The author(s) shown below used Federal funding provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice to prepare the following resource: 

Document Title: Prediction and Prevention of Premature 

Closures of Mentoring Relationships: The 

Study To Analyze Relationships (STAR 

Project) 

Author(s): Thomas Keller, Ph.D., Renée Spencer, Ed.D. 

Document Number: 251463 

Date Received: January 2018 

Award Number: 2012-MU-FX-0001 

This resource has not been published by the U.S. Department of 

Justice. This resource is being made publically available through the 

Office of Justice Programs’ National Criminal Justice Reference 

Service. 

Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and 

do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. 

Department of Justice. 
1 

Prediction and Prevention of Premature Closures of Mentoring Relationships: 

The Study To Analyze Relationships (STAR Project) 

OJJDP Project # 2012-MU-FX-0001 

Application # 2012-50635-OR-JU 

Final Report 

November 28, 2017 

Submitted by: 

Thomas E. Keller, Ph.D. 

Principal Investigator 

Portland State University 

Renée Spencer, Ed.D. 

Co-Investigator 

Boston University 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice 
 

 

2 

Acknowledgements 

Research Team 

We acknowledge and express our profound appreciation for the diligent efforts and substantive 

contributions of many student colleagues. 

Portland State University Boston University 

Jeffrey Asprocolas Emily Abrams 

Hyuny Clark-Shim Alison Drew 

Meg Crowley Grace Gowdy 

Emily Lott John Paul Horn 

Martha McCormack Rachel Strathdee 

Miriam Miranda-Diaz 

Program Partners 

We acknowledge and express our profound appreciation for the collaboration and partnership of 

the Big Brothers Big Sisters agencies that participated in the study, with special recognition for 

the staff members who served as Research Liaisons. 

Big Brothers Big Sisters of America (Keoki Hansen, Sandra LeFleur, Jessica Mitchell) 

Big Brothers Big Sisters of Central Arizona (Jessica Sisson) 

Big Brothers Big Sisters of Colorado (Patrick Caldwell) 

Big Brothers Big Sisters Columbia Northwest (Thomas Lapierre, Katie Scaief, Gladis Valdez) 

Big Brothers Big Sisters of San Diego County (Claudia Aldana Robles, Bonnie Campbell) 

Funding 

This project was supported by Grant #2012-MU-FX-0001 awarded by the Office of Juvenile 

Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Program, U.S. Department of Justice. The 

opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication are those 

of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Department of Justice. 

We also wish to acknowledge the support, guidance, and encouragement offered by our program 

officials—Jennifer Tyson, Social Science Analyst, and Keith Towery, Grant Management 

Specialist. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice 
 

 

 

3 

Table of Contents 

1. Abstract....................................................................4

2. Background and review of relevant literature........................6

3. Study objectives and research questions.............................14

4. Study methods and analytical techniques............................15

5. Findings...................................................................37

6. Discussion................................................................55

7. Implications for policy, practice, and future research...............60

8. Conclusion...............................................................71

9. References...............................................................73

10. Appendices...............................................................81

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4 

Abstract 

The goal of this mixed-methods study was to investigate how participant characteristics, 

dyadic processes, and program practices contribute to premature endings of youth mentoring 

relationships so that empirically-based program practices can be implemented to prevent early 

match closures. Employing a prospective, naturalistic approach, the Study to Analyze 

Relationships (STAR) followed a sample of new mentoring relationships created in four Big 

Brothers Big Sisters mentoring programs (n=356). Data regarding the timing of mentoring 

relationship closures was examined with quantitative methods for analyzing event occurrence to 

identify factors that predict early closing relationships. Retrospective, forensic approaches 

generating both qualitative and quantitative data were used to obtain in-depth understanding of 

exactly what transpired in relationships that closed prematurely. Consistent with a systemic 

model of the mentoring intervention, multiple participants (mentor, youth, parent/guardian, and 

program staff specialist) were surveyed prior to match initiation to assess the characteristics and 

perspectives that each brought to the new mentoring relationship. Likewise, all parties were 

assessed after the ending of a match to determine the reasons for closure and to understand each 

individual’s perceptions of the mentoring relationship. In addition, program data collected in the 

normal course of practice was combined with data collected in the study to address the research 

questions for this project. 

Of the matches participating in the STAR study, approximately one third (30%) ended 

before reaching the initial 12-month commitment specified in the program model, and two thirds 

(67%) of the matches closed at some point during the extended study period. The majority of 

match closures (64%) were attributed to the mentor, with the most common being residential 

moves and time constraints. The pre-match expectations indicated by mentors and 

parents/guardians regarding the desired length of the mentoring relationship predicted the actual 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice 
 

5 

likelihood of the match continuing over time, with duration corresponding to parent/guardian 

preferences but in some ways counter to what mentors expressed. In-depth qualitative interviews 

with participants in a subsample of closed matches illuminated not only the importance of the 

mentor-youth connection but also the importance of positive relationships among the relevant 

adults (e.g., mentor-parent/guardian, mentor-staff) involved in supporting the match. In addition, 

post-closure data indicated that very few matches closed with a formal process, such as an inperson meeting, to end program participation. 

Preliminary results from the STAR project have been shared in various forums conducive 

to discussions with practitioners regarding practical interpretations and practice implications. In 

addition, the findings have been presented at academic conferences and national mentoring 

conferences attended by practitioners. The preliminary findings inspired and informed the 

development and dissemination of resource materials for programs by the OJJDP-funded 

National Mentoring Resource Center. Multiple manuscripts reporting study results are in 

preparation for submission to refereed journals. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6 

Background and Review of Relevant Literature 

Mentoring is a flexible approach to youth development that has been found to promote 

positive social, emotional, behavioral, and academic outcomes for children and adolescents, 

including high-risk youth (Bouffard & Bergseth, 2008; DuBois et al., 2011; Tolan et al., 2008). 

Unfortunately, the promise of this potent tool for prevention and intervention is often not 

realized. Too many mentoring relationships established through formal programs end early - as 

many as a third to a half. Not only are prematurely ended relationships less likely to be effective, 

they actually may be harmful in some cases. A handful of studies have reported decrements in 

functioning among youth whose relationships ended before the initial time commitment had been 

met (Grossman & Rhodes, 2002; Herrera et al., 2011; Karcher, 2005; Slicker & Palmer, 1993). 

Yet, early match closure has received relatively little attention to date. Information about the 

individual, dyadic, and programmatic factors that contribute to premature endings is needed so 

that empirically-based program practices can be developed and disseminated to prevent such 

endings and to ensure that high-risk youth reap the significant benefits mentoring can provide. 

We know surprisingly little about premature endings in youth mentoring relationships. 

National studies of both community and school based programs have reported that only about 

half of the relationships lasted to their initial time commitment, whether a calendar or school 

year (Grossman & Rhodes, 2002; Bernstein et al., 2009). Higher-risk youth appear to be 

particularly vulnerable to having their mentoring relationships end prematurely (Grossman et al., 

2012; Grossman & Rhodes, 2002; Schwartz et al., 2011). These findings are concerning in light 

of evidence that mentoring relationships with premature endings can have negative consequences 

for youth participants. Studies of programs that promise youth a mentor for a minimum of either 

a school or calendar year have reported no gains and even declines in functioning among youth 

in relationships that ended prematurely, as compared to controls who received no mentoring at 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7 

all (Britner & Kraimer-Rickaby, 2005; Grossman et al, 2012; Grossman & Rhodes, 2002). 

Attempting to mitigate negative effects, some programs re-match youth to ensure mentoring is 

received for the amount of time promised, even if that means matching youth multiple times. In a 

study comparing youth who received mentoring for roughly the same amount of time but had 

either one intact match or a rematch with a second mentor after an early ending initial match, 

only youth in intact matches demonstrated improvements in academic functioning (Grossman et 

al., 2012). This preliminary evidence suggests that, at least in programs seeking to forge longerterm mentoring relationships, re-matching youth with another mentor may not compensate for 

the consequences of a premature ending. Finally, match length does not appear to be the only 

critical factor. One study also found a link between mentor attendance and youth outcomes, with 

youth whose mentors attended sporadically reporting lower levels of self-esteem and physical 

attractiveness, suggesting mentor consistency may also play an important role (Karcher, 2005). 

Current evidence regarding mentoring relationships indicates that they are influenced by 

complex interacting factors and that premature endings are likely to be multiply determined 

(Keller, 2005a). Mentor and youth characteristics, dyadic processes within the mentoring 

relationship, and program factors may all play a significant role. Indeed, some youth and mentor 

characteristics have been associated with early match closure. Youth age at time of matching, 

gender, and risk status all appear to play a role, with youth age potentially interacting with 

program type. Community-based matches with older youth (13-16 yrs of age) tend to be of 

shorter duration than those with younger youth (Grossman & Rhodes, 2002). Relationships with 

youth who have more complex problems (e.g., history of abuse) or are referred for mentoring 

due to psychological or educational difficulties tend not to last as long (Grossman & Rhodes, 

2002). Matches between two females tend to end earlier (Grossman & Rhodes, 2002). Also, one 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice 
 

 

 

 

8 

study found that girls were less satisfied than boys in short- and medium-length mentoring 

relationships, suggesting girls also may be more sensitive to early closures (Rhodes et al., 2008). 

On the mentor side of the equation, volunteers have various motivations for taking on the 

role and may take different approaches to developing and maintaining their relationships (Keller, 

2007). In some cases, personal circumstances may affect their ability to continue their program 

involvement. One study found that adults who had a lower income tended to have shorter 

matches, as did adults who were married and in their late 20’s (Grossman & Rhodes, 2002). 

However, mentor expectations appear to be important as well. Some research indicates that when 

mentors’ expectations about being a mentor are not met they are less likely to persevere, and the 

same is true for mentors who believe they underestimated the time commitment and feel 

burdened by the relationship (Schlafer et al., 2009; Spencer, 2007). Interpersonal skills may 

matter as well. In one study, mentors’ own reports of their capacity for empathy and comfort 

with relationships at the time of the match were positively associated with mentee ratings of 

relationship quality 6 months into the match (Spencer et al., 2010). Research on peer-mentoring 

has found that mentors with more negative attitudes about young people in general can lead to 

poorer youth outcomes (Karcher et al., 2010). On the other hand, mentors with higher levels of 

social interest and general caring for the welfare of others are more likely to persist in their 

relationships, even with more interpersonally challenging protégés (Karcher & Lindwall, 2003). 

With regard to the relationship itself, evidence is mounting that youth in closer, more 

enduring relationships tend to benefit more from mentoring (Herrera et al., 2007; Rhodes & 

DuBois, 2006). Additionally, studies of natural mentoring relationships associated with positive 

outcomes find many of these ties to be quite long-lived, with some adolescents reporting on 

relationships begun in early and middle childhood (DuBois & Silverthorn, 2005; Rhodes et al., 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9 

1994). Yet, building and sustaining a mentoring relationship can be challenging. Qualitative 

research indicates that a number of relational, or dyadic factors, contribute to the length and 

strength of relationships. For example, when mentors adopting a prescriptive approach try to 

address difficult issues and change youth behavior early in the match, they often encounter 

resistance that leads to frustration and negative feelings on the part of both mentor and youth 

(Morrow & Styles, 1995). Mentoring relationships can suffer when mentors think the youth is 

not benefitting from the experience, when mentors sense the youth is unmotivated, or when 

communication difficulties interfere with making connections over time (Schlafer et al., 2009; 

Spencer, 2007). Feeling unprepared for the challenges of mentoring and having strong personal 

reactions to the differences between their own lives and those of their youth protégés have been 

reported by mentors in early ending relationships (Schlafer et al., 2009; Spencer, 2007). 

Features of the mentoring program also may affect the chance of relationships ending 

prematurely. For example, the quality of communication and coordination among the mentor, 

mentee, parent/guardian, and mentoring program worker may be critical (Keller, 2005b). The 

youth’s parent may either facilitate or hinder the development and maintenance of the mentoring 

relationship, and youth outcomes are more robust for mentoring programs that specifically 

address parent involvement (DuBois et al., 2002). Recent research provides insights regarding 

the roles parents play in youth mentoring relationships, including collaborators working with the 

mentor, coaches providing guidance to the mentor, or mediators trying to resolve issues in the 

mentoring relationship (Spencer et al., 2011). Positive and effective mentoring relationships are 

more likely when the mentor and parent are better acquainted and share understandings and 

expectations (Meissen & Lounsbury, 1981). However, constructive parent-mentor dialogue and 

appropriate role definitions may be difficult to achieve. Relations between parent and mentor 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice 
 

 

 

 

 

10 

frequently pose challenges, and their resolution can be integral to the stability and success of 

matches (Morrow & Styles, 1995). The agency worker also plays a crucial role throughout the 

development of the mentoring relationship by providing training, offering advice, monitoring 

boundaries, making referrals, facilitating communication, and problem-solving through ongoing 

contacts with both mentor and mentee (Keller, 2005a). In a study that noted the contributions of 

program staff, Big Brothers Big Sisters (BBBS) volunteers appreciated ideas for activities, 

guidance on building the mentoring relationship, and advice on dealing with the mentee’s family

(Morrow & Styles, 1995). A study of unsuccessful mentoring relationships cited cases that ended 

prematurely when the worker was unable to mediate mentor-mentee conflict or when the worker 

became over-involved and created indirect communication patterns (Spencer, 2007). 

Based on the literature regarding mentoring relationships, a basic conceptual framework 

for understanding factors contributing to match duration, and specifically early termination, has 

been developed to guide the proposed research (see Figure 1). The framework represents the 

contributions of the participants in the mentoring program, primarily the mentor and youth but 

also the parent/guardian, to the official status of the match relationship at any given time. Each 

participant brings to the mentoring relationship a distinctive set of factors, including personal 

characteristics, capacities, needs, and expectations. Establishing a new mentoring relationship 

“matches” these individuals in certain combinations that may be complementary or problematic. 

When the mentor and youth meet for activities, relationship processes such as communicating 

information, negotiating goals, expressing emotions, and influencing behavior are reflected in the 

series of interpersonal interactions that constitute the match. The nature of these interactions 

determines whether the bond between the mentor and youth grows stronger, maintains a steady 

course, or starts to disintegrate. Throughout the match, the mentoring program offers support for 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice 
 

 

 

 

 

11 

relationship development through the monitoring, guidance, and encouragement of the match 

support specialist. Thus, the proposed study to understand early match terminations focuses on 

participant contributions, relationship processes, and program support. 

Figure 1: Conceptual framework for relationship duration. 

Program setting. The roots of formal mentoring programs for children and youth go back 

to the beginning of the Big Brothers Big Sisters movement over 100 years ago. Big Brothers Big 

Sisters of America (BBBSA) now leads a network comprised of numerous local affiliates 

nationwide. In 2011, the BBBS community-based program was delivered by affiliate agencies in 

all 50 states and served 117,257 youth between the ages of 6 and 18. These youth included 

substantial percentages with empirically-identified risk factors for delinquency, including having 

an incarcerated parent (22%), living in a low-income family (55%), and not living with two 

parents (75%). The BBBSA National Office serves the critical function of promulgating and 

ensuring compliance with standards that influence the development, maintenance, and quality of 

local mentoring relationships. Operating standards for local BBBS affiliates allow agencies to 

deliver consistent, high quality, research-based mentoring services. 

BBBS agencies recruit and carefully screen volunteer applicants for one-to-one matches 

in the community. To protect the youth served, BBBS programs identify and screen out 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice 
 

 

 

 

 

 

12 

applicants who pose safety risks and those not likely to have a positive impact on young people. 

Programs also assess the youth, who often face a myriad of risk factors. Once participants are 

accepted in to the program, their training focuses on safety, longevity of the match, and youth 

outcomes. BBBS programs ask adult volunteers to indicate their preferences in terms of the age 

and characteristics of youth and types of activities they expect to engage in with the youth for 

matching purposes. Matches are often based on each volunteer’s ability to help meet the needs of 

a specific youth. Gender, geographic proximity, and availability are just a few of the factors 

considered when experienced match specialists follow the matching protocol. 

At the time of matching, the mentor and youth make an initial commitment to meet an 

average of three to four times per month for at least one year, with many relationships lasting 

significantly longer. Each match is monitored by Match Support Specialists (MSS) who contact 

all parties (volunteer, youth, and parent/guardian) on a regular basis to continually guide the 

match relationship and assess and address individual training needs focusing on: goal setting, 

child safety, relationship development, positive youth development, and volunteer satisfaction. If 

problems or barriers are identified, the MSS attempts to provide support or referrals to address 

and resolve such issues. The MSS also celebrates the successes of the matches and facilitates 

individual and group match activities to support ongoing volunteer involvement with the child. 

BBBSA standards and practices are incorporated into an integrated service delivery 

model (SDM) that guides all interactions of staff with mentors, youth, and parents. The SDM 

focuses efforts on achieving positive outcomes for youth. The SDM is instituted at the direct 

service level through the Agency Information Management system (AIM), a sophisticated 

workflow management tool for tracking the progress of every individual and every match within 

the program. AIM is used on a daily basis by program enrollment staff to record application 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice 
 

 

 

13 

information for participants, to see reminders for next steps in the screening process, and to 

record tasks and contacts completed. Likewise, AIM is used on a daily basis by MSS who have 

responsibility for supporting a caseload of matches. The MSS is prompted with information 

regarding each scheduled contact with match participants and then documents in AIM that the 

support contact was completed, the content of the conversation, and the progress of the match. In 

addition, the AIM system is used to maintain data generated by research-based assessments 

conducted with participants on youth outcomes (YOS: Youth Outcome Survey) and the strength 

of the mentoring relationship (SOR: Strength of Relationship). 

BBBSA has a commitment to continuous program improvement and to enhancing the 

field of youth mentoring in general through rigorous testing of the BBBS model. BBBSA 

regularly conducts or collaborates on research projects addressing a variety of programmatic 

issues, such as a randomized pilot of an enhanced school-based mentoring model and an OJJDPfunded randomized trial of an innovative framework for training and match support. Furthermore, 

BBBSA has subjected its community-based and school-based programs to independent multi-site 

randomized trials (Herrera et al., 2011; Tierney, Grossman, & Resch, 1995). Specifically, the 

large-scale randomized controlled trial of the BBBS community-based model, with 959 youth 

ages 10-16 sampled from eight agencies, found evidence of positive program effects with respect 

to both: a) reducing aggression (hitting someone) and the likelihood of initiating alcohol, 

initiating illicit drug use, or skipping school; and b) improving grades in school, perceptions of 

scholastic competence, and quality of relationships with parents and peers (Tierney et al., 1995). 

Thus, the demonstrated effectiveness for prevention of delinquency and related outcomes 

qualifies the BBBS program as an evidence-based program. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

14 

Study Objectives and Research Questions 

The current study, referred to as the Study To Analyze Relationships (STAR), represents 

a collaborative partnership between the researchers and BBBSA to conduct a methodologically 

rigorous investigation of the factors associated with premature match endings. The project was 

intended to address one of the important priorities described in the RFP from OJJDP: “The 

length of mentoring matches, how often the mentoring pair meet, and the quality of their 

relationship have been linked to successful mentoring outcomes. Additional research could 

examine the factors that influence and enhance these elements. For example, environmental 

factors, such as the location of where the mentoring pair meet; individual characteristics, such 

as the personal qualities of the mentor or mentee; or organizational factors, such as staff to 

mentor ratios, may influence the length, quality, and frequency of mentoring matches.” (OJJDP

RFP, 2012, p. 4) 

The overall goal of this study was to explain how participant characteristics, dyadic 

processes, and program practices contribute to the premature ending of mentoring relationships 

so that empirically-based program policies and practices can be implemented to prevent early 

closures. The STAR project represents a methodologically rigorous study using a mixed-methods 

design to understand the factors influencing early closures. A prospective, naturalistic approach 

employing quantitative methods for analyzing event occurrence was used to identify factors that 

predict early closing relationships. Retrospective, forensic approaches were employed to obtain 

in-depth understanding of exactly what transpired in relationships that closed prematurely. The 

study combines program practice data with data collected to address the research questions for 

the project. The central research questions, presented in Table 1, are grounded in the conceptual 

framework described above. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

15 

Table 1: Research questions 

What factors (individual, dyadic, and program) predict whether and when a match closes early? 

What are the reasons for early match closures? 

How is the match closure process managed by programs and participants? 

Study Methods and Analytical Techniques 

Study Design Overview 

The study involved a collaborative partnership between the research team, the BBBSA 

national office, and four local BBBS agency affiliates selected for the project. To identify factors 

that predict early match closure, the study relied on a prospective cohort design in which 

community-based (CB) mentoring relationships were followed from the time of their initiation 

until they closed or the study period ended. The personal characteristics and circumstances of the 

individuals playing a central role in establishing and maintaining the mentoring relationship, 

including the mentor, mentee, parent/guardian, and MSS, were assessed prior to the creation of 

the new matches. Once the mentor and mentee were introduced and began meeting, the nature of 

their interaction and the level of support received from the program was tracked through data 

entered into the AIM system during regularly scheduled match support contacts and assessments. 

The occurrence and timing of the primary outcome of interest, match closure, also was derived 

from records in the AIM system. Event history analysis, also known as survival analysis, is used 

to model regression equations in which factors assessed prior to matching predict early match 

closure. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice 
 

 

 

 

16 

To better understand how combinations of factors contribute to early match closures, the 

study included two retrospective design components. Immediately following every match closure, 

key participants (mentor, youth, parent/guardian, MSS) completed surveys assessing various 

dimensions of the relationship and eliciting reasons for the closure. A subsample including 

matches that ended within 0-6 months, within 6-12 months, and 12-18 months was selected for 

in-depth qualitative interviews with key participants in each match (mentor, parent, MSS). The 

interviews focused on the developmental history of each relationship and the events leading to 

match closure. The retrospective data provide rich description of the factors and processes 

associated with the occurrence and timing of match closures. 

All study procedures were approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at Portland 

State University. In addition, the study was granted a privacy certificate from the U.S. 

Department of Justice. 

Selection and Training of BBBS Agency Partners 

Four BBBS affiliate agencies providing services in local communities were selected for 

participation in the study. Pre-determined selection criteria included: a) high rate of compliance 

in use of the AIM data system; b) capacity to make over 100 new matches within a six month 

period; c) agency leadership with competence and commitment to ensure performance of 

research-related tasks. Among agencies meeting these qualifications, attention was given to 

secondary factors: a) average match length and 12-month match retention rate; and b) geographic 

diversity. To facilitate the selection process, the research team received detailed information 

from BBBSA regarding the 33 largest BBBS affiliates in the U.S. This information included the 

following parameters: number of new CB matches made with youth over 9 years of age in last 6 

months, total number of children served in CB matches in last 6 months, completion rates for CB 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice 
 

 

 

 

17 

SOR and YOS assessments in last 12 months, average CB match length, 12-month match 

retention rate for CB matches, number of MSS serving CB matches, and average CB match 

caseload. Based on a careful review of these data, ten agencies were identified as candidates for 

participation in the study. Next, BBBSA staff responsible for direct agency support completed 

agency readiness surveys for each of the prospective sites with which they were familiar. These 

surveys generated information about agency stability, financial health, leadership, turnover, 

implementation of program standards, and participation in other major research projects. 

Following review of this feedback, final selection of the partnership agencies was made in 

consultation with leadership at BBBSA. 

The researchers and a BBBSA representative contacted the CEO’s of the selected 

agencies to explain the study and invite them to participate. The goal was for each participating 

BBBS affiliate to consent and enroll 100 new matches to generate a total of 400 matches for the 

study sample. Agency staff in each program were asked to recruit participants and conduct data 

collection activities as described below. Each agency that was formally invited to take part in the 

study agreed to participate. Subcontracts were completed with each of the four partner agencies. 

As compensation for staff effort devoted to the project, BBBS partner agencies received up to 

$23,500 over the course of the study. 

Each participating BBBS agency designated a staff member with program management 

responsibilities to serve as a Research Liaison (RL). The RL was essentially a member of the 

research team who helped to coordinate the research efforts at the program site. The RLs 

participated in a 2-day in-person orientation and training with the research team. The RL training 

involved an overview of the study, discussion of study procedures for participant recruitment and 

data collection, and training on the REDCap data management system used for the study. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

18 

Subsequently, the RLs participated in bi-weekly telephone conferences with the research team 

throughout the remainder of the project period. In addition, the staff in BBBS affiliates 

responsible for screening and matching program participants (EMS: Enrollment and Matching 

Specialists) underwent training in research ethics and in the study protocol. A total of 88 

program staff completed both an online training offered by NIH on human subjects protections 

and a training webinar delivered by the principal investigator that covered the IRB-approved 

procedures for the study. 

Sample Recruitment and Baseline Data Collection Procedures 

Given the focus on early match endings, mentoring relationships represented the primary 

unit of analysis for the proposed research. A primary sample comprised of 356 new relationships 

formed in the four BBBS community-based mentoring programs was recruited and enrolled into 

the study. New matches eligible for inclusion in the study were those in which the youth 

participant was over 9 years old and was at elevated risk for involvement in delinquency due to 

one of the following risk factors: lives in single parent household, receives free or reduced price 

school lunch, family receives public assistance, or parent is incarcerated. Individuals 

participating in the study sample included the mentor, youth, and parent/guardian for each match. 

Matches were considered to be part of the primary sample only if all three of these individuals 

(mentor, youth, parent/guardian) consented to participate in the study and completed the baseline 

assessment for the study. Thus, the primary sample of STAR matches includes 356 mentors, 356 

youth, and 356 parent/guardians. The study sample also includes the MSS staff in each BBBS 

affiliate responsible for ongoing support of these matches. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

19 

To obtain informed consent and baseline data from program participants prior to the 

initiation of study matches, the following procedures were performed in accordance with IRBapproved protocols: 

MSS staff. All MSS in participating BBBS affiliates were invited to a webinar explaining 

the study, and then all MSS were invited via email to participate in the study and provide 

informed consent. MSS who enrolled in the study were asked to complete a self-administered 

baseline survey on a secure online survey website. MSS who completed the survey received a 

gift card valued at $10. 

Mentors. All volunteers going through the regular BBBS intake screening process to 

become mentors met with a trained EMS staff person, received information about the study, and 

were invited to participate. The EMS obtained informed consent from volunteers willing to 

participate in the study. The RLs recorded each invitation to a volunteer as well as the outcome 

with respect to consent. Using the secure REDCap research database, the RLs transmitted 

contact information to the research team for the volunteers who consented to enroll in the study. 

These participants were contacted via email and asked to complete a self-administered baseline 

survey on a secure online website. Mentors were informed that they would receive a $15 gift 

card upon completing a follow-up survey after being matched. 

Parents/Guardians. The parent/guardian of each youth who was identified as study 

eligible and also was being proposed for a match with a mentor already in the study was 

contacted by the EMS prior to the Match Introduction Meeting (MIM) with information about 

the study and an invitation to participate. For interested parents, a time was scheduled for an inperson meeting prior to the MIM for the EMS to obtain informed consent and for the parent to 

complete a baseline survey. The parent/guardian baseline was administered as a paper survey 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

20 

that the participant sealed in an envelope and then was sent to the research team. The 

parent/guardian received a gift card worth $30 upon completion of the baseline survey. 

Youth. Following parental consent, youth who assented to study participation were 

administered a baseline survey prior to the MIM. The survey was sealed in an envelope and sent 

to the research team. The youth received a $15 gift card upon completing the survey. 

For all participants, giving consent to participate in the study entailed permission for the 

researchers to have access to all AIM data recorded for their matches as well as permission to 

contact them for additional data collection if their match ended within the study period. 

Sample Recruitment Results 

The sample was recruited on a rolling enrollment basis during a 21-month period from 

October 1, 2013 to June 30, 2015. The total number of volunteer mentors invited to participate in 

the study was 1286; the number contacted per agency ranged from 164 to 514. Of those invited, 

a total of 1127 volunteers consented to participate in the study (87.6% consent rate), with agency 

figures ranging from 147 to 416 and agency consent rates ranging from 81% to 93%. Differential 

consent rates were noted according to volunteer gender and race, with female (90.9% vs 83.7%, 

χ2 =15.1, p<.001) and white (89.7% vs 83.1%, χ2 =10.7, p<.01) volunteers more likely to consent. 

Among the volunteer mentors who gave consent, a total of 1000 responded to the baseline survey 

(88.7% response rate). Agency response figures ranged from 140 to 357, with agency response 

rates between 86% and 95%. Response rates for the baseline survey did not vary by gender or 

race. 

Of the volunteer mentors responding to the baseline survey, at total of 766 were 

eventually matched with a youth mentee (76.6%). The probability of a mentor being matched did 

not differ by gender or race. Of the volunteers enrolled in the study and matched to a mentee, a 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice 
 

 

 

21 

total of 357 were in matches that included study consent and participation by the parent/guardian 

and youth mentee (46.6%). The final sample of STAR study matches was 356 because one 

match was a “couple” match, with two adults in a partner relationship matched to a single youth. 

Volunteer mentors who consented for the study, completed the baseline survey, and were paired 

with a mentee may have been in a match that did not count toward the study sample for a variety 

of reasons: youth not eligible for study based on age or lack of custodial adult to provide consent 

(n=164), mentor matched before parent/guardian and youth invited to participate in study 

(n=111), mentor matched before completing baseline survey (n=48), mentor matched after study 

enrollment period ended (n=33), parent/guardian declined to give consent (n=33), youth did not 

complete baseline survey (n=12), and various other reasons (n=8). Volunteers in STAR study 

matches did not differ from other matched volunteers on the basis of gender or race. 

A total of 92 MSS were indicated by the agencies as supporting CB matches during the 

course of the study (note that an ongoing roster was maintained and new hires were recruited for 

the study). These MSS were contacted via email with invitations to complete the consent form 

and to complete the baseline survey. A total of 82 MSS consented to participate in the study and 

take the initial survey (89.1% consent rate). Five MSS declined to participate, and five did not 

respond. 

Sample Description 

The youth ranged in age from 8 to 17 years (M= 11.3, SD= 2.0). There were more 

females (57%, n=203) than males (43%, n=153). The youth were racially diverse with 30.8% 

identifying as Latina/o (n=109), European American/White 25.4% (n=90), African 

American/Black 19.8% (n=70), and 24% multiracial/other (n=85). 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

22 

The vast majority of parents/guardians for the study were the youth’s mother (79.7%); 

others were the youth’s grandmother (10.3%), father (4.9%), and aunt (1.6%). The 

parents/guardians were 24-74 years old (M= 39.8, SD= 9.2). Most parents/guardians reported 

being a single parent (74.9%). The majority of parents/guardians had not completed a college 

degree (83.7%), and 87% reported a household income less than $50,000. 

The mentors were 18 to 76 years old (M= 31.2, SD= 9.5). There were more female 

mentors (57.5%, n=199) than male mentors (42.5%, n=147). The majority of mentors identified 

as European American/White (70.3%) with 10.4% Latina/o, 5% African American/Black, 3.9% 

Asian/Asian American, and 10.4% multiracial/other. It was most common for mentors to be 

single (54%, n=188) although 20.7% were married (n=72), 14.4% were living with a partner 

(n=50), 8.9% were divorced (n=31), 1.1% were married but separated, and .9% were 

widowed. The majority of mentors did not have children of their own (89.6%, n=310). Most 

mentors had completed at least a bachelor’s degree (70.9%) and reported a household income 

above $50,000 (61.2%). Almost quarter of mentors (24.9%) reported volunteering with another 

organization in addition to the BBBS program. 

The MSS completing the baseline survey ranged in age from 22 to 60 years (M= 31.6, 

SD= 8.0). The majority of MSS were female (82.9%) and White (58%). Almost all MSS had 

completed a bachelor’s degree (98.9%). At the time of the baseline survey, more than half of the 

MSS had been in their current position for less than 1 year (45.6%); 27.8% of MSS had been for 

1-2 years; the remainder has been in their current position 3-14 years (M= 2.1, SD= 2.7). MSS 

reported working longer in the youth development field: 5 had less than 1 year of experience 

(15.6%), 11 had 1-2 years of experience (12.2%), and the remainder had more than 3 years of 

experience, with the maximum being 30 years (M= 6.7, SD= 5.5). 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice 
 

 

 

23 

Follow-up Data Collection Procedures 

All STAR study matches (n=356) were monitored until the match had closed or until a 

minimum of 15 months had elapsed since initiation of the relationship, resulting in an active 

follow-up period from December 1, 2013 to September 30, 2016. After an additional six months, 

match records from AIM were used to obtain all information pertaining to match closures 

occurring prior to final cutoff date of March 31, 2017. Thus, all STAR matches remaining intact 

as of March 31, 2017 were censored due to completion of the study period. During the active 

follow-up period, RLs would inform the research team when any STAR match ended and 

provide relevant information regarding the date and circumstances of the closure. The research 

team would attempt to collect data regarding the match and the closure from the perspective of 

each participant. The mentor and the MSS supporting the match were contacted via email with a 

request to complete an online post-closure survey. The parent/guardian and youth also were 

invited via email to complete an online post-closure survey. If no response was forthcoming, 

surveys were sent to mentors, parent/guardians, and youth by mail with return envelopes 

provided. Gift cards were offered to participants for completion of their follow-up surveys 

(MSS=$10; Mentor=$15; Parent/guardian=$30; Youth=$15). If matches remained intact 15 

months after initiation, the mentor was asked to complete an online survey reporting on the 

mentoring relationship. In these cases, surveys were not sought from other match participants 

(parent/guardian, youth, MSS). Mentors received $15 gift cards for completing the 15-month 

follow-up survey. 

A total of 151 STAR matches (42.4%) closed prior to reaching 15 months in match 

duration and thus were eligible for post-closure surveys during the follow-up period of the study. 

Post-closure surveys obtained for these matches included the following: 129 MSS surveys 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice 
 

 

24 

(85.5%); 110 parent/guardian surveys (72.8%); 99 mentor surveys (65.5%); and 73 youth 

surveys (48.3%). In addition, mentor 15-month follow-up surveys were obtained for 157 of the 

205 STAR matches that remained intact at the 15-month mark (76.6%). 

To better understand the perspectives and experiences of participants whose relationships 

ended, a sub-sample of matches that closed during the study period was selected for inclusion in 

the qualitative portion of the study. The goal was to obtain a subsample of matches evenly 

distributed across the four agencies that had ended during three different time periods: (1) within 

the first 6 months, (2) between 6 and 12 months, and (3) between 12 and 18 months. Matches 

also were chosen to reflect the diversity of match demographics (e.g., gender, mentor/youth age, 

race/ethnicity) and to represent a wide variety of match experiences and closure reasons based on 

short summaries provided by agency staff. Matches were excluded if the agency reported that 

the relationship ended due to factors clearly outside the match (e.g., the mentor or youth moved 

from the area). For selected matches, the mentor, the youth’s parent/guardian, and the MSS 

working with the match at the time it ended were invited to participate in one-time, in-depth 

qualitative interviews via phone. The aim was to obtain interviews from all 3 participants in 48 

cases (4 cases from each agency ending during three time points: 0-6 months, 7-12 months, 13-

18 months; Table 1). For the purpose of sampling, match length was determined using the 

agency report of the length of the match at the last meeting. In total, participants from 82 

matches were contacted for interviews, and a total of 174 interviews were conducted (49 mentors, 

53 parents/guardians, 72 MSS) resulting in 36 matches (19 female) that had completed 

interviews for all three participants (trifectas). 

For cases in the qualitative subsample, the mentor, parent/guardian, and MSS were each 

asked to complete a one-time, in-depth (Johnson, 2002), semi-structured (Seidman, 1991) 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice 
 

 

25 

interview after the match had ended. All participants were interviewed by telephone. All 

participants provided consent to participate during the pre-match enrollment process and were 

reminded at the time of the interview that participation was voluntary. Interviewers informed 

mentors that their individual responses would not be shared with parents/guardians or the agency 

and vice versa. Mentors and parents received $30 gift cards for completing the interview; MSS 

received a $15 gift card. Interviews lasted from 15 to 85 minutes (parents/guardians: M= 40.3, 

SD= 12.7; mentors: M= 43.9, SD= 12.4; MSS: M= 48.3, SD= 12.4). All interviews were audiorecorded and transcribed verbatim. Transcriptions were verified, by listening to the audio 

recording and making any necessary corrections, and de-identified for analysis. 

Mentoring program staff also provided case notes for each trifecta including enrollment 

and matching documents, logs of staff-participant contacts, and closure notes. Paper documents 

were scanned and electronic files were exported into PDFs, which were transferred to study staff 

via a secure cloud-based server. All identifying information was removed from the case notes 

prior to analysis. 

Data 

Data for the study were obtained through the BBBSA Agency Information Management 

(AIM) system, participant surveys, and in-depth qualitative interviews. 

AIM system. The Agency Information Management (AIM) system is a customized 

work-flow management system that contains all electronic records pertaining to participants and 

matches in BBBS affiliate agencies. AIM guides the work of BBBS staff with each participant, 

and staff members record the date and nature of each interaction with participants in the system. 

Thus, AIM contains extensive data from participant applications (e.g., demographics), dates of 

completion of each step in the enrollment process (e.g., screening interviews, training), dates 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

26 

when matches are made and closed, and the timing and content of match support contacts. For 

the current study, AIM data was used for the following purposes. First, information from the 

applications of youth participants was used to determine eligibility for inclusion in the study. 

Second, AIM provided basic demographic variables for all participants (e.g., age, gender, 

occupation). Third, because AIM records exact dates on which matches are made and closed, it is 

possible to determine whether and when a relationship ends and the duration of the relationship, 

the central outcomes of interest in this study. Finally, the AIM system provides access to two 

assessments conducted by BBBS staff in the normal course of practice, the Youth Outcome 

Survey (YOS) and the Strength of Relationship (SOR) survey. The YOS assesses youth attitudes 

toward risk behaviors, quality of parent and peer relationships, perceived scholastic efficacy, 

academic performance, school attendance, and academic aspirations using items from established 

scales in the literature. The YOS is administered to youth at the beginning of the mentoring 

relationship (within the 30 days preceding a match) and again at the one-year point in the 

relationship. The youth version of the SOR assesses the quality of the relationship with items 

adapted from a validated measure used in previous BBBS research (Rhodes et al., 2005) and 

items assessing safety, closeness, and importance attached to the mentor. The mentor version of 

the SOR has subscales for connectedness, frustration, and confidence and items on closeness and 

decision-making. The SOR is administered 3 months and 12 months into the relationship. 

Baseline surveys. At baseline, all participants completed surveys to assess factors 

theorized to be associated with mentoring relationship development and duration. Information 

regarding the principal constructs, with corresponding measures and citations, represented in 

each baseline survey are presented in Appendix A, with separate tables for mentor, 

parent/guardian, youth, and MSS surveys. Examples of measures found in each survey are 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

27 

highlighted briefly below. In addition to the standard surveys, MSS filled out one-page 

assessments for each match based on observations of interactions at the match introduction 

meeting. 

Mentor baseline survey. Motivations for volunteering were measured using the Volunteer 

Motives Scale (Davis, Hall, & Meyer, 2003) Attitudes toward youth will be assessed using a 

scale (Herrera et al., 2007) that asks mentors how many youth in their community can be 

characterized by statements such as “work hard at school” and “respect adults.” Orientation 

toward forming attachment relationships will be assessed with the Experiences in Close 

Relationships Questionnaire-Revised (Fraley, Waller, & Brennan, 2000), measuring the 

dimensions of anxiety and avoidance. Empathy was measured by the Interpersonal Reactivity 

Index (Davis, 1983), a self-report index of perspective taking (adopting the psychological view 

of others), empathic concern (sympathy for others), and personal distress (personal anxiety in 

emotionally charged situations). Perceived self-efficacy was assessed with the Mastery Scale 

(Pearlin et al., 1981). Mentor personality was assessed with the Big Five Inventory (John, 

Donahue & Kentle, 1991), measuring extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional 

stability, and openness. 

Parent baseline survey. The parent baseline survey focused on several factors related to 

youth behaviors and needs as well as parenting practices and family circumstances. Parents 

responded to the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire, with brief scales on prosocial 

behaviors and peer relationships as well as hyperactivity/inattention, emotional symptoms, and 

conduct problems (Goodman, 1997). The level of confusion and disorganization in the child’s 

home environment was assessed with the Confusion, Hubbub and Order Scale (Matheny et al., 

1995). The parent also completed the Alabama Parenting Questionnaire (Shelton et al., 1996) on 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

28 

parental involvement, positive parenting, monitoring/supervision, and discipline. To assess 

challenges facing the child and family, the parent indicate the presence of various risk factors on 

an index developed in previous research on mentoring (Herrera, DuBois, & Grossman, 2013). 

Youth baseline survey. Youth participants completed the youth-report version of the 

Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (Goodman, 1997). The Inventory of Parent and Peer 

Attachment (Armsden & Greenberg, 1987) measured dimensions of trust, communication, and 

alienation in relationships with parents and peers. Family context will be assessed with the 

supervision/monitoring, autonomy-granting, and family conflict subscales of the Family Climate 

Inventory (Kurdek, Fine, & Sinclair, 1995). Youth personality was assessed with a version of the 

Big Five Inventory (John & Srivastava, 1999). 

MSS baseline survey. MSS were assessed for their educational background, experience in 

the agency and in the field of youth development, and other personal and organizational factors 

that may affect performance. MSS self-efficacy and personality were assessed with the 

instruments described previously. MSS attitudes toward work were measured with the Utrecht 

Work Engagement Scale (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2003). The level of support MMS experience in 

their relationships with supervisors was evaluated with the Supervisory Relationship 

Questionnaire (Palomo, Beinart, & Cooper, 2010), which measures dimensions such as 

providing structure, demonstrating commitment, role modeling, and providing constructive 

feedback. Finally, MSS perceptions of agency climate were assessed with the Organizational 

Culture Survey (Glaser et al., 1987), with subscales for teamwork, information flow, 

involvement/input, and morale. 

Post-closure surveys. Following the termination of a match, all respondents were asked 

to complete a post-closure survey, which asked about the reasons for the ending of the mentoring 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice 
 

 

 

 

 

 

29 

relationships. In addition, they were assessed with a number of established measures to provide 

insights into the nature of the mentoring experience and the quality of the relationships formed in 

the program. Information regarding the principal constructs, with corresponding measures and 

citations, represented in each post-closure survey are presented in Appendix B, with separate 

tables for mentor, parent/guardian, youth, and MSS surveys. Examples of measures found in 

each survey are highlighted briefly below. 

Mentor post-closure survey. Mentors were asked to identify which from an established 

list of mentoring relationship obstacles they encountered (DuBois, Neville, et al., 2002). The 

mentor’s reasoning about ending the mentoring relationship was assessed with an adapted 

Investment Model Scale for relationships (Rusbult, Martz, & Agnew,1998), which has subscales 

reflecting satisfaction in the relationship, comparative desirability of alternatives, level of 

investment made in relationship, and commitment to relationship. The mentor’s sense of 

productive collaboration with the mentoring program, represented by interactions with program 

staff, was assessed with a modified version of the Working Alliance Inventory (Horvath & 

Greenberg, 1989). A successful working alliance is predicated on a strong and supportive bond, 

agreement on goals, and cooperation on tasks. Consequently, this measure indicates whether the 

mentor felt participation in the program reflected a partnership congruent with the program 

mission. A scale to assess mentor “burnout” was adapted from the parenting aggravation 

subscale of the ADD Health Study. The nature and quality of the mentoring relationship from the 

perspective of the mentor was tapped using the Match Characteristics Questionnaire (Harris & 

Nakkula, 2003a), which has multiple subscales representing relationship closeness and sharing, 

theme or focus of activities, and influences on relationship development. In particular, MCQ 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

30 

relationship development focuses on compatibility, logistical issues, and external support for 

relationship. 

Parent post-closure survey. The parent was asked a parallel set of questions from the 

mentoring obstacles list, the Investment Model Scale (parents relationship with respect to 

mentor), and the Working Alliance Inventory (with respect to both mentor and MSS), and the 

Match Characteristics Questionnaire section on relationship development influences. 

Youth post-closure survey. The youth perspective on the nature and quality of the 

mentoring relationship was assessed with the Youth Mentoring Survey (Harris & Nakkula, 

2003b), a youth parallel to the MCQ that includes subscales for relationship satisfaction, mentor 

support, mentor dependability, and activity focus. Youth also completed the Relationship 

Questionnaire (Lynch & Cicchetti, 1991, 1997), with subscales for emotional quality (“When 

I’m with my mentor, I feel...happy, important, ignored, mad, bored, disappointed, etc.”) and 

psychological proximity-seeking (e.g., “I wish my mentor knew more about how I feel”). Finally, 

youth feelings about negative or disappointing interactions with the mentor were assessed with 

subscales reflecting dissatisfaction, unhappiness, and broken trust on the Youth-Mentor 

Relationship Questionnaire (Rhodes et al., 2005). 

Staff post-closure survey. The MSS were asked a set of questions from the mentoring 

obstacles list, the Working Alliance Inventory (MSS relationship with respect to both mentor and 

parent), and the Match Characteristics Questionnaire section on relationship development factors. 

Qualitative interviews. As described previously, qualitative data was sought from a 

subsample of matches that had ended after mentoring relationships of various lengths. 

Interviewers used a semi-structured interview protocol to elicit each participant’s understanding 

of how and why the relationship ended. The interviews also addressed the role of the agency 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice 
 

 

31 

during the life of the match and in the closure process. In addition, the interviews asked 

participants to share their overall perceptions of the nature, quality, and development of the 

mentoring relationship. Finally, the interviews investigated the impact of the mentoring 

relationship and the match closure on all parties. 

Analysis Plan 

Descriptive analyses. Because the STAR study addresses a topic which has not received 

much attention in previous research, descriptive information about match closures provides 

important information for the field. Data from baseline and post-closure surveys will be analyzed 

in the aggregate and reported with appropriate descriptive statistics, such as means, frequencies, 

and percentages. 

Predictive analyses. Event history analysis, also known as survival analysis, represents a 

methodologically rigorous analytical approach for addressing the research questions about 

factors predicting whether and when a match ends. Event history methods permit modeling of all 

cases, including those that do not experience the event of interest (i.e., a match ending) because 

those observations are censored by the termination of the study period (Allison, 1984). However, 

one outcome of primary interest in this study, whether a match ends prematurely within its first 

12 months, was not subjected to censoring because the follow-up period for all STAR matches 

was 15 months. Thus, this particular dichotomous outcome can be modeled using logistic 

regression. 

Event history methods will be used when modeling not just the occurrence but also the 

timing of events. Because dates of match initiation and closure allow measurement of time with 

precision, Cox proportional hazard models will be employed to estimate a semi-parametric 

survival model that does not require specification of a baseline hazard function. The hazard can 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice 
 

 

 

 

 

32 

be thought of as the instantaneous risk of experiencing a match closure at time t, given that a 

match closure has not already occurred prior to that time. In these analyses, t = 0 represents the 

time at which the match is made. Once a relationship ends, it is removed from the risk set, i.e. the 

matches still at risk for closure. The general form of the Cox proportional hazard regression 

equation, where h0(t) is the baseline hazard function, is: h(ti) = h0(t) exp(β1 χ1 + β2 χ2 +. . . + βk χk), 

and the hazard rate for the ith individual is: h(ti) = h0(t) exp(β ́χ). Various models will be 

evaluated with baseline variables for mentor, youth, parent, and MSS as well as particular 

mentor and youth combinations as fixed independent predictors. AIM data on relationship 

progress will be modeled as time-varying variables. 

Retrospective analyses. Multiple approaches will be used to analyze data from the postclosure interviews of participants. Initially, descriptive statistics summarizing the data in the 

aggregate will be used to provide important information about the reasons for closures and the 

nature of early ending relationships. Next, the distinctions between relationships that end after 

different lengths of time together will be identified through exploratory comparisons. For 

example, techniques for testing associations, such as ANOVA, may be applied with the length of 

relationship (0-6 mos, 6-12 mos, 12+mos.) as the classification factor. In addition, patternanalytic approaches may be employed to identify and describe how multiple relational or 

situational factors associated with early match closure combine to form distinctive profiles 

defining these relationships. Depending on the nature of the data, these analyses may involve 

two-stage cluster analysis, in which solutions derived from hierarchical clustering methods are 

enhanced through adjustments in cluster membership during a K-means procedure (Huberty, 

DiStefano, & Kamphaus, 1997). Alternatively, these analyses may employ latent class analysis 

to model a latent categorical variable that represents a mixture of subpopulations differentiated 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice 
 

33 

by their particular patterns on multiple indicators (McCutcheon 1987). In either case, the 

emphasis is on identifying organized configurations of interactive factors that distinguish 

qualitatively different groups of matches that share a common profile. 

Qualitative analyses. 

Thematic coding. A multi-step thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006) of the 36 

trifectas was conducted to examine the nature and development of each of the mentoring 

relationships as well as why and how it ended. Two research team members developed an initial 

codebook representing the interview protocols, previous research on match endings, and 

consideration of key research questions. Codes highlighted: early relationship expectations and 

motivation; the quality and development of the youth-mentor relationship over time; the 

relationship between the parent/guardian and mentor; agency support and interactions with 

match parties; and participants’ understanding of how and why the relationship ended, and the 

impact of the ending. The codebook was evaluated and revised based on topics and themes that 

emerged throughout the coding process. All interviews associated with a particular trifecta were 

coded together by one research assistant using NVivo. 

Narrative summaries. Once all three interviews from a trifecta were coded, the coder 

produced a narrative summary (Way, 1998) integrating the coded interviews with the agencyprovided case notes. Coders first explained the nature and development over time of the four 

main relationships examined in the interviews: youth-mentor, parent/guardian-mentor, 

parent/guardian-agency, and mentor-agency. Coders then described the relationship ending from 

each participants’ perspective including: the reason for closure; the process leading to the match 

end, including the agency handling of the closure; and the impact of the match ending on the 

youth, parent/guardian, mentor and MSS. Subsequently, coders reflected on the mentor 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice 
 

 

 

34 

engagement, impressions of the participant’s experiences with the mentoring relationship, and 

their evaluations of the match ending. Finally, the coder documented their thoughts and 

reflections on the match closing. 

One team member served as the master coder, supervising all coding and narrative 

summary writing to ensure consistency and quality across cases. Coders met weekly during the 

coding process to discuss questions and challenges in the coding and narrative summary process, 

and to examine cases and identify emerging themes. 

Systemic modeling. In order to summarize individual characteristics and the multiple 

relationships associated with a case, identify why the match ended using a transactional 

relational lens, and to facilitate comparison across matches, triangle models were created for 

each case based on Keller’s (2005) systemic model of youth mentoring. The triangle model 

included a circle representing each match party (i.e., youth, parent/guardian, mentor and MSS) 

connected by lines representing the dyadic relationships between all match parties. The youth is 

located in the center of the triangle with the mentor on the apex to signify the dyadic relationship, 

which is the primary focus of the mentoring relationship. The parent/guardian and MSS are 

located in the bottom corners, representing their role in supporting the primary relationship. 

First, the coder assigned to the case and two other master coders independently reviewed 

the narrative summary. Each reader used the information in the narrative summary to create a 

triangle model for the case. In each party’s circle, the reader noted the characteristics and 

qualities of the person as well as any contextual factors that were at play in the match. 

Information about the family context was included in the parent/guardian circle, and agency 

details or information about previous staff members associated with the match were included in 

the MSS circle. The triangle model also included boxes corresponding to the key relationships 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice 
 

 

 

 

35 

of interest (youth-mentor, parent/guardian-mentor, parent/guardian-MSS, and mentor-MSS) 

where the reader recorded information on the nature of the relationship, communication between 

parties and the types of support offered between the two parties. In cases where either the youthparent or youth-MSS relationship was discussed in the interviews as playing an important role in 

the mentoring relationship development, a box was added describing this relationship. 

Once all circles and boxes on the triangle model were filled in, each reader used the 

relevant information to make designations regarding the quality and level of functioning of the 

four key relationships (and the additional one if a box was added). The line representing the 

relationship was colored green if the coder evaluated the overall relationship as positive or 

functional meaning that the parties were engaging as expected by agency norms, had regular 

communication, had a good working relationship, and were happy with the relationship. The line 

was colored red when the relationship was not functional and was determined to be negative for 

the match and may have contributed in some way to the match ending. If the relationship in the 

triangle was not important to the match or unanalyzed (typically the youth-parent and youthMSS relationships), the line was colored blue. 

After each reader completed a triangle model for the case, the reader and two team 

members serving as “master readers” for all of the triangles met to discuss and come to 

consensus on a final triangle model for the case. Through a collaborative process, the readers 

considered the content of each individual’s circle and each dyadic relationship box to determine

which content was relevant to the match. Then, the readers discussed the color of each line until 

all three agreed on the color choice. Once the content of the triangle model was finalized, the 

readers identified what aspect of the match, either a relationship or individual, they thought was 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice 
 

 

 

 

36 

ultimately responsible for the termination of the relationship. This was indicated by an asterisk 

in the circle or box corresponding with the person or relationship. 

Sorting cases and identifying themes. Once all 36 cases where coded and narrative 

summaries and triangle models were constructed, the first three authors met to review the 

triangle models for all cases and identify major themes related to why the mentoring 

relationships had ended. Printed copies of the triangle models were physically sorted into piles 

based on patterns in relationship line coloring and then based on common characteristics of the 

match parties (e.g., mentor had unrealistic expectations, gap in MSS support) or dyadic 

relationships (e.g., MSS judges parent/guardian, mentor unsatisfied with agency/MSS support). 

Integration of quantitative and qualitative data. The quantitative and qualitative data 

for the study intentionally overlap in addressing research questions. The data from each approach 

will be examined in conjunction to develop explanations for how certain combinations of factors 

contribute to early match closures. For example, the reasons for early match closure identified 

through analysis of the survey data will be further elaborated by rich descriptions in the 

qualitative data of the circumstances surrounding some of the relationship endings from multiple 

perspectives (mentor, youth, parent and MSS). Significant predictors of early match closure from 

the event history analysis will be compared with any evidence or descriptions of these in the 

qualitative data to identify possible processes through which the identified factors may contribute 

to premature endings. The ways that personal characteristics of mentors and youth and the 

support from the agency, or lack thereof, may come together to influence the nature and timing 

of early endings will also be explicated. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice 
 

 

 

37 

Findings 

The STAR study generated a large amount of data regarding the factors that may 

influence the development and duration of youth mentoring relationships, the circumstances of 

match endings, the management of the closure process, and the effects of closure on participants. 

The findings presented here are based on analyses conducted under the OJJDP-funded study. 

Given the breadth and depth of the data collected, many additional analyses are planned to more 

fully utilize the data and to build on the results highlighted here. The authors intend to publish 

findings from these additional analyses in academic journals and other publications. The 

presentation of the results here reflects the range of potential findings that may emerge from the 

study when additional analyses are conducted. 

Pre-match Expectations 

The baseline surveys contained several questions regarding the prospective match to 

assess the expectations of participants prior to the initiation of the mentoring relationship. For 

example, both the mentor and the parent/guardian were asked how long they wanted the match to 

last. The responses to this question are reported in Table 2. A relatively small number of 

respondents anticipated a match length equal to the one-year commitment requested by BBBS 

programs. Interestingly, some parents/guardians wanted matches less than one year in duration. 

Although some respondents specified a certain number of years, the majority expressed a desire 

for longer-term relationships lasting until the child is grown up (to adulthood) or forever. A 

sizable proportion were not sure how long they wanted the match to last. 

Table 2: Desired match length indicated by mentor and parent/guardian 

Mentor Parent/guardian 

Duration Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage 

Less than 1 yr 0 0% 8 2.3% 

1 yr 15 4.2% 16 4.7% 

2-3 yrs 27 7.6% 19 5.6% 

4-5 yrs 7 2.0% 7 2.0% 

6-10 yrs 0 0% 16 4.7% 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice 
 

38 

Until child is grown up 64 18.0% 96 28.1% 

Forever 125 35.2% 107 31.3% 

Not sure 117 33.0% 73 21.3% 

Another indicator of initial expectations regarding a new match comes from a brief 

assessment that MSS completed immediately after conducting the Match Introduction Meeting 

creating a new STAR match. MSS were asked how confident they were that the match would 

become a strong relationship. Responses were indicated on a number line ranging from 0%=not 

at all confident to 100%=100% confident, with markers at intervals of 10. The results are 

presented in Figure 2. Overall, MSS had fairly high confidence in the relationships being created, 

with 80% as the mode and 81% as the mean probability of a strong relationship. Perhaps 

recognizing the complexity of human relationships, relatively few MSS were entirely confident 

that the new match would be strong. Another question asking MSS to estimate how likely the 

new match would still be together in one year yielded similar results, although the mean was 

again 81% the mode was 90% (see Figure 3). 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice 
39 

Figure 2: MSS confidence in development of strong relationship 

Figure 3: MSS prediction of likelihood for 1 year 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice 
 

 

40 

Match Closures 

According to the official match dates and match closure dates recorded in the AIM data 

system, a total of 109 STAR matches (30.6%) ended before the 12 month anniversary of the 

match. As noted previously, a total of 151 STAR matches (42.4%) ended prior to 15 months. 

During the entire 40 month window of study observation (Dec 1, 2013 to Mar 31, 2017), a total 

of 237 match closures occurred, representing 66.6% of all STAR matches. The remaining 119 

matches (33.3%) were still intact, and consequently were censored, at the end of the study period. 

A Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was conducted with the data reflecting the timing of match 

closures. The survival function is represented in Figure 4, with months on the horizontal axis and 

the proportion of matches surviving to a specified length of time on the vertical axis. The 

estimated mean survival time was 21.83 months (95% CI: 20.38—23.28), and the estimated 

median survival time was 18.41 months (95% CI: 15.60—21.23). The Kaplan-Meier survival 

functions for each of the BBBS program sites are shown in Figure 5. There were no statistically 

significant differences in the survival functions across programs, so site was used only for 

sensitivity analyses rather than as a control variable in subsequent models. 

Figure 4: Kaplan-Meier survival function for study matches over time 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice 
 

41 

Figure 5: Kaplan-Meier survival functions by BBBS agency 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice 
 

 

42 

The official reason for the closure of a match is recorded in the AIM data system, with 

the MSS managing the match selecting one of 24 options. The explanations provided for STAR 

matches that closed either before or after the one-year anniversary appear in Table 3. Overall, 

the majority of match closures (63.5%) were attributed to a volunteer-oriented reason. Volunteeroriented reasons were somewhat more likely for closures occurring after the 12 month 

anniversary (66.7%) than for premature closures (59.8%), but this difference was not statistically 

significant. The most frequently cited reason for match closure was a time constraint on the part 

of the mentor. Overall, a quarter of the matches ended for this reason, although mentor time 

constraints were less likely to be the explanation for premature closures (18.7%) than for later 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice 
 

 

43 

closures (30.2%). Residential moves were the cause of roughly a quarter of all closures, when 

both mentor and child/family moves are considered (26.6%). Likewise, a sizable percentage of 

match closures (20.1%) were attributed to a loss of contact with either the mentor or the 

child/family. Taken together, these three reasons (time constraints, moves, lost contact) were 

responsible for 75% of all closures. One other notable observation is that it was much more 

likely for a closure to be attributed to the youth losing interest in the first year than in later years. 

Table 3: Official reasons for match closures 

N % N % N %

Child: Family structure changed 3 2.8 1 0.8 4 1.7

Child: Graduated 4 3.2 4 1.7

Child: Lost interest 13 12.1 4 3.2 17 7.3

Child: Severity of challenges 1 0.9 1 0.4

Child/Family: Feels incompatible w/ volunteer 5 4.7 3 2.4 8 3.4

Child/Family: Infraction of match rules/agency policies 1 0.8 1 0.4

Child/Family: Lost contact w/ volunteer/agency 7 6.5 11 8.7 18 7.7

Child/Family: Moved 13 12.1 11 8.7 24 10.3

Child/Family: Time constraints 1 0.9 7 5.6 8 3.4

Volunteer: Feels incompatible with child/family 9 8.4 6 4.8 15 6.4

Volunteer: Health 2 1.9 3 2.4 5 2.1

Volunteer: Infraction of match rules/agency policies 2 1.9 1 0.8 3 1.3

Volunteer: Lost contact w/ child/agency 13 12.1 16 12.7 29 12.4

Volunteer: Moved 18 16.8 20 15.9 38 16.3

Volunteer: Time constraints 20 18.7 38 30.2 58 24.9

Matches closing 

under 12 

months (n=107)

Matches closing 

over 12 months 

(n=126)

All match 

closures 

(n=233)

Prediction of Match Duration 

Many participant factors assessed at baseline will be examined for their association with 

match duration as described in the analysis plan. The results presented here are illustrative of the 

attempt to use information available at baseline to predict whether and when matches close. This 

analysis focuses on the expectations of mentors, parents/guardians, and MSS that were reported 

above. The responses of mentors to the question asking how long they wanted the match to last 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice 
 

 

 

44 

were collapsed into five categories (1 yr, 2-5 yrs, grown up, forever, not sure). This variable was 

used as a categorical predictor in a Cox proportional hazards regression model with the survival 

function as the outcome. The larger category defining the range of the spectrum was used as the 

reference category for comparisons with other groups. As depicted in Figure 6, the matches with 

mentors who had been ‘not sure’ how long they wanted the relationship to last were the least 

likely to continue over time (reference category). In contrast, the matches with the greatest 

chances for longevity during this 40 month period were those in which the mentor anticipated a 

match of 2-5 years. The analysis revealed statistically significant differences between the ‘not 

sure’ group and two other groups that had lower likelihood of closure, including the ‘2-5 year’

group (OR=.569, p=.029) and the ‘grown up’ group (OR=.647, p=.025). It is interesting to note 

that he mentors wanting their matches to last ‘forever’ had a greater risk of closure relative to all 

others except those who were ‘not sure.’

Figure 6: Mentor expectations for match length predicting survival functions 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice 
45 

A parallel analysis was conducted with the responses of parents/guardians regarding how 

long they wanted the match to last. The responses of parents/guardians were collapsed into five 

slightly different categories based on the frequencies (1 yr or less, 2-10 yrs, grown up, forever, 

not sure). As depicted in Figure 7, the matches most likely to survive over time were those in 

which the parent/guardian had wanted the match to last ‘forever’ (reference category). In contrast,

the matches least likely to survive were those in which the parent had wanted the match to last 

only ‘1 yr or less.’ There was a statistically significant difference between these two groups 

defining the spectrum (OR=1.78, p=.026). Interestingly, the ordering of the survival functions 

corresponded with the specified durations ranging from ‘forever’ to “1 yr or less.” Compared to 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice 
46 

the results for mentors, matches in which the parent/guardian had been ‘not sure’ how long they

wanted the relationship to last had relatively good chances of continuing. 

The MSS predictions regarding the prospects for new matches to become strong 

relationships or to stay together for one year also were analyzed with Cox regression models, but 

no associations with match duration were found. 

Figure 7: Parent/guardian expectations for match length predicting survival functions 

Qualitative Analysis of Reasons for Closure 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice 
 

 

 

47 

The in-depth qualitative interviews with matches closed after differing lengths of time 

generated a wealth of data regarding the distinctive circumstances contributing to each closure. It 

should be noted that the cases involved in this subsample represent a special set of closed 

matches. Closed matches were excluded from the subsample if either the mentor or youth 

moving out of the area was the primary reason for the closure of the match. Despite this 

restriction designed to focus on closures that had more complex dynamics, a few cases had 

significant and largely unpredictable changes in the mentor’s life circumstances, other than 

moving, as the main reason for the end of the match. This was in fact the case for 8 of these 

matches. For the remainder of the matches, the demise of the mentoring relationship was 

multiply determined and often the result of breakdowns in the interactions between match 

participants, as would be anticipated by a systems approach. Each case also proved to be 

somewhat unique, in that the specific circumstances and dynamic interactions between the 

individuals were different for each match. However, three discernable patterns did emerge. First, 

it was observed that the quality of the mentor-youth relationship appeared to matter greatly. 

When mentors and youth did not feel a shared sense of connection, the matches ended, even 

when the relationships surrounding the mentor-youth dyad were strong and functioning well. It 

was also observed that among matches in which the mentor and youth had been able to form a 

connection, such connections were difficult to sustain when there were disruptions in the other 

relationships surrounding the mentor-youth relationship. Finally, agency support of the matches 

appeared to also matter greatly, as expectable challenges and relational disruptions experienced 

by some of these matches may have been navigable and repairable with adequate assistance from 

program staff. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice 
 

 

48 

Centrality of the mentor-youth relationship. In 17 of these cases, the mentors and 

youth relationship was coded as troubled, when taking both participants’ reported experiences of 

the relationship into account, indicating that some form of a workable connection had not formed. 

These cases fell into three groups: (a) lack of youth engagement, (b) mentor dissatisfaction, and 

(c) mentor struggles with the youth/relationship. 

Youth engagement. In several cases, the youth showed little sign of engagement with the 

relationship and some even initiated the end of the match. A few had been on the waiting list for 

a mentor for quite a long time (as long as 1-2 years). By the time they were matched, they had 

lost interest and expressed a preference to spend time with peers rather than with an adult with 

whom they had no other relationship. In other cases, the youth were dissatisfied with their match. 

This dissatisfaction was fueled by comparisons of their relationship either to one they had with a 

previous mentor they liked better or to the mentoring relationship they were observing their 

sibling enjoying, which looked more favorable than their own. 

Mentor dissatisfaction and struggles. In the remainder of the cases, the lack of a 

connection between the mentor and youth was due to the mentor either being dissatisfied or to 

the mentors’ struggles with their own life circumstances interfering with their capacity to 

connect with the youth. What distinguished the latter cases from the life circumstances described 

in the section above is that these seemed to have the potential to be surmountable. 

Among those cases in which the mentor was dissatisfied, some mentors did not feel 

connected to the youth because they perceived a lack of engagement or disinterest on the part of 

the youth. Others felt like they were not making much of a difference, and this made the 

experience unsatisfying to them. In some of these cases, mentors thought the youth did not 

appear to need a mentor, which led to their questioning how much of a difference they were 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice 
 

 

49 

making. Others felt that the needs of the youth were too great, which contributed to them feeling 

defeated by the experience of being a mentor and questioning whether what they were doing 

really mattered in any way. A final set of mentors within this group thought that the “fit” with 

their mentee was poor and they struggled to find a way to connect with them. For all of these 

mentors, these experiences contributed to them not feeling much of a connection with the youth, 

feeling dissatisfied with the experience of being a mentor and ultimately disengaging from the 

relationship. 

The other group were mentors who struggled with juggling the mentoring relationship 

along with the other competing demands in their lives. This appeared to interfere with their 

capacity to connect with the youth. 

Influential role of the supporting relationships. Although the quality of the mentoryouth relationship seemed to matter greatly, the other relationships surrounding this dyad were 

influential as well (i.e., parent-mentor, parent-MSS, mentor-MSS). Disconnections and 

disruptions in these other relationships appeared to contribute to the match closures, even among 

those matches in which the mentor-youth relationship was quite strong. 

Parent/Guardian-Mentor Relationship. Disruptions in the parent/guardian-mentor 

relationship were observed in just over half of the matches (53%) in this sample. For many, the 

difficulties in this relationship seemed to be a major contributor to the match closure. One of the 

most common forms of disruption in this relationship was the mentor’s negative judgments and 

deficit-based views of the parent/guardian. These judgments were manifest in the mentors’

descriptions of the parenting style and the family home. These kinds of judgments did not go 

unnoticed by the parents/guardians. Another common disruption to the parent/guardian-mentor 

relationship was some mentors’ responses to the instability in the youth’s lives. Many of the

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice 
 

 

 

50 

families had complicating circumstances that made consistent communication difficult, such as 

phones being disconnected and frequent moves. Some of the mentors became so frustrated by 

these kinds of circumstances that they decided to end the match. 

Parent/Guardian-Match Support Specialist Relationship. In 11 cases (31%), there were 

disruptions in the relationship between the parent/guardian and the MSS. As was observed with 

the mentors, negative judgements and an emphasis on deficits dominated some of the MSSs’ 

views of the families. The focus of these concerns tended to be the parent/guardian's 

communication skills or investment in the program. Another challenge observed in these 

relationships was misalignment between the parent/guardian’s and agency’s expectations for

what a match should look like and how it should function. These expectations were around 

communication and frequency of visits between the mentor and youth, and issues such as the role 

the parent/guardian played in communication between the mentor and youth, the amount of 

notice a mentor needed to give in order to make plans with the youth, the amount of notice a 

parent/guardian needed to give in order to cancel plans between mentor and youth, and the role 

of the mentor within the family. In a number of these cases, the expectations of the current match 

held by the parent were influenced by experiences with a previous mentor of that child or another 

of their children. These parents/guardians seemed to have some clear expectations that this new 

match would function in a similar way, and these notions were not aligned with those of the MSS. 

Mentor-Match Support Specialist Relationship. In nearly half of the cases in our sample 

(42%), disruptions in the mentor-MSS relationship were observed. As with the Parent/GuardianMSS relationship, these disruptions were sometimes the result of mentors having unrealistic 

expectations that were not addressed by the MSS. Other disruptions were mentors feeling angry 

at the agency. These mentors either did not perceive the experience of mentoring to have been 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice 
 

51 

accurately portrayed to them or they did not see the value and relevance of agency support and 

felt annoyed by the required contacts with the MSS. 

Some of the mentors (28%) talked about feeling they had been misled by the agency with 

regard to the needs of the youth. The mentors were equally divided, with half feeling that the 

youth did not need them and they were wasting their time by volunteering in this way, either 

because the youth did not seem to need a mentor or because they thought the youth’s needs were

too great. In the latter case, some mentors felt misled by the agency and were angry about that. 

Some other mentors (14%) expressed frustration that they did not feel that the MSS had been 

particularly helpful. Others described agency support as “robotic,” “repetitive,” and “weird.”

This perception of support from the MSS not being helpful resulted in some of these mentors not 

reporting to the agency when an issue did come up in the relationship. This is ultimately how a 

mentor not feeling supported by the agency led to match closure. 

Contribution of agency context. The context of the mentoring agency, including its 

staffing, monitoring practices, and participant enrollment decisions, also appeared to matter. As 

with the four dyadic relationships involved in the systemic model of mentoring, the larger 

context within which these relationships are situated, namely the agency policies and procedures, 

were also observed to have played a role some of the match closures. 

Enrollment Decisions. In nearly one-third of matches (31%), evidence suggests that 

either the mentor (17%) or the youth (14%) should not have been enrolled and matched when the 

match began. The youth in these matches had severe mental health and/or social concerns that 

hindered their ability to engage in a match. All of these matches ended very quickly, typically 

because the youth refused to participate in the match. Some mentors should not have been 

matched due to the personal circumstances in their life at the time, such as an ongoing divorce, 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice 
 

 

 

 

 

52 

of which the agency was unaware. These mentors may have been suitable volunteers had the 

timing of the match not been hindered by their personal life. 

Staff turnover. Nearly half of matches (42%) experienced a change in their MSS during 

the course of the match, with some of these matches having their MSS change 2 or 3 times. In a 

small number of these cases (8%), interviewees discussed that there was a gap in coverage where 

no MSS was checking in with the mentor or family and the mentor and guardian would not have 

known who to contact had there been a question or concern. These support changes were often 

due to staff leaving their job for new work or school opportunities, or being on personal leave for 

reasons such as maternal leave. 

Staff training and support. Closely examining the narratives of these participants’ 

experiences shed light on areas of difficulty that raise questions about MSS preparation to 

support the development of these complex relationships. As discussed above, some MSS 

demonstrated a lack of understanding of the family contexts, particularly in regard to family 

stress and the context of poverty, which manifested as MSS interpreting the parent/guardian’s 

behavior as a lack of investment in the match instead of an attempt to manage within their 

financial and contextual circumstances. This seemed to contribute to some of the challenges 

observed in a number of the MSS-parent/guardian relationships and hindered the MSSs’ abilities 

to adequately support mentors who were themselves struggling with bridging these divides. 

In addition, several mentors and parents/guardians questioned the agencies’ approach to 

supporting matches suggesting that they felt like MSS were “robotic” during calls, asking the

same set of questions with little variation or responsiveness to the specifics of the match. This 

resulted in mentors and parents/guardians feeling that the agency was more concerned about how 

many people the MSS contacted than about the quality of support. If issues arose in these 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice 
 

 

 

 

 

53 

matches, the mentors or parents/guardians did not feel the MSS would be able to help, which left 

many issues unaddressed. 

Monitoring of Matches. In many cases, inconsistent or insufficient monitoring of 

matches by agency staff appeared to contribute to the match ending. As noted above, there were 

often logistical challenges in monitoring matches due to staff turnover or to the MSS having 

trouble reaching the parent/guardian or mentor for scheduled check-ins. However, even when the 

MSS had regular contact, the monitoring sometimes did not help to maintain the match. 

In six of the cases examined (17%), the mentor ended the match at the 1-year mark 

saying they believed this was expected as they had fulfilled their 12 month commitment to the 

program. This is in contrast to the agencies’ hope that successful matches will continue beyond 

the initial commitment. We also noted several cases where the MSS did not track or follow-up 

with known changes developing in the family’s life, such as evictions or a parent being released 

from prison. In such cases it seemed that the MSS had been made aware of what was happening 

and missed an opportunity to proactively intervene, potentially saving the match from an early 

ending or at least facilitating a more positive closure. 

Management of Match Closures 

One of the distinctive features of the STAR study was the emphasis on collecting 

extensive post-closure data from multiple parties, including the staff supporting matches. The 

analyses conducted thus far of data from the perspective of MSS responsible for matches provide 

insights about how the ending of mentoring relationships was handled. As noted, MSS postclosure surveys were completed for a total of 129 STAR matches that closed (85%). According 

to MSS report, 95 of these matches (73.6%) had ended before completing their initial 12-month 

time commitment. MSS indicated that an in-person final meeting between the mentor and youth 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

54 

at the time of match closure took place for only 26% of the cases. For another 11% of the 

closures, a final meeting was planned but never occurred. In a majority of cases (63%), a final 

meeting was never planned to end the match. It was extremely rare for an MSS to play a role in 

arranging or facilitating a match closure meeting, as indicated by the responses shown in Table 4. 

A more common role was for the MSS to coach the mentor, parent/guardian, or youth on how to 

manage the ending of the relationship and say goodbye. 

Table 4: MSS role in match closure process 

N % 

Arranged a match closure meeting between mentor and youth 4 3.1 

Attended a match closure meeting 0 0.0 

Facilitated match closure meeting between mentor and youth 1 0.8 

Coached mentor on how to end the match/say goodbye 57 44.2 

Coached youth on how to end the match/say goodbye 13 10.1 

Coached parent/guardian on how to help child say goodbye 37 28.7 

None - no direct contact between mentor and youth at closure 67 51.9 

When asked about anticipating the match to close, a majority of MSS indicated that they 

were either somewhat surprised (37%) or very surprised (21%), while the remainder were not at 

all surprised (42%) by the closure. A majority said that they were either somewhat disappointed 

(50%) or extremely disappointed (35%) by the early termination of the relationship. In addition, 

the MSS were asked how satisfied they were with the way the ending of the match was handled, 

yielding a fairly even distribution of responses: not at all satisfied (21%), not very satisfied 

(30%), somewhat satisfied (26%), and extremely satisfied (23%). 

MSS responses on the survey indicated that continuing contact between the mentor and 

youth was anticipated for about one fifth of the matches that had ended (21%). MSS indicated 

that many (31%) of the youth would be re-assessed for potential re-matching, although they were 

not sure about that possibility for another 12% of the cases. Mentors were less likely to be reassessed for potential re-matching (12%), although there was an uncertain possibility for about 

13%. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice 
 

 

 

55 

Discussion 

The initial findings from the STAR study provide multiple insights regarding the 

development and duration of BBBS matches. A majority of new matches in the study (69%) 

attained their one-year anniversary, meeting the initial commitment for relationship duration 

asked of them by the mentoring program. According to the Kaplan-Meier analysis, the average 

match length for the sample was approximately 22 months. However, a significant proportion of 

relationships ended prematurely within the first 12 months (31%), and a similar proportion of 

matches were observed to close after 12 months but within the extended study period (35%). 

According to program records, the reasons for match closure were attributed to mentors almost 

twice as often as to mentees or their families. Mentors having time constraints, moving, or failing 

to maintain contact with the program were the most prevalent reasons for match closures. Other 

commonly cited reasons were the family moving or the mentee losing interest in the match, 

particularly in the first year of the relationship. Although some changes in life circumstances that 

affect continuation of a match might be unpredictable or unavoidable, other situations 

challenging a mentoring relationship may have the potential to be addressed with the aim of 

preventing a closure. The predictive and retrospective analyses in this study suggest some 

possibilities for program intervention to reduce the chances of a match closure. 

A question asked of mentors and parents/guardians regarding the desired duration of the 

anticipated match proved to be a predictor of actual match duration. Mentors indicating they 

wanted the match to last 2-5 years were the most likely to maintain their mentoring relationships 

over time, closely followed by those who wanted 1 year matches or wanted to stay matched until 

the mentee was grown up. In contrast, mentors who wanted their matches to last forever or who 

were not sure about their intentions were more likely to experience closures. It may be that 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice 
 

56 

mentors forecasting matches between 1-10 years (i.e., until grown up) are more realistic in their 

expectations going into their relationships, focusing on their role of supporting the mentee during 

childhood and adolescence. In contrast, mentors expecting a match to last forever could be 

idealizing the experience and could become more easily disenchanted if their lofty ambitions are 

cast into doubt by the reality of the relationship. When mentors report being unsure about how 

long they want the match to last, they may be entering the relationship with a lack of 

commitment or with a tentative, contingent attitude, and consequently they may be more inclined 

to abandon the match upon encountering challenges. 

The responses of parents/guardians to the same question prior to the match yielded a 

different pattern of results. In the case of parents/guardians, their expressed preferences for 

match length were reflected in the relative order of the respective survival curves for match 

duration. In other words, the risk of match closure was greatest for those who wanted short 

matches (less than one year), and the risk decreased incrementally as parents/guardians indicated 

they wanted longer matches. Accordingly, the parents/guardians who wanted “forever” matches 

were most likely to have matches that remained intact. These findings may suggest that wishing 

for a longer match means parents are more determined to support the long-term success of the 

mentoring relationship. 

The extensive qualitative data obtained for a subset of closed matches provided insights 

on multiple factors that can contribute to match closures. Even though sampling for this subset 

excluded matches that ended due to residential moves, a number of the matches closed for 

similar major changes in life circumstances that disrupted the mentoring relationship. In general, 

however, the findings highlighted the importance of the mentor-youth experience, the network of 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice 
 

 

 

 

 

57 

relationships surrounding the match, and the nature of program services. Several of the findings 

point to opportunities for programs to address issues that can derail a mentoring relationship. 

Some matches ended because either the youth or the mentor failed to appreciate the 

relationship. Sometimes a long period on the waiting list dissipated a youth’s interest and 

enthusiasm for a match, resulting in youth disengagement from the outset. Sometimes 

comparison to another match made a youth feel dissatisfied with their own mentoring experience. 

Dissatisfaction in matches was noted on the part of mentors when, based on their interpretation, 

they sensed a lack of interest or engagement from the youth or they thought the youth did not 

have a need for a mentor. In other cases, mentors became frustrated with the match when they 

felt they were not having as much impact as they expected or they felt overwhelmed by the needs 

and circumstances of the youth. These findings underline the value of assessing and addressing 

participant motivations and expectations prior to the match. In addition, ongoing support from 

the program could help to challenge or reframe the conclusions mentors may draw based on their 

impressions of the youth or the relationship. 

The findings also indicated that, even if a strong mentor-youth relationship existed, match 

closures could occur when the relationships between adults in the mentoring system became 

problematic. Problems in the relationship between mentor and parent-guardian could arise when 

mentors had difficulty coping with inconsistent communication and instability on the part of 

parents/guardians, particularly those with economic pressures affecting housing or phone service. 

Sometimes mentors expressed judgmental views about family circumstances or parenting 

practices, which were not received positively by the parent/guardian. These dynamics were 

mirrored in some of the relationships between MSS and parents/guardians, with MSS sensing 

inconsistent communication or commitment from the parent/guardian or expressing judgments 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice 
 

 

 

 

 

58 

about parenting decisions. Another source of tension could be discrepancies between 

parent/guardian expectations and program guidelines. Similarly, the relationship between MSS 

and mentor could become strained when mentors had unrealistic expectations about what the 

mentoring relationship would be like. In addition, mentors could become irritated with the 

routine check-in calls from the MSS. To address these types of relationship difficulties, programs 

could strive to make sure mentors and staff clearly understand the challenging circumstances 

faced by many parents/guardians to avoid assumptions, misinterpretations, and judgments if 

difficulties arise. Most importantly, regular match support should proactively anticipate these 

potential challenges and give attention to the functioning of each relationship in the system so 

that issues and frustrations can be identified and resolved. 

The effects of program support and agency context on match closure also were among the 

findings. As just discussed, staff should be adequately prepared to interpret and respond to the 

needs of families and also convey an understanding of those situations to the mentor. Likewise, 

programs should help MSS conduct effective conversations with participants during regular 

match support contacts to avoid being “robotic” and to obtain relevant and detailed information 

regarding any new developments or obstacles that could threaten the match. In addition, constant 

refinement of the assessment of participants prior to matching should involve efforts to 

determine which personal circumstances or characteristics are most likely to hobble a match. 

Perhaps most crucially, agencies should strive to retain well-trained and experienced MSS to 

minimize the disruptions to matches that can result from staff turnover. 

A final set of findings focused on the manner in which the process of closing a match 

was managed. A minority of closures involved a final meeting for the mentor and youth to say 

goodbye. Half of the matches had no contact between mentor and youth at the time of closure. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice 
 

59 

MSS very rarely organized or facilitated a closure meeting. The most common role for MSS was 

to advise participants on how to end the match. A majority of MSS reported that they were 

surprised by the match closure, and approximately half indicated that they were not satisfied with 

the way the match ending was handled. These findings suggest the opportunity for programs to 

develop and implement new protocols to enhance the closure process. 

Limitations 

The STAR study generated rich data representing multiple perspectives on the 

development and ending of matches, permitting the investigation of many research questions. 

However, certain limitations of the research must be acknowledged. The first limitation concerns 

the accuracy of certain data. Specifically, match closure information utilized in the quantitative 

analyses was based on the official dates documented in the AIM system, but these records may 

not reflect the actual date when the last meeting between mentor and mentee occurred. 

Qualitative interview data and some quantitative survey data not yet analyzed suggest the 

potential for considerable time to elapse between the last outing and the official closure of the 

match, particularly in cases when one of the participants became non-responsive to program 

contacts or when the MSS attempted unsuccessfully to resurrect the relationship after a lapse in 

match outings. Further analyses will explore the extent to which the official closure dates may 

inflate the length a match beyond its actual duration. 

Another limitation is the completeness of the data. Because the surveys used in the study 

were extensive, comprehensive, and lengthy, not all participants responded to the entire set of 

questions, with drop-off more likely at the end of the survey. Missing data procedures will be 

employed in certain analyses as needed. Missing data on the follow-up surveys due to attrition is 

another shortcoming. In particular, obtaining surveys after match closure proved a challenge. In 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice 
 

 

60 

some cases, the reason for closure was a move or the agency’s loss of contact with the participant, 

which often translated to similar difficulties when the research team attempted contact for 

surveys. In addition, matches that ended with disappointment, anger, or guilt might have made 

participants reluctant to revisit their experiences by completing a survey. Consequently, study 

results may be skewed by higher response rates from participants who had more favorable 

mentoring experiences. Another type of limitation concerns specific analytical challenges. For 

example, with the prevalence of MSS turnover, analyses evaluating MSS effects on match 

development will need to overcome the difficulty of linking a particular MSS with a particular 

match. 

Finally, it must be remembered that the STAR study focuses on relationships 

participating in the BBBS community-based model. Although this traditional open-ended, oneto-one mentoring model is the prototype for many mentoring programs, the findings may not 

apply to the mentoring experiences associated with other program models or formats. In 

particular, the questions and concerns about match endings may be very different for programs 

that have a defined duration (e.g. a school-based program ending with the school year) or that 

typically involve transitions from one mentor to another to provide continuous mentoring over an 

extended period (e.g., programs with paid, professional mentors). 

Implications for Policy, Practice, and Future Research 

A fundamental goal for the STAR project was to bring attention to the issue of premature 

match closures in the field of youth mentoring and to provide insights that inspire the 

development and implementation of program practices to address match closures. Throughout 

the project, the research team forged connections with mentoring programs and mentoring 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice 
 

 

 

61 

professionals to explore how the observations and lessons of the study are relevant to practice. 

Similarly, efforts were made to share preliminary findings from the study with the practice 

community and to elicit the interpretations and responses of experienced practitioners. These 

conversations with mentoring professionals prompted by the findings of the study yielded several 

ideas regarding policies and practices that could be adopted to prevent closures and/or provide a 

better closure experience. After discussion of general implications for practice, sections below 

describe the STAR research-practice dialogues, the resource materials developed for practice, 

and the research dissemination efforts. 

Implications for Practice. The enthusiasm with which mentors, youth, families and 

mentoring program staff begin new matches can be quickly dampened by what are in many ways 

expectable challenges. Although the systemic qualitative analysis of the interview data 

highlighted multiple factors at play in premature endings, many of the challenges centered 

around the mentor (moves, loss of contact, time constraints). When the matches ended, it was 

most often because the mentor opted out, either directly or indirectly. These findings point to the 

need for greater attention to mentors at all phases of the mentoring process – recruitment, 

screening, training, support and closure. For example, during the period of assessment and 

training prior to making a new match, programs might seek additional information to determine 

suitability for participation, such as a request for a residential history to look for patterns of 

frequent moves or a time study to determine whether making a program commitment is 

reasonable given time constraints. 

With youth and family interest outpacing volunteer recruitment efforts, recruiting enough 

mentors to meet the demand is a persistent problem for many mentoring programs. In fact, in a 

recent national survey, mentor recruitment was identified as the top challenge faced by programs 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice 
 

62 

(Garringer, McQuillin, & McDaniel, 2017). One consequence is that youth may spend a lengthy 

time on a waitlist. Unfortunately, there may be a window of opportunity when participants are 

motivated to engage in mentoring, and enthusiasm for entering a new match may wane with 

waiting, making initiation of the relationship more difficult. Although admittedly easier said than 

done, reducing the wait time might improve chances for match success. However, the pressure to 

get more mentors creates the potential for programs to “oversell” mentoring to get volunteers in 

the door and to relax requirements for time commitments, training, and follow-up support. Yet, 

the findings here suggest the importance of mentors having realistic expectations going in to the 

mentoring relationships and a willingness to make a long-term, but not necessarily a forever, 

commitment. The qualitative data indicated that some mentors quickly became frustrated by 

what might be considered fairly expectable bumps in the road for a community-based mentoring 

relationship. In several closed matches, the mentors expressed frustration due to disappointed 

expectations regarding the closeness of the relationship, the perceived needs of the youth, the 

perceived lack of impact on the youth, or the level of support from the parent/guardian. For 

example, communication and scheduling challenges put many mentors off and contributed to 

them interpreting the youth and/family as not interested or not invested enough. However, the 

qualitative data revealed the complexity of the lives of the families as they juggled significant 

financial struggles and health and transportation issues. Mentor training could help mentors 

develop understanding and sensitivity about the anticipated challenges of relating to a youth or 

working with a family experiencing economic pressures. Likewise, ongoing and proactive match 

support could help mentors navigate these frustrating but predictable challenges to building and 

sustaining their mentoring relationships. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice 
 

63 

The findings also point to the importance of addressing the sociodemographic distance 

between the mentors and mentoring program staff on the one hand and the youth mentees and 

their families on the other. Volunteer mentors and mentoring program staff tend to share similar 

social class and educational backgrounds (middle- to upper-class and college educated), whereas 

the youth served tend to reside in low-income households with a parent who has not completed 

college. This likely contributed to a deficit view of the families served on the part of mentors and 

MSS observed in some of the cases in the qualitative sample. These findings lend further support 

to calls for greater attention to aspects of class and race within youth mentoring relationships 

(Deutsch, et al., 2014; Sanchez et al., 2014) and suggest that program staff could benefit from 

training in cultural awareness and strengths-based approaches to work with families, to inform 

their own work as well as to better support mentors in also developing a more strengths-based 

approach in their interactions with the youth and their families. Furthermore, because tensions in 

the relationship between mentor and parent/guardian can jeopardize the match, programs could 

provide explicit guidelines for the functioning of that relationship and train both mentors and 

parents/guardians accordingly. 

Also evident in the findings was a need for greater investment in the training and support 

of the program staff who are in the position of supporting the mentoring matches. Because staff 

instability as well as unengaged match support were cited as factors in some match closures, 

these areas also could be priorities for program improvement. Given the turnover common in 

many mentoring programs, the onboarding of new staff could include the type of training noted 

above focusing on anticipated challenges in working with families enduring stressful 

circumstances. In addition, the STAR study points to the utility of a systemic approach for 

assessing and analyzing the network of relationships affecting a match to understand and 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice 
 

64 

potentially anticipate risks to match longevity. This approach could be central to staff training on 

match support. As noted below, a program resource for employing this framework has been 

developed and disseminated through MENTOR’s National Mentoring Resource Center.

Because formal mentoring matches eventually close, programs could structure this stage 

of the mentoring process as an opportunity for young people to learn about ending relationships 

and saying goodbye in a constructive fashion. Even when a closure occurs due to difficulties and 

is accompanied with disappointment or guilt, it could be valuable for participants to provide 

explanations, express apologies, and experience a sense resolution or closure. In particular, 

programs should guard against youth misinterpreting the match closure as a negative reflection 

on themselves. Thus, although each closure situation is unique, it may be advisable for programs 

to institute a set of standard procedures for managing closures. Programs could make it an 

expectation that the majority of matches would participate in those steps for closure, and 

participants could be informed of this expectation from their initial orientation to the program. 

Likewise, programs could begin discussions of the causes and consequences of match endings 

during early training sessions to prepare participants for their eventual occurrence. Another idea 

is to schedule conversations on match anniversaries when the participants in a match could 

celebrate meeting their yearlong commitment, share their opinions about the relationship, and 

explicitly indicate whether they want to continue in the program for another year. Much effort 

goes into getting matches off to a great start but less attention appears to get paid to bringing 

matches to a good conclusion. Greater commitment to positive closures on the part of programs 

could involve training staff in the importance of positive closure, having clear policies and 

expectations for how closures will be handled that are communicated to mentors, youth and their 

families from the beginning, and dedicating sufficient staff time to facilitating positive closures. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice 
 

 

 

 

 

65 

Research-Practice Dialogue. The STAR research team has pursued several 

opportunities for dialogue with leading practitioners to solicit feedback and commentary 

regarding the topic of match closures. For example, in June 2016, the STAR Investigators 

participated in a webinar on match closures for OJJDP grantees that was organized and hosted by 

MENTOR’s National Mentoring Resource Center (NMRC). In this webinar, the Investigators 

provided an overview of the study, noted some initial findings, and engaged in a question and 

answer session with webinar attendees. On another occasion, one of the Investigators was 

featured in a similar webinar organized by a MENTOR affiliate, Mentoring Works Washington. 

The 2016 Summer Institute on Youth Mentoring at Portland State University offered a 

unique opportunity for an in-depth exchange with leading mentoring professionals on the topic 

of match closures. Organized annually by the PI, the Summer Institute is an intensive four-day 

seminar in which researchers and experienced practitioners engage in highly interactive 

discussions on recent developments in research and theory to examine its implications for 

program policies and practices. As a general theme, the 2016 Summer Institute focused on the 

ending of mentoring relationships, particularly early match closures, with special attention to 

how programs manage both planned and unplanned closures. During the Summer Institute, 

STAR research team members presented four two-hour sessions featuring data from the study 

and encouraging discussion regarding program practices. Following these presentations, institute 

attendees participated in informal focus group discussions to generate program recommendations 

for training, support, and healthy closure processes. Each of the five focus groups contained a 

mixture of researchers, program leaders, and practitioners. The focus groups were facilitated by 

doctoral students from the STAR research team. Summary notes from the focus groups have 

provided ideas for recommendations for the field and the development of resource materials. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice 
 

 

 

 

66 

General themes and specific content emerging from the Summer Institute were summarized and 

disseminated as a report on the NMRC blog by Michael Garringer of MENTOR 

(http://www.mentoring.org/2016/09/making-effective-match-support-closure-practices-biggerpriority-youth-mentoring-programs/). 

As a culmination to our partnership with the four BBBS agencies participating in the 

STAR project, we scheduled a site-visit for each agency. These visits provide an opportunity to 

express our appreciation for their involvement in the study, to recognize the contributions of the 

Research Liaison and other staff members, and to have a discussion regarding the interpretation 

of findings and their implications for practice. The visits include a presentation with an overview 

of the study and the research results at this stage of the analysis. Program staff are invited to 

apply the strategy used for analyzing qualitative case examples to assess the reasons for match 

closure and examining the way in which matches were closed. The discussion typically involves 

brainstorming local program practices that might reduce the potential for early closure. The site 

visits give opportunities to hear practitioner ideas and concerns that surface in response to the 

findings. Finally, the site visits have revealed evidence that due to their participation in the 

STAR project the agencies have undertaken program innovations and improvements to more 

effectively prevent and manage match closures. The PI conducted site visits with BBBS of San 

Diego County on June 29, 2017 and BBBS Columbia Northwest on September 11, 2017. A PSU 

doctoral student on the research team conducted a site visit with BBBS of Colorado on 

September 26, 2017. The PI completed the final site visit with BBBS of Central Arizona on 

November 1, 2017. 

Resource Materials for Practice. Following the 2016 Summer Institute on Youth 

Mentoring, the STAR Investigators collaborated with two colleagues affiliated with MENTOR, 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice 
 

 

 

 

67 

Michael Garringer and Meghan Perry, to support their development of practical resources for 

programs to address match closures. Recently, OJJDP and NMRC released a collection of tools 

for programs on match support and successful closure processes entitled “Tools to Strengthen 

Match Support and Closure.” These practitioner-friendly tools include: Starting Relationships 

Right – Aligning Participant Expectations; Staffing Calculator for Match Support; Examining 

Mentoring Relationship Health; and Match Support Check-in Questions. The materials are 

available at: http://www.nationalmentoringresourcecenter.org/index.php/learningopportunities/tools-to-strengthen-match-support-and-closure.html#_blank 

In a recent OJJDP TTA Network Message (dated September, 22, 2017), these materials 

were highlighted. As stated in this message: 

“The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), in 

collaboration with the National Mentoring Resource Center (NMRC), has 

released a suite of tools to help programs give mentors and mentees the guidance 

they need to thrive and sustain their relationships by receiving enhanced support 

of matches and a successful closure process. These tools were inspired and 

informed by research and practitioner insights from the 2016 Summer Institute on 

Youth Mentoring, as well as early data from the OJJDP-supported Study to 

Analyze Relationships (STAR).”

A second practitioner-friendly resource resulting from the STAR study is the work of one 

of the agencies participating in the study, Big Brothers Big Sisters of Central Arizona. The 

STAR RL representing BBBS of Arizona produced a MSS training webinar on how to more 

effectively address match closure processes throughout the life of a mentoring relationship, 

beginning with mentor training prior to the match. This webinar video (at 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice 
 

 

68 

https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/recording/5476276374126605831) is an excellent example of 

how participation in the STAR study motivated greater attention to match closure procedures. 

This translation of the research experience into a program resource reflects agency learning and 

the development of practical approaches with immediate utility for staff. 

Dissemination. The STAR research team has disseminated early findings from the study 

through a variety of venues. Two presentations were delivered at a national academic conference. 

Several presentations have been given at national mentoring conferences for researchers and 

practitioners, including MENTOR’s National Mentoring Summit, the Big Brothers Big Sisters of 

America National Conference, and the Summer Institute on Youth Mentoring. Additional 

dissemination activities have included the webinars noted previously as well as a blog post on 

the NMRC website. The research team also is in the process of preparing multiple manuscripts 

for submission to refereed academic journals. The first manuscript, tentatively entitled, “It Takes 

a Village to Break Up a Match: Understanding Early Match Closure in Youth Mentoring 

Relationships” is nearing completion. In addition, data from the STAR project will be used in at 

least two doctoral dissertations. Finally, a practitioner-friendly report describing study findings 

and offering recommendations for practice will be prepared and distributed. A listing of all 

presentations to date is presented below. 

Academic Conferences 

Spencer, R., Gowdy, G., Drew, A. L., McCormack, M., Horn, J. P., & Keller, T.E. (2017, January). 

Understanding and preventing premature closures of youth mentoring relationships: 

Mentor, parent and program staff perspectives. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of 

the Society for Social Work and Research, New Orleans, LA. 

Miranda-Diaz, M., Keller, T. E., & Spencer, R. (2017, January). Volunteering for youth: 

Motivations of adults becoming mentors to youth. Paper presented at the Annual Conference 

of the Society for Social Work and Research, New Orleans, LA. 

National Mentoring Conferences 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice 
 

69 

Keller, T.E., Spencer, R., Gowdy, G., Drew, A. L., & McCormack, M., Horn, J. P., & MirandaDiaz, M. (2017, June). Understanding and preventing premature closures of youth 

mentoring relationships: Mentor, parent and program staff perspectives. Workshop 

presented at Big Brothers Big Sisters of America National Conference, San Diego, CA. 

Keller, T.E., & Spencer, R. (2017, February). A systemic view of youth mentoring relationship 

closures: Preliminary findings from the STAR project. Workshop presented at MENTOR 

National Mentoring Summit, Washington, D.C. 

Keller, T.E., Miranda-Diaz, M., Clark-Shim, H., & Spencer, R. (2016, August). Learning more 

about match closures: New questions and new perspectives. Workshop presented at 

Summer Institute on Youth Mentoring, Portland, OR. 

Spencer, R., Drew, A., Gowdy, G., Horn, J. P., & Keller, T.E. (2016, August). It takes a 

village...to break up a match. Workshop presented at Summer Institute on Youth 

Mentoring, Portland, OR. 

Spencer, R., Gowdy, G., Drew, A., Horn, J. P., & Keller, T.E. (2016, August). It takes a 

village...to end a match well. Workshop presented at Summer Institute on Youth 

Mentoring, Portland, OR. 

Gowdy, G., Spencer, R., Keller, T.E., Drew, A., & McCormack, M. (2016, June). Preventing 

early match closures. Workshop presented at Big Brothers Big Sisters of America 

National Conference, Orlando, FL. 

Spencer, R., McCormack, M., Gowdy, G., Drew, A., Abrams, E., & Keller, T.E. (2016, January). 

STAR Study: Investigating matching and relationship development. Workshop presented 

at MENTOR National Mentoring Summit, Washington, D.C. 

Webinars 

Keller, T.E., & Spencer, R. (2016, July). Study To Analyze Relationships (STAR). MENTOROJJDP Webinar Series. 

Spencer, R. & Keller, T. (2017, June). Why and how matches end matters - a lot. Webinar 

presentation for Mentoring Works Washington. 

Blog Posts 

Keller, T.E. (2017, March). STAR Project: A Systemic View of Youth Mentoring Match Closures. 

National Mentoring Resource Center Blog available at: 

http://www.nationalmentoringresourcecenter.org/index.php/nmrc-blog/249-star-projecta-systemic-view-of-youth-mentoring-match-closures.html 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice 
70 

Future Research. As previously noted, many additional analyses using data generated 

by the STAR project are planned. Initially, the research team will continue to focus on the central 

research questions presented above. 

What factors predict whether and when a match closes? A series of analyses will use the 

baseline assessments of individual factors outlined in appendix A (for mentor, youth, 

parent/guardian, MSS) as predictors of match duration survival curves as well as a dichotomous 

indicator of 12-month retention. To investigate the significance of match-making decisions, 

additional analyses will evaluate interactions and combinations of mentor, youth, and parentguardian factors. 

What are the reasons for early match closures? This question will be investigated further 

using mixed methods approaches drawing from the post-closure surveys and the in-depth 

qualitative interviews. 

How is the match closure process managed by programs and participants? This question 

also will be investigated using mixed methods approaches. The qualitative interviews are 

expected to highlight the complexities and nuances encountered in the closure process. 

Data generated from the STAR project also provides the opportunity to investigate 

several other important questions. For example, future analyses will focus on the consequences 

of closure for match participants based on post-closure survey questions eliciting participant 

reactions and feelings about the experience. Another planned analysis will examine how the 

presence of a youth mental health condition may influence the development of a match. In 

addition, future analyses will compare the nature and quality of mentoring relationships among 

matches that close for different reasons. As a final example, analyses will investigate how the 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice 
 

 

 

 

71 

reasons for ending the mentoring relationship may vary according to the timing of the match 

closure. 

Beyond the STAR project, it would be fruitful for new studies to investigate questions 

regarding the endings of mentoring relationships as they occur in different program settings, such 

as school-based programs, group mentoring programs, and time-limited mentoring programs. 

Conclusion 

The STAR project was a comprehensive multi-method study obtaining detailed 

information about the development and duration of BBBS youth mentoring relationships from 

the multiple perspectives of mentors, youth, parents/guardians, and program staff. Based on the 

analyses conducted to date, the following overall conclusions can be drawn from this research. 

 The various relationships involving parents, mentees, mentors, and program staff can 

each have an influence on the success of the mentoring relationship. 

 Analyzing the network of relationships among parents, mentees, mentors, and program 

staff is important for identifying the factors that determine early match closure. 

 Parents, mentees, mentors, and program staff may have different perceptions regarding 

the expectations, goals, and effectiveness of the match. 

 A relationship between any of the parties (parents, mentee, mentors, and program staff) 

strained due to miscommunication, cultural insensitivity and misunderstanding, or 

misaligned expectations can threaten the match and lead to early closure, with the 

potential for disappointment and negative outcomes. 

The STAR project has incorporated several strategies to facilitate interaction with the 

practice community regarding study results, interpretations, and implications. As an indication of 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice 
 

72 

the potential for this research to improve program practice, resource materials inspired by the 

findings have been developed and disseminated by the OJJDP-funded National Mentoring 

Resource Center. Forthcoming publications based on the research will highlight findings with 

direct relevance for enhancing program delivery and improving the experiences of participants in 

youth mentoring programs. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice 
 

73 

References 

Allison, P. D. (1984). Event history analysis: Regression for longitudinal event data. Newbury 

Park, CA: Sage Publications. 

Armsden, G. C., & Greenberg, M. T. (1987). The inventory of parent and peer attachment: 

Individual differences and their relationship to psychological well-being in adolescence. 

Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 16,(5), 427-454. 

Bernstein, L., Dun Rappaport, C., Olsho, L., Hunt, D., & Levin, M. (2009). Impact evaluation of 

the U.S. Department of Education’s Student Mentoring Program (NCEE 2009-4047). 

Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, 

Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from 

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/ 

Bouffard, J. A.,& Bergseth, K. J. (2008). The impact of reentry services on juvenile offenders’

recidivism. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 6(3), 295-318. 

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in 

Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. 

Britner, P. A., Kraimer-Rickaby, L., DuBois, D. L., & Karcher, M. J. (2005). Abused and 

neglected youth. In D. L. DuBois & M. J. Karcher (Eds.), Handbook of youth mentoring. (pp. 

482-492). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 

Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a 

multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(1), 113-126. 

Davis, M. H., Hall, J. A., & Meyer, M. (2003). The first year: Influences on the satisfaction, 

involvement, and persistence of new community volunteers. Personality and Social 

Psychology Bulletin, 29(2), 248-260. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice 
74 

Deutsch, N. L., Lawrence, E. C., Henneberger, A. K. (2014). Social Class. In D.L. DuBois, & 

M.J. Karcher (Eds.), Handbook of youth mentoring (pp. 175–188, 2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, 

CA: SAGE. 

DuBois, D. L., B. E. Holloway, et al. (2002). Effectiveness of mentoring programs for youth: A 

meta-analytic review. American Journal of Community Psychology , 30(2), 157-197. 

DuBois, D. L., Neville, H. A., Parra, G. R., & Pugh-Lilly, A. O. (2002). Testing a new model of 

mentoring. In J. E. Rhodes (Ed.), A critical view of youth mentoring (pp. 21-57). San 

Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 

DuBois, D. L., Portillo, N., Rhodes, J. E., Silverthorn, N., & Valentine, J. C. (2011). How 

effective are mentoring programs for youth? A systematic assessment of the evidence. 

Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 12(2), 57-91. 

DuBois, D. L., & Silverthorn, N. (2005). Characteristics of natural mentoring relationships and 

adolescent adjustment: Evidence from a national study. Journal of Primary Prevention, 

26, 69-92. 

Fraley, R.C., Waller, N.G., & Brennan, K.A. (2000). An item response theory analysis of selfreport measures of adult attachment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 2, 

350-365. 

Garringer, M., McQuillin, S., & McDaniel, H. (2017). Examining youth mentoring services 

across America: Findings from the 2016 National Mentoring Program Survey. Boston, MA: 

MENTOR: The National Mentoring Partnership. 

Glaser, S.R., Zamanou, S, & Hacker, K. (1987). Measuring and interpreting organizational 

culture. Management Communication Quarterly, 1, 2, 173-198. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice 
 

 

75 

Goodman R (1997) The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: A Research Note. Journal of 

Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 38, 581-586. 

Grossman, J. B., Chan, C., Schwartz, S., & Rhodes, J. E. (2012). The test of time in school-based 

mentoring: The role of relationship duration and re-matching on academic outcomes. 

American Journal of Community Psychology, 49, 43-54. 

Grossman, J. B., & Rhodes, J. E. (2002). The test of time: Predictors and effects of duration in 

youth mentoring programs. American Journal of Community Psychology,30, 199-219. 

Harris, J. T., & Nakkula, M. J. (2003a). Match Characteristics Questionnaire, v2.0. Cambridge, 

MA: Harvard Graduate School of Education. 

Harris, J. T., & Nakkula, M. J. (2003b). Youth Mentoring Survey. Cambridge, MA: Harvard 

Graduate School of Education. 

Herrera, C., DuBois, D.L., & Grossman, J. (2013). The role of risk: Mentoring experiences and 

outcomes for youth with varying risk profiles. New York, NY: A Public/Private Ventures 

project distributed by MDRC. 

Herrera, C., Grossman, J. B., Kauh, T., & McMaken, J. (2011). Mentoring in schools: An impact 

study of Big Brothers Big Sisters school‐based mentoring. Child Development, 82(1), 346-

361. 

Herrera, C., Grossman, J. B., Kauh, T. J., Feldman, A. F., McMaken, J., & Jucovy, L. Z. (2007). 

Making a difference in schools: The Big Brothers Big Sisters School-Based Mentoring 

Impact Study. Philadelphia: Public/Private Ventures. 

Horvath, A. O., & Greenberg, L. S. (1989). Development and validation of the Working Alliance 

Inventory. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 36(2), 223-233. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

76 

Huberty, C. J., DiStefano, C., & Kamphaus, R. W. (1997). Behavioral clustering of school 

children. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 32(2), 105-134. 

John, O. P., Donahue, E. M., & Kentle, R. L. (1991). The Big Five Inventory--Versions 4a and 

54. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley, Institute of Personality and Social 

Research. 

John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five Trait Taxonomy: History, measurement, and 

theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of Personality: 

Theory and Research (2nd ed., pp. 102-138), New York: Guilford Press. 

Johnson, J. M. (2002). In-depth interviewing. In J. F. Gubrium & J. A. Holstein (Eds.), 

Handbook of interview research: Context and method (pp. 103-119). Thousand Oaks, 

CA: Sage. 

Karcher, M. J. (2005). The effects of school-based developmental mentoring and mentors' 

attendance on mentees' self-esteem, behavior, and connectedness. Psychology in the 

Schools, 42, 65-77. 

Karcher, M. J., Davidson, A. J., Rhodes, J. E., & Herrera, C. (2010). Pygmalion in the program: 

The role of teenage peer mentors' attitudes in shaping their mentees' outcomes. Applied 

Developmental Science 14(4), 212-227. 

Karcher, M. J., & Lindwall, J. (2003). Social interest, connectedness, and challenging 

experiences: What makes high school mentors persist?. The Journal of Individual 

Psychology, 59(3), 293-315. 

Keller, T. E. (2005a). The stages and development of mentoring relationships. In D. L. DuBois & 

M. J. Karcher (Eds.), Handbook of youth mentoring (pp. 82-99). Thousand Oaks, CA: 

Sage. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice 
 

77 

Keller, T. E. (2005b). A systemic model of the youth mentoring intervention. Journal of 

Primary Prevention, 26. 169-188. 

Keller, T. E. (2007). Youth mentoring: Theoretical and methodological issues. In T. D. Allen, L. 

T. Eby, T. D. Allen, L. T. Eby (Eds.) , The Blackwell handbook of mentoring: A multiple 

perspectives approach (pp. 23-47). Malden: Blackwell Publishing. 

Kurdek, L. A., Fine, M. A., & Sinclair, R. J. (1995). School adjustment in sixth graders: 

Parenting transitions, family climate, and peer norm effects. Child Development, 66, 430-

445. 

Lynch, M., & Cicchetti, D. (1991). Patterns of relatedness in maltreated and nonmaltreated 

children: Connections among multiple representational models. Development & 

Psychopathology, 3, 207-226. 

Lynch, M., & Cicchetti, D. (1997). Children's relationships with adults and peers: An 

examination of elementary and junior high school students. Journal of School Psychology, 

96, 81-99. 

Matheny, A. P., Wachs, T.D, Ludwig, J.L., & Phillips, K. (1995). “Bringing Order Out of Chaos: 

Psychometric Characteristics of the Confusion, Hubbub, and Order Scale.” Journal of 

Applied Developmental Psychology, 16, 429-444. 

McCutcheon, Allan L. 1987. Latent class analysis, Sage University Paper series on Quantitative 

Applications in the Social Sciences, series no. 07-064. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 

Meissen, G. J. & Lounsbury, J. W. (1981). A comparison of expectations of volunteers, children, 

and parents in a Big Brother-Big Sister program. Journal of Community Psychology 9(3), 

250-256. 

Morrow, K. V. & Styles, M. B. (1995). Building relationships with youth in program settings: A 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice 
 

 

78 

study of Big Brothers/Big Sisters. Philadelphia, Public/Private Ventures. 

Palomo, M., Beinart, H. & Cooper, M. (2010). Development and validation of the Supervisory 

Relationship Questionnaire (SRQ) in UK trainee clinical psychologists. British Journal of 

Clinical Psychology, 49, 131-149. 

Pearlin, L. I., Lieberman, M. A., Menaghan, E. G., & Mullan, J. T. (1981). The stress process. 

Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 22, 337-356. 

Rhodes, J. E., Contreras, J. M., & Mangelsdorf, S. C. (1994). Natural mentor relationships 

among Latina adolescent mothers: Psychological adjustment, moderating processes, and 

the role of early parental acceptance. American Journal of Community Psychology, 22(2), 

211-227. 

Rhodes, J. E., & DuBois, D. L. (2006). Understanding and facilitating the youth mentoring 

movement. Social Policy Report, 20(3), 3-19. 

Rhodes, J. E., Lowe, S. R., Litchfield, L., & Walsh-Samp, K. (2008). The role of gender in youth 

mentoring relationship formation and duration. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 72(2), 

183-192. 

Rhodes, J., Ranjini, R.,Roffman, J., & Grossman, J. B. (2005). Promoting successful youth 

mentoring relationships: A preliminary screening questionnaire. The Journal of Primary 

Prevention, 26, 147-167. 

Rusbult, C.E., Martz, J.M., & Agnew, C.R. (1998). The Investment Model Scale: Measuring 

commitment level, satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and investment size. Personal 

Relationships, 5, 357-391. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice 
 

 

 

 

79 

Sanchez, B., Colón-Torres, Y., Feuer, R., Roundfield, K.E., & Berardi, L. (2014). Race, ethnicity, 

and culture in mentoring relationships. In D.L. DuBois, & M.J. Karcher (Eds.), Handbook of 

youth mentoring (pp. 145–158, 2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. 

Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2003). UWES – Utrecht Work Engagement Scale: Test 

Manual. Utrecht, The Netherlands: Department of Psychology, Utrecht University. 

Schwartz, S. E. O., Rhodes, J. E., Chan, C. S., & Herrera, C. (2011). The impact of school-based 

mentoring on youths with different relational profiles. Developmental Psychology 47(2), 

450-462. 

Seidman, I. E. (1991). Interviewing as qualitative research. New York, NY: Teachers College 

Press. 

Shelton, K. K., Frick, P. J., & Wootton, J. (1996). Assessment of parenting practices in families 

of elementary school-age children. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 25(3), 317-329. 

Shlafer, R. J., Poehlmann, J., Coffino, B., & Hanneman, A. (2009). Mentoring children with 

incarcerated parents: Implications for research, practice, and policy. Family Relations, 

58(5), 507-519. 

Slicker, E. K. & Palmer, D. J. (1993). Mentoring at-risk high school students: Evaluation of a 

school-based program. The School Counselor, 40, 327-334. 

Spencer, R. (2007). "It's not what I expected": A qualitative study of youth mentoring 

relationship failures. Journal of Adolescent Research, 22(4), 331-354. 

Spencer, R., Basualdo-Delmonico, A., & Lewis, T. O. (2011). Working to make it work: The 

role of parents in the youth mentoring process. Journal of Community Psychology, 39(1), 51-59. 

Spencer, R., Martin, N. C., Basualdo-Delmonico, A., Walsh, J. & Jeon, S. M. (2010, November). 

Youth mentoring relationships: The role of mentor expectations and characteristics in 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice 
80 

relationship closeness and duration. Poster presented at 138th American Public Health 

Association Annual Meeting, Denver, CO. 

Tierney, J. P., Grossman, J. B., & Resch, N. (1995). Making a difference: An impact study of Big 

Brothers/Big Sisters. Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private Ventures. 

Tolan, P., Henry, D., Schoeny, M., & Bass, A. (2008). Mentoring interventions to affect 

juvenile delinquency and associated problems. Campbell Systematic Reviews 16: 1-112. 

Way, N. (1998). Everyday courage: The lives and stories of urban teenagers. NYU Press. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice 
81 

Appendix A: STAR Baseline Survey Constructs and Measures 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice 
 

 

82 

Mentor Baseline Survey 

Construct Title Source Items 

Motivations for volunteering Volunteer Motives Scale Davis, Hall, & Meyer, 2003 24 

Motivations for mentoring Mentor Motivations Scale Original 11 

Experience with youth Herrera, DuBois & Grossman, 

2013 

6 

Mentoring goals/strategies Herrera, DuBois & Grossman, 

2013 

14 

Matching preferences Original 8 

Mentoring relational efficacy Original 14 

Match focus/approach Match Characteristics 

Questionnaire 

Harris & Nakkula, 2003 20 

Personality Big Five Inventory (BFI-44) John, Donahue, & Kentle, 1991 44 

Perceived self-efficacy Mastery scale Pearlin et al., 1981 7 

Entity mindset Entity Mindset Scale Dweck, 1999 4 

Grit Short Grit Scale Duckworth & Quinn, 2009 8 

Attachment dimensions Experiences in Close 

Relationships 

Questionnaire-Revised 

Fraley, Waller & Brennan, 2000 24 

Safe haven/secure base Network Relationships 

Inventory 

Furman & Buhrmester, 2009 6 

Secure base in childhood Parent as Secure Base 

Scale 

Woodhouse, Dykas & Cassidy, 

2009 

16 

Empathy Interpersonal Reactivity Davis, 1983 17 

Conflict resolution style Rahim Organizational 

Conflict Inventory—II 

Rahim, 1983 20 

Psychological well-being Scales of Psychological 

Well-Being 

Ryff, 1989 34 

Anticipated difficulties Original 10 

Attitudes toward youth Herrera et al., 2007; Karcher et 

al., 2010 

7 

Attitudes toward parents Original (DuBois, Keller & 

Chehade, 2011) 

11 

Attitude toward poverty Short Form of Attitudes 

Toward Poverty Scale 

Yun & Weaver, 2010 12 

Ethnocultural empathy Scale of Ethnocultural 

Empathy 

Wang et al., 2003 12 

Program support Staff Support Scale Karcher, 2004 7 

Training quality Herrera, DuBois & Grossman, 

2013 

9 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice 
 

 

83 

Parent/Guardian Baseline Survey 

Construct Title Source Items 

Parent motivations for 

mentoring 

Original 10 

Mentoring history Original 12 

Mentoring goals/strategies Herrera, DuBois & Grossman, 

2013 

14 

Parent match focus Match Characteristics 

Questionnaire 

Harris & Nakkula, 2003 (adapted 

and extended) 

25 

Anticipated difficulties Original 10 

Parent-child relationship 

quality 

Parent-Child Relationship 

Scale 

Pianta, 1992 15 

Parent-child relationship 

dimensions 

Network Relationships 

Inventory 

Furman & Buhrmester, 2009 18 

Home environment Confusion, Hubbub & Order 

Scale 

Matheny, Wachs, Ludwig, & 

Phillips, 1995 

13 

Caregiver strain Caregiver Strain 

Questionnaire 

Brannan, Heflinger, & Bickman, 

1997 

9 

Parenting practices Alabama Parenting 

Questionnaire 

Shelton, Frick & Wootton, 1996 12 

Child’s personality Big Five Inventory (BFI46AP) John & Srivastava, 1999 46 

Child’s behavior Strengths & Difficulties 

Questionnaire 

Goodman, 1997 25 

Risk factors Risk Factor Index Herrera, DuBois & Grossman, 

2013 

38 

Material hardship Mistry et al, 2002 7 

Community risks and 

resources 

Forehand et al, 2000, Dahlberg 

et al., 2005, SCDRC, 2010. 

16 

Conflict resolution style Rahim Organizational 

Conflict Inventory—II 

Rahim, 1983 20 

Entity mindset Entity Mindset Scale Dweck, 1999 4 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice 
 

 

84 

Youth Baseline Survey 

Construct Title Source Items 

Extracurricular activities Original 5 

Youth motivations for 

mentoring 

Original 10 

Parent-child relationship Inventory of Parent & Peer 

Attachment-Revised (IPPA-R) 

Armsden & Greenberg, 1987 

Gullone & Robinson, 2005 

28 

Family Climate Family Climate Inventory Kurdek, Fine & Sinclair, 1995 17 

Child Behaviors Strengths & Difficulties 

Questionnaire 

Goodman, 1997 25 

Personality Big Five Inventory (BFI-46A) John & Srivastava, 1999 46 

Self-efficacy Self-efficacy Scale Walker & Arbreton, 2002 8 

Hope Children’s Hope Scale Snyder et al., 1997 6 

Peer group antisocial 

behavior 

Latendresse et al., 2011 6 

Loneliness Loneliness and Social 

Dissatisfaction Scale 

Asher, Hymel & Renshaw, 

1984 

11 

Peer victimization Orpinas & Kelder, 1995 6 

Student-teacher relationship People in My Life 

Questionnaire 

Murray & Greenberg, 2000 11 

School bonding People in My Life 

Questionnaire 

Murray & Greenberg, 2000 11 

School misbehavior Herrera, DuBois & Grossman, 

2013 

3 

Adult support Herrera, DuBois & Grossman, 

2013 

10 

Special adult Herrera, DuBois & Grossman, 

2013 

2 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice 
 

 

85 

Match Support Specialist Baseline Survey 

Construct Title Source Items 

Education/training/work 

experience 

Original 6 

Experience with youth Herrera, DuBois & 

Grossman, 2013 

6 

Mentoring goals/strategies Herrera, DuBois & 

Grossman, 2013 

14 

Time/task distribution Original (DuBois, Keller & 

Chehade, 2011) 

Match focus/approach Match Characteristics 

Questionnaire 

Harris & Nakkula, 2003 20 

Match support calls Original (DuBois, Keller & 

Chehade, 2011) 

33 

Supervisory style with mentors Original (DuBois, Keller & 

Chehade, 2011) 

43 

Self-efficacy for match support Original (DuBois, Keller & 

Chehade, 2011) 

23 

Conflict resolution style Rahim Organizational Conflict 

Inventory—II (adapted) 

Rahim, 1983 32 

Attitudes toward youth Herrera et al., 2007; 

Karcher et al., 2010 

7 

Attitudes toward mentors Original (DuBois, Keller & 

Chehade, 2011) 

11 

Attitudes toward parents Original (DuBois, Keller & 

Chehade, 2011) 

11 

Personality Big Five Inventory (BFI-44) John, Donahue, & Kentle, 

1991 

44 

Attitude toward poverty Short Form of Attitudes 

Toward Poverty Scale 

Yun & Weaver, 2010 12 

Ethnocultural empathy Scale of Ethnocultural 

Empathy 

Wang et al., 2003 12 

Empathy Interpersonal Reactivity Davis, 1983 13 

Perceived self-efficacy Mastery scale Pearlin et al., 1981 7 

Entity mindset Entity Mindset Scale Dweck, 1999 4 

Task management Environmental Mastery 

Subscale of Scales of 

Psychological Well-Being 

Ryff, 1989 4 

Job stress/burnout Oldenberg Burnout Inventory Demerouti, Mostert & 

Bakker, 2010 

14 

Job satisfaction Gardiner, 2005 3 

Intention to leave Mor Barak et al., 2006 5 

Work engagement Dedication subscale of 

Utrecht Work Engagement 

Scale 

Schaufeli et al., 2002 4 

Quality of supervision Supervisory Relationship 

Questionnaire 

Palomo, Beinart & Cooper, 

2010 

24 

Organizational culture Organizational culture survey Glaser, Zamanou & Hacker, 

1987 

15 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

86 

References 

Armsden, G. C., & Greenberg, M. T. (1987). The inventory of parent and peer attachment: Individual 

differences and their relationship to psychological well-being in adolescence. Journal of Youth and 

Adolescence, 16, 5, 427-454. 

Asher, S.R., Hymel, S., & Renshaw, P.D. (1984). Loneliness in children. Child Development, 55, 4, 1456-

1464. 

Brannan, A.M., Heflinger, C.A., Bickman, L. (1997). The Caregiver Strain Questionnaire: Measuring the 

impact on the family of living with a child with serious emotional disturbance. Journal of Emotional 

and Behavioral Disorders, 5, 4, 212-222. 

Dahlberg LL, Toal SB, Swahn M, Behrens CB. (2005). Measuring Violence-Related Attitudes, Behaviors, 

and Influences Among Youths: A Compendium of Assessment Tools, 2nd ed., Atlanta, GA: Centers 

for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. 

Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional 

approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 1, 113-126. 

Davis, M. H., Hall, J. A., & Meyer, M. (2003). The first year: Influences on the satisfaction, involvement, 

and persistence of new community volunteers. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(2), 

248-260. 

Demerouti, E., Mostert, K., Bakker, A.B. (2010). Burnout and work engagement: A thorough investigation 

of the independency of both constructs. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 15, 3, 209-222. 

DuBois, D.L., Keller, T.E., Chehade, S. (2011). Measures developed for Youth-Centered Match Support 

study. University of Illinois-Chicago: Unpublished. 

Duckworth, A.L., & Quinn, P.D. (2009). Development and validation of the short grit scale (Grit-S). Journal 

of Personality Assessment, 91, 2, 166-174. 

Dweck, C. S. (1999). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. Philadelphia: 

Psychology Press. 

Forehand, R., Brody, G.H., & Armistead, L., et al. (2000). The role of community risks and resources in 

the psychosocial adjustment of at-risk children: An examination across two community contexts and 

two informants. Behavior Therapy, 13, 395-414. 

Fraley, R.C., Waller, N.G., & Brennan, K.A. (2000). An item response theory analysis of self-report 

measures of adult attachment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 2, 350-365. 

Furman, W., & Buhrmester, D. (2009). The network of relationships inventory: Behavioral systems version. 

International journal of behavioral development, 33(5), 470-478. 

Gardiner, M. (2005). Making a difference: Flinders University mentoring scheme for early career women. 

Adelaide, Australia: Flinders Press. Goodman R (1997) The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: 

A Research Note. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 38, 581-586. 

Glaser, S. R., Zamanou, S., & Hacker, K. (1987). Measuring and interpreting organizational culture. 

Management Communication Quarterly, 1(2), 173-198. 

Gullone, E., & Robinson, K. (2005). The Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment-Revised (IPPA-R) for 

Children: A psychometric investigation. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, 12, 67-79. 

Harris, J. T., & Nakkula, M. J. (2003). Match Characteristics Questionnaire, v2.0. Cambridge, MA: 

Harvard Graduate School of Education 

Herrera, C., Grossman, J. B., Kauh, T. J., Feldman, A. F., McMaken, J., & Jucovy, L. Z. (2007). Making a 

difference in schools: The Big Brothers Big Sisters School-Based Mentoring Impact Study. 

Philadelphia: Public/Private Ventures. 

Herrera, C., DuBois, D.L., & Grossman, J. (2013). The role of risk: Mentoring experiences and outcomes 

for youth with varying risk profiles. New York, NY: A Public/Private Ventures project distributed by 

MDRC. 

John, O. P., Donahue, E. M., & Kentle, R. L. (1991). The Big Five Inventory--Versions 4a and 54. 

Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley, Institute of Personality and Social Research. 

John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five Trait Taxonomy: History, measurement, and 

theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of Personality: Theory and 

Research (2nd ed., pp. 102-138), New York: Guilford Press. 

Karcher, M. J. (2004). W. T. Grant-Funded UTSA Study of Mentoring in the Learning Environment 

(SMILE): Year 1 Results. San Antonio: University of Texas at San Antonio. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

87 

Karcher, M. J., Davidson, A., Rhodes, J. E., & Herrera, C. (2010). Pygmalion in the program: The role of 

teenage peer mentors’ attitudes in shaping their mentees’ outcomes. Applied Developmental

Science, 14, 4, 1-16. 

Kurdek, L. A., Fine, M. A., & Sinclair, R. J. (1995). School adjustment in sixth graders: Parenting 

transitions, family climate, and peer norm effects. Child Development, 66, 430-445. 

Latendresse, S.J., Bates, J.E., Goodnight, J.A., Lansford, J.E., Budde, J.P. et al. (2011). Differential 

susceptibility to adolescent externalizing trajectories: Examining the interplay between CHRM2 and 

peer group antisocial behavior. Child Development, 82, 6, 1797-1814. 

Matheny, A.P., Wachs, T.D., Ludwig, J.L., & Phillips, K. (1995). Bringing order out of chaos: Psychometric 

characteristics of the Confusion, Hubbub, and Order Scale. Journal of Applied Developmental 

Psychology, 16, 429-444. 

Mistry, R.S., Vandewater, E.A., Huston, A.C., & McLoyd, V.C. (2002). Economic well-being and children’s

social adjustment: The role of family process in an ethnically diverse low-income sample. Child 

Development, 73, 3, 935-951. 

Mor Barak, M.E., Levin, A., Nissly, J.A., & Lane, C.J. (2006). Why do they leave? Modeling child welfare 

workers’ turnover intentions. Children and Youth Services Review, 28, 548-577. 

Murray C, Greenberg MT (2000) Children’s relationship with teachers and bonds with school: an 

investigation of patterns and correlates in middle childhood. Journal of School Psychology, 38, 423–

445. 

Orpinas, P., & Kelder, S. (1995). Students for Peace Project: Second student evaluation. Unpublished 

manuscript. Houston, TX: University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, School of Public 

Health. 

Palomo, M., Beinart, H., & Cooper, M. J. (2010). Development and validation of the Supervisory 

Relationship Questionnaire (SRQ) in UK trainee clinical psychologists. British Journal of Clinical 

Psychology, 49, 131-149. 

Pascarella, E.T., Edison, M., Nora, A., Hagedorn, L.S., & Terenzini, P.T. (1996). Influences on students' 

openness to diversity and challenge in the first year of college. The Journal of Higher Education, 67, 

2, 174-195. 

Pearlin, L.I., Menaghan, E.G., Lieberman, M.A., & Mullan, J.T. (1981). The stress process. Journal of 

Health & Social Behavior, 22, 4, 337-356. 

Pianta, R. (1992). Parent-child relationship scales. Unpublished manuscript. 

Rahim, M.A. (1983). A measure of styles of handling interpersonal conflict. The Academy of Management 

Journal, 26, 2, 368-376. 

Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological wellbeing. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 57(6), 1069-1081. 

Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., Gonzailez-Romi, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurement of 

engagement and burnout: a confirmative analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3, 71-92. 

Shelton, K.K., Frick, P.J., & Wootton, J. (1996). Assessment of parenting practices in families of 

elementary school-age children. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 25, 3, 317-329. 

Snyder, C.R., Hoza, B., Pelham, W.E., Rapoff, M., Ware, L., Danovsky, M., et al. (1997). The 

development and validation of the Children’s Hope Scale. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 22, 3, 

399-421. 

Social and Character Development Research Consortium (2010). Efficacy of Schoolwide Programs to 

Promote Social and Character Development and Reduce Problem Behavior in Elementary School 

Children (NCER 2011-2001). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Research, Institute of 

Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. 

Walker, K. E., & Arbreton, A. J. A. (2004). After-school pursuits: An examination of outcomes in the San 

Francisco Beacon Initiative. Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private Ventures 

Wang, Y., Davidson, M. M., Yakushko, O. F., Savoy, H. B., Tan, J. A., & Bleier, J. K. (2003). The scale of 

ethnocultural empathy: Development, validation, and reliability. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 

50(2), 221-234. 

Wooodhouse, S.S., Dykas, M.J., & Cassidy, J. (2009). Perceptions of secure base provision within the 

family, Attachment & Human Development, 11, 1, 47-67. 

Yun, S. H., & Weaver, R. D. (2010). Development and validation of a short form of the attitude toward 

poverty scale. Advances in Social Work, 11(2), 174-187. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice