectations (Robb and Mann 2025; Kearney and Levine 2020). This is particularly consequential given new findings suggesting that encouragement is most motivating to adolescents when it comes from people who know both their abilities and the specific domain they are working in (e.g., a math teacher who has seen their progress in math, rather than a generic authority figure or a peer offering vague praise). Across three studies, youth said they were more likely to seek out, trust, and act on encouragement from such “knowledgeable” adults and peers; their responses suggest that, for boys in particular, role models who are both attuned to their strengths and fluent in the activities they care about (sports, trades, academic subjects) may be especially well positioned to help them sustain effort and engagement (Asaba et al. 2025).

Mentoring Programs

To address the absence of male role models, families often turn to formal mentoring programs. Such programs have multiplied and diversified in recent years, collectively serving hundreds of thousands of young people annually by matching them with caring volunteer mentors (Garringer et al. 2017). Unfortunately, mentoring programs are increasingly struggling to meet the demand for male volunteers. Our analyses of the Volunteering Supplement of the Current Population Survey, which is conducted biannually by the U.S. Census Bureau and AmeriCorps, indicated that men comprise only 43 percent of volunteer mentors willing to commit to at least one school year (Raposa et al. 2017). Two large surveys of nationally representative mentoring programs reveal a significant gender imbalance among mentors. A national survey conducted by the nonprofit MENTOR considered 1,451 programs serving more than 413,000 youth and found that men represented approximately 47 percent of mentors (Garringer et al. 2017), while an Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention evaluation of 30 programs serving 2,165 youth found 43 percent male mentors (Jarjoura et al. 2018). While these numbers point to a gender imbalance that translates into longer waitlists, the situation for boys is made even more challenging by the ways that official data may be obscured. Big Brothers Big Sisters (BBBS) programs, for example, report that only 7 percent of youth referred in 2022 were officially placed on a waitlist (N = 30,000). But because that waitlist is actively managed, the actual number of youth unable to access mentoring is considerably higher, with boys of color disproportionately affected (Big Brothers Big Sisters of America 2022).

Men’s relatively lower rates of mentorship stem from a range of factors, including cultural expectations, taboos, and suspicions regarding men in caregiving roles (Pekel et al. 2018). To recruit more men, many programs have launched targeted social media campaigns to normalize and encourage male volunteerism. Such efforts are among the costliest program investments, second only to training (Jarjoura et al. 2018). And because the availability of male mentors is often the rate-limiting factor in serving boys on waitlists, many programs have relaxed volunteer training and meeting requirements by emphasizing light-touch, friendship- and recreation-focused approaches (Rhodes 2020). Programs that succeed in recruiting more male mentors tend to be slightly more effective and to have higher retention rates. In a large-scale meta-analysis, Raposa et al. (2019) found significantly larger effects for programs with a higher percentage of male mentors, a finding consistent with at least one previous meta-analysis of mentoring programs (DuBois et al. 2011). Additionally, census data have shown that female mentors are significantly less likely that male mentors to return in subsequent years (Raposa et al. 2017). This aligns with prior research indicating that female mentors are marginally more likely to terminate relationships with their mentees that are male mentors (Grossman and Rhodes 2002). Spencer et al. (2019) suggested that these patterns may reflect differences in relational expectations. In a qualitative study, they found that female–female mentoring relationships were at higher risk of premature termination than male–male relationships; they hypothesize that female mentors often expect higher levels of emotional intimacy and self-disclosure that, when unmet, can lead to disappointment and relationship dissolution. Male mentors and mentees, in contrast, more commonly engaged in activity-based, fun-focused interactions that were less vulnerable to unmet relational expectations.

As the field moves toward more effective, supervised, goal-focused approaches, mismatched expectations may become less salient. In particular, research shows that mentoring programs with structured oversight and clear objectives achieve substantially better outcomes than less intensive, friendship-based programs (Lyons et al. 2019). For example, Burton et al. (2022) found that cross-age peer-mentoring programs with moderate to high levels of adult supervision yielded effect sizes of 0.43, compared to just 0.03 in programs with low oversight. Programs classified as providing low oversight typically provided fewer than two hours of mentor training, whereas moderate- to high-oversight programs offered more extensive training, supervision to support intervention delivery, sampling of mentor–mentee interactions for quality monitoring, and structured staff–mentor debriefing meetings. Likewise, programs that take a more goal-focused approach are generally more effective. A meta-analysis of 48 mentoring studies confirmed that targeted, goal-focused programs more than doubled the effect sizes of nonspecific, friendship-based programs (Christensen et al. 2020). These benefits were particularly pronounced for high-risk youth, with gains observed across academic functioning (e.g., performance and school engagement), psychological outcomes (e.g., mental health and self-regulation), and social functioning (e.g., social skills and social support). Collectively, these findings underscore the critical role of mentor training, supervision, and structured programming in maximizing the impact of mentoring interventions.

Mentors who are well supervised and focus on specific goals are likely more effective because they are better equipped to address mentees’ challenges. Parents and guardians, particularly those from marginalized backgrounds, are increasingly turning to mentoring programs as a substitute for professional services to address clinically significant difficulties with their children. Indeed, youth referred to mentoring programs experience rates of academic, social, and emotional difficulties that are roughly double those of youth in the general population, yet fewer than one-quarter receive any professional counseling, therapy, or academic support (Jarjoura et al. 2018). In the absence of adequate program training and support, mentors who are working with struggling youth can become overwhelmed by complex youth issues and thus end matches early (Goldner and Mayseless 2009; Spencer 2007). Secondary analyses of a large national dataset found that nearly 40 percent of mentoring matches ended prematurely; circumstances that are most likely to lead to early termination include a youth’s criminal involvement (gang activity or risk of involvement, juvenile delinquency, or court contact), substance use, behavioral dysregulation, or challenging family circumstances (Kupersmidt et al. 2017). This pattern suggests that the youth who could benefit most from mentoring are also at the highest risk of not being mentored.

It’s important to note that a shift toward more goal-focused mentoring does not diminish the importance of strong relationships, and balancing goal-directed activities with a supportive, caring relationship is critical for fostering positive outcomes for youth participating in mentoring programs (Cavell and Elledge 2013). In a large, nationally representative sample, we found that relationships were most successful when mentors balanced youth-focused (e.g., mentor listens to youth’s preferences in activities) and goal-focused approaches (e.g., mentor helps the youth set and reach goals). This result is consistent with findings that a balance of relational talk, leisure activities (i.e., games, creative), and goal-focused activities (i.e., academics, social issues) was associated with better youth outcomes (Cavell and Elledge 2013). The need for a relational approach extends to mentees’ caregivers and teachers: Even close mentor–mentee bonds can falter if mentors fail to connect with parents, particularly when parents feel excluded or threatened (Spencer 2007). Indeed, the fact that therapists’ alliances with caregivers have been shown to predict youth outcomes as strongly as their bonds with youth underscores the importance of engaging caregivers in youth mentoring (Karver et al. 2018; Keller 2005).

Fortunately, BBBS and other mentoring programs are moving toward more inclusive, goal-focused approaches. In a recent, four-year randomized controlled trial of BBBS community-based programs, nearly 80 percent of youth and approximately 60 percent of parents reported that their mentors were actively working with youth on achieving specific goals (DuBois et al. 2025). The structured approach may have provided the scaffolding necessary to translate caring relationships into measurable behavioral change. This study found large effects on outcomes that affect more boys and young men than girls and young women, such as reductions in high school dropout and substance use and abuse, and medium effects on suicidal ideation and violence-related delinquent behavior. Interestingly, most matches met no more than twice per month, with a substantial proportion meeting only once per month or less—a finding consistent with research suggesting that relationship strategy may matter more than dosage (Lyons et al. 2019). Even without gender-specific recruitment efforts, more than half of the mentors were male (53.7 percent), approximately 20 percent higher than typical. One factor that may have contributed to this higher male representation is that many matches began during the COVID-19 pandemic, when mentors relied exclusively on video conferences during the early stages of relationship building, a feature than may have reduced men’s initial hesitation to participate.

Recommendations

Taken together, these findings, along with decades of program evaluations and meta-analyses, offer important clues into how mentoring programs can more effectively recruit men to serve boys and young men. Tactics can include developing male-friendly program models, allocating resources efficiently, and embedding mentors into the environments where youth live and learn.

Targeted recruitment

Research demonstrates that personal, face-to-face recruitment by current male mentors is the most effective recruitment strategy, as men respond more favorably to direct invitations from peers than to traditional mass marketing campaigns (National Mentoring Resource Center, n.d.). Programs are increasingly recruiting at male-oriented venues (such as sporting events, workplaces with predominantly male employees, and faith communities) and emphasizing concrete benefits like skill development and networking rather than solely emotional connection. Statewide initiatives such as California’s Men’s Service Challenge, which aims to recruit 10,000 men as mentors, tutors, and coaches through a $5-million state investment (California Volunteers 2025), should be rigorously evaluated, proven effective, and then scaled. Programs should address common concerns expressed by potential male volunteers, including time commitment, costs, and uncertainty about activities, and consider balancing in-person and online interactions to reduce early-stage hesitancy (Hawkins et al. 2015). Likewise, programs should highlight the reciprocal benefits of mentoring, including the sense of meaning and purpose that comes with being genuinely helpful to someone else.

New models

Likewise, new models like hybrid mentoring, flash mentoring (short, targeted conversations), shared mentorship (two mentors alternating meetings with one youth to accommodate shift workers), corporate mentorships during lunch breaks, and couples’ mentorship (spouses co-mentoring) offer new contexts in which male mentors might serve. Within this context, cross-age, peer-mentoring programs may be a particularly promising solution. Burton et al. (2022) found that school-based, cross-age programs that enlisted more-advanced students averaged 61 percent male mentors and 55 percent male mentees, a substantially higher rate than traditional adult–youth programs. Peer-mentoring programs benefit from lower recruitment costs, continuous replenishment of participants, and shared lived experience, which may be particularly salient for boys exploring masculine identity development.

Hybrid mentoring

Based on the new BBBS findings (DuBois et al. 2025), programs should also consider implementing virtual and hybrid mentoring models as they may alleviate some of the common barriers to male mentor recruitment. Research on male volunteer motivations has shown that men without mentoring experience express significant concerns about time commitment, logistical constraints, and knowledge of what activities to do with mentees; platforms that enable easy communication and flexible meeting arrangements could reduce some of that hesitancy (Hawkins et al. 2015). Virtual mentoring eliminates geographical barriers, provides scheduling flexibility that accommodates work obligations (e.g., shift work), and may create a more comfortable environment for initial relationship formation. Hybrid models that begin with virtual meetings and gradually transition to in-person interactions allow mentors to develop comfort and confidence in their role before committing to the time and logistical demands of regular face-to-face meetings. Purpose-built mentoring platforms that enable supervised texting, goal tracking, training, and conversation suggestions may also increase men’s comfort level.

Better stewardship

Given the scarcity of male volunteers, programs should allocate resources strategically. Only about 5 percent of U.S. children and adolescents are served by mentoring programs, but not every child needs or wants this approach (Raposa et al. 2019). Formal mentoring relationships should thus be viewed as an early, nonstigmatizing source of support that is less intensive than professional support but more structured than more youth-serving approaches (e.g., after-school programs). In fact, a recent meta-analysis showed that effect sizes of after-school programs are similar to those of mentoring programs. Since the former can scale more affordably, arguments could be made for recruiting additional male staff to serve in them (Poon et al. 2021). From this perspective, formal mentoring would be positioned as an early, nonstigmatizing source of support, more structured than natural mentoring but less intensive than professional services. A stepped-care approach in which youth are referred to programs based on their presenting goals and risk levels may ease the pressure on mentoring programs to serve all boys and young men who are referred (Lyons and McQuillin 2019; McQuillin et al. 2022).

Shorter tours of duty

Reducing their time requirements enables programs to potentially redeploy male volunteers with additional mentees. When comparing varying program durations, meta-analyses show no significant differences in effect sizes based on program length, suggesting that dose-dependent effects are not straightforward in mentoring (Raposa et al. 2019). Specifically, although some research has documented stronger outcomes for relationships lasting at least 12 months, more recent meta-analytic evidence finds that expected program duration and meeting length are not linearly associated with improved outcomes; some studies have even found that programs requiring longer meeting sessions yield smaller effect sizes (Raposa et al. 2019). This finding may point to the need for programs to establish realistic expectations around the time commitment to the program. Programs should set realistic time commitments and leverage technology to support mentors. Mentor-facing AI tools hold the potential of scaling male volunteers by providing just-in-time guidance, tracking mentee goals, and reducing cognitive load, thus enabling mentors to support more than one youth effectively without compromising relational authenticity (Rhodes 2025). When such systems incorporate evidence-based mentoring training and suggestions, they help democratize access to expert mentoring knowledge.

Embedded mentoring

Strategies that deploy men into the settings where boys live and learn also hold promise. Programs like the AARP Foundation’s Experience Corps place adults in classrooms, where they work alongside teachers to reinforce literacy, math, and behavioral skills, and produce measurable improvements in academic and behavioral outcomes (Rebok et al. 2004). Schwartz et al. (2012) examined meeting-time arrangements in school-based mentoring programs and found that programs meeting during school as a pull-out model showed no evidence of academic benefits and some evidence of negative effects, whereas programs meeting after school or embedded within classrooms demonstrated more positive patterns. Classroom-embedded roles may expand opportunities for men to serve as mentors, particularly men who are more comfortable with structured, task-focused frameworks and settings that provide clear expectations and observable deliverables as opposed to programs that feature more ambiguous emotional-support roles.

Serve the waitlist

Families reaching out to mentoring programs are often at a heightened moment of readiness to engage supportive resources. Programs should leverage this precious window of opportunity by providing immediate, evidence-based support. In therapeutic contexts, single-session interventions that can be delivered to youth on the waitlist have been shown to produce meaningful, lasting effects on mental health and behavioral outcomes even in 15- to 20-minute formats (Schleider and Weisz 2017; Schleider et al. 2020). For boys who may be put on a mentoring program’s waitlist, a well-timed single-session intervention on managing stress or recruiting natural mentors represents an immediate, actionable alternative to passive waiting.

Teach boys to fish

Rather than focusing solely on recruiting more adult volunteers to serve as mentors, programs should equip boys with the skills and confidence to identify, recruit, and sustain mentoring relationships with men in their existing social networks—that is, “teach them to fish.” Youth-initiated mentoring represents a hybrid approach that combines the strengths of naturally occurring relationships with the infrastructure and support provided by formal mentoring programs (Schwartz et al. 2012). In this model, youth nominate nonparental adults from their existing social networks, such as school personnel, employers, extended family members, and family friends—people they already know and trust. The program then screens, trains, and supports these nominated mentors while providing structure, expectations, and ongoing monitoring to strengthen and sustain the relationships. Research demonstrates the effectiveness of this approach. Van Dam and colleagues (2021) conducted a meta-analysis of 14 studies that examined youth-initiated mentoring programs and found a medium effect across academic and vocational functioning, social-emotional development, physical health, and psychosocial outcomes. This approach, which has been successfully deployed within the National Guard Youth CHalleNGe program, eliminates the primary bottleneck in traditional mentoring programs, recruits more male mentors, and provides boys with transferable skills in identifying, approaching, and maintaining supportive relationships with adults (Spencer et al. 2016; van Dam et al. 2021). Studies of Connected Futures, a social capital recruitment program, have shown positive effects on students’ grades, improved help-seeking attitudes and behavior, relationship formation, and higher graduation rates (Hersch et al. 2025; Schwartz et al. 2018, 2023).

Stock the pond

Of course, the onus for locating and recruiting mentors should not rest solely with youth. Efforts to increase male mentors should extend beyond volunteer programs to include systemic strategies that cultivate men in teaching and caring professional roles (Reeves 2022). Programs like NYC Men Teach have demonstrated effectiveness in recruiting and retaining male teachers, particularly men of color, through professional support, mentorship, certification guidance, and early-career integration (Westat and Metis Associates 2019). We also need to broaden most male professional roles to include a deeper appreciation of the importance of caring and role modeling (Hagler and Rhodes 2018). Men in schools, athletics, juvenile courts, neighborhoods, and workplaces are often afforded many opportunities to mentor youth. But, because mentoring is typically seen as a by-product of many youth services and settings, and not their central mission, adults are rarely provided with specific training and encouragement to build strong relationships. Thus, in addition to teaching youth to fish, strategies that effectively “stock the pond” with trained, intentionally supportive men will be important, especially for more marginalized boys.

Expand pathways to adulthood

Mentoring-focused policy must be nested within a broader agenda that expands credible pathways to adulthood for boys and young men, particularly those who are not on a traditional four-year college track. To that end, efforts might entail restoring the status and accessibility of high-quality vocational and technical education that leads directly to well-paid trades. Public universities and state systems should be incentivized to offer applied, nontraditional credentials with clear labor-market value. Finally, a national service option, paired with renewed investment in community centers, recreation leagues, and youth-serving organizations, would give young men structured opportunities to serve, build skills, and form cross-cutting relationships with caring adults and peers.

Conclusions

Mentoring programs operate within a social context that is characterized by significant and growing economic and social inequality and class-based segregation. Attempts to attend to the struggles of boys and young men should be taken in that context and should not obscure the enduring structural disadvantages that young women face. Young people of all genders are navigating an economy that has grown more precarious and a social landscape that has grown more fragmented. Mentoring, connection, and opportunity are not zero-sum resources to be rationed by sex. And, while mentoring cannot resolve these systemic issues, the evidence reviewed here shows that caring, goal-focused relationships can buffer some of the academic, social-emotional, and identity-related risks that boys and young men face, particularly those growing up in single-mother households, attending underfunded schools, and living in communities with few positive male role models. Programs that recruit and retain more men, embed mentors where boys live and learn, balance relational and goal-focused work, and equip youth to recruit natural mentors appear especially well positioned to narrow gender gaps in education and well-being.