This needs to be A++++ quality as this will decide my final overall grade. Please use the attached materials and please incorporate as much research as possible! (citations

Mentoring in Schools: An Impact Study of Big Brothers

Big Sisters School-Based Mentoring

Carla Herrera, Jean Baldwin Grossman, Tina J. Kauh, and Jennifer McMaken Public ⁄ Private Ventures

This random assignment impact study of Big Brothers Big Sisters School-Based Mentoring involved 1,139 9- to 16-year-old students in 10 cities nationwide. Youth were randomly assigned to either a treatment group (receiving mentoring) or a control group (receiving no mentoring) and were followed for 1.5 school years. At the end of the first school year, relative to the control group, mentored youth performed better academically, had more positive perceptions of their own academic abilities, and were more likely to report having a ‘‘spe- cial adult’’ in their lives. However, they did not show improvements in classroom effort, global self-worth, relationships with parents, teachers or peers, or rates of problem behavior. Academic improvements were also not sustained into the second school year.

As parents strive to raise children who succeed aca- demically, develop supportive bonds with others and avoid problem behaviors, they meet many challenges. These challenges are particularly salient in homes where positive adult role models are not consistently available to help children make healthy decisions. Mentoring programs aim to fill such gaps in children’s lives, by matching volunteers with youth who could benefit from extra support and guidance. These programs have grown rapidly since the mid-1990s, bolstered by a series of studies showing that mentoring improves the lives of youth (Aseltine, Dupre, & Lamlein, 2000; Grossman & Tierney, 1998; LoSciuto, Rajala, Townsend, & Taylor, 1996).

While all forms of mentoring are increasing in prevalence, school-based mentoring (SBM) is grow- ing particularly rapidly. In 2005, approximately 870,000 adults were mentoring children in schools (MENTOR, 2006). In SBM, mentors typically build relationships with youth by meeting one-on-one with them at their school for about an hour a week during or after the school day, engaging in a wide range of academic and nonacademic activities.

SBM has grown, in part, due to increasing con- cerns about student performance, and schools’ efforts to implement interventions that might address their students’ challenges and foster aca- demic success. Students between the ages of 9 and 14, in particular, experience major developmental and school-related changes that make them vulner- able to academic, social, and behavioral problems. Fourth grade, for example, is a time of profound pedagogical change in most school systems. In Grades 1 through 3, students learn to read; in fourth grade, students begin to read to learn (Chall, 1983). If children leave the third grade as poor readers and their reading skills do not improve over the summer, they quite likely will experience ongoing learning problems (Spreen, 1978, 1988). Fourth graders experiencing these problems need to be encouraged to stay engaged in school and address their reading challenges. During late ele- mentary school, children also begin developing a sense of their own competence and start honing

This study was conducted as part of a larger Public ⁄ Private Ventures evaluation funded by generous grants from The Atlan- tic Philanthropies (to Big Brothers Big Sisters of America), Philip Morris USA, and The William T. Grant Foundation. The Edna McConnell Clark Foundation also supported the study by foster- ing communication among key stakeholders during all phases of the project. We are very grateful to staff from the 10 Big Brothers Big Sisters agencies involved in the study, as well as the men- tors, youth and teachers who completed our surveys. We thank Eric Foster, Mike Barr, and Dareth Noel at the Institute for Sur- vey Research at Temple University for their data collection efforts, and the school staff who assisted them. Keoki Hansen and Joe Radelet at Big Brothers Big Sisters of America were incredibly supportive partners throughout the study’s imple- mentation, as was our advisory group: Amanda Bayer, David DuBois, Michael Karcher, Steven Liu, and Jean Rhodes. We also thank the anonymous reviewers for helpful feedback that shaped the final draft of this report.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Carla Herrera, Senior Policy Researcher, Public ⁄ Private Ventures, 2000 Market Street, Suite 550, Philadelphia, PA 19103. Electronic mail may be sent to [email protected].

Child Development, January ⁄ February 2011, Volume 82, Number 1, Pages 346–361

� 2011 The Authors

Child Development � 2011 Society for Research in Child Development, Inc.

All rights reserved. 0009-3920/2011/8201-0023

DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01559.x

their social comparison skills, enabling them to compare their accomplishments and failures to those of their peers. Youth who are experiencing learning problems often feel inadequate at school relative to their peers and frequently disengage from academic work, resulting in a cycle of school failure (Finn, 1989). These students may also start acting out to get attention from their teachers and peers (Jimerson, Egeland, & Sroufe, 2000; Laird, Jor- dan, Dodge, Pettit, & Bates, 2001). In contrast to children who feel competent, those who suffer from learning problems in elementary school are more likely to be held back a grade or to drop out of high school (Alexander, Entwisle, & Horsey, 1997; Cairns, Cairns, & Neckerman, 1989). When youth enter junior high school, they also experience major changes in school structure and adult and peer rela- tionships. These shifts are associated with further deteriorations in self-confidence and academic engagement in many students (Eccles & Midgley, 1989; Seidman, Allen, Aber, Mitchell, & Feinman, 1994).

Many youth are able to overcome such chal- lenges because they have the adult support and skills needed to negotiate them. However, not all children have these resources. Mentoring programs aim to provide a key protective factor—a caring adult—to youth to help ensure that they can negoti- ate some of these developmental challenges. Youth involved in high-quality, secure relationships are more independent, more persistent and more socially competent (Bergin & Bergin, 2009)—charac- teristics that are important for healthy socio- emotional and academic development. Because children spend almost a third of their waking hours in school (Timmer, Eccles, & O’Brien, 1985) acquir- ing academic skills, values and behaviors, and forming relationships with adults and peers that can have a profound effect on their development, schools would appear to be an ideal context in which to provide youth with this type of relationship.

Several studies have been conducted to outline the effects of ‘‘traditional’’ community-based men- toring (CBM) that is implemented outside of the school context. For example, a meta-analysis by DuBois, Holloway, Valentine, and Cooper (2002) of 55 studies of mentoring programs (a large propor- tion of which were CBM programs) found modest but significant positive effects of mentoring on risky behavior, social competence, and academic and career outcomes. However, surprisingly little research has been conducted to determine whether this major new variant of SBM is similarly able to contribute to youth’s positive development. On the

one hand, SBM has several characteristics that could make it less effective than CBM. For example, SBM meetings are more brief than those in CBM (approximately 1 hr a week compared to 3 or 4 hr a week in CBM), the matches are shorter in duration (Herrera, Sipe, McClanahan, with Arbreton, & Pep- per, 2000) and the relationships developed in these programs seem to be less strong than those in CBM (Herrera, 2004; Herrera et al., 2000). Given that longer and stronger relationships yield bigger impacts (Grossman & Johnson, 1999; Grossman & Rhodes, 2002; Slicker & Palmer, 1993), one might expect smaller or fewer impacts for SBM.

On the other hand, the school-based nature of SBM interactions may prime the mentoring rela- tionship to operate through different pathways that may help youth in a range of academic, social, and behavioral areas—particularly those evident in the school environment. For example, SBM may be a strong intervention for improving youth’s relation- ships with teachers. The focused attention and interaction that mentors provide may help improve the student’s social skills in interactions with oth- ers, including teachers. School-based mentors also may focus a teacher’s attention on the youth and help realign the youngsters’ attitudes toward teach- ers. Rhodes, Grossman, and Resch (2000) found that mentoring improved youth’s perception of other adult relationships—in particular, the parent– child relationship. Although SBM may also affect the parent–child relationship, school-based mentors have more direct connection and communication with children’s teachers than with their parents (Herrera et al., 2000). Thus, we postulate that SBM may have even stronger effects on youth’s relation- ships with their teachers than those with their parents.

The hypothesized impact on both parental and teacher relationships should then catalyze other improvements in youth’s outcomes. For example, better parental relationships are associated with higher general, academic, and social self-concepts and lower levels of problem behavior (Lau & Leung, 1992). Strong teacher–student relationships can similarly influence: children’s motivation to achieve in school (Patrick, Anderman, & Ryan, 2002), their interest in, enjoyment from and valuing of schoolwork (Fraser & Fisher, 1982; Jacobs, Lanza, Osgood, Eccles, & Wigfield, 2002; Midgley, Feldlau- fer, & Eccles, 1989), their expectations for school achievement (Goodenow, 1993), and their school performance (Hamre & Pianta, 2001).

By helping to improve youth’s social skills and sense of self, SBM may work similarly in improving

School-Based Mentoring 347

youth’s peer relationships. Research further sug- gests that peers (particularly in elementary school) may see attention from a school-based mentor in a very positive light, boosting the status of mentored youth (Hughes, Cavell, Meehan, Zhang, & Collie, 2005). Improving peer relationships early in devel- opment can then be critical in helping older adoles- cents stay out of trouble and stay in school (Parker, Jeffrey, & Asher, 1987).

By being located at school, the mentoring rela- tionship can also provide the child with a more positive experience and outlook on school. Studies show that participation in school-based activities increases students’ sense of school belonging and liking (Eccles & Barber, 1999; Grossman et al., 2002). This experience may in turn lead to improved attendance and academic performance.

Prior research, in fact, suggests that SBM partici- pation is associated with positive outcomes and that these associations differ from those found in CBM, focusing mostly on school and social domains and less on out-of-school behavior. For example, studies have found positive associations between SBM and academic performance (Diversi & Mecham, 2005; Hansen, 2001, 2002), self-perceptions of academic abilities (Bernstein, Dun Rappaport, Olsho, Hunt, & Levin, 2009) and attitudes toward school (Karcher, Davis, & Powell, 2002; King, Vido- urek, Davis, & McClellan, 2002; Portwood & Ayers, 2005). Studies have also found associations between SBM and improvements in peer relationships (Cavell & Hughes, 2000; Herrera, 2004; Karcher, 2008; King et al., 2002), attitudes toward parents (Karcher, 2005; Karcher et al., 2002), and self-esteem or self-confidence (Karcher, 2008; Matzenbacher, 1999). Few studies have examined out-of-school risky behaviors but some find reductions in school misbehavior (Cavell & Hughes, 2000; Matzenbach- er, 1999) and truancy (Bernstein et al., 2009). While these are all hopeful findings, most are based on non- or quasi-experimental evidence. To date, few large-scale experimental evaluations of SBM exist. Karcher’s (2008) and Bernstein et al.’s (2009) recent studies are notable exceptions.

SBM holds great potential for the mentoring field to yield benefits for youth, particularly in school- related areas during a developmental period when youth may be in need of relational and academic supports. If SBM can improve youth’s experiences and performance in school, its widespread use could foster the academic success of millions of children. However, if SBM is not effective, it will be important to outline its limitations so that school administrators, policymakers and funders can

redirect their resources into other proven strategies that may be more likely to enrich youth’s develop- ment.

To help the field make crucial decisions about where to invest its limited resources at this time of unprecedented growth, this study used a random assignment impact design to rigorously test the impacts of Big Brothers Big Sisters (BBBS) SBM both on outcomes closely linked with the school context and on more broad, out-of-school outcomes that previous studies have shown are related to participation in CBM programs. Namely, we examine impacts on school-related attitudes and performance, problem behavior in and outside of school, and social and personal well-being, includ- ing relationships with peers and adults and self- esteem. We anticipate that effects in out-of-school areas will not be as strong as those in school-related areas.

In addition, we explore whether program effects differ for youth of different ages, genders, and eth- nicities. We also examine whether youth reports of having a special relationship with an adult at base- line are associated with program benefits. On the one hand, we might expect that youth would receive a bigger boost from the intervention if the mentor is the only significant nonfamilial adult in the child’s life. On the other hand, research sug- gests that having already experienced a close rela- tionship with an adult prior to program participation may help prepare the child for creat- ing strong relationships with others (Rhodes, Con- treras, & Mangelsdorf, 1994). We explore these competing hypotheses by testing whether and in what ways program effects differ for youth with and without a special adult prior to program participation.

Method

Participants

Participants in the study include 1,139 youth who were in fourth through ninth grades at the start of the study in September 2004. Youth attended 71 schools that had SBM programs run by 1 of 10 geographically diverse BBBS agencies. On average, there were 16 participating youth per school, although this ranged from 1 to 101 partici- pating youth, and all but 5 schools had 35 or fewer participating youth. The agencies selected for this study had to have SBM programs that fulfilled sev- eral criteria. All programs: (a) had been operating for at least 4 years, (b) served at least 150 youth

348 Herrera, Grossman, Kauh, and McMaken

(both boys and girls), (c) recruited from at least two different types of volunteer populations (e.g., high school students, nearby employees), and (d) had strong relationships with school partners. The cho- sen 10 agencies represent a range of sizes, however on average, they are larger than the average BBBS agency, and they tended to have more experience with SBM and more supportive schools.

Our sample is 54% female and ranged in age from 8 to 18 years (M = 11.23), although over 99% of youth were between 9 and 16 years old. A total of 63% were minorities, with Latinos (23%), African Americans (18%), and multiracial youth (13%) comprising the largest minority groups. Sixty-nine percent received free or reduced-priced lunch dur- ing the 1st year of the study. Additionally, 39% lived in single-parent households. Sixty-one percent of participants were in fourth or fifth grade, about a third were in middle school (sixth through eighth grades), and 6% were ninth graders from three high schools served by one agency that targeted high school freshman at risk of dropping out. Teachers reported that about half (51%) of youth were either performing below grade level or needed improve- ment in their overall academic performance. Teach- ers also reported that only 12% had been involved in serious school infractions (i.e., fighting, suspen- sions, being sent to the principal’s office) in the 4 weeks prior to the baseline survey.

Of the 554 mentors who completed baseline sur- veys at the beginning of their program involve- ment, 72% were female and 77% were White. Approximately 44% of minority youth were matched with White mentors and 19% of youth were in cross-gender matches. Nearly half (48%) of mentors were high school students and 18% were college students at the time of the baseline survey. Mentors of different ages reported receiving fairly similar amounts and quality of training and sup- port over the course of their match (see Herrera, Kauh, Cooney, Grossman, & McMaken, 2008). Twenty-five percent of mentors had previous expe- rience mentoring in formal mentoring programs, and an additional 35% had prior informal mentor- ing experience.

Procedure and Intervention

Participating youth were referred to the program by school staff. Children who assented to partici- pate in the study (and had parents who gave their formal consent) were surveyed along with their teachers (all 1,139 youth and teachers of 1,009 youth [89%] completed baseline surveys). Baseline youth

surveys were administered at the child’s school by on-site researchers in small groups of 3–10 youth. Teacher surveys were self-administered. For youth in middle and high school who had multiple teach- ers, the child’s science, social studies, or homeroom teacher (or, if the child was learning English as a second language, the ESL teacher) was identified by the school liaison (i.e., a school staff member who worked with BBBS staff to recruit youth and oversee the program) and surveyed. These subjects were selected because science and social studies generally cover material that is relatively indepen- dent from the knowledge taught in those subjects in previous years. Thus, we hypothesized that aca- demic change might occur more quickly in these subjects than in math or language arts and these teachers might be able to observe change in school performance and behavior more quickly. Home- room teachers were also targeted because they see the students every day and might be aware of stu- dent’s performance in more than one subject area. If the youth did not have a teacher in any of these areas, another teacher was surveyed.

Once students completed their survey, they were randomly assigned to either the treatment group (which we refer to as ‘‘Littles’’) who were eligible to matched with a mentor (n = 565) or to the con- trol group (which we refer to as ‘‘their nonmen- tored peers’’) who were placed on agency waiting lists until the end of the study (n = 574). Random assignment was stratified by school so that the treatment and control groups within a given school were approximately the same size. However, because assignment to these groups was based on short sequences of pregenerated randomly ordered treatment designations rather than perfectly alter- nating patterns, the size of these groups is close to, but not exactly a 50–50 split.

Student and teacher surveys were collected in the spring of School Year 1, the ‘‘9-month assess- ment’’ (1,067 youth surveys, a 94% completion rate; 959 teacher surveys, an 84% completion rate), and in late fall of School Year 2, the ‘‘15-month assess- ment’’ (968 youth surveys, an 85% completion rate; 920 teacher surveys, an 81% completion rate). A total of 447 of 515 mentors in active matches also completed surveys at the 9-month assessment (an 87% completion rate). This survey included ques- tions about the match and the program; only infor- mation about the program is included here. Surveys for youth were administered by a survey firm at the schools or by phone for youth who had moved or were absent on the day of survey administration. Teacher surveys were, again,

School-Based Mentoring 349

self-administered. Mentor surveys were distributed by agency staff in eight agencies and by an outside survey firm in two agencies and were self-adminis- tered.

The agencies were responsible for recruiting and training the mentors. Mentors were recruited as they normally were in any other program year—typically from local businesses and high schools and in some cases, from colleges. Overall, 71% of mentors reported receiving training from the agency with an average duration of 1 hr. A majority of programs (80%) asked mentors to com- mit to meeting at least weekly with their Littles. Most mentors reported that their match meetings lasted either 45–60 min (40% of mentors) or over 1 hr (39%); only 21% reported having match meet- ings that lasted < 45 min.

Match meetings occurred in many different places on the school campus, typically in large spaces like the school cafeteria or library. About half (49%) of the programs in our sample operated during the school day, while 47% took place after school. The remaining programs (4%) held match meetings both during and after school. For 64% of matches, meetings involved interacting with other youth. These interactions often occurred in after- school programs in which matches typically met together in one space, but they also sometimes occurred in school-day programs, several of which met during lunch.

All of the programs participating in the study had some degree of structure (i.e., the activities from which matches could choose were, at least in part, outlined by the program), and in a few cases, the activities in which matches engaged were pre- determined by the school or BBBS. However, in most programs, matches chose how they spent their time together. For example, some programs offered suggestions for the meetings by providing a box of recreational activities from which mentors and their Littles could choose if they needed activity ideas. Reports from mentors point to a lack of a strong academic emphasis in the programs: Although most matches did engage in some academic activi- ties, only 27% spent ‘‘a lot’’ or ‘‘most’’ of their time engaging in tutoring or homework help. Instead, the matches engaged in a wide variety of other activities, including creative activities (e.g., draw- ing, arts and crafts), games and discussions about various issues and topics.

By the 9-month assessment, 93% of Littles had been matched with a mentor and had received an average of 4.9 months of mentoring, meeting an average of 3.1 times per month while their match

was active. By the start of the second school year, many of these matches had ended. Close to one third of the matches ended because the Little had transferred to a new school—either due to family mobility or ‘‘graduation’’ from elementary to mid- dle school or middle to high school. Although agency staff tried to find mentors for these youth, they were not always successful. In total, only 52% of Littles met with a mentor in the second school year—41% with their 1st-year mentor and an addi- tional 11% with a new mentor.

Measures

Outcome measures fell into three broad catego- ries: school-related performance and attitudes, problem behaviors, and social and personal well- being as described below. (Other outcome mea- sures were examined and the results of these analyses are available in a Public ⁄ Private Ventures report; see Herrera et al., 2007.) See Table 1 for baseline means for covariates and outcome mea- sures. For scales, Cronbach‘s alphas for each of the three waves (a1, a2, a3) are reported.

Table 1

Means of Baseline Covariates and Outcomes

Measure

Baseline

M (SD)

for controls

Baseline

M (SD)

for treatments

Covariates

Age 11.23 (1.66) 11.24 (1.67)

Minority (%) 60.80 64.43

Female (%) 54.36 53.98

Stress 4.41 (2.54) 4.64 (2.62)

Involvement in extracurricular

activities

2.43 (1.41) 2.40 (1.48)

Free ⁄ reduced-price lunch (%) 68.93 69.21

Teacher-reported outcomes

Classroom effort 2.77 (0.76) 2.76 (0.76)

Overall academic performance 2.47 (1.09) 2.56 (1.10)

Absence without an excuse (%) 12.22 11.63

Serious school infractions (%) 13.25 10.75

Teacher relationship quality 3.81 (0.72) 3.82 (0.71)

Youth-reported outcomes

Self-perceptions of academic

abilities

2.75 (0.64) 2.80 (0.62)

Social acceptance 2.75 (0.65) 2.81 (0.68)

Global self-worth 3.18 (0.57) 3.19 (0.54)

Parent relationship quality 3.39 (0.64) 3.38 (0.63)

Misconduct outside of school (%) 44.74 47.08

Substance use (%) 15.47 11.17

Presence of a special adult (%) 63.04 58.21

350 Herrera, Grossman, Kauh, and McMaken

School-Related Performance and Attitudes

Teachers were asked to rate youth’s overall aca- demic performance on a 5-point scale from 1 = below grade level to 5 = excellent (Pierce, Hamm, & Vandell, 1999).

Classroom Effort is a six-item subscale of the Research Assessment Package for Schools–Teachers (Institute for Research and Reform in Education, 1998) that asks teachers to rate on a 4-point scale (from 1 = never to 4 = very often) how often students demonstrate effort in the classroom on tasks, such as doing ‘‘more than is required of him ⁄ her’’ or doing ‘‘the best he ⁄ she can’’ (a1 = .90, a2 = .90, a3 = .89).

Self-Perceptions of Academic Abilities is a six-item subscale of an adapted version of the Self-Percep- tion Profile for Children (Harter, 1985) using a Lik- ert response format. The items assess youth’s estimation of their own academic competence, which research links to youth’s self-concept as well as academic achievement (Moritz Rudasill & Calla- han, 2008). Typical items include, ‘‘I do very well at my class work’’ and ‘‘I feel that I am just as smart as other kids my age.’’ Respondents were asked to rate how closely they aligned with the statements on a 4-point scale ranging from 1 = not at all true to 4 = very true (a1 = .70, a2 = .72, a3 = .73).

Problem Behaviors

Unexcused absences were measured using a sin- gle-item teacher-reported measure that indicated whether youth had been absent from school with- out an excuse in the previous 4 weeks.

Teachers also reported on school misbehavior, by answering three questions: ‘‘In the last 4 weeks in your classroom, how many times has this child: (1) been suspended; (2) been sent to the principal’s office for misbehavior; or (3) been in a fight with another child?’’(Herrera, 2004). A dichotomous var- iable was created where a value of 1 was coded if the child had engaged in any combination of the three behaviors over the past 4 weeks and a 0 was coded if there had been no incidents of such behav- iors in the past 4 weeks.

Substance Use includes four items asking about the use of alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, and other drugs. Youth reported whether they had ever used each of these substances and, if so, how frequently during the past 3 months. The items were com- bined to form a dichotomous variable where 1 indi- cates that the youth previously used any substance and 0 indicates no reported history of any sub-

stance use. The items on Substance Use are adapted from the Self-Reported Behavior Index (Brown, Cla- sen, & Eicher, 1986). The response scale and the ref- erence period (the original measure asks for a report of use in the past month) were modified for the current study.

Misconduct Outside of School is a set of five ques- tions from Brown et al. (1986; adapted by Posner & Vandell, 1994) that ask youth how often in the past 3 months they have engaged in five fairly serious out-of-school misbehaviors including, ‘‘taking something on purpose that didn’t belong to you’’ and ‘‘getting into a fight in your neighborhood.’’ Items were collapsed and transformed into a dichotomous variable where a 1 indicates that the youth had engaged in at least one instance of mis- conduct across the five behaviors in the past 3 months and a 0 indicates that the youth reported not having engaged in any of these behaviors in the prior 3 months.

Social and Personal Well-Being

Social Acceptance is a six-item subscale of the Self-Perception Profile for Children (Harter, 1985). The scale is completed by teachers and contains statements assessing how accepted youth are by their peers (e.g., ‘‘This child finds it hard to make friends,’’ ‘‘This child is popular with others his ⁄ her age’’). Respondents indicate how true they believe each statement is on a 4-point scale from 1 = not at all true to 4 = very true (a1 = .69, a2 = .75, a3 = .78). Again, we adapted the original version of the instrument to use a Likert response format.

Teacher relationship quality was measured using the short version of the Student-Teacher Relation- ship Scale, which includes 15 items from the Close With Teacher and Conflict With Teacher subscales (Pianta, 2001). This teacher-reported measure is scored on a 5-point scale, from 1 = definitely does not apply to 5 = definitely applies, with a higher score indicating a more positive relationship (a1 = .90, a2 = .91, a3 = .89). We modified one item in the Close With Teacher subscale to, ‘

Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers

Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.

Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS

Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?

Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.

We write plagiarism Free Content

Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.

Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.