Are youth mentoring programs good value-for-money? An evaluation of the Big Brothers Big Sisters Melbourne Program

Moodie, Marj; Fisher, Jane

doi:10.1186/1471-2458-9-41

Cited by 32 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Consequently, research aimed at establishing a link between youth mentoring status and various outcomes must adjust for these factors. Studies have shown that the pace with which mentoring relationships develop is influenced by mentee demographics with boys and racial mi-nority youths waiting significantly longer to be mentored than other groups (Furano, Roaf, Styles, and Branch 1993;Moodie and Fisher 2009). Mentored girls have been found to experi-ence longer mentoring relationships than boys do (Rhodes, Lowe, Litchfield, and Walsh-Samp 2008).…”

Section: Correlates Of Youth Mentoring Statusmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Role of Program-Supported Mentoring Relationships in Promoting Youth Mental Health, Behavioral and Developmental Outcomes

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examined the relationship between youth mentoring status and behavioral, developmental, and emotional outcomes for 859 youths aged 6-17 participating in a national survey of Big Brothers Big Sisters community mentoring relationships (MRs). Youth self-reported behaviors and mental health occurred at the baseline assessment (before being paired to a mentor) and at 18 months follow-up. Youth mentoring status was categorized as follows: (1) continuous MR less than 12 months (n = 131); (2) continuous MR 12 or more months (n = 253); (3) dissolved MR less than 12 months (n = 110); (4) dissolved MR 12 or more months (n = 70); 5) MR with a second mentor (re-matched; n = 83); and (6); never mentored (n = 212). Structural equation model results at 18 months revealed that mentored youths, especially those in MR lasting 12 or more months (continuous or dissolved), reported significantly fewer behavioral problems and fewer symptoms of depression and social anxiety than did non-mentored youths. They also reported stronger coping skills and emotional support from parents. Mentored girls and boys in long-term relationships experienced positive outcomes. Re-matched girls displayed better outcomes than did never-mentored girls while there was some evidence of harmful outcomes for re-matched boys. Threats to internal validity are examined including the possibility of pre-existing baseline differences between mentored and non-mentored youths. Implications for mentoring programs are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Correlates Of Youth Mentoring Statusmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Role of Program-Supported Mentoring Relationships in Promoting Youth Mental Health, Behavioral and Developmental Outcomes

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Deployed to promote engagement with schooling (Pryce 2012), or informal learning or employment (Sandford, Armour and Stanton 2010), it is often specifically targeted at those young people experiencing social disadvantage or deemed 'at risk' (Moodie and Fisher 2009 Jupp (2013) has called the 'thickening' of social 4 policy interventions targeting particular population groups. As these multi-agency strategies are mobilised to develop forms of governance around the behaviours of young people, particularly those seen to be 'difficult to reach' and 'at risk', the immediate practices of mentoring are thus situated within wider circuits of social policy.…”

Section: Youth Mentoring and Social Policy: Attending To The Relationalmentioning

confidence: 99%

‘It’s good but it’s not enough’: the relational geographies of social policy and youth mentoring interventions

Smith

Blažek

Brown

et al. 2016

Social & Cultural Geography

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Use policyThe full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that:• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.Please consult the full DRO policy for further details.

show abstract

“…Youth mentoring programs for disadvantaged children are increasingly advocated as a means of redressing the decreased availability of parent or family support and guidance in the lives of youth (Moodie & Fisher, 2009; Rhodes, 2002; Spencer, 2006). Mentoring is a dyadic psychosocial intervention wherein a more experienced or knowledgeable individual is brought into a close relationship with a less knowledgeable person in order to provide support and guidance (Karcher, Nakkula, & Harris, 2005; Rhodes, 1994).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Cross-age peer mentoring approach to impact the health outcomes of children and families

Smith

2011

Journal for Specialists in Pediatric Nursing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Are youth mentoring programs good value-for-money? An evaluation of the Big Brothers Big Sisters Melbourne Program

Abstract: Background: The Big Brothers Big Sisters (BBBS) program matches vulnerable young people with a trained, supervised adult volunteer as mentor. The young people are typically seriously disadvantaged, with multiple psychosocial problems.

Cited by 32 publications

References 16 publications

The Role of Program-Supported Mentoring Relationships in Promoting Youth Mental Health, Behavioral and Developmental Outcomes

The Role of Program-Supported Mentoring Relationships in Promoting Youth Mental Health, Behavioral and Developmental Outcomes

‘It’s good but it’s not enough’: the relational geographies of social policy and youth mentoring interventions

Cross-age peer mentoring approach to impact the health outcomes of children and families

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About