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.

www.HFRP.org

The Harvard Family Research Project separated from the Harvard Graduate School of Education to become the Global Family Research Project as of January 1, 2017. It is no longer affiliated with Harvard University.

Terms of Use ▼

Program Description

Overview Big Brothers Big Sisters (BBBS) of America is a national mentoring program that matches at-risk youth (“Littles”) with older volunteer mentors (“Bigs”). The BBBS approach does not target or address any particular aspects of academics, prevention, or risk, but rather emphasizes continuity and consistency in mentor relationships.
Start Date 1904
Scope national
Type mentoring
Location urban and suburban
Setting other
Participants 6–18 year olds
Number of Sites/Grantees Approximately 400 agencies nationwide (2008–2009)
Number Served 250,000 (2008–2009)
Components The program pairs at-risk youth from poor, single-parent homes with older mentors who are generally well-educated young professionals. BBBS generally requires that matched pairs meet 2 to 4 times per month. In addition to its community-based mentoring, BBBS also runs some school-based mentoring programs in which both adults and high school students act as the Bigs.

All national affiliates (BBBS programs) are based on a uniform level of recruitment, mentor screening, matching, and continuous supervision and support of matched pairs. Local chapters must adopt standards with minor variations to accommodate local characteristics.
Funding Level Approximately $18.3 million (2009)
Funding Sources Numerous foundations, corporations, and individuals, as well as various government grants. Major funders (giving more than $1 million) in 2009 were: the Atlantic Philanthropies; Donald and Ana Carty; the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation; Philip Morris USA, an Altria Company; and the T. Boone Pickens Foundation.

Evaluation

Overview The evaluation aims to provide scientifically reliable evidence that participation in BBBS programs positively affects at-risk youth.
Evaluator Public/Private Ventures (P/PV)
Evaluations Profiled

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

Making a Difference in Schools: the Big Brothers Big Sisters  School-Based Mentoring Impact Study

Evaluations Planned none
Report Availability 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.

Rhodes, J. E., Grossman, J. B., & Resch, N. L. (2000). Agents of change: Pathways through which mentoring relationships influence adolescents’ academic adjustment. Child Development, 71, 1662–1671.

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.  Available at: www.ppv.org/ppv/publications/assets/111_publication.pdf

Grossman, J. B., & Rhodes, J. E. (2002). The test of time: Predictors and effects of duration in youth mentoring relationships. American Journal of Community Psychology, 30(2), 199–219.

Rhodes, J. E., Reddy, R., & Grossman, J. B. (2005). The protective influence of mentoring on adolescents’ substance use: Direct and indirect pathways. Applied Developmental Science, 9, 31–47.

Herrera, C., Grossman, J. B., Kauh, T. J., Feldman, A. F., & McMaken, J. (2007). Making a difference in schools: The Big Brothers Big Sisters school-based mentoring impact study. Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private Ventures. Available at: www.ppv.org/ppv/publications/assets/220_publication.pdf

Herrera, C., Kauh, T. J., Conney, S. M., Grossman, J. B., & McMaken, J. (2008). High school students as mentors: Findings from the Big Brothers Big Sisters school-based mentoring impact study. Philadelphia: Public/Private Ventures. Available at: www.ppv.org/ppv/publications/assets/252_publication.pdf

Karcher, M. J., Herrera, C., & Hansen, K. (2010). “I dunno, what do you wanna do?”:  Testing a framework to guide mentor training and activity selection. New Directions for Youth Development,126, 51–69

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, 212–227.

Herrera, C., Grossman J. B., Kauh, T. J., & McMaken, J. (2011). Mentoring in schools: An impact study of Big Brothers Big Sisters school-based mentoring. Child Development, 82(1), 346–361.

Schwartz, S. E. O., Rhodes, J. E., Chan, C. S., & Herrera, C. (in press). The impact of school-based mentoring on youth with different relational profiles. Developmental Psychology, 47(2), 450–462.

Contacts

Evaluation 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: jgrossma@princeton.edu
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 May 9, 2011

Evaluation 1: Making a Difference: An Impact Study of Big Brothers Big Sisters


Evaluation Description

Evaluation Purpose To determine whether a one-to-one community-based mentoring experience made a tangible difference in the lives of participants 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 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 study were a large active caseload, a waiting list for program participation, and geographic diversity.

The study sample consisted of 10- to 16-year-olds who applied to programs at the eight BBBS study sites. A total of 1,138 youth qualified to take part in the study, of which 97% agreed to participate in the research. These youth were randomly assigned either to be matched to a Big (the treatment group) or to a waiting list for the BBBS program (the control group). The final sample on which findings are based included 959 youth (487 in the treatment group and 472 in the control group) who completed both baseline and follow-up interviews 18 months later (84% of the original randomized sample). Parents of these youth were also interviewed at baseline and follow-up. Of the 487 youth in the treatment group, 378 (78%) were successfully matched to mentors. The major reasons why youth were not matched to mentors were that there was no suitable mentor found, the youth no longer wanted to be matched, or the youth became ineligible for matching due to any number of circumstances.

No significant demographic differences were found between the treatment and control groups. Of all study participants (both treatment and control groups), 62% were boys and 38% were girls. Over half (55%) were from a minority group, of which 71% were African American, 18% were Hispanic, 5% were biracial, 3% were Native American, and 3% were classified as other. The majority of youth (69%) were between the ages of 11 and 13 at baseline. Ninety percent of youth lived with only one parent, while another 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%), divorce or separation of parent/guardian (40%), family history of domestic violence (28%), or some type of abuse (27%).

Case managers and senior staff members at the eight participating sites also completed surveys. Case managers completed two surveys about treatment and control youth at the time of the random assignment, and two additional surveys about just the treatment group (a baseline survey immediately following random assignment and a follow-up survey 18 months later). Senior staff members completed one survey providing program background information. .
Data Collection Methods Surveys/Questionnaires: For youth surveys, youth outcome data were collected at baseline and follow-up in the following areas: antisocial activities, academic performance, attitudes and behaviors, relationships with family, relationships with friends, self-concept, and social and cultural enrichment. In addition, baseline surveys asked youth to provide basic demographic information while follow-up interviews asked the treatment group youth about their relationships with their mentors.

For parent surveys, parents were asked at baseline to provide general background information about themselves, such as years of completed education, welfare receipt by any household members, labor force status, and relationship to their children. At follow-up, parents were asked to evaluate the performance of their children’s mentors, their satisfaction with the BBBS agency, and whether BBBS had made a difference in their children’s lives.

The two surveys completed by case managers about treatment and control youth included the client data form, which asked basic information about each youth to determine if the youth was eligible for the study, and the research sample form, which provided detailed background information about the youth and their families. For the treatment group only, the two additional surveys completed by case managers included a baseline match form detailing information about the mentor, and a follow-up form which included the case manager’s perception of the mentor’s performance, a description of any problems that occurred, and information about the match.

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.
Data Collection Timeframe Data were collected between October 1991 and September 1994.


Findings:
Formative/Process Findings

Activity Implementation About 70% of matched youth and mentors met 3 or 4 times per month with an average meeting lasting 4 hours.

On average, each mentoring relationship had been in place for one year by the end of the study period.


Summative/Outcome Findings

Academic The treatment group had higher GPAs on average at follow-up than the control group; this difference was marginally significant (2.71 vs. 2.63, p < .10). These differences in GPA were strongest among girls (2.83 vs. 2.67, p < .05), and particularly among minority girls (2.83 vs. 2.62, p < .10).

Compared to the control group, BBBS participants skipped significantly fewer days of school (52% fewer skipped days, p < .01) and classes (37% fewer skipped classes, p < .05) by the end of the study period. In addition, both minority and White girls who participated in BBBS skipped significantly fewer days of school than their control counterparts by the end of the study period (p < .01 for both minority and White girls).

Of BBBS participants, minority girls and White boys had significantly higher perceived scholastic competence scores at the end of the study than their control counterparts (p < .01 for minority girls and p < .05 for White boys).

No significant differences were found between the treatment and control groups on measures of time spent reading or doing homework, the number of college or library visits, or 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. This effect was strongest for White males (p < .05). Further analysis showed that this increase in relationship quality was primarily driven by significantly higher levels of parental trust in the treatment group relative to the control group (p < .05), with no significant differences found for the other two components of parental relationship quality: communication or feelings of anger and alienation.

At the conclusion of study, the treatment group reported lying to their parents significantly less often than the control group (p < .05).
Prevention Participants were 46% less likely than controls to initiate drug use during the study period; this difference was significant (p < .05). Even stronger effects were found for minority BBBS participants, who were 70% less likely to initiate drug use than other similar minority youth; these differences were also significant (p < .05 for minority boys and p < .10 for minority girls).

BBBS participants were 27% less likely than controls to initiate alcohol use, with the greatest impact among minority female BBBS participants, who were less than half as likely to start drinking alcohol; these differences were marginally significant (p < .10 for both BBBS participants overall and for minority female BBBS participants).

BBBS participants were almost one-third less likely than controls to report hitting someone in the past 12 months; this difference was significant (p < .05).

No significant impacts were found between treatment and control groups on the number of times youth stole something or damaged property, 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 as measured using five scales: Intimacy in Communication, Instrumental Support, Emotional Support, Conflict, and Relationship Inequality. Emotional support was significantly higher among treatment group, particularly minority boys (increased by 6%, p < .05) who felt greater emotional support from peers. Results from all other scales show no significant differences between treatment and control groups.

There were no significant differences between treatment and control groups on measures of self-concept. The one exception was for White boys; they scored significantly higher on the social acceptance scale (p < .10), which assesses the respondents’ perceived popularity among peers.

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

Evaluation 2: High School Students as Mentors: Findings from the Big Brothers Big Sisters School-Based Mentoring Impact Study


Evaluation Description

Evaluation Purpose To answer the following questions about BBBS’ School-Based Mentoring (SBM) program: How do youth participants’ (“Littles”) matches with high school mentors ("Bigs”) differ from those with adult Bigs? How do the Littles and their high school Bigs benefit from the match? What are the characteristics of the BBBS programs that use high school Bigs? And are practices within these programs associated with match success?
Evaluation Design Experimental: Ten BBBS agencies participated in the evaluation, involving 1,139 youth (grades 4 through 9) in 71 schools nationwide. Half of the youth were randomly selected to be matched with Bigs. The other half were placed on the agency’s wait list to be matched with Bigs when the study ended 15 months later. The youth, both those who received mentoring (the Littles, who made up the treatment group) and those on the wait list (the control group), as well as their teachers and Bigs were surveyed at three time points: in Fall 2004 (baseline), at the end of the 2004–05 school year (first follow-up), and in late Fall 2005 (second follow-up). Evaluators also surveyed and spoke with BBBS staff and interviewed teachers, principals, and school liaisons to get a fuller understanding of program features and how they related to match success.
Data Collection Methods Interviews/Focus Groups: Interviews focused on perceptions of the program and its mentoring relationships, as well as how those related to youth outcomes.

Surveys/Questionnaires: Surveys collected data on Bigs’ and Littles’ perceptions of the program and mentoring relationships, as well as academic and academically-related prosocial outcomes.
Data Collection Timeframe Data were collected in 2004 and 2005.


Findings:
Formative/Process Findings

Activity Implementation High school Bigs involved their Littles in decision-making more often than adult Bigs did with their Littles, which BBBS considers an important indicator of match success. They also engaged in academic activities with their Littles less often than adults Bigs did with their Littles—engagement in more academic and fewer developmental or relationship-focused activities has been linked with lower levels of mentor satisfaction and weaker youth benefits in previous evaluations of BBBS.
Program Context/ Infrastructure High school Bigs’ matches at the second follow-up were the same length as those of adults; at the first follow-up, they were, on average, slightly longer than those of adults.

Littles matched with high school Bigs reported fairly high-quality relationships (e.g., close, emotionally engaged), and the high school and adult Bigs reported similar levels of relationship quality.

The majority of high school Bigs (78%) reported that they met in the presence of other matches in one large space, such as the school gym. These high school Bigs reported several benefits to this meeting structure (e.g., helped them get to know their Littles), and their matches lasted longer than those meeting independently. However, their Littles reported lower levels of youth centeredness (i.e., engaging in activities that reflected youth’s interests).

High school Bigs who received at least 2 hours of training (42% of all high school Bigs) reported experiencing higher-quality and closer relationships with their Littles than those who received less training. Their Littles also reported higher-quality relationships. Additionally, by the second follow-up, their matches had lasted longer than those with Bigs who had received less training.

Those high school Bigs who reported receiving higher-quality training (as rated on a 5-point scale) were more likely to carry over their match into a second school year and had longer matches by the second follow-up than those who reported lower quality training. High school Bigs’ reports of higher-quality training were also associated with their own reports of higher-quality relationships at the first follow-up. Bigs’ reports of higher-quality support from BBBS staff yielded similar associations.
Recruitment/ Participation Almost half of the high school Bigs (49%) were juniors and about one quarter (26%) were seniors when they were matched with their Littles. An additional quarter were either sophomores or freshman in high school. The high school Bigs often participated as BBBS mentors with a larger group of high school students, as part of a class or community service requirement (two-fifths received academic credit for their participation).

About half (49%) of the high school Bigs reported having had “a lot” of contact with youth ages 9 to 14 in the year before they volunteered, 47% reported having mentored informally in the past, and 18% had previous experience mentoring in a formal program like BBBS.

High school Bigs missed significantly more meetings with their Littles over the course of the school year (an average of 4.8 meetings) than did adult Bigs (an average of 3.5 meetings).

High school seniors and those who received school credit for their participation as Bigs were less likely than younger high school Bigs and those who did not receive credit to carry over their match into the following school year.


Summative/Outcome Findings

Academic Littles matched with high school Bigs improved significantly relative to their non-mentored peers in only one academic outcome measure, teacher-reported social acceptance (p < .10). By contrast, youth matched with adult Bigs performed significantly (or marginally significantly) better than their non-mentored peers in: teacher-reported oral and written language (p < .10), GPA (p < .05), quality of classwork (p < .01), number of assignments completed (p < .01), classroom effort (p < .01), absences (p < .05), scholastic efficacy (p < .10), and college expectations (p < .05).

No significant differences were found for Littles matched with either adult or high school Bigs on the following outcomes: overall teacher-reported academic performance; teacher-reported reading, science, social studies, or math performance; school preparedness; task orientation; teacher–student relationship quality; positive classroom affect; academic self-esteem; and school connectedness.

Relative to Littles in programs where the high school Bigs had infrequent communication with BBBS staff, Littles in programs with more frequent staff communication experienced larger benefits in five outcomes, teacher-reported social acceptance, assertiveness, positive affect in the classroom, classroom effort, and school preparedness.
Family No significant differences were found for Littles matched with either adult or high school Bigs on relationships with parents.
Prevention Youth matched with adult Bigs performed significantly (or marginally significantly) better than their non-mentored peers in not skipping school (p < .05), refraining from school misconduct (p < .10), and refraining from being difficult in class (p <.05). No significant differences were found on these outcomes for Littles matched with high school Bigs.

No significant differences were found for Littles matched with either adult or high school Bigs on the following outcomes: refraining from substance use and misconduct outside of school.
Youth Development Youth matched with adult Bigs performed significantly (or marginally significantly) better than their non-mentored peers in prosocial behavior (p < .05). No significant differences were found on these outcomes for Littles matched with high school Bigs.

No significant differences were found for Littles matched with either adult or high school Bigs on the following outcomes: sense of emotional support from peers, self-worth, and assertiveness.

© 2016 Presidents and Fellows of Harvard College
Published by Harvard Family Research Project