Big Brother, Big Sister Community Match Programs

A profile of the first national study of Canada’s Big Brother Big Sister Community Match Programs

However, despite the widespread proliferation of BBBS programs in Canada and elsewhere, research-based evidence pertaining to program effectiveness in fostering positive change in the lives of needy children has been slow to emerge (Rhodes , 2008; Rhodes & Du Bois, 2008). Several studies aimed at demonstrating program effectiveness have been undertaken but for the most part have been hampered by weak study designs, small samples, a reliance on single informants, and follow-up periods too short for assessing how and to what extent the development and evolution of match relationships contribute to positive child outcomes (Abbott, Meredith, Self-Kelly, & Davis, 1997; Campbell & O'Neill, 1985; Frecknall & Luks, 1992; Galvin, 1989; Keating, Tomishima, Foster, & Alessandri, 2002; McPartland & Nettles, 1991; Nelson & Vaillant, 1993; Royse, 1998; Saintonge, Achille, & Lachance, 1998; Seidl, 1982; Thompson & Kelly-Vance, 2001; Turner & Scherman, 1996).

Perhaps the most in depth investigation to date of BBBS match program effectiveness is Tierney and colleagues’ evaluation of the American BBBS community match programs conducted in the early 1990s (Tierney, Grossman, & Resch, 1995). Designed as a randomized controlled trial, over 1,000 10-16 year old children from low income family backgrounds were randomly assigned to an experimental match program group or a waiting list control group. Children were interviewed at baseline and again 18 months later. Compared to controls, matched children demonstrated modest improvements in family and peer group relationships, positive attitudes toward school, and academic achievement. They were also 46 percent less likely to begin using alcohol or other drugs and skipped half as many days of school.

While the Tierney et al study made several valuable contributions in advancing the field of mentoring research, a number of questions of key importance to program practitioners and policy makers remain unanswered. First, since the study was originally conceived as a randomized controlled trial with one post-test follow-up, it has not been possible to identify specific components of the match relationship (e.g., quality, amount of time invested, type of shared activities) critical for achieving successful child outcomes, how individual components (or combinations of components) work through various mediating mechanisms (e.g., child self-esteem, academic and social competencies) to bring about positive long term change in behavior, and the environmental conditions (e.g., level of family functioning, neighborhood risk) and demographic sub-groups (e.g., child age, gender, ethnicity) within which match components appear to exert the greatest impact.

Second, the time limited nature of the Tierney et al. study did not lend itself to an exploration of the match relationship as a dynamic force that evolves over time. Theoretical reasoning suggests that match relationships move through phases of development beginning with initiation where mentors and children become acquainted, a middle phase of growth and maintenance that involves consensus building on issues and a solidification of the relationship, and a phase of eventual decline ending with termination of the match (Keller, 2005). In fact, several authors have suggested that match relationships may require up to 2 to 3 years to reach their full potential before children begin to experience positive change (Frecknall & Luks, 1992; Furano, Roaf, Styles, & Branch, 1993).

Finally, the success or failure of BBBS structured adult mentoring programs in fostering positive change in children's lives depends entirely on the development of healthy match relationships. Yet definitive conclusions regarding factors that play an important role in shaping these relationships have been slow to emerge largely because of an absence of carefully planned longitudinal studies. Theoretical models of mentoring together with cross-sectional evidence suggest that the success of structured match relationships is likely to be influenced by geographic proximity (e.g., distance between family and mentor and family / mentor and agency), characteristics of the adult mentor (e.g., feelings of efficacy as a positive influence on the child, a developmental versus prescriptive mentoring style), amount and type of mentor training, children's past and current behavioral and emotional functioning, parent support of the match, degree of similarity of child and mentor characteristics and interests, and BBBS caseworker involvement and support of the match (Du Bois, Holloway, Valentine, & Cooper, 2002; Keller, 2005; Madia & Lutz, 2004; Morrow & Styles, 1995; Para, Du Bois, Neville, & Pough-Lilly, 2002).

Our Current Research Initiative

In 2006 the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health in partnership with Big Brothers Big Sisters of Canada received $1.7 million from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research to conduct the first in depth national study of the impact of traditional BBBS community match relationships on the health and well-being of Canadian children (De Wit, Lipman, Bisanz, Da Costa, Graham, Larose, Pepler, & Shaver, 2006).

Team members include:

• David J. De Wit, Ph.D. (Principal Investigator, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health)
• Ellen Lipman, MD (Co-Principal Investigator, McMaster University).
• Jeffrey Bisanz, Ph.D. (Co-Investigator, University of Alberta)
• James Coyle, Ph.D. (Collaborator, University of Windsor)
• Jose Da Costa, Ph.D. (Co-Investigator, University of Alberta)
• David Du Bois, Ph.D. (Collaborator, University of Illinois at Chicago)
• Annalise Ferro, Ph.D. Candidate (Collaborator, University of Western Ontario)
• Kathryn Graham, Ph.D. (Co-Investigator, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health)
• Simon Larose, Ph.D. (Co-Investigator, Laval University)
• Maria C. Manzano, Ph.D. (Collaborator, St. Francis Xavier University)
• Debra Pepler, Ph.D. (Co-Investigator, York University)
• Karen Shaver, MSW (Co-Investigator, Big Brothers Big Sisters of Canada)

Primary study objectives are:

1. to identify aspects of BBBS community match relationships between adult mentors and children (i.e. perceived quality, time invested, type of activities) that contribute to the health and well-being of disadvantaged children,
2. to identify how and under what circumstances or conditions different aspects of the BBBS community match relationship work to achieve positive change in children’s lives, and
3. to identify BBBS agency and other environmental characteristics that contribute to the quality and healthy functioning of match relationships.

This five year longitudinal study aims to recruit 950 families (parents and children ages 6-17) and adult mentors from 20 BBBS agencies across Canada. Most of the 20 participating agencies (70 percent) are classified by BBBS as metropolitan agencies serving large population centers and therefore are not representative of all BBBS agencies in Canada. Participating families and mentors from each agency are new admissions (i.e., they are not part of the agency’s current caseload) and have passed the agency’s qualifying assessment for determining eligibility to participate in the community match program.

Recruitment of study families and mentors is conducted by BBBS intake or caseworkers following a script prepared by the researchers. Families are invited to participate in the study immediately after they have completed (and passed) the agency's qualifying assessment. Adult mentors satisfying the agency's qualifying assessment are invited to participate immediately following a match to a study child. The script introduces the study, identifies the sponsoring institution, describes the study objectives and questionnaire content, and outlines the researcher's expectations of participants. Families and mentors who express an interest in participating are asked to sign and date the script and record contact information authorizing a study interviewer to call them to arrange a first in home baseline assessment. Parents who enroll in the study must have primary parenting responsibility for the study child. In families with more than one eligible child, one is randomly selected to participate in the research.

Families receive an in home baseline assessment prior to a match to an adult mentor. The baseline includes a parent self-administered questionnaire and a child face to face interview conducted by a trained interviewer. In home follow-up assessments on the same group of families are conducted every 6 months until 30 months from baseline. Adult mentors are invited to participate after they are matched to a study child and complete a mentor self-administered questionnaire in conjunction with each subsequent family follow-up. Thus, adult mentors enter the study at different times over the 30 month follow-up period. Formal consent to participate is obtained from each family and adult mentor immediately before the baseline assessment. This includes an assent form for children.

At baseline and follow-up, children are asked to report on their academic and social competencies, coping skills, self-esteem, physical and mental health, behavior in and out of school, and possible use of alcohol, tobacco and other drugs. Parents provide reports on their children in each of these areas. They also report on their own social relationships, physical and mental health, and possible use of alcohol and other drugs. Families (parents and children) matched to an adult mentor answer an additional set of questions at each follow-up that includes the match determination process conducted by the agency (e.g., difficulties encountered), aspects of the match relationship (e.g., length, time invested per week, perceived quality, instrumental support, type of activities), parent support of the match, perceived barriers to spending time in the match, reasons for enrolling in the BBBS community match program, and agency contact and support of the match (parents only). Adult mentors answer the same questions as well as their history of involvement with mentoring programs, perceived effectiveness as a mentor (e.g., mentor self-efficacy), and experiences around mentor training provided by the agency (e.g., hours of training, satisfaction with training). All participants (parents, children, and mentors) provide detailed information on demographics, ethnic or cultural background, and socioeconomic status.

Given the lengthy study follow-up period of 30 months, a number of strategies for maintaining family and mentor involvement in our research have been undertaken. As a token of appreciation for participating, children receive two movie passes after completing each study interview while parents and adult mentors receive a $5 Tim Horton (food) gift certificate following the completing of their self-administered assessments. In addition, field interviewers place telephone calls to families and mentors between follow-up assessments reminding them of their important contribution to the overall success of the study. After each call, thank you cards are mailed to participants along with study brochures providing an update of study progress (e.g., number of recruited families and adult mentors). If an in home follow-up assessment is not feasible, families and mentors are given the option of other methods of data collection including Canada Post and e-mail for parents and mentors and telephone interviews for children ages 10 and over. All families and mentors are asked to provide the names and contact information of at least one close friend, relative or work associate in the event they cannot be reached for follow-up.

The BBBS Community Match Programs

BBBS community match programs are designed to provide children from disadvantaged backgrounds a structured one-on-one mentoring relationship with a caring and responsible adult. The development of this relationship is expected to lead to positive change in child psychosocial well being.

The program consists of three phases: family and mentor qualifying assessment, match determination, and match support/supervision (Big Brothers Big Sisters of Canada, 2007).

To qualify for an adult mentor, child applicants must be between the ages of 5 and 16, permanently reside in an agency’s region, and agree to agency regulations. Mentors must be18 years of age or older, have no criminal record, provide three personal references, and complete an assessment interview. They must agree to commit 2-4 hours of time each week with their child protégé discussing or engaging in recreational, leisure, skill-based, or career-oriented activities. Involvement must be maintained for at least a year. Mentors must attend an initial training session delivered by agency staff on application and assessment procedures, roles and responsibilities of mentors and protégés, match termination, caseworker support and supervision, recognizing abuse, and optimizing the quality of the match.

To determine a match, caseworkers conduct formal interviews with families and adult mentors to assess common interests, mentor ability to meet the needs of the child, personal preferences, and mentor willingness to become involved with children from varied cultural and social backgrounds. Parents must provide written approval of the selected mentor.

Caseworkers must contact mentors and their child protégés (including parents) at least once a month for the first 6 months following a match and every other month thereafter until 12 months. After 12 months contact is generally reduced. Caseworkers may provide information on organizational events and offer advice on handling problems during the match. Once children reach age 18, formal agency ties terminate though the match may continue. Mentors are expected to inform caseworkers of match related difficulties and provide notification of a change of address or their intention to terminate the relationship. They are obliged to report suspected incidents of physical or sexual abuse or other situations compromising child safety.

Children meeting the eligibility criteria for the match program are assigned to a waiting list until a match can be found. A majority of agencies offer a waiting list program of recreational or educational activities.

Study Progress to Date

In the past 24 months, approximately 1,250 families from 20 BBBS agencies have been approached by agency staff and invited to participate in our study. Among this group, 948 families (parents and children) have given consent and completed a baseline assessment, a response rate of 76 percent. A comparison of participants with non-participants on selected demographic characteristics (i.e., parent age, gender, education and marital status) has revealed no significant differences. Recruitment of families will continue until the end of September 2009 and is expected to yield a final sample size of 1,000.

Table 1 presents a breakdown of the recruited study families and adult mentors by agency including an estimate of the number of matches. To date, half of the families (n = 472) have indicated a match to an adult mentor on one or more of their follow-up assessments. The wide variability in match rates across agencies can be attributed in part to different levels of agency capacity in matching youth and different dates of entry into the study. Some agencies entered the study and began recruiting families (and mentors) much later than others and therefore have produced fewer matches. The individual match numbers are also likely to be an underestimate of the true number of matches given that families report on their match status for the first time at the 6 month assessment. Although not shown, 369 of the study matches (78 percent) are continuous or uninterrupted and 103 (22 percent) are matches that have dissolved since forming. Among this latter group of dissolved matches, 33 percent have been re-matched to a new mentor. Currently, 316 adult mentors have enrolled in our study and completed one or more adult mentor assessments in conjunction with the family follow-ups. We expect this number to grow as more study families receive a match and as mentors who enroll complete their assessment.

Most of the families enrolled in our study at baseline are still active participants and at various stages of completing the follow-ups. Families lost at follow-up include those who decided to leave the study or those who could not be reached for a follow-up appointment. Common reasons for leaving the study included a family move, dissolution of the match relationship, termination of the family's relationship with the BBBS agency, loss of interest, or change in child custody. Among families eligible to complete the 6 month follow-up, 81 percent provided an assessment. This number drops to 72 percent at 12 months follow-up and 65 percent at 18 months follow-up. Due to insufficient cases, a reliable estimate of the retention rate at 24 months follow-up is not available. The last 30 month follow-up is scheduled to begin in November of 2009. Adult mentor retention rates will be released in the coming months. The study follow-up retention rates for families are expected to move upward with the introduction of new strategies for keeping families and mentors engaged in the study (e.g., mailing of thank you cards and study brochures between follow-ups, more intensive use of incentives). Work is currently underway to examine which baseline characteristics of parents and mentors are most highly predictive of attrition at follow-up. This information will enable the team to develop additional strategies for improving retention that target specific groups of participants at greatest risk of dropping out.

Our study includes a battery of measures designed to capture a variety of developmental and health-related outcomes for children. Some of the measures have been developed by our team while others have been modified or borrowed from existing instruments. Child measures of mental health (e.g., depression, social anxiety) in particular have been absent in much of the scientific literature on structured mentoring. Therefore, an important goal of our research is to examine the extent to which child involvement in BBBS community match relationships leads to significant improvements in various facets of mental health. Measures have also been developed or acquired that gauge the quality of the match relationship and various agency and other environmental supports of the match. Pilot testing of several measures has been carried out previously on a sample of 71 BBBS families in southern Ontario participating in a feasibility study to conduct a randomized controlled trial of BBBS match relationships (De Wit, Lipman, Manzano-Munguia, Bisanz, Graham, Offord, O'Neill, Pepler, & Shaver, 2007). A detailed analysis of the psychometric properties of the current study measures is underway and includes estimates of internal consistency, test retest reliability, and level of agreement across informants (children, parents and mentors).

As noted above, a total of 20 BBBS agencies across Canada are participating in this study. This provides a unique opportunity to examine agency level characteristics (e.g., size of caseload, staffing, demographics) as possible predictors of between agency variability in child outcomes. For this reason, we have compiled a detailed agency level data set. A second round of agency data will be collected in mid 2010.

A Background Profile of BBBS Families and Adult Mentors

Table 2a-2c provides a descriptive background profile of study parents, children, and adult mentors. Collecting this information is important since participant demographics and socioeconomic characteristics may be predictive of whether or not children get matched, their experiences in the match relationship, and their future behavior and mental health status. In addition, the extent to which children benefit from involvement in BBBS matches is likely to vary depending on their personal demographics and family background.

As Table 2a shows, the typical parent participant has a mean age of 40. The vast majority (92.8 percent) are female. This is because parents who enroll children in the BBBS community match programs are usually female and because of our eligibility requirements stipulating that participants have primary parenting responsibility for the study child. Less than one in every five study parents (19.3 percent) are currently married or in a common-law union. Most are either divorced, separated or widowed (45.5 percent) or never married (35.2 percent). A large percentage of study parents are highly educated with almost two-thirds indicating some post-secondary education or completion of college or university. Despite their education, many parents endure a heavy economic burden. Nearly one-third report receipt of government social assistance and almost 30 percent report living in a dwelling subsidized by the government. Seventeen percent earn an annual gross household income of less than $10K. Parents are highly mobile with nearly one-quarter moving three or more times in the past five years. This high rate of mobility has proven to be a difficult factor to contend with in our efforts to keep families from leaving the study. Nearly 43 percent of parents list full time employment as their main activity in the 12 month period preceding their baseline assessment. Finally, one-third of parents report a chronic health condition.

Table 2b presents a profile of the child participants in the study. As indicated, nearly half (48.2 percent) of the children applying for an adult mentor in the BBBS community match programs are 6-9 years of age. By comparison only 12 percent are teenagers. The gender distribution is almost equally split with girls comprising 51 percent of the sample and boys 49 percent. Although BBBS match programs have modified their admission practices to include children from two parent households, nearly 70 percent of the children in our sample live with a single biological parent and the majority of these are single parent mothers. Approximately one-third of the study children report having no sibling living at home. This is a significant finding. Our research suggests that in addition to the absence of a parent caregiver, the absence of a sibling ranks near the top of the most important reasons children give for wanting a Big Brother or Big Sister. Children in our sample are widely dispersed across ethnic and racial lines. While just over 40 percent have a white European ethnic/racial origin, one-third may be classified as a visible minority (e.g., African Canadian, Aboriginal, Asian, and Hispanic). Children falling in the "other" ethnic/racial category consist mainly of those with a mixed origin (e.g., White European and Aboriginal). A very high percentage of children (nearly 80 percent) indicate the presence of a natural mentor at some point in their life. The most common mentor types listed include a family relative (e.g., aunt, uncle, grandparent) followed by a teacher and then family friend. One specific aim of our research is to determine if having a natural mentor provides an added benefit in terms of improved health and social outcomes for children involved in structured BBBS match relationships. Similar to their parents, nearly one-third of the study children (29.4 percent) report a chronic health condition. A detailed breakdown of these conditions reveals that most pertain to allergies and asthma.

Table 2c profiles the adult mentors enrolled in our study. In contrast to parent participants, the majority (72 percent) are young adults under the age of 30. Nearly two-thirds are female, a statistic due in part to the difficulty experienced by most agencies in recruiting male mentor role models. A cross-classification of mentor gender and the gender of their matched protégés reveals that approximately 90 percent of study matches are same gender matches. The remaining 10 percent are matches involving boys and female mentors. BBBS agencies prohibit matches between male mentors and girls. Most study mentors (62 percent) are single or never-married, almost twice the rate reported for parents. Nearly two-thirds of mentors (65 percent) report having completed college or university. In contrast, 38 percent of parent participants fall in this category. The vast majority of mentors (nearly 80 percent) report white European as their ethnic or racial origin while just over 10 percent belong to a visible minority. Future work based on our study data will examine the functioning of same versus mixed ethnic/racial matches in terms of length of match, amount of time invested, and perceived quality as well as the extent to which children in these different match groups experience similar improvements in self-esteem, overall mental health, academic performance at school, social relationships, and behavior. Most adult mentors in our study are in higher income brackets. For example, 58 percent of mentors report an annual gross household income of $50 K or higher. By comparison, less than one in five parent participants report this level of income. The majority of mentors list full-time employment as one of their main activities in the 12 month period preceding the date of their assessment. A significant percentage (28 percent) is enrolled in school as students. Almost all of the study mentors (87 percent) indicate being matched for the first time.

A Description of BBBS Match Relationship Components and Environmental Supports

As noted above, longitudinal evidence of the relative importance of various BBBS match relationship components (i.e., amount of time invested, perceived quality, and type of shared activities) in impacting children's developmental outcomes is absent in the scientific literature on the efficacy of structured mentoring programs. Evidence is also lacking concerning key match components and environmental supports (i.e., parent support of the match, caseworker contact and support of the match) that shape the development of healthy match relationships. When completed, our national data set is expected to provide valuable information in each of these areas, information that will be used by program and policy makers to improve the delivery and quality of BBBS services. Below we provide a description of selected BBBS match relationship components and environmental supports based on child and parent reports. Mentor reports of these constructs are not presented here but will be reported in future work. All of the results presented here should be viewed as strictly preliminary in nature given the changing nature of our sample of families and mentors.

Length of Match Relationship

Long-term matches (often defined as those lasting 6 or more months) have been identified in previous research as a key indicator of healthy or successful match relationships (Grossman & Rhodes, 2002; Du Bois & Neville, 1997).

Figure 1 provides a snapshot of the length of BBBS match relationships (in months) for 472 children reporting a match with an adult mentor at some point since the beginning of the study. Results, therefore, are based on both continuous (78 percent) and dissolved matches (22 percent). Among the dissolved matches, 33 percent have since been matched to another mentor. As shown in Figure 1, some study matches are at the very early stages of forming (<4 months duration) and may be placed into what Keller (1995) describes as the initiation phase where mentors and protégés become acquainted. Others are already at the middle phase of growth and development. For example, roughly 40 percent of the matches are at least 10 months old.

At the conclusion of our study, a number of children will have been in a match relationship with an adult mentor for 30 months. This group will be comprised of children matched shortly after receiving their baseline assessment and who remain in a continuous match right up to the 30 month follow-up assessment. In contrast, other children will be in a match for only a month, having received a match for the first time after waiting 29 months. This wide variability in the length of match relationships will be critical in analyses that examine the development and evolution of BBBS community match relationships and their subsequent impact on children's health and social outcomes.

Time Invested Per Week

Figures 2 and 3 describe the amount of time invested in the match relationship on a weekly basis. Time invested is measured as the number of days and hours per week mentors and protégés meet face to face to engage in educational, skill-based, or leisure/recreational activities. Results show that most mentors and protégés meet at least one day out of each week (65 percent). Roughly the same percentage report meeting at a minimum of 3-4 hours weekly. However, a significant minority of matched pairs (roughly 10-15 percent) meet infrequently falling short of BBBS agency expectations of 2-4 hours of meetings per week. Exactly how much time is optimal for the development of healthy match relationships (in terms of frequency and intensity of contact) is an important question that our research will seek to address.

Perceived Quality of the Match

A close and warm relationship between an adult mentor and child protégé is believed to lie at the core of successful match relationships (Rhodes, 2005; Rhodes, Reddy, Roffman, & Grossman, 2005; Rhodes, Spencer, Keller, Liang, & Noam, 2006). However, closeness and warmth are just a few of the many aspects of what defines a quality match. Moreover, existing measures of match quality are often simplistic and usually confined to one informant or reporter. We have attempted to advance the field of mentoring research in this area by developing a comprehensive battery of measures designed to capture parent, child, and adult mentor perceptions of match quality. Preliminary findings for two of these measures are presented here.

Figure 4 presents child perceptions of the receipt of emotional and instrumental support from the adult mentor. Children are asked a total of 22 questions and given three response options consisting of "not true", "somewhat true" and "very true". Items are summed to arrive at an index of support and collapsed into three categories of low, moderate, and high support. Sample items include "Is there for me when I have a problem" and "listens carefully to what I am saying". Results to date suggest that the vast majority of matched children in our sample (72 percent) provide favorable (high) ratings of the quality of support in their match relationships. In Figure 5 parents are asked to rate the quality of the match relationship according to five characteristics or traits: trust, closeness, warmth, respect, and happiness. Five response options are provided ranging from "strongly agree" to "strongly disagree". Items are summed to form an index of quality and collapsed into categories of low, moderate, and high. Similar to the results obtained for children, Figure 5 shows that 75 percent of the study parents rate the match relationship in favorable terms.

Type of Shared Activities

In BBBS community match programs, adult mentors are expected to engage in leisure, educational, and skill based activities with their protégés. Collecting information from children and mentors on the type of shared activities that typically occur in the match relationship is important. One reason is that children enrolled in matches that focus on educational and skill-based activities may be more likely to demonstrate improvements in academic competencies compared to children in matches focusing on leisure activities alone. Moreover, a match relationship that involves frequent conversations on the telephone is less likely to have a positive impact on a child's life than a match with quality face to face interaction.

Figure 6 presents the occurrence of different types of shared activities in the match relationship based on child reports. Children are asked to indicate how often (in the past month) they engage in various activities with their mentor. Response options include: never, sometimes, and often. For each activity, we present only the percentage of children who choose the option of "often". Results show that the most popular activity is talking on the telephone (41 percent). Other frequent activities include playing games or sports (33 percent), going out to a movie or restaurant (32 percent), talking about something important face to face (29 percent), going out for a walk (25 percent), and being taught a skill (21 percent).

Match Determination Difficulties

All families and adult mentors who pass the qualifying phase of the BBBS community match program must submit to a formal assessment interview. This assessment interview forms the cornerstone of the match determination process and is designed to gauge common interests between the child and mentor, a mentor’s ability to meet the needs of the child, child and mentor personal preferences, and mentor openness to becoming involved with children from a variety of cultural and social backgrounds. Logic dictates that match relationships will have less chance of succeeding if children, parents, or mentors are unhappy with some aspect of the match determination phase.

Figure 7 describes parent reports of various difficulties experienced during the match determination process. Parents are presented with four statements about the process and asked to indicate how true each statement is on a three point scale: “very true”, “kind of true”, and “not very true”. Examples of difficulties include: “it took too long for a match to be found” and “not enough thought given to things my child and match partner like to do”. Items or statements are summed to form an index of difficulties and regrouped into categories of low, moderate, and high. Results show that more than half of study parents (55 percent) indicate few or no difficulties with the match process conducted by the BBBS agency. In contrast, only 5 percent report significant difficulties.

Parent Support of the Match

Parents are heavily involved at every phase of the BBBS community match program. Despite this fact, we are not aware of any research that examines the degree or level of support parents provide to the match relationship and its possible association with key match components (i.e., quality, time invested, and type of shared activities).

Figure 8 presents parent self-reports of the provision of various types of support to the child-mentor match relationship. Parents are asked to indicate how strongly they agree or disagree with six statements pertaining to match support. Example items include: “suggest activities for my child and mentor” and “make “adult mentor feel welcome”. Five response options range from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree”. Items are summed to form an index of support and regrouped into categories of low, moderate, and high. Results show that the vast majority of parents are either moderately (47.6 percent) or highly supportive (48 percent) of their child’s match.

Caseworker Involvement / Support

Finally, BBBS community match programs provide regular and ongoing caseworker support to the match up to 12 months from the time it is formed. Monthly contact with families and mentors is generally provided during the first six months and then every other month thereafter until 12 months. After 12 months, contact is reduced. Caseworkers may contact parents for a variety of reasons that include: advice or help resolving issues or problems arising during the match, providing information on the match agreement, clarifying parent responsibilities in the match agreement, informing parents of upcoming agency events, and providing information about scholarships or summer camp programs.

Our results show that more than half (58 percent) of the parents with children in a match relationship report no BBBS caseworker initiated contact in the month preceding their assessment. However, this high prevalence of no contact is due to the fact that a large percentage of matches in our sample have already passed the 12 month mark in duration. In fact, a closer examination of our data reveals considerably higher rates of contact for shorter match durations. For matches 1-3 months in length, 74 percent of parents report caseworker contact in the preceding month. The rate falls slightly to 71 percent for matches lasting 4-6 months and then sharply to 48 percent for matches lasting 7-11 months. For matches lasting 12 or more months the rate climbs slightly to 51 percent. Thus, even for long-term matches, BBBS continues to provide regular match supervision.

Summary

Structured adult mentoring programs for children and youth like those offered by BBBS are growing in popularity. However, scientific evidence in support of the effectiveness of these programs remains scarce. Our longitudinal study of Canadian BBBS community match programs is expected to provide BBBS program practitioners and policy-makers sound information on program effectiveness as well as information that would lead to improvements in service delivery and ultimately well functioning match relationships for young people.

references

• Abbott, D.A., Meredith, W.H., Kelly, R., & Davis, M.E. (1997). The influence of a Big Brothers program on the adjustment of boys in single-parent families. The Journal of Psychology, 131(2): 143-156.
• Aos, S., Lieb, R., Mayfield, J., Miller, M., & Pennucci, A. (2004). Benefits and costs of prevention and early intervention programs for youth. Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.
• Benard, B., & Marshall, K. (2001). Big Brothers Big Sisters Mentoring: The power of developmental relationships. Minneapolis: National Resilience Resource Centre.
• Big Brothers Big Sisters of Canada. (2005). Every child who needs a mentor has a mentor: A blueprint to serving 100,000 children by 2013. Burlington, Ontario.
• Big Brothers Big Sisters of Canada. (2007). National standards. July, 2007.
• Blechman, E.A. (1992). Mentors for high-risk minority youth: From effective communication to bicultural competence. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 21(2): 160-169.
• Brady, B & O’Regan, C. (2009). Meeting the challenge of doing an RCT evaluation of youth mentoring in Ireland: A journey in mixed methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research.
• Campbell, R.E., & O’Neill, P. (1985). Social support for single mothers: A study of Big Brothers/Big Sisters. Canadian Journal of Community Mental Health, 4: 81-87.
• De Wit, D., Lipman, E., Bisanz, J., Da Costa, J., Graham, K., Larose, S., Pepler, D., & Shaver, K. (2006). A longitudinal analysis of the effects of adult mentoring on children’s health and well-being: An examination of the Big Brothers Big Sisters community match program. Canadian Institutes of Health Research (2006-2011). MOP 81115.
• De Wit, D.J., Lipman, E.L., Manzano-Munguia, M., Bisanz, J., Graham, K., Offord, D.R., O'Neill, E., Pepler, D., & Shaver, K. (2007). Feasibility of a randomized controlled trial for evaluating the effectiveness of the Big Brothers Big Sisters community match program at the national level. Children and Youth Services Review, 29: 383-404.
• DuBois, D.L., & Neville, H.A. (1997). Youth mentoring: Investigation of relationship characteristics and perceived benefits. American Journal of Community Psychology, 25(3): 227- 234.
• DuBois, D.L., Holloway, B.E., Valentine, J.C., & Cooper, H. (2002). Effectiveness of mentoring programs for youth: A meta-analytic review. American Journal of Community Psychology, 30(2): 157-197.
• Frecknall, P., & Luks, A. (1992). An evaluation of parental assessment of the Big Brothers/Big Sisters program in New York City. Adolescence, 27(107): 715-718.
• Furrano, K., Roaf, P.A., Styles, M.B., & Branch, A.Y. (1993). Big Brothers Big Sisters: A study of program practices. Philadelphia: Public/Private Ventures.
• Galvin, P.F. (1989). Concept mapping for planning and evaluation of a Big Brother Big Sister Program. Evaluation and Program Planning, 12, 53-57.
• 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.
• Keating, L.M., Tomishima, M.A., Foster, S., & Alessandri, M. (2002). The effects of a mentoring program on at-risk youth. Adolescence, 37(148): 717-734.
• Keller, T.E. (2005). The stages and development of mentoring relationships. Pp 83-99 In David L. DuBois & Michael J. Karcher (eds.), Handbook of youth mentoring. Thousand Oaks California: Sage Publications.
• Keller, T.E. (2005). A systemic model of the youth mentoring intervention. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 26(2): 169-188.
• Madia, B.P., & Lutz, C.J. (2004). Perceived similarity, expectation-reality discrepancies, and mentors’ expressed intention to remain in Big Brothers/Big Sisters Programs. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(3): 598-623.
• McPartland, J.M., & Nettles, S.M. (1991). Using community adults as advocates or mentors for at-risk middle school students: A two-year evaluation of project RAISE. American Journal of Education, 99: 568-586.
• MENTOR. (2006). Mentoring in America 2005: A snapshot of the current state of mentoring. http://www.mentoring.org/downloads/mentoring_333.pdf.
• Moodie, M.L., & Fisher, J. (2009). Are youth mentoring programs good value for money? An evaluation of the Big Brothers Big Sisters Melbourne Program. BMC Public Health, 9(41):1-28.
• Morrow, K.V., & Styles, M.B. (1995). Building relationships with youth in program settings. Philadelphia: Public/Private Ventures.
• Nelson, C., & Vaillant, P.M. (1993). Personality dynamics of adolescent boys where the father is absent. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 76: 435-443.
• Parra, G.R., DuBois, D.L., Neville, H.A., & Pugh-Lilly, A.O. (2002). Mentoring relationships for youth: Investigation of a process-oriented model. Journal of Community Psychology, 30(4): 367- 388.
• Rhodes, J.E. (2005). A model of youth mentoring. Pp 30-43 In David L. DuBois & Michael Karcher (eds.), Handbook of youth mentoring. Thousand Oaks California: Sage Publications.
• Rhodes, J.E., Reddy, R., Roffman, J., & Grossman, J.B. (2005). Promoting successful youth mentoring relationships: A preliminary screening questionnaire. Journal of Primary Prevention, 26(2): 147-167.
• Rhodes, J.E., Spencer, R., Keller, T.E., Liang, B., & Noam, G. (2006). A model for the influence of mentoring relationships on youth development. Journal of Community Psychology, 34(6): 691-707.
• Rhodes, J.E. (2008). Improving youth mentoring interventions through research-based practice. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41: 35-42.
• Rhodes, J.E., & Du Bois, D.L. (2008). Mentoring relationships and programs for youth. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17(4): 254-258.
• Royse, D. (1998). Mentoring high risk minority youth: Evaluation of the Brothers Project. Adolescence, 33(129): 145-158.
• Saintonge, S., Achille, P.A., & Lachance, L. (1998). The influence of Big Brothers on the separation-individuation of adolescents from single-parent families. Adolescence, 33(130): 343-353.
• Seidl, F.W. (1982). Big Sisters: An experimental evaluation. Adolescence, 27(65): 117-129.
• Sidoruk, N. (1994). Project Impact: A program evaluation of Big Brothers of Ontario. Social Planning and Research Council of Hamilton-Wentworth, Hamilton, Ontario.
• Thompson, L.A., & Kelly-Vance, L. (2001). The impact of mentoring on academic achievement of at-risk youth. Children and Youth Services Review, 23(3): 227-242.
• Tierney, J.P., Grossman, J.B., & Resch, N.L. (1995). Making a difference: An impact study of Big Brothers/Big Sisters. Public/Private Ventures. Philadelphia, PA.
• Turner, S., & Scherman, A. (1996). Big Brothers: Impact on Little Brothers' self-concepts and behaviours. Adolescence, 31(124):875-882.