Evidence Rating for this Practice:
Insufficient Research (Insufficient Evidence: 4 Studies and 5 Tests of the Practice)
In all 4 of the studies reviewed, the methodology used for assessing effects of the practice did not meet relevant criteria for rigor. As a result, these studies were each designated as Insufficient Evidence and the practice as a whole is designated as Insufficient Research. This rating is based on currently available research and may change as new research becomes available.
Description of Practice:
Family engagement involves efforts by the mentoring program to support positive engagement of the mentee’s parent or caregiver and/or other members of the mentee’s family in the mentoring process. Family engagement can take several forms, including orientation or training for parents/caregivers prior to the start of the mentoring relationship, planning and sponsoring activities that bring the youth, mentor and parent/caregiver and/or other family members together, and periodic check-ins with parents/caregivers during the course of the mentoring relationship. Also possible are related practices that do not directly involve the parent/caregiver or other family members. Mentors, for example, may receive training or ongoing coaching from program staff on how to partner effectively with the mentee’s parent/caregiver. The timing and intensity of family engagement practices can vary widely, from one-time events at the start of the relationship (e.g., initial orientation) to those that are frequent and ongoing (e.g., monthly support contacts with parents). With respect to the three approaches to family involvement in mentoring programs identified in research by Spencer & Basualdo-Delmonico (2014), family engagement would include the approaches of Involving (providing information and education to parents, primarily to avoid having them become potential “road blocks” in the mentoring process) and Collaborating (partnering with parents as experts on their children and assets to be leveraged in support of the mentoring process), but not the approach of Engaging and Serving, which is focused instead on addressing the broader needs of the family. As this suggests, family engagement should be distinguished from the practice of family support as reviewed by the National Mentoring Resource Center, in which the goal is to support the mentee’s family, such as through skill-building workshops for parents or connecting families to community resources. Family engagement is also different from family mentoring arrangements in which the aim is to have mentors engage in supportive interactions with entire families (Taylor & Porcellini, 2014).
The primary goal of the practice is to support and strengthen the mentoring relationship and promote positive outcomes for the mentee by increasing parent/family engagement in and support for the relationship.
Target Population/Eligibility of Target Sites:
This practice is potentially applicable to all forms of mentoring and the full range of youth who may be served by programs.
Theory and Evidence-Informed Principles:
The practice of family engagement is consistent with Parental Acceptance Theory, which implies that parental support for the mentoring relationship can facilitate the mentee’s ‘receptivity’ to the mentor and his or her support and thus facilitate positive mentee outcomes (Taylor & Porcellini, 2014). Similarly, Keller’s systemic model of mentoring (2005) suggests that the mentoring relationship is embedded within a network of reciprocal relationships that includes the youth, the mentor, the parent/guardian, and the agency personnel and that within this system family engagement (e.g., involving parents in relationship support contacts) may help enable positive and effective mentoring relationships. Social Network Theory, furthermore, suggests that engagement of family members more broadly in the mentoring relationship (for example, not only parents but also others such as grandparents, foster parents, siblings, or other caregivers), may help to foster a useful ‘team’ approach to supporting the mentoring relationship (Keller & Blakeslee, 2014). In broad alignment with these possibilities, qualitative research incorporating the perspectives of mentors and parents points to the significance of open and consistent communication and collaboration between mentors and parents in facilitating effective mentoring relationships (Lakind, Atkins, & Eddy, 2015; Spencer, Basualdo-Delmonico, & Lewis, 2011).
Corresponding Elements of Effective Practice:
This practice is most relevant to the area of Monitoring and Support within the Elements of Effective Practice.
The successful implementation of this practice is likely to require staff to have skill and experience in the various methods that may be used to engage parents and other family members (e.g. orientation sessions, ongoing parent support, mentor training, etc). For example, where a training or workshop format is utilized, staff should have a mastery of the substantive content and be experienced with effective methods of group facilitation and instruction. Of key importance in all instances is likely to be program staff attunement to the interests and strengths of parents and other family members as well as those of mentors and youth as they relate to family engagement. Staff ideally will be experienced in the use of strategies that well-aligned with this principle (e.g., motivational interviewing).
Kaye & Smith (2014) tested the effects of a parent engagement intervention within the Big Brothers Big Sisters Capital Region (BBBSCR) mentoring program, which serves families residing in four counties in upstate New York. The intervention was developed based on feedback from parents and mentors indicating the need for improved communication with parents about the mentoring relationship. The intervention was designed to increase parental and mentor knowledge about and support for mentoring, to strengthen and lengthen the mentoring relationship, and to reduce precursors of delinquency. The intervention consisted of six components: 1) a parent orientation and 2) a parent handbook which oriented parents to the program and communication expectations; 3) a mentor training workshop that addressed potential challenges in the match; 4) enhanced match support calls that addressed a time relevant topic about the match such as reasons to call match support; 5) monthly parent postcards that reinforced verbal communication of topics; and 6) biannual family events that brought together parents, mentors, and youth to share a meal, engage in fun activities, and get to know each other.
Study participants consisted of families in the BBBSCR community-based program as well as those in a BBBSCR site-based mentoring program between November 2011 and November 2012. All newly enrolled matches (i.e., the youth, his or her mentor, and the youth’s primary parent or guardian) were recruited into the intervention group. Youth on the program waitlist constituted the comparison (treatment as usual) group. The study sample consisted of 125 matches with 63 matches in the intervention group and 62 in the comparison group; 97 matches were in the community-based program and 28 were in the site-based program.
The median age of participating youth was 10 years; 62 percent were female; 47 percent were Black, 29 percent were White, and 20 percent were multi-racial. Eighty-five percent of youth were eligible for free or reduced school lunch and 40 percent had a medical and/or psychological diagnosis. Participating parents were predominately female (95%) and had a median age of 36 years; 46 percent were Black and 40 percent were White; 68 percent were single parents; 46 percent were employed; and 79 percent reported an annual household income of less than $30,000. Participating mentors were mostly female (66%) and had a median age of 26 years; 69 percent were White and 23 percent were Black; 57 percent were employed; and 38 percent were college students.
Study outcomes were measured at baseline (when the match was made) and one year later. Youth behavior problems and competencies were reported by parents and were measured using the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) Syndrome Profile scores (Anxious Depressed, Withdrawn Depressed, Somatic Complaints, Social Problems, Thoughts Problems, Attention Problems, Rule Breaking Behaviors, Aggressive Behavior, and Other Problems), combined syndrome scores (Internal Syndrome, External Syndrome, and Total Syndrome), DSM-Oriented Profile scores (Affective Problems, Anxiety Problems, Somatic Problems, ADHD Problems, Oppositional Defiant Problems, and Conduct Disorder), and 2007 Multicultural Supplement scores (Obsessive Compulsive Problems, Post Traumatic Stress Problems, and Sluggish Cognitive Tempo). GPA and attendance data, collected from school records, were used to create 2 academic performance scores (labeled Academic Mean and School Score respectively). Youth and mentor reports of relationship quality were collected using youth- and mentor-reports on the Strength of Relationship (SOR) survey of Big Brothers Big Sisters of America (BBBSA), which includes youth-reported subscales for coping, lack of disappointment, safety, importance, and closeness and mentor-reported subscales for connectedness, lack of frustration, confidence, closeness, and decision making. Data on mentoring relationship length and consistency of contacts between youth and mentors were collected from the BBBSA Agency Information Management (AIM) database. Relationship length was measured using a binary (yes/no) indicator of whether the match remained open for at least 12 months; consistency of contact was measured by the number of outings matches went on per month and by the number of hours matches spent together per month. Background data were collected using a youth enrollment questionnaire.
Regression analysis was used to test for intervention and comparison group differences on outcome measures. Propensity score weighing was used to account for baseline group differences resulting from study design limitations (no random assignment of participants into intervention and comparison groups). A probit model Propensity Score Analysis (PSA) was conducted to identify the most important group differences to include in the creation of the propensity score. The following six background and youth variables were included in the propensity score: parent employment, youth age, youth eligibility for free/reduced school lunch, child in therapy, and baseline CBCL Internal Syndrome and DSM Affective Problems scores. The analysis also accounted for the following treatment dosage and program practice variables: (1) half program dosage, representing whether participants received at least half of the basic program dosage, (2) treatment error, representing whether comparison group members received treatment in error, (3) parent participation in a previous (pre-study) version of parental orientation, (4) parent attendance at the biennial family event or mentor receipt of ETC training, (5) family effect, representing whether a family had multiple children in the study, and (6) program type (community-based or site-based).
Kaye & Smith (2014) found no significant difference, at one-year post-test, between youth in the intervention and comparison groups with regard to scores on any of the following scores on the CBCL: Internal Syndrome, External Syndrome, Total Syndrome, Affective Problems, Anxiety Problems, Somatic Problems, ADHD Problems, and Oppositional Defiant Problems.
Kaye & Smith (2014) found no significant difference, at post-test, between youth in the intervention and comparison groups with regard to GPA or school attendance.
Mentoring Relationship Quality
Kaye & Smith (2014) found no significant difference, at post-test, between youth in the intervention and comparison groups with regard to scores on any of the following mentoring relationship quality: youth-reported coping, lack of disappointment, safety, importance, or closeness and mentor-reported connectedness or confidence.
Mentoring Relationship Length and Consistency of Contacts
There was no significant difference, at post-test, between youth in the intervention and comparison groups in the proportion of matches that lasted at least 12 months, in the number of outings per month, or in the number of hours matches spent together per month.
Kaye & Smith (2014) also found no statistical differences at post-test between youth in the intervention and comparison groups on any of the remaining outcome measures that are not referenced above under Reviewed Findings.
Study 2 (Two tests of the practice: Parental engagement efforts and Parent activity and match support recommendations)
Parent engagement efforts – Insufficient Research; Parent activity and match support recommendations – Insufficient Evidence
Wheeler & DuBois (2009) examined correlates of practices relating to family engagement as part of a survey of 113 BBBSA affiliates regarding their community-based mentoring programs; the sample included 80 affiliates with data available in BBBSA’s web-based AIM system. Data were collected via an online survey conducted between May and September of 2009. The response rate was 34 percent for all affiliates (i.e., 131 of 385 total) and 81 percent for affiliates with AIM data. The survey included a number of questions related to how the affiliate engages parents and families, including whether the affiliate valued and used parental input during the match making process (reported by 93% of affiliates), whether parents were invited to affiliate events (reported by 29%), whether the affiliate had a family/parent liaison on staff (reported by 5%), and whether parents were provided with specific activities or recommendations for how they could support their child’s match goals (reported by 50%).
Analyses examined the associations of reported types of family engagement practice with average total scores on the BBBSA Strength of Relationship (SOR) survey as completed 3 months into the relationship by both the volunteer (Big Brother or Big Sister) and child as well as with measures of relationship duration (6 and 12 month retention rates, average match length). The first three questions listed above were combined and analyzed as a multi-item practice scale; the last question (about parental activities) was analyzed as a separate variable. The outcome measures were all derived from the AIM system and thus the analyses were limited to the subset of 80 responding affiliates with AIM data. On average, sixty percent of mentors in these affiliates were female and 29 percent were non-white. Additionally, on average, 81 percent of children served by the affiliates lived in one-parent households, 19 percent had an incarcerated parent, and 21 percent qualified for free or reduced school lunch.
Analyses included bivariate correlations between the practice and outcome measures as well as partial correlations that controlled for any of several assessed affiliate characteristics (e.g., % of women volunteers, % of children with 2 or more risk factors) that had a significant or near-significant (p < .10) correlation with the outcome measure being considered.
3-month SOR score
Wheeler & DuBois (2009) found a significant and positive correlation between the multi-item practice scale and 3-month volunteer-reported SOR scores and the correlation with 3-month child-reported SOR scores, although not statistically significant, was in a positive direction large enough to indicate an association of substantive magnitude. However, the corresponding correlations of volunteer- and youth-reported SOR scores with affiliate report of providing parents with specific activities or recommendations for how to support match goals were not significant.
Match Retention Rate
Wheeler & DuBois (2009) found no significant correlation between the multi-item practice scale and 6 and 12 month match retention rates (i.e. the % that lasted at least six months and twelve months). The corresponding correlation between providing parents with specific activities or recommendations and 6 month match retention was in a negative direction and, although not statistically significant, was large enough to indicate an association of substantive magnitude. The correlation between providing parents with specific activities or recommendations and 12 month match retention was negative and statistically significant.
Average Match Length
Wheeler & DuBois (2009) found no significant correlation between the multi-item practice scale and average match length. The corresponding correlation of average match length with report of providing parents with specific activities or recommendations, although also not statistically significant, was negative and large enough to indicate an association of substantive magnitude.
participants in match introduction meetings (reported by 98% of affiliates) and use of parental input in the goal-setting process (reported by 68%) were correlated with the above described measures of match quality and duration. Analyses revealed no significant correlations between involvement of parents in match introduction and any of the outcomes. Affiliate report of use of parental input in goal-setting was negatively and significantly correlated with average match length and exhibited non-significant positive associations of substantive magnitude with 3 month youth- and volunteer-reported SOR scores.
Herrera, DuBois, & Grossman (2013) examined correlates of family engagement as part of an evaluation of the effectiveness of seven community-based youth mentoring programs, 5 of which were those of BBBSA affiliates. Mentors in the programs were volunteers and provided one-on-one mentoring to youth. The evaluation included 1,310 youth who ranged in age from 8- to 15-years and were from a variety of ethnic backgrounds (23% African American, 22% Hispanic and 43% White). Based on parental report, almost all youth (99%) faced one or more environmental risk factors; approximately two-thirds (66%) lived in single-parent homes; 43 percent were from low-income households (i.e., annual incomes below $20,000); and 24 percent had a close family member who was incarcerated or had frequent problems with the law. Additionally, nearly three quarters of the youth (71%) experienced one or more individual risk factors, which were assessed in the areas of academic challenges, mental health concerns, and problem behaviors. Seventy-one percent of program participants had both environmental and individual risk factors; approximately one-fourth (26%) were designated as “high” on both types of risk.
Mentors in the various programs were predominately White (82%), had an average age of 32 years, and nearly one-quarter were college students (one of the programs was university-based and used college student as mentors). Nearly half of the mentors (44%) reported having prior experience working with youth with behavioral, social, or emotional difficulties and similar numbers reported experience working with youth from diverse cultural backgrounds (45%) and youth living in poverty (35%). Survey measures for the study were completed by youth, mentors, and parents both at baseline and at a 13-month follow-up.
Family engagement was measured using program-recorded data on the provision of support contacts to parents. These data indicated that programs provided regular support contacts (i.e., contacts during at least 70 percent of the months that the child’s mentoring relationship was active during the 13-month study period) for approximately half of the parents (48%). Analyses examined whether receiving parent support calls at this level was predictive of mentor-mentee meeting frequency (frequent meetings were defined as 3 or more meetings a month at least 70 percent of the months that the match was active) and the relationship lasting 12 months or more, each of which was assessed via program records, and relationship quality as reported by the youth (indices of levels of goal or growth focus and youth-centeredness in the relationship, respectively, and the youth’s feelings of closeness toward his or her mentor). In cases where the outcomes were dichotomous (i.e. meeting frequency and relationship lasting 12 months or more), analyses used logistic regression. Analyses also controlled for the youth’s gender, age, race/ethnicity, and risk status group as well as for program.
Herrera et al. (2013) found that receiving regular parent support (at least 70 percent of the months monitored in the study) was significantly and positively correlated with whether or not the mentor and mentee met on a regular basis, but not with whether the relationship lasted 12 months or more, mentor-reported level of growth/goal focus in the mentoring relationship, mentee-reported level of youth centeredness in the mentoring relationship, or mentee-reported feelings of closeness to mentors.
Herrera et al. (2013) also tested whether regular parent support contacts as a predictor of mentoring relationship outcomes varied according to youth individual and environmental risk status. No significant differences were found.
Big Brothers Big Sisters of Canada (BBBSC) (2016) examined correlates of family engagement as part of an evaluation of programmatic enhancement to its In-Schools Mentoring Program (ISM). At the time of the research, the ISM program provided mentors to 12,000 students through almost all 118 agencies in Canada. Volunteer mentors were screened and trained and engaged in one-on-one, one hour, weekly meetings with elementary school students in the school setting throughout the school year. Activities were collaboratively selected by the mentee and mentor and were aimed at fostering confidence and improving attitudes towards school, peers, and other adults.
The evaluation was conducted in 10 agencies, which collectively served about 1,300 students during the study period. Four programmatic enhancements/modifications were selected and each was implemented in at least one agency. The practice of family engagement was part of the network engagement modification, which sought to positively impact youth outcomes by building and improving connections between the mentor and other key individuals in the mentee’s life (e.g. parents, teachers, and peers). Mentors in the agencies implementing this modification were provided with a list of ways to be more engaged with members of the mentee’s network, including his or her home network (parent, step-parent, guardian, etc). Mentors were not expected to implement every item on the list but were expected to look for opportunities to make network connections. Suggested mentor activities for family engagement included writing a letter to parent (using an agency-provided outline and sent via the agency) to introduce oneself and what one was looking forward to in the match and sending (through the agency) questions for parents about how the mentor could help the mentee at school.
Outcome data were collected from mentors across participating agencies at baseline (beginning of school year) and follow-up (end of school year) on their perceptions of program quality, quality of staff support, mentoring relationship quality, and likelihood of continuation in the program in the following school year. Program quality was measured using a 4-item scale (e.g. “the mentoring program is clear about its goals”, “I received sufficient training from the mentoring program prior to beginning my match”). Quality of staff support was assessing using 3 items: “program staff seem truly concerned about how well our match is going”, “program staff help make me a better mentor”, and “the contact I have with program staff is sufficient to ask questions and get the information I need”. Relationship quality was measured using a 9-item scale (e.g. “I think my Little sees me as someone special in his/her life”, “I feel close to my Little”). Likelihood of continuation was measured with a single item asking “How likely is it that you will be mentoring in this program next year?” Response options for the above questions were on a 5-point scale from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5).
Baseline data were provided by 81 mentors and follow-up data was provided by 63 mentors at network engagement modification agencies. Mentors from the network agencies were more likely to be female (77 percent) than male (23 percent). Most Littles (63 percent) in network agencies were also female and 90 percent were in Grades 1 to 6. Statistical tests were conducted to determine whether there was a difference in outcome measure scores from baseline to follow-up among mentors in network agencies.
BBBSC (2016) found that mentors in the network enhancement agencies had significantly lower ratings of quality of staff support at follow-up in comparison to baseline but did not differ significantly from baseline to follow-up in their ratings of program quality, mentoring relationship quality, or reported likelihood of continuing in the program the following year.
Mentors also reported on the frequency of communication with Little’s parent/guardian by phone, email, or face-to-face contact; response options were never, once every 4-6 months, once every 2-3 months, once a month, and every week or two. In general, there was no significant change among mentors in network enhancement agencies between baseline and follow-up in how often they reported communicating with their Littles’ parents/guardians. Additionally, there were no significant associations between frequency of parent communication as assessed at follow-up and any of the outcome measures among mentors in network enhancement agencies.
External Validity Evidence:
Variations in the Practice
The studies reviewed examined a variety of family engagement practices. For example, Kaye & Smith (2014) assessed the effect of a multi-component family engagement intervention as an added component to Big Brothers Big Sisters mentoring, whereas BBBSC (2016) focused on the use of suggested activities for mentors to use in engaging parents. The target of the family engagement activities also differed between studies. For example, in Kaye & Smith (2014), the family engagement activities targeted both parents (e.g., parent orientation) and mentors (e.g., training), whereas in BBBSC (2016), family engagement activities targeted mentors only. Additionally, family engagement was implemented by staff in Hererra et al. (2013), whereas mentors were responsible for building connections with parents in the BBBS Canada (2016) study. One study (Wheeler & DuBois, 2009) reported findings suggestive of possible negative effects of providing parents with a list of suggested ways they can support their child’s mentoring relationship, whereas favorable results were obtained in this research when considering whether affiliates offered a combination of family engagement practices (i.e. requiring parents to attend a group program orientation specifically designed for them, valuing and using parental input in the match-making process, and having a family liaison on staff to engage parents). The implications of varying levels and types of requirements or flexibility that are incorporated into family engagement as a practice have not been studied systematically and thus remain in need of clarification.
Youth served by the programs evaluated in the studies were from a variety of backgrounds and had varying levels of environmental and individual risks, including being from low income families, having an incarcerated parent or close family member, having a medical or psychological diagnosis, and having academic challenges or prior delinquency. All programs in the studies reviewed targeted youth who were elementary or middle school-aged; the mean ages of mentees across the studies reviewed were between 10 and 12 years. Programs served varying proportions of male and female students. For example, youth in the Kaye & Smith (2014) and the BBBSC (2016) studies were predominantly female (95% and 63% respectively), whereas those in the Herrera et al (2013) study were equally divided by gender. Notably, only one study (Herrera et al. 2013) investigated possible differences in effects of the practice of interest across subgroups of youth, in this case with respect to their individual and environmental risk levels. Analyses of this nature as well as evaluations of family engagement practices with a broader spectrum of youth in terms of age will be necessary to clarify the manner and extent to which their implications vary across subgroups of youth.
All of the mentors represented in the studies reviewed were volunteers and most were female; 60% of mentors in the DuBois & Wheeler (2009) study, 66% of those in the Kaye & Smith (2014) study, and 76% of mentors in the BBBSC (2016) study were female. Mentor ages varied across studies; the mean age of mentors was 32 years in Herrera et al. (2013) and the median age was 26 years in Kaye & Smith (2014). Two of the studies also included mentors who were in college (Kaye & Smith, 2014) or college-aged (29% of participants in DuBois & Wheeler were 18-25 years old). Studies reviewed, however, did not test for differences in effect of family engagement in relation to mentor characteristics, making the applicability of findings to different subgroups of mentors unknown.
Mentoring programs evaluated in the studies reviewed were almost exclusively either community-based or school-based Big Brothers Big Sisters programs in the U.S. or Canada. As such, reviewed programs used a one-on-one mentoring format and program enhancements interventions were incorporated into existing programs. Although one study (BBBSC, 2016) implementing program enhancements in both school-based and community-based settings adjusted for site-type in examining the effects of family engagement on outcomes, it did not examine the effect of site-type on outcomes. Absent these types of analyses and investigation of family engagement practices across a wider spectrum of programs, understanding of its implications across different program structures or settings is limited.
All of the studies reviewed assessed outcomes related to the mentoring relationship, such as meeting frequency, relationship quality, and/or match length. Only one study (Kaye & Smith, 2014), however, assessed youth outcomes, which clearly limits understanding of the implications that the practices examined may have had for mentees either via or distinct from any observed apparent consequences for the mentoring relationship.
Resources Available to Support Implementation:
Resources to support implementation of family engagement can be found under the Resources section of this website. These resources include:
Supporting YouthBuild Students in Mentoring Relationships - This customizable Word document was originally designed for YouthBuild programs with the intention of providing information to parents, caregivers, and other supportive adults about the student’s new relationship with a volunteer mentor.
Going the Distance: A Guide to Building Lasting Relationships in Mentoring Programs - This guidebook provides advice and tools that are intended to help ensure long-lasting relationships in site- and community-based mentoring programs. It identifies caregivers as important stakeholders in mentoring relationships and offers an example of how to engage families.
Big Brothers Big Sisters of Canada. (2016). In School Mentoring Modification Project report. Unpublished report.
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. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/KFdZrs
Kaye, L., & Smith, C. (2014) Understanding the role of parent engagement to enhance mentoring outcomes: Final evaluation report. Center for Human Services Research University of Albany. Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/grants/247571.pdf
Wheeler, M., & DuBois, D. L. (2009). Analysis of responses to agency practices survey for Big Brothers Big Sisters of America’s community-based mentoring program. Unpublished report prepared for Big Brothers Big Sisters of America.
Lakind, D., Atkins, M., & Eddy, J. M. (2015). Youth mentoring relationships in context: Mentor perceptions of youth, environment, and the mentor role. Children and Youth Services Review, 53, 52-60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2015.03.007
Karcher, M. J., Davis, C., and Powell, B. (2002). The effects of developmental mentoring on connectedness and academic achievement. School Community Journal, 12, 35-50. Retrieved from http://www.adi.org/journal/fw02/Karcher%20et%20al..pdf
Keller, T. E. (2005). A systemic model of the youth mentoring intervention. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 26, 169-188. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10935-005-1850-2
Keller, T. E., & Blakeslee, J. E. (2014). Social networks and mentoring. In D. L. DuBois & M. J. Karcher (Eds.), Handbook of youth mentoring (2nd ed., pp. 129-142). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
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, 51-59. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jcop.20416
Taylor, A. S., & Porcellini, L. (2014). Family involvement. In D. L. DuBois & M. J. Karcher (Eds.), Handbook of youth mentoring (2nd ed., pp. 457-468). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.