Post on 04-Jan-2016
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 Children
David 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 mo
Dropped Out4.5 9.9 15.5 19.9 23.6
Could Not be Scheduled16.5 19.1 19.5 22.1 23.4
Total Loss21.0 29.0 35.0 42.0 47.0
Total Retention79.0 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 = 997
Mentor (%)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
Profile of Parent/Guardian and Adult Mentor Participants
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
Profile of Parent/Guardian and Adult Mentor Participants
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
45.6
40.7
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
6 Months 12 Months 18 Months 24 Months 30 Months0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
34
46 4743
38
3
10
20
29
37
64
44
3328
25
Continuous Dissolved Never Matched
Note. Most gender comparisons statistically significant at p < .01n = 997 parents and childrenn = 20 agencies
6 Months 12 Months 18 Months 24 Months 30 Months0
10
20
30
40
50
60
7062
57
44
38
31
7
24
40
49
57
32
2017
13 12
Continuous Dissolved Never Matched
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
40
35 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
252628
24
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
17.9
22.5 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
9.311.2
7.7 7.411.3
25.423.4
27.3 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)
PredictorsTotal
(n = 574)Girls
(n = 304)Boys
(n = 270)Mentoring Relationship Longevity
6 – 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 0.01
Mentor/Mentee Contact 3 or More Hours per Week
0.05 0.07 0.03
Enough Time with BB/BSYes (vs. no) 0.11* 0.11 0.07
Parent Support of Mentoring Relationship -0.04 -0.01 -0.08
Quality 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.
PredictorsTotal
(n = 574)Girls
(n = 304)Boys
(n = 270)Mentoring Relationship Longevity
6 – 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* 0.05
Mentor/Mentee Contact One or More Days per Week
0.02 0.08 -0.11
Mentor/Mentee Contact 3 or More Hours per Week
0.09* 0.04 0.16**
Enough Time with BB/BSYes (vs. no) 0.15*** 0.12* 0.17**
Parent Support of Mentoring Relationship
-0.01 -0.03 0.05
Quality 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
PredictorsTotal
(n = 477)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 0.13
Mentor/Mentee Contact One or More Days per Week
0.10* 0.10 0.14
Mentor/Mentee Contact 3 or More Hours per Week
0.06 0.05 0.06
Barriers Spending Time with LB/LSYes (vs. no) -0.03 -0.02 -0.05
Mentor 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 0.05
Caseworker 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.
PredictorsTotal
(n = 574)Girls
(n = 304)Boys
(n = 270)Mentoring Relationship Longevity
6 – 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 0.04
Mentor Engagement/Support (Problem) 0.34*** 0.54*** 0.20**
Mentor Engagement/Support (Shared) 0.07 0.07 0.10
Number of Different Mentoring Relationship Activities (5 or More)
0.07 0.03 0.09
Mentor/Mentee Contact One or More Days per Week
-0.03 -0.04 -0.02
Mentor/Mentee Contact 3 or More Hours per Week
0.06 0.08 0.07
Enough Time with BB/BSYes (vs. no) 0.04 0.01 0.01
Parent Support of Mentoring Relationship -0.02 -0.03 -0.05
Quality 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
PredictorsTotal
(n = 574)Girls
(n = 304)Boys
(n = 270)Mentoring Relationship Longevity
6 – 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 0.06
Mentor Engagement/Support (Practical) 0.04 0.04 0.02
Mentor 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 0.03
Mentor/Mentee Contact One or More Days per Week
0.01 0.08 -0.11
Mentor/Mentee Contact 3 or More Hours per Week
0.09* 0.04 0.17**
Enough Time with BB/BSYes (vs. no) 0.13** 0.10 0.16**
Parent Support of Mentoring Relationship -0.01 -0.03 0.05
Quality 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
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.
PredictorsTotal
(n = 477)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 0.06
Mentor/Mentee Contact 3 or More Hours per Week 0.05 0.06 0.03
Barriers Spending Time with LB/LSYes (vs. no) 0.01 0.03 -0.05
Mentor 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 0.04
Caseworker Support of Mentoring Relationship
Strong Support 0.02 0.03 0.02
No 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
PredictorsTotal
(n = 574)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
Predictors of Mentoring Relationship Quality (Mentor Report)
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
KEY FINDINGS AND PROGRAM IMPLICATIONS
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)
KEY FINDINGS AND PROGRAM IMPLICATIONS