child, parent and mentor perspectives on quality match relationships

Ellen L. Lipman, M.D., Karen Shaver, MSWMcMaster University, Big Brothers Big Sisters of

Canada

Jan, 2013

Child, Parent and Mentor

Perspectives on Quality Match Relationships

A Longitudinal Study of the Impact of Big Brothers Big Sisters Community Match Relationships on the

Health and Well-Being of Canadian ChildrenDavid J. De Wit, Ph.D.1 Principal Investigator and Ellen Lipman, M.D.2 Co-Principal

Co-Investigators:Jeff Bisanz, Ph.D.3; José da Costa, Ph.D.3; Kathryn Graham, Ph.D.1; Simon Larose, Ph.D.4;

Debra Pepler, Ph.D.5; Karen Shaver, MSW6

Collaborators:James Coyle, Ph.D.7; David Du Bois, Ph.D.8; Annalise Ferro, Ph.D.1;

Maria Manzano-Munguia, Ph.D.9

1Centre for Addiction and Mental Health; 2McMaster University; 3University of Alberta; 4Laval University; 5York University; 6Big Brothers Big Sisters of Canada; 7University of Windsor ; 8University of Illinois at Chicago;

9Benemérita Universidad Autónoma de Puebla (B-UAP)

In Partnership with Big Brothers Big Sisters of Canada

Study Funded by Canadian Institutes of Health Research

(Grant No: MOP-81115)

Support to CAMH for salary of scientists and infrastructure is provided by the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care

There is a need to further understand how mentoring relationships work

The quality of the mentoring relationship is thought to be a fundamental component to be associated with positive child outcomes, and to be the most proximal influence on outcomes

Other components of the mentoring relationship also have an important influence on match quality and child outcomes (e.g., shared activities, amount of contact, mentor self-efficacy, agency supports)

BACKGROUND

There has been little research that examines factors that enhance or promote match relationship quality

BACKGROUND

EnvironmentalSupports

(e.g., agency practices,

Parent support of match)

Mentoring Relationship

Attributes(e.g., time invested,

activity type)

Mentoring Relationship

Quality

Mentor Engagement and Support

Mentor Self-efficacy

Child Developmental

Outcomes (e.g., self-esteem)

THEORY OF MENTORING

Child gender, family SES

Describe a Canadian longitudinal study of the impact of big Brothers Big Sisters Community match relationships on the health and wellbeing of Canadian children

Presentation of results examining factors associated with perceived quality of the match relationships (child, parent, mentor perspective)

Summary of findings from practitioner perspective Breakout groups to discuss findings in relation to

practitioner experience, generate ideas about how to improve factors associated with match quality and match quality

Present summaries from groups Final summary of ideas generated

OBJECTIVES

BBBS MATCH PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Match Program ContentChildren in BBBS community match programs are matched to

an adult mentor and engage in shared leisure, educational, and skill-based activities 2-4 hours per week

Program phasesQualifying assessment (match program eligibility) Match determination (families and mentors submit to

formal agency interview)Caseworker supervision/support of match (monthly first 6

months, every other month until 12 months)

Children waiting for a match have the option to engage in agency-sponsored recreational or educational activities (wait list programs)

METHODOLOGY

Families (n = 997) recruited by BBBS staff over a 30 month period (May 2007 to November 2009) from 20 BBBS agencies across Canada (mostly metropolitan centres)

Mentors (n = 477) recruited following an agency match to a study child

Family and mentor qualifications for study:New admissions to the BBBS agencyPassed the agency’s qualifying assessment for

determining eligibility to participate in the community mentoring program

Families with child ages 6-17 (when more than one eligible child, one randomly selected to participate)

Parent participants were required to have primary parenting responsibility for the study child

SAMPLE SELECTION AND ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS

Recruitment of Families and Adult Mentors

Families and mentors recruited by agency intake and caseworkers following a standardized script (e.g., study objectives, types of questions expected and participant responsibilities)

Families invited to participate immediately after passing the agency's qualifying assessment

Adult mentors invited to participate immediately following an agency match to a study child

Data Collection Procedures

Families received an in home baseline assessment (prior to a match to a mentor) (40-minute parent self-administered questionnaire, two hour child face-to-face interview conducted by a trained field interviewer)

In-home follow-ups on the same families were conducted every 6 months until 30 months from baseline

Children reported on academic, behavioral and psycho-social outcomes; parents reported on same plus their own social and health related behaviors

Matched families answered additional questions pertaining to agency practices and the mentoring relationship

Adult mentors completed a 30-minute in home self-administered questionnaire in conjunction with their matched family’s follow-ups

STUDY DESIGN

FamilyRecruitment

By BBBS1281 FamiliesApproached

997 Families

in study

Baseline6

mo12 mo

18 mo

24mo

30 mo

477 Mentors in study

Family and Mentor Follow-up Assessments

Adult Mentor Recruitment By BBBS610 Mentors Approached

6 mo 12 mo 18 mo 24 mo 30 moDropped Out

4.5 9.9 15.5 19.9 23.6Could Not be Scheduled

16.5 19.1 19.5 22.1 23.4Total Loss

21.0 29.0 35.0 42.0 47.0Total Retention

79.0 71.0 65.0 58.0 53.0

LOSS OF PARTICIPANTS TO FOLLOW-UP (%)

n = 997 parents and childrenn = 20 agencies

Procedures for retaining participantsIncentives for children and parents (e.g., movie passes)Use of auxiliary contacts to track participantsFollow-up telephone calls (between assessments)Mailing of brochures and thank you cards

Family Reasons for Dropping Out of Study (n=198)Family moved away (17%)Family ended relationship with BBBS (26%)Lack of interest (17%)Lack of time (10%)Questionnaires too long/personal (8%)

PARTICIPANT PROFILES

Profile of Child Participants (n=997)Background Characteristics Percent

Child Mean Age = 9.77 (SD=2.21, min=6 max=17) < 99 – 1412 – 17

32.144.023.9

Child Gender Male Female

49.350.7

Child Living ArrangementsBoth Biological Parents Biological Mother OnlyBiological Father Only

Biological Parent and Other Unrelated GuardianOther Relatives (e.g., sibling, aunt, uncle, grandparent)Other Arrangements (e.g., foster/step/adopt parent, group home)

10.864.94.87.27.1

5.1

Child Number of Siblings Living With YouNoneOneTwoThree or More

33.233.920.112.9

Child Background Characteristics Percent

Child EthnicityAfrican CanadianAboriginal or Native AmericanWhite Northern EuropeanWhite Other European (South and East)AsianHispanicCanadianOther

10.313.334.17.97.62.310.713.8

Child Chronic Health ConditionsYesNo

29.570.5

Child Activity Limitation Yes

No 6.7 93.3

Child Use Mental Health/Social ServicesYesNo

28.3 71.7

Profile of Child Participants (n=997)

Profile of Parent/Guardian and Adult Mentor ParticipantsBackground Characteristics Parent (%)

n = 997Mentor (%)n = 477

Parent Mean Age=40.13 (SD=8.80, min=18 max=89) Mentor Mean Age=29.42 (SD=8.61, min=18, max=64)

< 25 25 - 2930 - 3435 - 3940 - 4445 plus

0.5

7.8

20.3

23.4

19.9

28.2

31.734.513.67.44.08.7

Gender FemaleMale

93.0

7.0

65.2 (59.9)

34.8 (40.7)

Current Marital Status MarriedCommon-LawSeparatedDivorcedWidowed

Never Married

11.3

7.7

23.3

17.0

5.8

34.9

17.216.90.82.50.462.1

Background Characteristics Parent (%) n = 997

Mentor (%)n = 477

Number Family Moves Past 5 Years None

OneTwoThree or more

32.5

22.5

19.6

25.4

--------

Length of Time in current Residence< 12 Months1 – 2 years3 – 4 years5 + years

--------

25.9

32.3

13.0

28.9

Number Children Living With YouNoneOneTwoThree or more

0.0

34.3

35.0

30.8

90.8

4.9

3.0

1.3

Parent Chronic Health ConditionYesNo

33.7

66.3

----

Profile of Parent/Guardian and Adult Mentor Participants

Background Characteristics Parent (%) n = 997

Mentor (%)n = 477

Relationship with Study ChildBiological MotherBiological FatherOther Related Female (e.g., grandmother, aunt)

Other (e.g., grandfather, adoptive or foster parent)

84.3

5.7

6.4

3.5

--------

Education< High School DiplomaHigh School DiplomaSome CollegeCompleted CollegeSome UniversityCompleted University

16.5

19.1

17.2

22.9

8.8

15.5

2.1

7.4

7.0

19.3

17.0

47.1

Gross Household Income< $10,00010,000 – 19,99920,000 – 39,99940,000 – 59,99960,000 Plus

17.9

23.3

30.5

16.5

11.8

8.2

6.1

13.2

24.0

48.5


Background Characteristics Parent (%) Mentor (%)

EthnicityVisible Minority (African Canadian, Aboriginal, Asian, Hispanic)European (Northern, Southern, Eastern)CanadianOther

--

------

12.4

77.5

4.3

5.8

Language Household AssessmentEnglishFrenchOther

92.6

4.6

2.8

------

Place of ResidenceUrbanRural

94.1

5.9

94.5

5.5

Region of ResidenceBritish ColumbiaAlbertaSaskatchewan/ManitobaOntarioQuebecNova Scotia/New Brunswick

20.0

20.7

10.0

33.6

5.7

10.0

23.7

25.9

8.0

28.3

5.9

8.2


MENTORING AND AGENCY DESCRIPTIVES

Mentoring Status by Study Follow-Up (Total %)

6 Months 12 Months 18 Months 24 Months 30 Months0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

47.451.5

45.640.7

34.1

4.7

16.6

29.7

38.6

47.147.9

32

24.720.7 18.8

Continuous Dissolved Never Matched

%

n = 997 parents and childrenn = 20 agencies

Boys %

Mentoring Status by Study Follow-Up


10

20

30

40

50

60

70

34

46 4743

38

3

10

20

29

37

64

44

3328

25


Note. Most gender comparisons statistically significant at p < .01n = 997 parents and childrenn = 20 agencies


10

20

30

40

50

60

7062

57

44

38

31

7

24

40

49

57

32

2017

13 12


Girls %

Match Determination Difficulties by Reporter (%)

n = 688 child; n = 688 parent; n = 471 mentorNote: Minimal = scored 4 on scale with minimum value of 4 and maximum value of 12Some = scored 5 on scale; Moderate to High = scored 6 or higher(e.g., took too long for match to be found, not enough thought given to shared interests)

Mentor

Child

Parent

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

21.9

38.9

28.2

21.7

25.8

19.6

56.5

35.3

52.2

Minimal Some Moderate to High

Match Determination Difficulties by Child Gender Parent Report (%)

*p < .01; n = 688 Note: Minimal = scored 4 on scale with minimum value of 4 and maximum value of 12Some = scored 5 on scale; Moderate to High = scored 6 or higher(e.g., took too long for match to be found, not enough thought given to shared interests)

Girls

Boys

Total

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

22.6

34.6

28.2

17.7

21.8

19.6

59.7

43.6

52.2

Minimal Some Moderate to High

*

*

Caseworker Support of Mentoring Relationship by Reporter

n = 512 parent; n = 377 mentor Note: Strong Support = scored 18 on scale with a minimum value of 6 and maximum value of 18Less Support = 17 or less (e.g., caseworker was friendly, eager to answer questions)

Mentor

Parent

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

28.6

25.6

71.4

74.4

Strong Support Less Support

Percent

Parent Support of Mentoring Relationship by Child Gender

Total Boys Girls0

10

20

30

40

50

60

35

28

4035 36 35

30

36

25

Low Moderate High

n = 626 n = 420

*p < .01;Note: Low = scored < 70% on scale with a minimum value of 6 and maximum value of 30Moderate = 70 – 79%; High = 80+% (e.g., parent suggests activities for BB/BS, makes BB/BS feel welcome)

**

Parent Report %

Total Boys Girls0

10

20

30

40

50

60

45

36

51

29

35

2526 2824

Low Moderate High

Mentor Report %

* *

Quality of Parent-Mentor Relationship (Parent Report)

Poor Fair Good Very Good0

10

20

30

40

50

60

24.4

7.8

15.1

52.7%

n = 628Note: Poor = scored < 70% on scale with a minimum value of 5 and maximum value of 15Fair = 70 – 79%; Good = 80 – 89%; Very Good = 90+% (e.g., parent/mentor relationship trusting, close)

Mentor Self-Efficacy

Poor Fair Good Very Good Excellent0

10

20

30

40

50

60

21.524.2 22.8

15.9 15.7

Mentor Self-Efficacy

%

n = 449Note: Poor = scored < 60% on scale with a minimum value of 0 and maximum value of 39Fair = 60 – 69%; Good = 70 – 79%; Very Good = 80 – 89; Excellent = 90+% (e.g., sharing with LB / LS a personal experience, giving advice how to deal with a problem)

Mentor Hours of Training by Mentor Gender

Total Male Female0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

6.2 5.5 6.5

21.2

27.4

17.922.5 22 22.8

30.4 31.1 30

19.7

14

22.8

< 2 Hours 2 Hours 3 Hours 4 - 5 Hours 6 or More Hours

%

n = 471*p < .01

*

*

Mentor Training Satisfaction (Mentor Report)

Low Moderate High Very High0

10

20

30

40

50

60

16.8

21.9 23.2

38.1

Training Satisfaction

%

n = 470Note: Low = scored < 70% on scale with a minimum value of 13 and maximum value of 65Moderate = 70 – 79%; High = 80 – 89%; Very High = 90+% (e.g., clarity of rules and responsibilities as a BBBS volunteer, strategies for fostering a positive relationship)

Number of Hours Each Week in Mentoring Relationship (Current Matches) (Child Report)

Total Boys Girls Age 6 - 9 Age 10 - 170

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

9.3 11.27.7 7.4

11.3

25.4 23.427.3 28.1

22.8

52.755.6

5153.9

51.4

12.69.8

1510.6

14.5

< 1 hour 1 - 2 hours 3 - 4 hours 5 hours or more

%

n = 621

Spending Enough Time in Mentoring Relationship With BB/BS? (Child Report)

Total Boys Girls Age 6 - 9 Age 10 - 170

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

76.4 78.474.6

78.574.3

23.6 21.625.4

21.525.7

Yes No

%

n = 623

Perceived Quality of Mentoring Relationship by Reporter

(Current and Dissolved Matches) (%)

n = 642 child; n = 670 parent; n = 469 mentorNote: Low quality = scored < 60% on scale with minimum value of 5 and maximum value of 15Moderate = 60 – 79%; High = 80 – 89%; Very High = 90+% (e.g., trusting relationship, close relationship)

Mentor

Parent

Child

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

50.5

63.5

76.2

15.8

7.8

6.7

19.8

12.6

8.4

13.9

16

8.7

Low Moderate High Very High

Respectful Relationship

Happy Relationship

Close Relationship

Warm and Affectionate Relationship

Trusting Relationship

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

92.3

86.1

75

80.2

85.2

81.3

78.1

60.1

68.1

79

84.2

78.9

41.4

49.9

71.9

Mentor Parent ChildPercent Very True

Figure: Perceived Global Quality of Mentoring Relationship

n = 660 children; n = 670 parents; n = 473 mentors

CORRELATES OF MENTORING RELATIONSHIP CHARACTERISTICS (QUALITY, ENGAGEMENT

AND SUPPORT)

Predictors Total(n = 574)

Girls(n = 304)

Boys(n = 270)

Mentoring Relationship Longevity6 – 11 months 0.10 0.07 0.1612 – 17 0.04 -0.01 0.1418 plus (vs. < 6 months) 0.11 0.08 0.20*

Number of Different Mentoring Relationship Activities (5 or More) 0.18*** 0.19** 0.15*Mentor/Mentee Contact One or More Days per Week -0.02 -0.05 0.01Mentor/Mentee Contact 3 or More Hours per Week 0.05 0.07 0.03Enough Time with BB/BS

Yes (vs. no) 0.11* 0.11 0.07Parent Support of Mentoring Relationship -0.04 -0.01 -0.08Quality Parent/Mentor Relationship 0.17*** 0.09 0.23**Number Times Monthly Parent/Mentor Meet Face-to-Face

2 – 3 times 0.02 0.07 -0.034 plus (vs. <2 times) 0.10 0.18* 0.02

Caseworker Support of Mentoring Relationship

Strong Support -0.01 -0.08 0.10No Caseworker Contact (vs. weak/moderate support) -0.01 -0.06 0.06

Match Determination Difficulties -0.05 -0.08 -0.01Adjusted R Square 0.10 0.08 0.10

Predictors of Mentoring Relationship Quality (Child Report)

*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001Note. Results adjusted for child and parent demographics, socioeconomic and cultural background, and health status.


Girls(n = 304)

Boys(n = 270)

Mentoring Relationship Longevity6 – 11 months 0.01 -0.03 -0.0612 – 17 0.07 0.04 0.1018 plus (vs. < 6 months) 0.11 0.10 0.11

Number of Different Mentoring Relationship Activities (5 or More) 0.08 0.13* 0.05Mentor/Mentee Contact One or More Days per Week 0.02 0.08 -0.11Mentor/Mentee Contact 3 or More Hours per Week 0.09* 0.04 0.16**Enough Time with BB/BS

Yes (vs. no) 0.15*** 0.12* 0.17**Parent Support of Mentoring Relationship -0.01 -0.03 0.05Quality Parent/Mentor Relationship 0.30*** 0.26*** 0.41***Number Times Monthly Parent/Mentor Meet Face-to-Face

2 – 3 times 0.09 0.10 0.034 plus (vs. <2 times) 0.09 0.08 0.08

Caseworker Support of Mentoring Relationship

Strong Support 0.05 0.02 0.03No Caseworker Contact (vs. weak/moderate support) 0.02 0.01 0.01

Match Determination Difficulties -0.07 -0.07 -0.10*Adjusted R Square 0.23 0.16 0.35

Predictors of Mentoring Relationship Quality (Parent Report)

*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001Note. Results adjusted for child and parent demographics, socioeconomic and cultural background, and health status


Females(n = 311)

Males(n = 166)

Mentoring Relationship Longevity6 – 11 months 0.14* 0.08 0.24*12 – 17 0.23** 0.17* 0.39***18 plus (vs. < 6 months) 0.28*** 0.22** 0.43***

Number Different Mentoring Relationship Activities (5 or More) 0.10* 0.09 0.13Mentor/Mentee Contact One or More Days per Week 0.10* 0.10 0.14Mentor/Mentee Contact 3 or More Hours per Week 0.06 0.05 0.06Barriers Spending Time with LB/LS

Yes (vs. no) -0.03 -0.02 -0.05Mentor Self-Efficacy 0.37*** 0.37*** 0.35***Parent Support of Mentoring Relationship 0.19*** 0.18*** 0.23**Training Satisfaction -0.02 -0.01 -0.04Number of Hours Training -0.05 -0.09 0.05Caseworker Support of Mentoring Relationship

Strong Support 0.06 0.02 0.16No Caseworker Contact (vs. weak/moderate support) 0.07 0.04 0.18

Match Determination Difficulties -0.12** -0.016** -0.03Adjusted R Square 0.32 0.30 0.33

Predictors of Mentoring Relationship Quality (Mentor Report)

*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001Note. Results adjusted for mentor demographics and socioeconomic background, and previous mentoring experience.


Girls(n = 304)

Boys(n = 270)

Mentoring Relationship Longevity6 – 11 months 0.05 -0.01 0.1112 – 17 -0.03 -0.11 0.0718 plus (vs. < 6 months) 0.02 -0.09 0.15

Mentor Engagement/Support (Similar) 0.27*** 0.19*** 0.32***Mentor Engagement/Support (Practical) 0.06 0.03 0.04Mentor Engagement/Support (Problem) 0.34*** 0.54*** 0.20**Mentor Engagement/Support (Shared) 0.07 0.07 0.10Number of Different Mentoring Relationship Activities (5 or More) 0.07 0.03 0.09Mentor/Mentee Contact One or More Days per Week -0.03 -0.04 -0.02Mentor/Mentee Contact 3 or More Hours per Week 0.06 0.08 0.07Enough Time with BB/BS

Yes (vs. no) 0.04 0.01 0.01Parent Support of Mentoring Relationship -0.02 -0.03 -0.05Quality Parent/Mentor Relationship 0.11** 0.04 0.19**Number Times Monthly Parent/Mentor Meet Face-to-Face

2 – 3 times 0.01 0.08 -0.074 plus (vs. <2 times) 0.06 0.15* -0.01

Caseworker Support of Mentoring Relationship Strong Support -0.02 -0.10 0.07No Caseworker Contact (vs. weak/moderate support) -0.02 -0.07 0.04

Match Determination Difficulties 0.02 -0.01 0.03Adjusted R Square 0.40 0.50 0.32

Predictors of Mentoring Relationship Quality (Child Report)

*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001NOTE: Results adjusted for child and parent demographics, socioeconomic and cultural background


Girls(n = 304)

Boys(n = 270)

Mentoring Relationship Longevity6 – 11 months 0.01 -0.05 -0.0212 – 17 0.05 0.01 0.0818 plus (vs. < 6 months) 0.08 0.06 0.09

Mentor Engagement/Support (Similar) 0.06 0.03 0.06Mentor Engagement/Support (Practical) 0.04 0.04 0.02Mentor Engagement/Support (Problem) 0.06 0.12 0.05Mentor Engagement/Support (Shared) -0.01 -0.02 0.03Number of Different Mentoring Relationship Activities (5 or More) 0.05 0.09 0.03Mentor/Mentee Contact One or More Days per Week 0.01 0.08 -0.11Mentor/Mentee Contact 3 or More Hours per Week 0.09* 0.04 0.17**Enough Time with BB/BS

Yes (vs. no) 0.13** 0.10 0.16**Parent Support of Mentoring Relationship -0.01 -0.03 0.05Quality Parent/Mentor Relationship 0.29*** 0.25*** 0.40***Number Times Monthly Parent/Mentor Meet Face-to-Face

2 – 3 times 0.09 0.10 0.024 plus (vs. <2 times) 0.08 0.08 0.07

Caseworker Support of Mentoring Relationship Strong Support 0.04 0.02 0.02No Caseworker Contact (vs. weak/moderate support) 0.02 0.01 0.01

Match Determination Difficulties -0.06 -0.04 -0.10Adjusted R Square 0.24 0.17 0.35

Predictors of Mentoring Relationship Quality (Parent Report)

*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001Note. Results adjusted for child and parent demographics, socioeconomic and cultural background, and health status


*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001Note. Results adjusted for mentor demographics and socioeconomic background, and previous mentoring experience.


Females(n = 311)

Males(n = 166)

Mentoring Relationship Longevity6 – 11 months 0.12* 0.11* 0.1712 – 17 0.15** 0.13* 0.26*18 plus (vs. < 6 months) 0.20*** 0.17** 0.30**

Child Active Engagement in Mentoring Relationship 0.40*** 0.46*** 0.26**Child Emotional Engagement in Mentoring Relationship 0.25*** 0.24*** 0.32***Number Different Mentoring Relationship Activities (5 or More) 0.01 -0.04 0.12

Mentor/Mentee Contact One or More Days per Week 0.06 0.07 0.06Mentor/Mentee Contact 3 or More Hours per Week 0.05 0.06 0.03Barriers Spending Time with LB/LS

Yes (vs. no) 0.01 0.03 -0.05Mentor Self-Efficacy 0.11** 0.10 0.11Parent Support of Mentoring Relationship 0.09* 0.08 0.12Training Satisfaction 0.02 0.01 0.03Number of Hours Training -0.05 -0.07 0.04Caseworker Support of Mentoring Relationship

Strong Support 0.02 0.03 0.02No Caseworker Contact (vs. weak/moderate support) 0.01 -0.02 0.10

Match Determination Difficulties -0.09** -0.12** -0.06Adjusted R Square 0.55 0.56 0.50


Girls(n = 304)

Boys(n = 270)

Child Close Confident of Mentor 0.23*** 0.24*** 0.25***

Child Respectful of Mentor 0.33*** 0.41*** 0.15

Child Similar Interest as Mentor 0.07 0.07 0.11

Adjusted R Square 0.49 0.50 0.46


KEY FINDINGS AND PROGRAM IMPLICATIONS

Quality of the parent/mentor relationship and enough time with BB/BS positively predicts mentoring relationship quality by child and parent report

Increasing time in mentoring relationship, mentor self efficacy, parent support of the mentoring relationship positively predict mentoring relationship quality from mentor report

Match determination difficulties negatively predicts mentor relationship quality from mentor report

Mentor engagement/support important predictor of mentor relationship quality from child perspective

Child engagement mediates relationship between mentor self-efficacy and mentor relationship quality from mentor perspective


Associated with positive relationship qualityEnough time (C, P)Quality parent/mentor relationship (C, P)5+ different activities (C, M)Contact 3+ hr/wk (P)Parent support of relationship (M)Mentor self efficacy (M)Length of relationship (M)Mentor engagement/support ( C )Child engagement (M)

Associated with negative relationship qualityMatch determination difficulties (M)


child, parent and mentor perspectives on quality match relationships

Documents

match relationships

match qualitypresent

bbbs community match

york university

university of illinois

university of alberta

laval university

mswmcmaster university