1 / 47

Child, Parent and Mentor Perspectives on Quality Match Relationships

Child, Parent and Mentor Perspectives on Quality Match Relationships. Ellen L. Lipman , M.D., Karen Shaver, MSW McMaster University, Big Brothers Big Sisters of Canada Jan, 2013.

haruki
Download Presentation

Child, Parent and Mentor Perspectives on Quality Match Relationships

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Child, Parent and MentorPerspectives on Quality Match Relationships Ellen L. Lipman, M.D., Karen Shaver, MSW McMaster University, Big Brothers Big Sisters of Canada Jan, 2013

  2. 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

  3. Background • 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)

  4. Background • There has been little research that examines factors that enhance or promote match relationship quality

  5. Theory of Mentoring Mentoring Relationship Attributes (e.g., time invested, activity type) Environmental Supports (e.g., agency practices, Parent support of match) Mentoring Relationship Quality Mentor Engagement and Support Child Developmental Outcomes (e.g., self-esteem) Mentor Self-efficacy Child gender, family SES

  6. Objectives • 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

  7. BBBS Match Program Description • Match Program Content • Children 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 phases • Qualifying 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)

  8. METHODOLOGY

  9. Sample Selection and Eligibility Requirements • 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 agency • Passed 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

  10. 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

  11. 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

  12. Study Design Family and Mentor Follow-up Assessments 6 mo 12 mo 24 mo 30 mo 18 mo Family Recruitment By BBBS 1281 Families Approached 997 Families in study Baseline 477 Mentors in study Adult Mentor Recruitment By BBBS 610 Mentors Approached

  13. Loss of Participants to Follow-up (%) n = 997 parents and children n = 20 agencies

  14. Procedures for retaining participants • Incentives for children and parents (e.g., movie passes) • Use of auxiliary contacts to track participants • Follow-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%)

  15. PARTICIPANT PROFILES

  16. Profile of Child Participants (n=997)

  17. Profile of Child Participants (n=997)

  18. Profile of Parent/Guardian and Adult Mentor Participants

  19. Profile of Parent/Guardian and Adult Mentor Participants

  20. Profile of Parent/Guardian and Adult Mentor Participants

  21. Profile of Parent/Guardian and Adult Mentor Participants

  22. MENTORING AND AGENCY DESCRIPTIVES

  23. Mentoring Status by Study Follow-Up (Total %) n= 997 parents and children n = 20 agencies

  24. Mentoring Status by Study Follow-Up Girls % Boys % Note. Most gender comparisons statistically significant at p < .01 n = 997 parents and children n = 20 agencies

  25. Match Determination Difficulties by Reporter (%) n= 688 child; n = 688 parent; n = 471 mentor Note: Minimal = scored 4 on scale with minimum value of 4 and maximum value of 12 Some = 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)

  26. 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 12 Some = 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)

  27. 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 18 Less Support = 17 or less (e.g., caseworker was friendly, eager to answer questions)

  28. Parent Support of Mentoring Relationship by Child Gender Parent Report % Mentor Report % * * * * n= 626 n = 420 *p < .01; Note: Low = scored < 70% on scale with a minimum value of 6 and maximum value of 30 Moderate = 70 – 79%; High = 80+% (e.g., parent suggests activities for BB/BS, makes BB/BS feel welcome)

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

  30. Mentor Self-Efficacy n= 449 Note: Poor = scored < 60% on scale with a minimum value of 0 and maximum value of 39 Fair = 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)

  31. Mentor Hours of Training by Mentor Gender * * n= 471 *p < .01

  32. Mentor Training Satisfaction (Mentor Report) n= 470 Note: Low = scored < 70% on scale with a minimum value of 13 and maximum value of 65 Moderate = 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)

  33. Number of Hours Each Week in MentoringRelationship (Current Matches) (Child Report) n= 621

  34. Spending Enough Time in Mentoring Relationship With BB/BS? (Child Report) n= 623

  35. Perceived Quality of Mentoring Relationship by Reporter (Current and Dissolved Matches) (%) n= 642 child; n = 670 parent; n = 469 mentor Note: Low quality = scored < 60% on scale with minimum value of 5 and maximum value of 15 Moderate = 60 – 79%; High = 80 – 89%; Very High = 90+% (e.g., trusting relationship, close relationship)

  36. Figure: Perceived Global Quality of Mentoring Relationship n = 660 children; n = 670 parents; n = 473 mentors

  37. CORRELATES OF MENTORING RELATIONSHIP CHARACTERISTICS (QUALITY, ENGAGEMENT AND SUPPORT)

  38. Predictors of Mentoring Relationship Quality (Child Report) • *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001 • Note. Results adjusted for child and parent demographics, socioeconomic and cultural background, and health status.

  39. Predictors of Mentoring Relationship Quality (Parent Report) *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001 Note. Results adjusted for child and parent demographics, socioeconomic and cultural background, and health status

  40. Predictors of Mentoring Relationship Quality (Mentor Report) *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001 Note. Results adjusted for mentor demographics and socioeconomic background, and previous mentoring experience.

  41. Predictors of Mentoring Relationship Quality (Child Report) *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001 NOTE: Results adjusted for child and parent demographics, socioeconomic and cultural background

  42. Predictors of Mentoring Relationship Quality (Parent Report) *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001 Note. Results adjusted for child and parent demographics, socioeconomic and cultural background, and health status

  43. Predictors of Mentoring Relationship Quality (MentorReport) *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001 Note. Results adjusted for mentor demographics and socioeconomic background, and previous mentoring experience.

  44. Predictors of Mentoring Relationship Quality (MentorReport)

  45. 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

  46. Key Findings and Program Implications • 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

  47. Key Findings and Program Implications • Associated with positive relationship quality • Enough 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 quality • Match determination difficulties (M)

More Related