 |
This Web site is a component of the SAMHSA Health Information Network. |
|
Part II:
Status of Research-Based Programs
Programs Beginning When Children are in Middle and/or High School
III. Big Brothers/Big Sisters of America
The following review was written by Benard and is reprinted here with her permission.
In 1995, Public/Private Ventures (P/PV), a national not-for-profit research corporation based in Philadelphia, published the fourth and final volume of its three-year, $2,000,000 evaluation of Big Brothers/Big Sisters of America (BB/BS). This was an impact study of the oldest and most carefully structured mentoring effort in the U.S. According to the authors of Making A Difference, "Our research presents clear and encouraging evidence that caring relationships between adults and youth can be created and supported by programs and can yield a wide range of tangible benefits." Furthermore, "the most notable results are the deterrent effect on initiation of drug and alcohol use, and the overall positive effects on academic performance that the mentoring experience produced" (Public/Private Ventures, November, 1995).
Using a classical experimental research methodology with random assignment, P/PV conducted a comparative study of 959 ten to sixteen year olds who applied to BB/BS programs in eight geographically diverse cities in 1992 and 1993. Half of these youth were randomly assigned to a treatment group for which BB/BS matches were made or attempted; the other half were assigned to waiting lists. After 18 months, the two groups were compared. Participants in a BB/BS program were 46% less likely to start using illegal drugs; 27% less likely to start drinking. However, the effect was even stronger for minority Little Brothers and Sisters. Compared to the controls, these children were:
- 70% less likely to initiate drug use
- One-third less likely to hit someone
- Skipped fewer classes and half as many days of school
- Felt more competent about doing schoolwork
- Showed modest gains in their grade point averages, with the strongest
gains among the Little Sisters
- Improved their relationships with both their parents and their peers
Of particular note is that probably all of these yout -both treatment and control groups--would be considered "high-risk" youth:
- 90% lived with only one of their parents.
- Over 80% came from impoverished homes.
- Over 40% received either food stamps and/or cash public assistance.
- 40% came from homes with a history of alcohol and drug abuse.
- Nearly 30% came from families with a record of domestic violence.
- Nearly 30% were victims of emotional, physical, or sexual abuse.
Conversely, the Big Brothers and Sisters were generally well-educated young professionals. About 60% were college graduates; nearly two-thirds had a total household income over $25,000, with 40% over $40,000. Also of note, about three-fourths of the volunteers were white. In essence, despite this enormous social distance between the youth and the volunteers, they were able to establish successful relationships - across their class and race differences. From this as well as their three other BB/BS studies, the researchers attribute these successful outcomes to two overall characteristics: the one-to-one relationship and the program's supportive infrastructure.
One-to-One Relationship
First of all, the relationship was of sufficient intensity. In the 400 matches studied here, more than 70% of the matches met three times a month for an average of 3-4 hours per meeting, and 50% met one time a week. This comes to around 144 hours of direct contact a year, not counting telephone interactions.
Secondly, even though this outcome study did not examine the nature of the relationship between the adult and youth, the third companion study, Building Relationships with Youth in Program Settings (Public/Private Ventures, May, 1995), illuminated the nature of the relationships that were of sufficient intensity and duration to produce these effects. The sustained relationships were those in which the mentor saw him/herself as a friend,
not as a teacher or preacher. These "developmental" relationships were grounded in the mentor's belief s/he was there to meet the developmental needs of youth-to provide supports and opportunities the youth did not currently have. "While most developmental volunteers ultimately hoped to help their youth improve in school and be more responsible, they centered their involvement and expectations on developing a reliable trusting relationship, and expanded the scope of their efforts only as the relationship strengthened." These volunteers placed top priority on having the relationship be enjoyable and fun to both partners. Furthermore, they were "there" for the young person, listened nonjudgmentally, looked for the youth's interests and strengths, and incorporated the youth into the decision-making process (gave them "voice and choice") around their activities.
In contrast to these developmental relationships (fortunately, two-thirds of the 82 relationships examined were developmental) were the "prescriptive" relationships in which the adult volunteers believed their primary purpose was guiding the youth toward
the values, attitudes, and behaviors the adult deemed positive: "Adults in these relationships set the goals, the pace, and/or the ground roles for the relationship. These volunteers were reluctant to adjust their expectations of the youth or their expectation of how quickly the youth's behavior could change." A majority of these prescriptive volunteers were basically there to fix kids....typically to improve school performance-and most of their shared time was spent in conversation-not fun activities-around grades and classroom behavior. For these volunteers, risk lay within the youth: "What seemed to stand out for these prescriptive volunteers was less the deficiencies present in the youth's environment, and more- particularly in terms of morals and values-those present in the youth themselves-deficiencies prescriptive volunteers frequently sought to rectify." Not surprisingly, the adults and youths in these matches found the relationship frustrating and nonsupportive. Of these prescriptive relationships, only 29% met consistently (compared to 93% of the developmental), and at the 18-month follow-up, only 32% were ongoing, compared to 91% of the developmental.
Supportive Program Infrastructure
From the studies of BB/BS program practices, recruitment, and screening, as well as from earlier P/PV research on mentoring, the researchers conclude that "the following program irreducibles are prerequisites for an effective mentoring program":
- Thorough volunteer screening that weeds out adults who are unlikely to keep their time commitment or might pose a safety risk to the youth.
- Mentor training that includes communication and limit-setting skills, tips on relationship building, and recommendations on the best way to interact with a young person.
- Matching procedures that take into account the preferences of the youth, their family, and the volunteer, and that use a professional case manager to analyze which volunteer would work best with which youth.
- Intensive supervision and support of each match by a case manager who has frequent contact with the parent or guardian, volunteer, and youth, and provides assistance when requested or as difficulties arise. This includes supporting the mentors both by being available and by facilitating peer support groups for them.
Implications for Prevention, Education, and Youth Development
A developmental approach is key to successful learning and social development. "The findings in this report speak to the effectiveness of an approach to youth policy that is very different from the problem-oriented approach that is prevalent in youth programming. This more developmental approach does not target specific problems but rather interacts flexibly with youth in a supportive manner."
Creating "mentor-rich" environments that create multiple opportunities for young people to interact with an array of caring adults must be a major focus of our work. This means that relationships must be the central focus of reform and prevention efforts in schools, community-based organizations, and communities as a whole (Freedman, 1993).
Table of Contents | Previous | Next
|
