Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Community-based, one-on-one mentorship programs are widely used to support children and youth exposed to adversity, including abuse, neglect, poverty, and other household challenges; however, less is known about their effectiveness for this population and the factors that may shape their impact. Following Arksey and O’Malley’s scoping review framework, this review aimed to (1) examine the influence of community-based mentorship programs on the social, emotional, and behavioural outcomes of children and youth aged 7–17 years exposed to adversity, and (2) explore what evidence exists for mentorship as a moderator of the the association between adversity and developmental outcomes. A systematic search across nine databases yielded 4,355 abstracts, which were screened against inclusion criteria. Forty-seven studies focusing on one-on-one, community-based mentorship interventions with adversity-exposed children and youth were retained. Most studies were conducted in North America and involved participants facing multiple forms of adversity. The majority reported positive effects of mentorship on social, emotional, and behavioural outcomes. Only three studies examined moderators (caregiver instability, length of relationship, mentor self-efficacy) of the association between mentorship and child outcomes, and two considered adversity exposure as a moderator. No studies specifically investigated the moderating role of mentorship itself. Overall, the evidence suggests a small to moderate positive impact of mentorship for children exposed to adversity. Findings also indicate that in contexts of high adversity, additional supports addressing social determinants of health may be necessary to enhance program effectiveness. Further research is needed to clarify for whom, when, and under what circumstances one-on-one community-based mentorship is most beneficial.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Manoni-Millar et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: