Big Brothers.docx assign A1 PDF

Preview

Summary

Download Big Brothers.docx assign A1 PDF

Description

Big Brothers/Big Sisters (BBBS) is an Australia social service program that aims to improve the psychological development of vulnerable young people through the use of mentorships. In order to achieve this, the program matches a positive adult role model to youths between the ages of seven and seventeen that are identified as socially and emotionally isolated (Big Brothers Big Sisters Australia, 2018). The mentorship involves a twelve month commitment from both mentor and mentee, which is designed to create a safe and supportive environment to encourage the development of participants. The relationship nurtured over time enables the development of the participant’s self-worth, resilience and a sense of belonging (Our Programs, 2018). BBBS has developed four types of mentorships, each with its own attractiveness to suit a wide variety of youths, types include; community based, online, in-school and workplace mentorships. These programs are based on four objectives; aid participant’s selfcompetence, enhance their educational performance, encourage stronger family and community relationships and to monitor their wellbeing (Abbot, Meredith, Self-Kelly, & Davis, 1997). In order to achieve these objectives the program has based their approach around two theoretical frameworks, Social Cognitive Theory and Social Support Theory. These theories are implemented through the mentorship relationship whereby the participant is provided a safe environment to learn from a positive influence, as well as having their support (Abbot et al., 1997). Overall BBBS strives to encourage participants to reach their full potential by fostering positive relationships, for vulnerable youths lacking positive role models and supportive environments, this program is invaluable. Support and guidance for children traditionally given by parents is a critical factor in a child’s development (Haensly & Parsons, 1993). Various research concludes that a child’s social, emotional, cognitive abilities and success is a direct reflection on parental engagement (Pianta, 1997), furthermore children also agree that their success is a product of a positive

relationship with an adult that has given them sufficient attention (Grossman & Tierney, 1998). In single parent families or where parents are not providing the required support, mentoring programs are increasingly becoming more popular and are filling these gaps in society (Herrera, Grossman, Kauh, & Mcmaken, 2011). BBBS offers the required positive adult influencer to afford the participant the requirements to grow and combat the impact of such environment. Vast amounts of research has evaluated the effectiveness of mentoring programs, with the common conclusion that there are many positive outcomes for participants. A study specifically focusing on BBBS conducted by Grossman and Tierney (1998) concluded that on the completion of the mentorship, mentees were less likely to have started using drugs or alcohol, felt more competent, increased their grades, and had a better relationship with their parents and peers. These results are echoed by the BBBS programs own research finding that participants had a 3% increase in grades, skipped 52% less days of school and lied to their parents 37% less (Tierney, Grossman, & Resch, 1995), again reflecting the importance of such relationships and the need for such mentoring programs. Although a large amount of evidence to support the success of such mentoring programs, there are still imperfections overlooked and must be addressed. Firstly the lack of research surrounding various family compositions, in particularly children in single-parent families. The Australian divorce rate involving children is currently 47% (Australia Government, 2019), noting this, it is ignorant to think that family composition would not contribute to results of various research. A study conducted by Abbott et al., (1997) specifically on BBBS participants from single-parent families produced contradictory results to most literature; with results showing no significant changes in participant’s behaviour or academic performance, further investigation on family composition and its impact on mentoring programs will be vital to achieve accurate results.

Secondly, the frequency of mentoring relationship (MR) closures, significantly 30-50% of MR closures are within a few months, with minimal time for the relationship to mature the program is said to be ineffective and provides little benefit (Grossman & Rhodes, 2002). Addressing this should be a priority, mentors that lacked confidence had a personal-belief that their actions would not be able to help their mentee, which evidently contributed to higher MR closures (Grossman & Rhodes, 2002). Sufficient training has proven to increase mentors confidence and self-belief, leading to less MR closures (McMorris, Dotty, Weiler, Beckham & Garcia, 2018). Another contributing factor to MR closure is the matching process, when matching is done at random participants have little choice in selecting their mentor, and the needs and interests of the youth are neglected. Lack of commonality within mentorships substantially reduce the amount of contact and ultimately leads to MR closure (DeWit et al., 2016). It is noted that when mentor and mentee share common interests it promotes longevity of their relationship and furthers the success of the program (McDaniel & Yarbrough, 2016). Furthermore, when the matching process involves long wait times there are negative consequences for participants. Wait times of up to 18 months can be expected for some BBBS programs with one study stating that youths that waited for months to be matched to an adult experienced a decline in their mental health, leaving them in a worse off position than before they applied for the program (DeWit et al., 2016). A more reliable and comprehensive matching process focussing on the participant’s requirements and interest with minimal wait times may well benefit the outcomes of these programs. Lastly, for such programs to develop further success improvements need to be made, more effective and holistic research must be completed, family composition is only one factor overlooked in literature, with another being the lack of longitudinal studies to determine if the program is effective not only in the short term but more importantly the long term (DeWit et al., 2016). Furthermore the effectiveness of the program design must be considered, a more

complex matching process where youths needs and interest are given more consideration, whilst adhering to minimal wait times, and if wait times are unachievable the implementation of a program that sits in the middle to refute the negative consequences may be beneficial to the overall outcome. In conclusion, although many studies have strong evidence to suggest that programs such as BBBS are effective in supporting vulnerable young people, improvement is still required. MR closures need to be addressed, adequate training for mentors provided, a more comprehensive matching process where mentees needs and interests are taken into consideration, match wait times reduced and further holistic research including longitudinal studies are required. With development in these areas the program may produce additional effectiveness and success for vulnerable youths.

References Abbott, D. A., Meredith, W. H., Self-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. doi: 10.1080/00223989709601959 Australian Government. (2019). Divorce rates in Australia, Australian Institute of Family Studies. Retrieved from: https://aifs.gov.au/facts-and-figures/divorce-rates-australia Big Brothers Big Sisters Australia. (2018). Why Mentoring?. Retrieved from: https://www.bigbrothersbigsisters.org.au/why-mentoring DeWit, D. J., DuBois, D., Erdem, G., Larose, S., Lipman, E. L., & Spencer, R. (2016). Mentoring relationship closures in Big Brothers Big Sisters community mentoring programs: Patterns and associated risk factors. American journal of community psychology, 57(1-2), 60-72. doi: 10.1002/ajcp.12023 De Wit, D. J., Lipman, E. L., Da Costa, J., Graham, K., Larose, S., Pepler, D., ... & Ferro, A. (2016). Predictors of early versus late match relationship beginnings in Big Brothers Big Sisters community programs. Children and Youth Services Review, 61, 281-287. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2016.01.004 Grossman, J. B., & Tierney, J. P. (1998). Does Mentoring Work?: An Impact Study of the Big Brothers Big Sisters Program. Evaluation Review, 22(3), 403–426. doi: 10.1177/0193841X9802200304 Haensly, P. A., & Parsons, J. L. (1993). Creative, Intellectual, and Psychosocial Development through Mentorship: Relationships and Stages. Youth & Society, 25(2), 202–221. doi: 10.1177/0044118X93025002002

Herrera, C., Grossman, J.B., Kauh, T.J. & Mcmaken, J. (2011). Making a difference in schools: the big brothers big sisters school-based mentoring impact study. Child development, 82(1), 346-361. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01559. McDaniel, S., & Yarbrough, A. M. (2016). A Literature Review of Afterschool Mentoring Programs for Children at Risk. Journal of At-Risk Issues, 19(1), 1-9. Retrieved from: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1104421.pdf McMorris, B. J., Doty, J. L., Weiler, L. M., Beckman, K. J., & Garcia-Huidobro, D. (2018). A typology of school-based mentoring relationship quality: Implications for recruiting and retaining volunteer mentors. Children and Youth Services Review, 90, 149-157. doi: b>10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.05.019 Pianta, R. C. (1997). Adult–child relationship processes and early schooling. Early education and development, 8(1), 11-26. doi: 10.1207/s15566935eed0801_2 Tierney, J. P., Grossman, J. B., & Resch, N. L. (1995). Making a difference: An impact study of Big Brothers. Big Sisters. Herrera, C., Grossman, J.B., Kauh, T.J. & Mcmaken, J. (2011). Making a difference in schools: the big brothers big sisters school-based mentoring impact study. Child development, 82(1), 346-361. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01559.x

McDaniel, S & Yarbrough, A.M. (2016). A literature

review of afterschool mentoring programs for children at risk. Journal of At-Risk Issues, 19(1), 1-9.

Best, D., Gross, S., Manning, V., Gossop, M., Witton, J., & Strang, J. (2005). Cannabis use in adolescents: the impact of risk and protective factors and social functioning. Drug and alcohol review, 24(6), 483-488. doi: 10.1080/09595230500292920

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(1), 41.

An economic evaluation on the cost effectiveness of mentoring programs has also been carried out, an Australian study by Moodie and Fisher (2009) specifically focussing on BBBS

describes the program as “value for money” stating the program offers to provide potential long term cost effectiveness for society based on the fact that the program design is inexpensive and is assisting young people considered to be high risk to engage in criminality and substance abuse. This is supported by the BBBS organisations current research that concludes that for every dollar invested into their organisation the return when working with disadvantaged youths was eighteen dollars and a twenty three dollar return when working with the least economically advantaged youths (BBBS). Based on such evidence it is clear the overall economic evaluation of the program is encouraging with only a small investment BBBS can mentor a vulnerable young person and create positive change in their life...