Accountable from the start.
Big Brothers Big Sisters is the most well-respected and well-recognized name in youth mentoring. You can see it in all the Littles out there that have become something bigger. And it’s also in the ratings and endorsements we’ve received from organizations that measure accountability. Take a look:
Community-Based Mentoring
The best-known study of Big Brothers Big Sisters mentoring is the 1995 study of community-based mentoring conducted by Public/Private Ventures called Making a Difference: An Impact Study of Big Brothers Big Sisters. This is the Study that includes the often quoted impacts of Big Brothers Big Sisters mentoring including improvement in caring relationships, decrease in skipping school, and decrease in hitting and initial use of alcohol and drugs.
Tierney, Grossman, and Resch (1995)
The most extensive and widely known mentoring impact report was conducted by Public/Private Ventures (PPV) in the 1990’s. This randomized, nationwide study involving over 1,000 youth found that Little Brothers and Little Sisters, compared to controls were able to get along better with their families; were more trusting of their parents; were less likely to lie to their parents; and had better relationships with peers.
Turner and Scherman (1996)
This study focused on the effect of mentoring on boys between the ages of 7 to 15. They found boys with Big Brothers had higher self-concepts, reported higher ratings of physical appearance and popularity and felt less anxious compared to a similar group of unmatched boys.
Maldonado, Quarles, Lacey & Thompson (2008)
The authors examined Big Sister/Little Sister pairs that had been paired for 3-8 years. The Little Sisters were mostly from low socioeconomic status, of high school age, and at-risk. Maldonado and colleagues found through structured interviews that the mentoring relationships led to increased self-efficacy, aspirations, and future possible selves for the Little Sisters.
Spencer (2007)
This study was an evaluation of a BBBS community-based program and examined the relationships of 12 male/male Big/Little pairs. The researcher stressed that the Bigs did not conventionally approach the emotional nature of the mentoring relationship, therefore opening up the Littles to new ways of expressing themselves. The Littles, aged 12-16 and paired for 1-6 years, showed improvement in anger management and emotional connection. Spencer found that a relationship with an adult male was important, and the Littles were better able to manage their anger.
Osterling and Hines (2006)
Osterling examined a program designed to help foster youth transition from foster care to adulthood through mentoring. Mentors and foster youth reported their relationship was most like that of a friend, was trusting and understanding and very important. Youth reported that their mentors helped them to be more open with their feelings, have a better understanding of their emotions and also be less angry. Furthermore, they felt their mentors helped them with independent living skills, such as finding a job, opening a bank account, saving money and finishing their education. However, the authors reported that foster youth should be matched with a mentor as early as possible, because after 18 the foster youth were often not interested in having a mentor. Also, mentors felt the need for more help with resources to assist the youth with independent living skills. For example, having access to a resource coordinator, a resource directory and information on how to fill out the common forms foster youth need complete.
Karcher (2005b)
Karcher examined the effect of a School Based Mentoring program utilizing high school mentors on mentees after six months of program participation. The program was designed to promote children’s development by facilitating connectedness. He found that mentees showed an increase in connectedness to school and parents compared to a similar group of non-mentored youth. In addition, he found that changes in mentees’ self-esteem, social skills and behavioral competence were related to mentor attendance at mentor/mentee activities. Mentees with mentors who consistently met with them showed positive increases, whereas mentees with inconsistent mentors, showed declines in self-esteem and behavioral competence.
Matzenbacher (1999)
Utilizing randomized treatment and control groups, Matzenbacher examined a mentoring program serving at-risk elementary school students with college students. After a semester of involvement in the study, mentored youth showed improvement in self-esteem and perceived self-confidence, compared to the control group regarding Educational Success.
Tierney, Grossman, and Resch (1995)
The most extensive and widely known mentoring impact report was conducted by Public/Private Ventures (PPV) in the 1990’s. This randomized, nationwide study involving over 1,000 youth found that Little Brothers and Little Sisters, compared to controls were 52% less likely to skip school; and 37% less likely to skip class. Additionally, they found that Little Brothers/Sisters, compared to the control group, were more confident in their schoolwork performance, had modest gains in their grade point average and felt more competent about doing their school work.
Herrera et al. (2007)
This was a randomized, nationwide study conducted by Public/Private Ventures investigating Big Brothers Big Sisters School Based Mentoring programs, in which mentoring meetings/activities took place within the confines of the schools. Teacher reported outcomes showed improvements in science, overall academic performance, written/oral language, class work quality, number of assignments turned in, and number of serious school infractions. Youth reported outcomes showed improvement in scholastic efficacy, skipping school, and positive role models. In year two, 52% of matches continued. Of these, the only outcome to show any new improvement was skipping school. The strongest impacts were associated with longer match length, and potentially access to school space and resources, paining and support, and summer activities.
Thompson & Kelly-Vance (2001)
This study was an evaluation of a BBBS community-based program and compared the academic performance of twelve boys who received mentoring to thirteen boys who did not. They found that the participating boys had significantly higher reading (6 point increase vs. 1.1 decrease) and math scores (4 point increase vs. .9 decrease) on a standardized academic achievement test, than the comparison group after nine months of program participation.
Nakkula (1999)
This study was an evaluation of youth enrolled in a BBBS School Based Mentoring program. Youth involved in the program showed increases in their GPA, compared to a comparison group of non-mentored youth. Additionally, they found that lower achieving students tended to have greater gains than higher achieving students, and in spelling and science, boys had larger grade improvements than girls. Risky Behaviors.
Tierney, Grossman, and Resch (1995)
The most extensive and widely known mentoring impact report was conducted by Public/Private Ventures (PPV) in the 1990’s. This randomized, nationwide study involving over 1,000 youth found that Little Brothers and Little Sisters, compared to controls were 46% less likely to begin using illegal drugs, 27% less likely to begin using alcohol, 52% less likely to skip school and 37% less likely to skip class. Another way to state the findings is that they found for every 100 youth between the ages of 10-16 who start to use drugs, only 54 similar youth who have a Big Brother/Sister will start using drugs, or, for every 100 youth between the ages of 10-16 who skip school, only 48 similar youth who have a Big Brother/Sister will skip school.
Keating, Tomishima, Foster and Alessandri (2002)
The focus of this article was on a mentoring program involving youth at-risk of juvenile delinquency or mental illness. They found that youth with mentors had improvements in their behavioral competencies and decreases in behavioral problems as reported by both teachers and parents on the Child Behavior Checklist, while a comparison group of youth on a waiting list showed no improvements. For example, mothers of mentored youth reported they were less likely to be demonstrating destructive behaviors toward themselves and others and teachers reported less behavioral problems in school.
Beier et al. (2000)
Beier and colleagues examined the difference between adolescents who reported an adult mentor in their life, compared to those adolescents who didn’t report a mentor. Adolescents with mentors were significantly less likely to ever carry a weapon, use illicit drugs in the past 30 days, have sex with more than one partner in the past 6 months, or smoke 5 or more cigarettes per day, compared to those adolescents that didn’t report a mentor in their lives.
Herrera et al. (2007)
This was a randomized, nationwide study conducted by Public/Private Ventures investigating Big Brothers Big Sisters SBM programs, in which mentoring meetings/activities took place within the confines of the schools. Teacher reported outcomes showed improvements in the number of serious school infractions. Youth reported outcomes showed improvement skipping school.
Matzenbacher (1999)
Utilizing randomized treatment and control groups, Matzenbacher examined a mentoring program serving at-risk elementary school students with college students. After a semester of involvement in the study, teachers reported a decrease in behavioral problems for the mentored youth.
Rollin, Kaiser-Ulrey, Potts, & Creason (2003)
This study evaluated a program in which at-risk eighth graders were matched with community-based mentors in an employment setting. The mentored youth, compared to a control group of non-mentored youth, had a decreased number of days suspended, days of sanction, and infractions committed on school property.
Cavell (2001)
In this study the researchers examined a program where aggressive youth were enrolled in a mentoring program. After participation in the program parents reported decreases in the youth’s aggression. Additionally, youth with positive beliefs about their mentor were less likely to endorse positive beliefs about aggression.
The best-known study of Big Brothers Big Sisters mentoring is the 1995 study of community-based mentoring conducted by Public/Private Ventures called Making a Difference: An Impact Study of Big Brothers Big Sisters. This is the Study that includes the often quoted impacts of Big Brothers Big Sisters mentoring including improvement in caring relationships, decrease in skipping school, and decrease in hitting and initial use of alcohol and drugs.
Tierney, Grossman, and Resch (1995)
The most extensive and widely known mentoring impact report was conducted by Public/Private Ventures (PPV) in the 1990’s. This randomized, nationwide study involving over 1,000 youth found that Little Brothers and Little Sisters, compared to controls were able to get along better with their families; were more trusting of their parents; were less likely to lie to their parents; and had better relationships with peers.
Turner and Scherman (1996)
This study focused on the effect of mentoring on boys between the ages of 7 to 15. They found boys with Big Brothers had higher self-concepts, reported higher ratings of physical appearance and popularity and felt less anxious compared to a similar group of unmatched boys.
Maldonado, Quarles, Lacey & Thompson (2008)
The authors examined Big Sister/Little Sister pairs that had been paired for 3-8 years. The Little Sisters were mostly from low socioeconomic status, of high school age, and at-risk. Maldonado and colleagues found through structured interviews that the mentoring relationships led to increased self-efficacy, aspirations, and future possible selves for the Little Sisters.
Spencer (2007)
This study was an evaluation of a BBBS community-based program and examined the relationships of 12 male/male Big/Little pairs. The researcher stressed that the Bigs did not conventionally approach the emotional nature of the mentoring relationship, therefore opening up the Littles to new ways of expressing themselves. The Littles, aged 12-16 and paired for 1-6 years, showed improvement in anger management and emotional connection. Spencer found that a relationship with an adult male was important, and the Littles were better able to manage their anger.
Osterling and Hines (2006)
Osterling examined a program designed to help foster youth transition from foster care to adulthood through mentoring. Mentors and foster youth reported their relationship was most like that of a friend, was trusting and understanding and very important. Youth reported that their mentors helped them to be more open with their feelings, have a better understanding of their emotions and also be less angry. Furthermore, they felt their mentors helped them with independent living skills, such as finding a job, opening a bank account, saving money and finishing their education. However, the authors reported that foster youth should be matched with a mentor as early as possible, because after 18 the foster youth were often not interested in having a mentor. Also, mentors felt the need for more help with resources to assist the youth with independent living skills. For example, having access to a resource coordinator, a resource directory and information on how to fill out the common forms foster youth need complete.
Karcher (2005b)
Karcher examined the effect of a School Based Mentoring program utilizing high school mentors on mentees after six months of program participation. The program was designed to promote children’s development by facilitating connectedness. He found that mentees showed an increase in connectedness to school and parents compared to a similar group of non-mentored youth. In addition, he found that changes in mentees’ self-esteem, social skills and behavioral competence were related to mentor attendance at mentor/mentee activities. Mentees with mentors who consistently met with them showed positive increases, whereas mentees with inconsistent mentors, showed declines in self-esteem and behavioral competence.
Matzenbacher (1999)
Utilizing randomized treatment and control groups, Matzenbacher examined a mentoring program serving at-risk elementary school students with college students. After a semester of involvement in the study, mentored youth showed improvement in self-esteem and perceived self-confidence, compared to the control group regarding Educational Success.
Tierney, Grossman, and Resch (1995)
The most extensive and widely known mentoring impact report was conducted by Public/Private Ventures (PPV) in the 1990’s. This randomized, nationwide study involving over 1,000 youth found that Little Brothers and Little Sisters, compared to controls were 52% less likely to skip school; and 37% less likely to skip class. Additionally, they found that Little Brothers/Sisters, compared to the control group, were more confident in their schoolwork performance, had modest gains in their grade point average and felt more competent about doing their school work.
Herrera et al. (2007)
This was a randomized, nationwide study conducted by Public/Private Ventures investigating Big Brothers Big Sisters School Based Mentoring programs, in which mentoring meetings/activities took place within the confines of the schools. Teacher reported outcomes showed improvements in science, overall academic performance, written/oral language, class work quality, number of assignments turned in, and number of serious school infractions. Youth reported outcomes showed improvement in scholastic efficacy, skipping school, and positive role models. In year two, 52% of matches continued. Of these, the only outcome to show any new improvement was skipping school. The strongest impacts were associated with longer match length, and potentially access to school space and resources, paining and support, and summer activities.
Thompson & Kelly-Vance (2001)
This study was an evaluation of a BBBS community-based program and compared the academic performance of twelve boys who received mentoring to thirteen boys who did not. They found that the participating boys had significantly higher reading (6 point increase vs. 1.1 decrease) and math scores (4 point increase vs. .9 decrease) on a standardized academic achievement test, than the comparison group after nine months of program participation.
Nakkula (1999)
This study was an evaluation of youth enrolled in a BBBS School Based Mentoring program. Youth involved in the program showed increases in their GPA, compared to a comparison group of non-mentored youth. Additionally, they found that lower achieving students tended to have greater gains than higher achieving students, and in spelling and science, boys had larger grade improvements than girls. Risky Behaviors.
Tierney, Grossman, and Resch (1995)
The most extensive and widely known mentoring impact report was conducted by Public/Private Ventures (PPV) in the 1990’s. This randomized, nationwide study involving over 1,000 youth found that Little Brothers and Little Sisters, compared to controls were 46% less likely to begin using illegal drugs, 27% less likely to begin using alcohol, 52% less likely to skip school and 37% less likely to skip class. Another way to state the findings is that they found for every 100 youth between the ages of 10-16 who start to use drugs, only 54 similar youth who have a Big Brother/Sister will start using drugs, or, for every 100 youth between the ages of 10-16 who skip school, only 48 similar youth who have a Big Brother/Sister will skip school.
Keating, Tomishima, Foster and Alessandri (2002)
The focus of this article was on a mentoring program involving youth at-risk of juvenile delinquency or mental illness. They found that youth with mentors had improvements in their behavioral competencies and decreases in behavioral problems as reported by both teachers and parents on the Child Behavior Checklist, while a comparison group of youth on a waiting list showed no improvements. For example, mothers of mentored youth reported they were less likely to be demonstrating destructive behaviors toward themselves and others and teachers reported less behavioral problems in school.
Beier et al. (2000)
Beier and colleagues examined the difference between adolescents who reported an adult mentor in their life, compared to those adolescents who didn’t report a mentor. Adolescents with mentors were significantly less likely to ever carry a weapon, use illicit drugs in the past 30 days, have sex with more than one partner in the past 6 months, or smoke 5 or more cigarettes per day, compared to those adolescents that didn’t report a mentor in their lives.
Herrera et al. (2007)
This was a randomized, nationwide study conducted by Public/Private Ventures investigating Big Brothers Big Sisters SBM programs, in which mentoring meetings/activities took place within the confines of the schools. Teacher reported outcomes showed improvements in the number of serious school infractions. Youth reported outcomes showed improvement skipping school.
Matzenbacher (1999)
Utilizing randomized treatment and control groups, Matzenbacher examined a mentoring program serving at-risk elementary school students with college students. After a semester of involvement in the study, teachers reported a decrease in behavioral problems for the mentored youth.
Rollin, Kaiser-Ulrey, Potts, & Creason (2003)
This study evaluated a program in which at-risk eighth graders were matched with community-based mentors in an employment setting. The mentored youth, compared to a control group of non-mentored youth, had a decreased number of days suspended, days of sanction, and infractions committed on school property.
Cavell (2001)
In this study the researchers examined a program where aggressive youth were enrolled in a mentoring program. After participation in the program parents reported decreases in the youth’s aggression. Additionally, youth with positive beliefs about their mentor were less likely to endorse positive beliefs about aggression.