Juvenile Mentoring Populations PPT

Juvenile Mentoring Program (JUMP)

Purpose: To support one-to-one mentoring programs for youth at risk of educational failure, dropping out of school, or involvement in delinquent activities, including gangs.

Background: Part G of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (JJDP) Act of 1974, as amended, authorizes the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) to fund a Juvenile Mentoring Program (JUMP). In fiscal year (FY) 1996, Congress appropriated $4,000,000 to implement this program.

Mentoring, as the term is currently used, can be defined as a one-to-one relationship between a pair of unrelated individuals, usually of different ages, which takes place on a regular basis over an extended period of time. It is usually characterized by a "special bond of mutual commitment" and "an emotional character of respect, loyalty, and identification" (Hamilton, 1990).

As a movement, mentoring has its roots in the closing decades of the 19th century with "Friendly Visitors" who served as role models for children of the poor. Mentoring enjoyed new popularity in the 1970's when corporations heralded the concept as one that fosters achievement. Mentoring was seen as a particularly critical ingredient to success on the corporate ladder (Freedman, 1992).

Within the past 10 years, mentoring has taken on a new dimension and a new target group disadvantaged children and youth. It has emerged as a promising approach for enriching children's lives; addressing the isolation of youth from adult contact; and providing, on a one-to-one basis, support and advocacy to children who need it. Mentoring is also recognized as an important vehicle for harnessing the talents of volunteers to address the problems of poverty (Freedman, 1992).

Congress has recognized the potential of mentoring as a tool for addressing two critical concerns: poor school performance and delinquent activity. Accordingly, OJJDP is making funds available for mentoring programs that specifically address these concerns. Congress also has recognized the importance of school collaboration in mentoring programs, whether as a primary applicant or in partnership with other public or nonprofit private entities.

In a recent study of mentoring, Public/Private Ventures (P/PV) conducted an experimental evaluation of Big Brothers and Big Sisters (BB/BS) programs (Tierney et al., 1995). In this study youth were randomly assigned to a BB/BS mentoring program or to a BB/BS waiting list. The study emphasized the importance of carefully structured programs with adequate management, training, case management, policies, procedures, and establishment of clear standards. These standards relate to screening of the adults and youth, training and orientation of volunteers, the matching process, required frequency of meetings, and supervision of matches.

In determining whether a one-to-one mentoring experience made a tangible difference in the lives of these young people, the study identified several positive results:

· Mentored youth were 46 percent less likely than the control group to initiate drug use during the study period. The finding was even stronger for minority youth: They were 70 percent less likely to initiate drug use when in a positive mentoring relationship.

· Mentored youth were 27 percent less likely than the control group to initiate alcohol use.

· Mentored youth were less assaultive, skipped fewer days of school, and had much better relationships with their parents.

P/PV concluded that the research presented clear and encouraging evidence that caring relationships between adults and youth, resulting in a wide range of tangible benefits, can be created and supported by mentoring programs.

While the P/PV study did not characterize the type of relationship that was formed or relate it to the impact on the youth, the researchers did say that the study enabled them to make several findings about the relationships between mentor and mentee:

· They had a high level of contact. A typical Big Brother or Big Sister met with a Little Brother or Little Sister approximately three times a month for four hours per meeting over the course of a year, totaling 144 hours of direct contact. For those who spoke on the telephone, as many did, hours of interaction would be even higher.

· The relationships were built using an approach that defines the mentor as a friend, not as a teacher or preacher. The mentor's role is to support the youth in his or her various endeavors, not explicitly to change the youth's behavior or character."

P/PV's study and others also identified key program infrastructure prerequisites:

· Thorough volunteer screening that weeds out adults who are unlikely to keep their time commitment or might pose a safety risk to the youth.

· Mentor training that includes communication and limit-setting skills, tips on relationship-building, and recommendations on the best way to interact with a young person.

· Matching procedures that take into account the preferences of the youth, their family and the volunteer, and that use a professional case manager to analyze which volunteer would work best with which youth.

· Intensive supervision and support of each match by a case manager who has frequent contact with the parent/guardian, volunteer and youth, and provides assistance when requested or as difficulties arise.

Although there are no research findings to date with regard to the OJJDP-funded JUMP programs, several observations can be made as a result of the establishment and operation of these programs:

· The relationship between the private nonprofit sector and the schools is critical. Real collaboration must take place with joint decisionmaking. Problems in implementing and operating the program have occurred when the relationship is weak.

· Parents must have a role in the decision to involve their child in the mentoring program. Staff must be trained in the best way to approach parents so that the mentors and the program are seen as allies and not competitors.

· Programs must engage in multiple strategies for recruiting mentors. Because recruitment has sometimes been difficult, programs should set realistic goals for projecting the number of mentors to be recruited and the way in which matches will be made, clearly describing the strategies to be used.

· If the project plans to use university students, care must be taken to identify their actual availability and share this with the mentees. This precaution will result in clear expectations and as much consistency as possible in the mentoring relationship.

· Projects should do all they can to recruit mentors so as to facilitate making matches of the same gender, racial, and cultural background.

· Finally, single-parent mentors have on occasion brought their young children into the mentoring relationship. This should be avoided if at all possible. Mentors should provide specific times for activities with the mentees that are one-to-one. For those occasions when bringing children is unavoidable, mentoring projects may want to determine how they can provide for child care.

Goals: To reduce juvenile delinquency and gang participation by at-risk youth; to improve academic performance of at-risk youth; and to reduce the dropout rate for at-risk youth.

Objectives: The objectives of this initiative are to:

1. Provide general guidance to at-risk youth.

2. Promote personal and social responsibility among at-risk youth.

3. Increase participation of at-risk youth in elementary and secondary education and enhance their ability to benefit from this schooling.

4. Discourage use of illegal drugs and firearms, involvement in violence, and other delinquent activity by at-risk youth.

5. Discourage involvement of at-risk youth in gangs.

6. Encourage participation in service and community activity by at-risk youth.

Program Strategy: Applicants should submit funding requests for a 3-year project period. JUMP programs currently funded by OJJDP are not eligible to receive funds under this solicitation. OJJDP encourages applications from both new programs and those programs with proven track records and a desire to expand their mentoring activities in accordance with this solicitation. All applicants must address the following elements in their application.

The Nature of the Partnership With Local Educational Agencies

Both local education agencies (LEA's) and public/private nonprofit organizations may apply. When public/private nonprofit agencies are the primary applicant, their programs must involve collaboration with an LEA. Likewise an LEA must collaborate with a relevant public/private nonprofit agency. Because two goals of this program are to improve academic performance and reduce the dropout rate, applications must contain written assurance from the LEA that it will agree to provide academic records in accordance with its regulations for use in carrying out a funded program and that it will cooperate to the fullest extent possible with a national program evaluator. Another example of the form this collaboration might take is the designation of a school employee to be a school coordinator. Suggested responsibilities might include assisting with the selection of mentees, advising on the academic needs of the mentee, coordinating meetings, providing academic records when needed, and notifying mentors of the inability of mentees to meet.

Target Population

Programs should target only at-risk youth. This solicitation uses the term "at-risk youth" to mean a youth who is exposed to high levels of risk in his or her family, home, community, and social environment, which may lead to educational failure, dropping out of school, or involvement in juvenile delinquency, including gangs. Programs must target at-risk youth in high crime areas that have 60 percent or more of their youth eligible to receive Chapter I funds under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 and have a considerable number of youth who drop out of school each year. Documentation of the existence of those prerequ-isites should be included in all applications.

Program Goal, Objectives, and Design

The goal should be an overall statement of purpose on what the applicant expects to achieve with the grant. The objectives should be activities that will help the applicant achieve the goal, and they should be stated in clear measurable terms. For example, the mentoring program will serve x-number of mentees per year, academic performance will be improved by x-percent, gang participation will be reduced by x-percent, and dropout rates will be reduced by x-percent. Applicants are encouraged to be realistic in developing their goals and objectives and specific in addressing the needs of their targeted community.

Project Design

1. Role of the Mentor. Information on the role of the mentor, the mentoring site, and specific implementation steps must be provided. These include organizational commitment; mentor recruitment, orientation, screening, training, and support; youth selection and orientation; matching; monitoring; and evaluation. Criteria for mentor termination should be specified. The responsibilities of each funding partner and program participant (LEA, nonprofit public/private agency, business, mentors, mentees, and mentees' parents) should be spelled out up front. At a minimum, programs must specify that each participant mentor one child for a period of at least a year on a one-on-one basis. It is also recommended that mentor-mentee contact be not less than 4 hours a month, preferably scheduled weekly.

2. Recruitment, Selection, and Screening of Mentors. Only programs using adult mentors qualify. An adult is defined as being 21 years of age or older. Efforts should be made to enlist mentors who are responsible adults, such as law enforcement officers or persons with local businesses or with community-based organizations. Applicants should be aware that college undergraduate or graduate students can have some limitations that may make it difficult for them to fulfill their mentoring responsibilities. Special care should be exercised in recruiting from this group.

All prospective employees and volunteers who would have contact with youth must be screened. Each program is required to have a written screening policy that would be implemented with great care and applied consistently to all mentors. At a minimum, this policy must require the names of two to three character references (at least one of whom is a work reference) and the applicant's consent for a name check through criminal and child abuse records. A written form for reference checks must be used and kept on file.

The extent of the background search should depend on the circumstances in which the mentor and mentee will be having contact. For example, a program involving young mentees and contacts or activities that do not occur at the school or work site or as part of a larger group should at a minimum require criminal history checks on all matched volunteers, from local, State, or national law enforcement authorities, where legally permissible. There should be a case-by-case determination as to whether the background information obtained from screening should be a bar to participate unless otherwise provided by statute or regulation. A candidate may be disqualified to reasonably protect youth from physical, psychological, or sexual abuse. A mentor applicant's failure to provide information requested would result in automatic disqualification of the applicant.

3. Youth Selection and Orientation. Criteria should be developed for youth selec-tion based on the program's goals. Parents should be included in an orientation session, and the program should obtain the parent's written permission for the child's participation. In addition, parents should have a say in the selection of the mentor.

4. Parent Involvement. Parental involvement is encouraged. If and where possible, parents of the mentee should be allowed to participate in programs. Applicants should indicate a plan for securing and maintaining parental involvement in the program.

5. Matching Criteria. The mechanism for matching youth with mentors should be described. Where possible, there should be a match of gender, racial, and cultural backgrounds. Screening mechanisms should be established to weed out volunteers who will not keep their commitments.

6. Mentor Support and Training Activities and Lessons Learned from P/PV. Support for mentors is essential to ensure program success. Each program must employ a program coordinator for mentors to contact for feedback and advice. To the extent possible, the program coordinator should have frequent contact with the parents or guardians, volunteers, and youth and provide assistance when it is requested or as problems arise. Periodic feedback from mentors and mentees should be obtained, especially during the first 2 months of the relation-ship. Mentors should receive training prior to being matched with a youth and at specific intervals during their participation in the program. This training should include communication and limit-setting skills, tips on relationship building, and recommendations on best ways to interact with youth.

7. Mentor/Mentee Relationships and Activities. There should be a high level of contact between the volunteer and youth at least once per week for 1 hour, and the commitment by the volunteer should be for at least 1 year. Mentors should focus on being a friend and not a teacher or preacher.

Applicants must assure that projects operated in secondary schools will provide mentees with a variety of activities, including an opportunity to spend time or participate in the work environment, witness job skills useful for obtaining employment, obtain assistance with homework, and be exposed to positive new experiences. These youth should also receive emotional support. Projects involving elementary school age children should include such activities as academic assistance, exposure to positive new activities, and emotional support. Projects should assure that mentors and mentees can meet in safe, secure, and mutually convenient locations.

Evaluation Methods and Processes

Evaluation is critical to ensuring that the mentoring program is operating as designed and meeting its goals in terms of both the process and the impact on the mentee. The program must collect data on program operations and program effectiveness in reducing juvenile delinquency and gang participation, improving academic performance, and reducing the school dropout rate. OJJDP is required by Congress to submit a report regarding the success and effectiveness of these programs 120 days after the programs' termination. Consequently, programs funded under JUMP must be capable of providing this information and must provide written assurance that they will participate in a national program evaluation. Applicants selected for funding under this mentoring program will be provided with an evaluation manual that has been specifically developed for OJJDP. The JUMP program evaluation manual will include data collection procedures and the national evaluation program requirements.

Additional Application Requirements

Applicants with existing mentoring programs must provide data on the number of youth in the ongoing project; the number of active matches originally planned; the number of existing matches at the time of submission of this application; and an outline of the strategy currently being used to recruit, screen, conduct background checks, train, and maintain mentors and youth.

Applicants should address how their program either currently complies with these guidelines or will comply with them in the future. Applicants must demonstrate that they have or will create an infrastructure capable of fully supporting their program.

All applicants must submit written documentation and specify that they have the support of a school. If the applicants have an existing relationship with an LEA, this should be explained and assurances must be provided that this relationship will continue. Where appropriate, similar documentation from public agencies, community groups, and businesses that might be directly involved must also be provided.

If the project has been evaluated, results should be reported and a summary of the evaluation provided as an appendix.

Applicants must provide a 3-year (36 month) workplan with a timeline that specifies all program activities to be accomplished in the first, second, and third years of the program.

Staffing/Budget

Applicants shall provide a 36-month budget with a detailed justification for all costs, including the basis for computation of these costs. Whether the school or an eligible public/private nonprofit group is the primary applicant, it is suggested that one full-time staff coordinator oversee up to 60 70 matches. In addition, a second individual, either a volunteer, paid, or assigned employee, should generally be expected to devote at least 6 7 hours a week to this project. Allocation of $75 per mentoring match per year to cover incidental expenses is also recommended. Program funds cannot be used directly to compensate mentors except for reimbursement for reasonable incidental expenses, such as transportation, that are directly associated with the mentoring program.

Applicants must provide an Internet address or include a line item in their budget for Internet setup.

There will be two cluster meetings held during the 3-year project period. Applicants shall budget for the costs for the JUMP Coordinator and one other key staff person to attend two meetings lasting a day and a half each in the first and third project years. These meetings will be held in Washington, D.C., for the purpose of reviewing program implementation, evaluation, and any other related programmatic concerns.

Products: If appropriate, applicants should describe what written materials they will produce and how materials may be useful to their own program participants and others hoping to replicate their efforts.

Eligibility Requirements: Applications are invited from local education agencies and public/private nonprofit organizations that can demonstrate knowledge of and/or experience with mentoring programs, volunteers, and youth. When an LEA is the primary applicant, it must enter a partnership with a public or private agency or a public/private nonprofit agency. Likewise, a public/private nonprofit agency that applies as a primary applicant must partner with the LEA. National organizations are not eligible for these funds. Applicants awarded FY 1994 and 1995 OJJDP JUMP Program funds are not eligible for FY 1996 funding.

Selection Criteria: Applications will be rated by a peer review panel on the extent to which they meet the criteria below.

Problem(s) To Be Addressed (15 points)

The applicant clearly identifies the need for this project, describes the target population, and documents that it meets statutory requirements for focusing on at-risk and delinquent youth in a community where at least 60 percent are eligible for Chapter 1 funds and that the target area has the characteristics needed for an effective mentoring program.

In addressing this requirement, applicants must provide data on (1) existing school dropout rates; (2) teenage pregnancy rates; (3) the serious and violent juvenile crime rate; (4) gang activity in the target area; (5) juvenile arrest data; (6) drug use and sales; and (6) other indicators of risk factors in the target area, such as poverty, unemployment, and neighborhood disintegration.

Goals and Objectives (10 points)

The overall goal for the project is clearly related to the problems of at-risk youth in this targeted community. The objectives are clearly defined, measurable, and obtainable.

Project Design (30 points)

The project design is sound and contains program elements directly linked to the achievement of the project objectives. The applicant explains in clear terms how the mentors and mentees will be recruited, screened, trained, and matched to achieve their mentoring program and how other resources and individuals will be used to implement the mentoring program in the community. The applicant includes a partnership agreement between the private nonprofit organization and the LEA. The applicant provides a workplan with a timeline that indicates significant milestones in the project, due dates for products, and the nature of the products to be submitted.

Management and Organizational Capability (35 points)

The project's management structure and staffing are adequate to complete the project success-fully. The applicant demonstrates that the project will be appropriately staffed. Collaborative relationships are established in writing and clearly document the responsibilities of the repre-sentative partners. The applicant organization's potential to conduct the project successfully and its history of working with volunteers and youth are documented.

Budget (10 points)

Budgeted costs are reasonable, allowable, and cost effective for the activities proposed.

Award Period: Grantees selected for award will be funded for a 3-year project period.

Award Amount: OJJDP is limiting the amount of individual awards to a maximum of $190,000 for a total project and budget period of 3 years. The total amount of funds for the JUMP program in FY 1996 is $4,000,000.

Delivery Instructions: All application packages should be mailed or delivered to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, c/o Juvenile Justice Resource Center, 1600 Research Boulevard, Mail Stop 2K, Rockville, MD 20850; 301 251 5535. Note: In the lower left-hand corner of the envelope, you must clearly write "Juvenile Mentoring Program."

Due Date: Applicants are responsible for ensuring that the original and five copies of the application are received no later than 5 p.m. EDT on September 20, 1996.

Contact: For further information call Travis Cain or Cora Roy, Program Managers, Special Emphasis Division, 202 307 5914, or send an e-mail inquiry to  [email protected]  or  [email protected] .

References

Caliber Associates. OJJDP Juvenile Justice Mentoring Program Evaluation Workbook.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, December 1995.

Freedman, M. The Kindness of Strangers; Reflections on the Mentoring Movement.

Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private Ventures, 1992.

Furano, K., P. A. Roaf, M. Styles, and A. Branch. Big Brothers/Big Sisters. A Study of

Program Practices. Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private Ventures, Winter 1993.

Greim, J. L. Adult/Youth Relationships Pilot Project: Initial Implementation Report.

Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private Ventures, 1992.

Hamilton, Stephen F. Apprenticeship for Adulthood. New York: Free Press, 1990, p. 156.

"Juvenile Mentoring Program (JUMP) Guidelines. Notice." Federal Register 59 (144, ), July

28, 1994, 38520 38522.

Mecartney, C. A, M. B. Styles, and K. V. Morrow. Mentoring in the Juvenile Justice System:

Findings from Two Pilot Programs. Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private Ventures, Winter

1994.

Morrow, K. V., and M. B. Styles. Building Relationships with Youth In Program Settings: A

Study of Big Brothers/Big Sisters. Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private Ventures, 1992.

Pittman, K. Defining the Fourth R: Youth Development Through Building Relationships.

Washington, DC: Academy for Educational Development, 1992.

Roaf, P. A., J. P. Tierney, and D. E. I. Hunte. Big Brothers/Big Sisters of America: A Study

of Volunteer Recruitment and Screening. Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private Ventures,

Fall 1994.

Styles, M. B., and K. V. Morrow. Understanding How Youth and Elders Form Relationships:

A Study of Four Linking Lifetimes Programs. Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private

Ventures, 1992.

Tierney, J. P., and A. Y. Branch. College Students as Mentors for At-Risk Youth: A Study of

Six Campus Partners in Learning Programs. Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private

Ventures, 1992.

Tierney, J. P., J. B. Grossman, and N. L. Resch. Making a Difference: An Impact Study of

Big Brothers/Big Sisters. Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private Ventures, Fall 1995.

Community-based programs positively change the trajectories of young people’s lives. Jurisdictions are building continuums of alternative-to-placement programs with graduated levels of supervision and services to ensure youth are placed in programs that help them progress personally. Having a variety of community programming available for youth provides options for decision-makers and therefore options for youth.

Community-based alternative-to-placement programs range from probation to wraparound services with intensive supervision. They can include home confinement, alternative education, family preservation, mentoring, victim-offender meditation, restitution, community services, respite care, and day and evening reporting centers with educational, recreational, and counseling opportunities. Programs can stand alone or be housed in existing organizations serving a broad range of youth.

Jurisdictions should be encouraged to adopt evidence-based and evidence-informed programming as well as broaden the evidence-based field by supporting evaluations of new, innovative programs. 

Service Coordination helps build stronger relationships and increased communication with stakeholders and other state agencies to enhance service delivery and create blended funding opportunities. Service Coordination addresses the needs of the youth in the least restrictive environment, with options allowing progressive movement throughout the system.

The Probation and Parole Officer  (PPO) is the central point of contact, working to create an integrated effort among field staff, facilities, providers, family, and youth.

PPOs provide a comprehensive, integrated approach to the care, management, and service delivery for OJJ youth. PPOs are responsible for the youth’s initial entry into the OJJ system (court hearings, adjudications, etc.) As a coordinator of services, they take an active role in each phase of the youth’s classification, placement, and programming.

The PPO coordinates effective services and supervises the youth to ensure seamless case management. The PPO ensures that the youth’s service plan is implemented, followed, and modified as necessary.

Service Coordination significantly impacts and improves case management. Seamless case management allows for better information gathering and coordination of services, which lead to improved data collection, improved relationships with youth and families and ultimately greater success with the youth.

Service Coordination promotes productive interactions with youth, families, and providers. For youth who are removed from the home, aftercare and reintegration planning begins immediately and is coordinated with facility and/or program staff.

Utilizing Programs that Work

Evidence-Based Research and Treatment Interventions

The Office of Juvenile Justice is committed to utilizing treatment interventions that have a demonstrated ability to help youth acknowledge accountability, learn pro-social attitudes and behaviors and avoid risky thinking and actions. Research indicates that evidence-based treatment is the most efficient and effective means of protecting the public and reducing recidivism.  Below is a sample of evidence based interventions/practices employed by OJJ and its partners.

Motivational Interviewing (MI) is an evidence-based practice used by criminal justice professionals to enhance communication, build rapport and motivate offenders into changing their behavior. OJJ uses Motivational Interviewing as a part of its LAMOD process in secure care as a non-confrontational approach to guide offender awareness of potential problems and the consequences of their actions.

Thinking for a Change (T4C) is an integrated, 25 lesson cognitive behavioral change program for youth that includes cognitive restructuring, social skills development, and development of problem solving skills. T4C is utilized in all of OJJ’s secure care facilities as well as several residential community based programs.

Functional Family Therapy (FFT) is an empirically grounded, highly successful family intervention program for dysfunctional and at-risk youth and their families, including youth with problems such as conduct disorder, violent acting-out, and substance abuse issues.  OJJ contracts for FFT services with community providers who serve both adjudicated and non-adjudicated youth and their families. Treatment has specific phases that organize intervention in a coherent manner, allowing clinicians to maintain focus in the context of considerable family and individual disruption.

Multi-Systemic Therapy (MST) is an empirically grounded, intensive family and community based treatment program that focuses on addressing all environmental systems that impact chronic and violent juvenile offenders, including their homes and families, schools and teachers, neighborhoods and friends.  MST clinicians go to where the child is; they are on call 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and they work intensively with parents and caregivers to put them in control and to help keep the youth focused on school and gaining job skills.  MST is a Medicaid eligible service available to at-risk and justice involved youth and their families.