You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.

Program Description

Overview Big Brothers Big Sisters of America is a national mentoring program with over 500 autonomously funded agencies. The Big Brothers Big Sisters approach is to match at-risk youth with volunteer adult mentors. All national affiliates (BBBS programs) are based on a uniform level of recruitment, volunteer screening, matching, and continuous supervision and support of matched pairs. Local chapters must adopt standards with minor variations to accommodate local characteristics. The BBBS approach does not target or address any particular aspects of academics, prevention, or risk, but rather emphasizes continuity and consistency in adult relationships. BBBS strives to simply provide a caring adult friend.
Start Date 1904
Scope national
Type mentoring
Location mainly urban, but suburban as well
Setting other
Participants 10–16 year olds
Number of Sites/Grantees over 500
Number Served 75,000 (1999–2000)
Components The program aims to pair at-risk youth from poor single parent homes with adult mentors who are generally well-educated young professionals. BBBS requires that matched pairs meet two to four times per month with each meeting lasting typically four hours. Most matched pairs meet continuously for a minimum of 12 months.

One of the hallmarks of BBBS is that the relationships between matched pairs are not established in a vacuum. Behind all matches is a professional staff with wide-ranging responsibilities. Undergirding individual agencies are national operating standards that provide a level of uniformity in recruitment, screening, matching, and supervision.

Volunteer Screening
Volunteer screening is time-consuming and stringent. Applicants are under consideration from three to nine months, after which only 35% are matched (another 30% withdraw or are considered inappropriate and 35% do not complete all the steps of the process).

Youth Screening
Most agencies require that youth have no more than one parent/guardian actively involved in their life. Youth are also screened for age, geographic residence, a minimal level of social skills, and the agreement of the parent and child to follow agency rules.

Training
BBBS agencies provide orientation and training to volunteer mentors. These trainings explain program rules, developmental stages of youth, communication and limit-setting skills, tips on relationship building, and recommendations on the best way to interact with a Little Brother or Little Sister.

Matching and Meeting Requirements
Few matching strategies are proscribed by BBBS, although many agencies have adopted similar matching criteria, mostly involving practical criteria such as gender, geographic proximity, and availability. In addition, volunteers and youth indicate various preferences used in making matches, such as age, race, and activity preferences. Agencies then supervise matches in order to maintain effectiveness. Contact must be made with the parent, youth, and volunteer within two weeks of the match. Monthly telephone contact with the volunteer is required during the first year of the match, as is monthly contact with the parent and/or youth. The youth must be contacted directly at least four times during the first year. After the first year, contact between caseworkers contact with participants is reduced to once per quarter.
Funding Level BBBS agencies in the evaluation study had annual budgets ranging from $323,000 to $1.1 million. The support and supervision necessary to produce and to maintain effect matches cost roughly $1,000 per match.
Funding Sources Aramark, Arby's Foundation, Do It Best, First USA, Footaction USA, Harlequin Enterprises Unlimited, Hecht's/Strawbridge's, Jack in the Box, Microsoft, NFL, Nokia, Pillsbury, TD Waterhouse, UPS, Valvoline, Verizon, Worldcom

Evaluation

Overview The evaluation aims to provide scientifically reliable evidence that participation in BBBS programs positively affected at-risk youth. The original sample study group included 1,138 youth randomly assigned to the treatment or control groups. The treatment group refers to the youth for whom BBBS actively attempted to match with a volunteer. The control group refers to the youth who were automatically put on an 18-month waiting listing by BBBS. Through baseline and follow-up interviews with the youth and parents as well as survey forms completed by case managers, the evaluation compared the two groups in the areas of antisocial activities, academic performance, attitudes and behaviors, relationships with family, relationships with friends, self-concept, and social and cultural enrichment.
Evaluator Joseph P. Tierney and Jean Baldwin Grossman with Nancy L. Resch, Public/Private Ventures (P/PV)
Evaluations Profiled Making a Difference: An Impact Study of Big Brothers Big Sisters
Evaluations Planned none
Report Availability Tierney, J. P., Grossman, J. B., & Resch, N. L. (2000). Making a difference: An impact study of Big Brothers Big Sisters. Philadelphia: Public/Private Ventures.

Grossman, J. B., & Tierney, J. P. (1998). Does mentoring work? An impact study of the Big Brothers Big Sisters program. Evaluation Review, 22(3), 402–425.

Available at www.ppv.org/ppv/publications/publications.asp?search_id=19.

Contacts

Evaluation Joseph P. Tierney
Jean Baldwin Grossman
Public/Private Ventures (P/PV)
2000 Market Street, Suite 900
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Tel: 215-557-4400
Fax: 215-557-4469
Email: jtierney@ppv.org (Joseph P. Tierney)
jgrossma@princeton.edu (Jean Baldwin Grossman)
Program Big Brothers Big Sisters of America
National Office
230 N. 13th Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Tel: 215-567-7000
Fax: 215-567-0394
Email: national@bbbsa.org
Profile Updated April 21, 2003

Evaluation: Making a Difference: An Impact Study of Big Brothers Big Sisters


Evaluation Description

Evaluation Purpose The purpose of the research was to determine whether a one-to-one mentoring experience made a tangible difference in the lives of these young people in six broad areas of potential effects: antisocial activities, academic performance, attitudes and behaviors, relationships with family, relationships with friends, self-concept, and social and cultural enrichment.
Evaluation Design Experimental: Data were collected from a comparative study of 959 10 to 16 year olds who applied to BBBS programs between October 1991 to February 1993 at eight BBBS sites: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Rochester, New York; Minneapolis, Minnesota; Columbus, Ohio; Wichita, Kansas; Houston, Texas; San Antonio, Texas; and Phoenix, Arizona. The key selection criteria for site inclusion in the impact study were a large active caseload, waiting list, and geographic diversity. Over 97% of all youth who qualified to take part in the agency assignment agreed to take part in the research process. Only 32 (2.7%) youth and/or parents at these sites decided not to take part in the research process. Sixty percent of the sample youth were boys and more than half were members of minority groups (of which 70% were African American).

Half of the youth in the study were randomly assigned to a treatment group (for which matches were made or attempted) and the other half were assigned to BBBS waiting lists. The procedure for random assignment was as follows: first agency staff explained the research project to youth and their parent/guardian in an interview or group presentation and obtained consent for participation; next, agency staff used the usual procedures to determine if youth were eligible for participation; finally, all eligible youth were randomly assigned to either the treatment or the control group. In the final sample, there were 487 youth in the treatment group and 472 youth in the control group, for a total of 959.

Although the research design denied services to the control group for 18 months, that waiting period was in actuality not longer that the agency's usual waiting period for a youth to be matched. In addition the research design ensured that the total number of matches made by each of the eight agencies did not decline. Thus, the research design addressed the ethical concerns of the experimental evaluation design.
Data Collection Methods Interviews: The centerpieces for data collection were the baseline and follow-up interviews with sample youth and their parents/guardians. Research liaisons conducted baseline interviews with all 1,138 youth at the time they were found eligible for the program, before they were randomly assigned either to the treatment group or the control group. Three hundred and seventy-eight of the 487 youth in the treatment group were eventually successfully matched. Eighteen months later, both groups were re-interviewed. Nine hundred and fifty-nine of the 1,138 youth originally randomized (84.3%) completed both baseline and follow-up interviews, thus becoming the sample on which findings are based.

In the baseline interviews, the parent was asked to provide general background information, such as his/her years of completed education, welfare receipt by any household members, labor force status, and relationship to the youth. In the 18-month follow-up interview, the parent was asked to evaluate the performance of the volunteer, his/her satisfaction with the BBBS agency, and whether he/she thought the program had made a difference in his/her child's life.

The baseline interviews asked the youth to provide basic demographic information as well as the baseline measures for the outcome variables. The outcome variables measured youth characteristics in the following six areas: antisocial activities; academic performance, attitudes, and behaviors; relationships with family; relationships with friends; self-concept; and social and cultural enrichment. In the 18-month follow-up interview, the youth were asked to provide the follow-up measures of the outcome variables. Many of the outcomes measures were derived from existing scales and assessments including: the Self-Perception Profile for Children (Harter, 1985), the School Value Scale (Berndt & Miller, 1990), the Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment (Armsden & Greenberg, 1987), the Features of Children's Friendships Scale (Berndt & Perry, 1986), and the Self-Image Questionnaire for Young Adolescents (Petersen, Schulenberg, Abramowitz, Offer & Jarcho, 1984). In addition, interviewers also asked the treatment group youth about their relationship with their Big Brother or Big Sister.

References
Armsden, G. C., & Greenberg, M. T. (1987). The Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment (IPPA): Relationships to well-being in adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 16, 427–454.

Berndt, T. J., & Miller, K. E. (1990). Expectancies, values and achievement in junior high school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 319–326.

Berndt, T. J., & Perry, T. B. (1986) Children's perceptions of friendships as supportive relationships. Developmental Psychology, 82, 319–326.

Harter, S. (1985). The self-perception profile for children: Revision of the perceived competence scale for children. Manual. Denver, CO: University of Denver.

Petersen, A., Schulenberg, J., Abramowitz, R., Offer, D., & Jarcho, H. (1984). A Self-image Questionnaire for Young Adolescents (SIQYA): Reliability and validity studies. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 13, 93–111.

Surveys/Questionnaires: Case managers were asked to complete two surveys for youth in both the treatment and control groups at the time of the random assignment. The first survey, the client data form, asked basic information about each youth. It was designed to determine whether or not the youth was eligible for the study. The second survey, the research sample form, provided detailed background information on the youth and his/her family including deeply personal questions about whether the case manager considered the youth a victim of sexual, physical, domestic, substance, or emotional abuse.

Once a youth was assigned to a volunteer, case managers also completed a match form detailing information about the volunteer. The case managers completed a follow-up form 18 months after the random assignment. This final form contains the case manager's perception of the volunteer's performance, a description of any problems that occurred, and several questions about the match.

In addition, research liaisons administered a general survey to each of the eight participating agencies asking questions about the age, race, and gender of all youth served by the agency, their volunteer screening and training procedures, and match supervision guidelines. This form was completed by a senior staff member at each site and provided the background to the individual program practices and information about the type of youth served at each site.
Data Collection Timeframe Data were collected between October 1991 and September 1994.


Findings:
Formative/Process Findings

Activity Implementation By the end of the study period, 78% of the youth in the treatment group had been matched. The major reasons why these youth were not matched were that there was no suitable volunteer found, the youth no longer wanted to be matched, or the youth became ineligible for matching due to any number of circumstances.

About 70% of matched youth and mentors met three or four times per week with an average meeting lasting four hours.

On average, relationships between Big and Little Sisters and Brothers had lasted one year at the conclusion of the study period.
Recruitment/Participation Nearly two-thirds (62.4%) of the study participants were boys and 37.6% were girls.

Over half (55%) of the study youth were from a minority group: 71% of minority youth were African American, 18% were Hispanic, 5% were biracial, 3% were Native American, and 3% were classified as other.

Sixty-nine percent of youth came to the program between the ages of 11 and 13.

Ninety percent of youth lived with only one parent, while another 5.6% lived with only one grandparent.

Fifty-five percent of parents/guardians earned a high school equivalent or less.

Many youth lived in poor households—over 40% were receiving either food stamps and/or cash public assistance. Minority girls were most likely to live in homes collecting welfare while white boys were least likely to do so.

Many study participants had experienced stressful life events including family history of substance abuse (40.3%), divorce or separation of parent/guardian (39.9%), family history of domestic violence (28.3%), and some type of abuse (27.1%).


Summative/Outcome Findings

Academic BBBS participants achieved 3% better grades than did control youth. The treatment group had an average GPA of 2.71 while the control group had average GPA of 2.63 (p<.10). These gains were strongest among females (2.83 vs. 2.67, p<.05), but particularly for minority females. Minority females in the treatment group had a GPA of 2.83 compared to a GPA of 2.62 for their control counterparts (p<.10).

BBBS participants skipped 52% fewer days of school (net impact of .47 fewer skipped days of school, p<.01) and 37% fewer classes (net impact of .51 fewer times skipped classes, p<.05) than their control counterparts.

Minority females skipped 84% fewer days of school (net impact of .98 skipped days of school, p<.01), while white females skipped 90% fewer days than their control counterparts (net impact of 1.66 skipped days of school, p<.01).

Female BBBS participants, particularly minority females, felt more competent in school as evaluated on the Harter's scale of perceived scholastic competence. The perceived competence score of minority female BBBS participants was 10% higher than that of their control counterparts (p<.01). White boys scored 7% higher than their control counterparts (p<.05).

No statistically significant differences were found between the treatment and control groups on measures of weekly hours spent reading or doing homework, the number of times that a youth visited a college or went to a library, and the number of books read.
Family BBBS participants reported better relationships with parents than members of the control group by the end of the study period, due primarily to a higher level of trust in the parent. This effect was strongest for white males in the treatment group (p<.05).

At the conclusion of study, treatment group reported lying to their parents 37% less than the control group (net impact of 1.36 fewer times lied to parents, p<.05).

No statistically significant differences were found between the treatment and control groups on measures of communication with their parents and feelings of anger and alienation.
Prevention Participants were 45.8% less likely than controls to initiate drug use during the study period (p<.05, follow-up control mean for initiating drug use = 11.47%). Results indicate that for every 100 youth in this age group who start to use drugs, only 54 similar youth who have a Big Brother or Big Sister will start using drugs. Particularly, even stronger effects were found for minority BBBS participants, who were 70% less likely to initiate drug use than other similar minority youth (p<.05 for minority males, p<.10 for minority females, follow-up control means for initiating drug use were 13.41% and 11.50%, respectively).

BBBS participants were 27.4% less likely than controls to initiate alcohol use (p<.10, follow-up control mean initiating alcohol use = 26.7%), with the greatest impact among minority female BBBS participants (p<.10, follow-up control mean initiating alcohol use = 27%), who were less than half as likely to start drinking alcohol.

BBBS participants were almost one-third less likely than controls to report hitting someone in the past 12 months (p<.05, net impact = .85 times hitting someone in past 12 months).

No statistically significant impacts of the program were found on the number of times youth stole something or damaged property.

No significant differences were found in the number of times youth were sent to the principal's office, did “risky” things, fought, cheated on a test, or used tobacco.
Youth Development BBBS participants reported improvements in their relationships with their peers relative to their control counterparts. These were measured using five scales of Berndt and Perry's Features of Children's Friendship Battery: Intimacy in Communication, Instrumental Support, Emotional Support, Conflict, and Relationship Inequality. The study found emotional support higher among treatment group, particularly minority boys (increase by 6%, p<.05) who felt greater emotional support from peers. Results from all other scales show insignificant differences between treatment and control groups.

There were no significant differences found between treatment and control group youth on measures of self-concept, including scales measuring global self-worth, social acceptance, and self-confidence. The one exception was for white boys who scored significantly higher on the social acceptance scale (p<.10), which assesses the respondents' perceived popularity among peers.

No overall difference between treatment and control group in their frequency of participation of participation in social and cultural enrichment activities were found.

© 2010 Presidents and Fellows of Harvard College
Published by Harvard Family Research Project