Order Code RL34306.
Vulnerable Youth: Federal Mentoring
Programs and Issues
Updated June 20, 2008
Adrienne L. Fernandes
AnalystSpecialist in Social Policy
Domestic Social Policy Division
Vulnerable Youth:
February 5, 2010
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
RL34306
CRS Report for Congress
Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress
c11173008
.
Vulnerable Youth: Federal Mentoring Programs and Issues
Summary
Youth mentoring refers to a relationship between youth — —particularly those
most at risk of
experiencing negative outcomes in adolescence and adulthood — and
—and the adults who support and
guide them. The origin of the modern youth mentoring
concept is credited to the efforts of charity
groups that formed during the Progressive
era of the early 1900s to provide practical assistance to
poor and juvenile justiceinvolvedjustice-involved youth, including help with finding employment.
Approximately 2.5 million youth today are involved in formal mentoring
relationships through
Big Brothers Big Sisters (BBBS) of America and similar
organizations. Contemporary mentoring
programs seek to improve outcomes and
reduce risks among vulnerable youth by providing
positive role models who regularly
meet with the youth in community or school settings. Some
programs have broad
youth development goals while others focus more narrowly on a particular outcome.
A 1995 evaluation
outcome. Evaluations of the BBBS program and studies of other mentoring programs
demonstrate an association between mentoring and some positive youth outcomes,
but the effects
of mentoring on particular outcomes and the ability for mentored
youth to sustain gains over time is less certain.
The current Administration has proposed new federal structured mentoring since
FY2001 (though the Administration has also proposed phasing some of these
services out beginning in FY2007). Two programs —
is less certain.
In recent years, two mentoring programs—the Mentoring Children of
Prisoners (MCP) program
and Safe and Drug Free Schools (SDFS) Mentoring
program — provide the primary sources of dedicated program—have provided a significant source
of federal funding for mentoring
services. The Mentoring Children of Prisoners program was
created in response to
the growing number of children under age 18 with at least one parent who is
is incarcerated in a federal or state correctional facility. The program is intended, in
part, to
reduce the chance that mentored youth will use drugs and skip school.
Similarly, the SDFS
Mentoring program has providedMentoring program (proposed for elimination for FY2009 by the
Administration) provides school-based mentoring to reduce school dropout and
improve improve
relationships for youth at risk of educational failure and with other risk
factors. The Administration has also supported a pilot project, the Mentoring
Initiative for System Involved Youth (MISIY), which seeks to identify and expand
effective mentoring programs for youth in the juvenile justice or foster care systems
(Congress appropriated funds for MISIY only in FY2006). Finally, other federal
initiatives support mentoring efforts, including the Federal Mentoring Council and
dedicated funding for mentoring organizations like BBBS.
Five bills have been introduced in the 110th Congress that primarily concern
mentoring (S. 379, H.R. 2611/S. 1812, H.R. 5660, and H.R. 5810). Issues relevant
factors. Congress did not
appropriate funding for the program in FY2010. As part of its FY2010 budget justifications, the
Obama Administration proposed eliminating the program because of an evaluation showing that it
does not have an impact on students overall in terms of interpersonal relationships, academic
outcomes, and delinquent behaviors.
In addition to these programs, the federal government has funded short-term mentoring grants as
well as programs that include mentoring as one of their core activities. For example, the
Department of Justice has allocated funding for initiatives that provide mentoring for youth in the
juvenile justice or foster care systems and other vulnerable youth populations. Youth ChalleNGe,
an educational and leadership program for at-risk youth administered by the Department of
Defense, includes mentoring as a major aspect of its program. In addition, federal agencies
coordinate on federal mentoring issues. The Federal Mentoring Council was created in 2006 to
address the ways agencies can combine resources and training and technical assistance to
federally administered mentoring programs, and to serve as a clearinghouse on mentoring issues
for the federal government. The recently enacted Serve America Act (P.L. 111-13) authorizes
funding for Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) programs in which
mentoring is a permissible activity.
Issues relevant to the federal role in mentoring include the limitations of research on outcomes for
mentored youth, the potential need for additional mentors, grantees’ challenges in
sustaining sustaining
funding, and the possible discontinuation of federal mentoring funding.
This report will be updated as legislative activity warrants.
Contents
Overview and Purpose of Mentoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Origins of Contemporary Mentoring Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Characteristics of Successful Mentoring Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Characteristics of Successful Mentoring Relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Evaluation of Mentoring Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Examples of the Positive Effects of Mentoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Some Outcomes Do Not Improve or Are Short Lived . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Current Federal Mentoring Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Mentoring Children of Prisoners Program
(U.S. Department of Health and Human Services) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Grantee Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Mentored Youth and Mentors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Voucher Demonstration Project: Caregiver’s Choice Program . . . . . . . . . 12
Funding and Grant Awards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Program Performance and Oversight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Evaluations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Training and Technical Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Safe and Drug Free Schools Mentoring Program
(U.S. Department of Education) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Grantee Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Mentored Youth and Mentors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Funding and Grant Awards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Program Performance and Oversight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Training and Technical Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Mentoring Initiative for System-Involved Youth
(U.S. Department of Justice) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Grantees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Evaluations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Training and Technical Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Other Federal Mentoring Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Funding Provided by the Corporation for National
and Community Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
America’s Promise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Funding Provided by the Department of Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Mentoring Funding Generally . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Funding Provided by the Department of Defense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Youth ChalleNGe Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Federal Mentoring Council . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Federal Issues in Mentoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Limited Research on Mentored Youth Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Gap in Mentoring Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Sustaining Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Possible Discontinuation of Select Federal Mentoring Funding . . . . . . . . . 40
Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
List of Tables
Table 1. Appropriations for Current Federal Mentoring Programs,
FY2002-FY2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Table 2. Mentoring Children of Prisoners:
Funding and Grant and Voucher Awards, FY2003-FY2009 . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Table 3. Safe and Drug Free Schools Mentoring Program:
Funding and Grant Awards, FY2002-FY2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Table A-1. Mentoring Children of Prisoners: Demographics and
Characteristics of Children, Mentors, and Relationships (FY2006) . . . . . . 41
Vulnerable Youth:
Federal Mentoring Programs and Issues
Since the mid-1990s, Congress has supported legislation to establish structured
mentoring programs for the most vulnerable youth. The Department of Justice’s
Juvenile Mentoring Program (JUMP), the first structured federal mentoring program,
was implemented in 1994 to provide mentoring services for at-risk youth ages five
to 20. The purpose of contemporary, structured mentoring programs is to reduce risks
by supplementing (but not supplanting) a youth’s relationship with his or her parents.
Some of these programs have broad youth development goals while others focus
more narrowly on a particular outcome such as reducing gang activity or substance
abuse, or improving grades. Research has shown that mentoring programs have been
associated with some positive youth outcomes, but that the long-term effects of
mentoring on particular outcomes and the ability for mentored youth to sustain gains
over time are less certain.
While there is no single overarching policy today on mentoring, the federal
government supports multiple mentoring efforts for vulnerable youth. Since
FY2001, Congress has passed legislation to provide mentoring services for three
groups of these youth: children of prisoners through the Mentoring Children of
Prisoners (MCP) program; children at risk of educational failure, dropping out of
school, or involvement in delinquent activities through the Safe and Drug Free
Schools (SDFS) Mentoring program; and youth in the foster care and juvenile justice
systems through the Mentoring Initiative for System Involved Youth (MISIY). The
purpose of the three programs is to improve the outcomes of vulnerable youth across
a number of areas, including education, criminal activity, health and safety, and
social and emotional development.
The federal government also supports other mentoring efforts. Programs under
the Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) provide mentoring
services, among other supportive activities for youth. In partnership with the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), CNCS also leads the Federal
Youth Mentoring Council, convened in 2006 to address the ways federal agencies
can combine resources and training and technical assistance to federally administered
mentoring programs. Further, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention in the U.S Department of Justice (DOJ) provides funding for Big Brothers
and Big Sisters of America and other mentoring organizations.
This report begins with an overview of the purpose of mentoring, including a
brief discussion on research of structured mentoring programs. The report then
describes the evolution of federal policies on mentoring since the early 1990s. The
report provides an overview of the components and funding for each of the three
major federal mentoring programs, as well as a discussion of other federal mentoring
initiatives that are currently funded. Note that additional federal programs and
CRS-2
policies authorize funding for mentoring activities, among multiple other activities
and services.1 These programs are not discussed in this report. The report concludes
with an overview of issues that may be relevant to mentoring legislation in the 110th
Congress and any discussions concerning the federal role in mentoring. These issues
include the limitations of research on outcomes for mentored youth, the potential
need for additional mentors, grantees’ challenges in sustaining funding, and the
possible discontinuation of federal mentoring funding.
Overview and Purpose of Mentoring
Mentoring refers to a relationship between two or more individuals in which at
least one of those individuals provides guidance to the other. In the context of this
report, mentoring refers to the relationship between a youth and an adult who
supports, guides, and assists the youth.2 Youth can receive mentoring through
informal and formal relationships with adults. Informal relationships are those that
develop from a young person’s existing social network of teachers, coaches, and
family friends. This report focuses on formal mentoring relationships for vulnerable
youth. These relationships are cultivated through structured programs sponsored by
youth-serving organizations, faith-based organizations, schools, and after-school
programs. Volunteers in structured programs are recruited from communities,
churches, and the workplace, and undergo an intensive screening process. Youth
eligible for services through structured mentoring programs are often identified as at
“high risk” of certain negative outcomes.3
The purpose of modern structured mentoring programs is to reduce risks by
supplementing (but not replacing) a youth’s relationship with his or her parents.
Some programs have broad youth development goals, while others focus more
narrowly on a particular outcome such as reducing gang activity or substance abuse,
or improving grades. Structured mentoring programs are often community based,
meaning that mentored youth and adults engage in community activities (e.g., going
to the museum and the park, playing sports, playing a board game, and spending time
together outside of work and school). Other programs are characterized as school
based because they take place on school grounds or some other set location, like a
community center. The co-location of mentoring programs in schools facilitates
relationships with teachers, who can meet with mentors and refer youth to the
1
The White House Task Force for Disadvantaged Youth, convened in 2003 to identify
issues in coordinating federal youth policy, identified approximately 123 federally funded
programs administered by 10 agencies with a mentoring component. The task force’s final
report is available at [http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/fysb/content/docs/white_house_
task_force.pdf].
2
See U.S. General Accounting Office, Student Mentoring Programs: Education’s
Monitoring and Information Sharing Could Be Improved, GAO Report GAO-04-581
(Washington, June 2004), p. 6. (Hereafter referenced GAO, Student Mentoring Programs.)
After this report was issued, the name of the General Accounting Office was changed to the
Government Accountability Office.
3
For further discussion of risk factors and groups of at-risk youth, see CRS Report
RL33975, Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies, by Adrienne L. Fernandes.
CRS-3
programs.4 Mentors provide academic assistance and recreational opportunities and
expose youth to opportunities that promote their cognitive and emotional
development.
Origins of Contemporary Mentoring Programs
The origin of today’s structured mentoring programs is credited to the efforts
of charity groups that formed during the Progressive Movement of the early 1900s.
These groups sought adult volunteers for vulnerable youth — defined at the time as
youth who were poor or had become involved in the then nascent juvenile court
system.5 These early organizations provided practical assistance to youth, including
help with finding employment, and created recreational outlets. The most prominent
mentoring organization at the time, Big Brothers (now known as Big Brothers Big
Sisters of America), continues today as the oldest and largest mentoring organization
in the country with over 275,000 youth ages five to 18 served in 5,000 communities.6
The contemporary youth mentoring movement began in the late 1980s with the
support of foundations and corporations, including Fannie Mae, Commonwealth
Fund, United Way of America, Chrysler, Procter & Gamble, and the National Urban
League.7 In addition, nongovernmental organizations such as One to One in
Philadelphia and Project RAISE in Baltimore were established by entrepreneurs
seeking to expand mentoring services to vulnerable youth.
The federal government has supported structured mentoring programs and
initiatives since the beginning of the contemporary mentoring movement. At that
time, mentoring was becoming increasingly recognized by the government as a
promising strategy to enrich the lives of youth, address the isolation of youth from
adult contact, and provide one-to-one support for the most vulnerable youth,
particularly those living in poverty.8 Among the first projects undertaken by the
federal government was a youth mentoring initiative in the early 1990s implemented
by the newly created Points of Light Foundation, a federally funded nonprofit
organization that promotes volunteering.9 Then, Secretary of Labor Elizabeth Dole
made the case for mentoring as a way to improve the lives of youth and prepare them
4
U.S. Government Accountability Office, Student Mentoring Programs, p. 6.
5
George L. Beiswinger, One to One: The Story of the Big Brothers Big Sisters Movement
in America. (Philadelphia: Big Brothers Big Sisters of America, 1985), pp. 15-20.
6
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention,
“OJJDP Helps Big Brothers Big Sisters Celebrate 100th Anniversary,” OJJDP News @ a
Glance, vol. 3, no. 3, May/June 2004, p. 1. (Hereafter referenced as U.S. Department of
Justice, Big Brothers Big Sisters.)
7
Marc Freedman, The Kindness of Strangers: Mentors, Urban Youth, and the New
Volunteerism (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1993), p. 5. (Hereafter referenced as
Mark Freedman, The Kindness of Strangers.)
8
U.S. Department of Justice, “Juvenile Mentoring Program (JUMP) Guidelines,” 59
Federal Register 3820, July 28, 1994.
9
Marc Freedman, The Kindness of Strangers, p. 4.
CRS-4
for the workforce.10 Other early initiatives included the Juvenile Mentoring Program
(see below). The federal government also signaled the importance of mentoring
during the 1997 Presidents’ Summit, which was convened by the living Presidents
(at the time) to pledge their support for policies that assist youth. The Presidents and
other national leaders called for adults to volunteer as mentors for over two million
vulnerable youth.11
Characteristics of Successful Mentoring Programs
Studies of structured mentoring programs, including those that have received
federal funding, indicate that the programs are most successful when they include a
strong infrastructure and facilitate caring relationships. Infrastructure refers to a
number of activities including identifying the youth population to be served and the
activities to be undertaken, screening and training mentors, supporting and
supervising mentoring relationships, collecting data on youth outcomes, and creating
sustainability strategies.12 The mentor screening process provides programs with an
opportunity to select those adults most likely to be successful as mentors by seeking
volunteers who can keep their time commitments and value the importance of trust.
Further, these studies assert that orientation and training ensure youth and mentors
share a common understanding of the adult’s role and help mentors develop realistic
expectations of what they can accomplish. Ongoing support and supervision of the
matches assist mentored pairs in negotiating challenges. Staff can help the pairs
maintain a relationship over the desired period (generally a year or more). According
to the studies, successful programs are known to employ strategies to retain the
support of current funders and garner financial backing from new sources. Finally,
the studies demonstrate that successful programs attempt to measure any effects of
mentoring services on the participating youth. Programs can then disseminate these
findings to potential funders and participants. Figure 1 summarizes the elements,
policies, and procedures of successful mentoring programs.
10
Ibid, p. 16.
11
The Presidents’ Summit on America’s Future, Remarks at the Presidents’ Summit on
America’s Future, available at [http://clinton3.nara.gov/WH/New/Summit/Remarks_index.
html].
12
See, Jean Baldwin Grossman, ed., Contemporary Issues in Mentoring, Public/Private
Ventures, p. 6.; Mentor/National Mentoring Partnership, “Elements of Effective Practice,”
2nd ed., 2003; and Jean E. Rhodes and David L. DuBois, “Understanding and Facilitating the
Youth Mentoring Movement,” Social Policy Report, vol. 20, no. 3 (2006), pp. 8-11.
(Hereafter referenced as Rhodes and DuBois, “Understanding and Facilitating the Youth
Mentoring Movement.”)
CRS-5
Figure 1. Elements, Policies, and Procedures
of Successful Mentoring Programs
Source: Congressional Research Service, based on Figure 1 in GAO, Student Mentoring
Programs. This information was originally presented in MENTOR/National Mentoring
Partnership, “Elements of Effective Practices,” 2nd ed., 2003.
CRS-6
Characteristics of Successful Mentoring Relationships
Research on youth mentoring demonstrates that mentoring relationships are
likely to promote positive outcomes for youth and avoid harm when they are close,
consistent, and enduring.13 Closeness refers to a bond that forms between the youth
and mentor, and has been found to have benefits for the youth. Mentor
characteristics, such as prior experience in helping roles or occupations, an ability to
appreciate salient socioeconomic and cultural influences, and a sense of efficacy for
mentoring youth appear to facilitate close mentoring relationships. Consistency
refers to the amount of time mentors and youth spend together. Regular contact has
been linked to positive youth outcomes, and relationships become strong if they last
one year or longer. Youth in relationships that lasted less than six months showed
declines in functioning relative to their non-mentored peers.
Evaluation of Mentoring Programs
Some studies have found that formal mentoring programs in community-based
and school-based settings are associated with improved academic and behavioral
outcomes for youth, but that the effects of mentoring on particular outcomes and the
ability for mentored youth to sustain gains over time is less certain.
Examples of the Positive Effects of Mentoring. A landmark study in
1995 of the Big Brothers Big Sisters of America program compared outcomes of
eligible youth who were randomly selected to receive mentoring services (the
treatment group) against those eligible youth who were randomly selected to remain
on a waiting list for mentoring services (the control group). The study found that 18
months after the youth were assigned to their groups, the mentored youth skipped
half as many days of school, were 46% less likely than their control group
counterparts to use drugs, 27% less likely to initiate alcohol use, and almost one-third
less likely to hit someone.14
A 2002 review of studies of major community-based programs (the 1995 Big
Brothers Big Sisters evaluation and evaluations of Across Ages, Project BELONG,
and Buddy System, among others15) with an experimental design — meaning that
some youth were randomly assigned to get a mentor — found that the outcomes for
youth with a mentor were better than outcomes for their counterparts without a
mentor.16 These outcomes included the following:
13
Rhodes and DuBois, “Understanding and Facilitating the Youth Mentoring Movement,”
p. 9.
14
Joseph P. Tierney and Jean Baldwin Grossman, with Nancy L. Resch, Making A
Difference: An Impact Study of Big Brothers Big Sisters, Public/Private Ventures, reissued
September 2000, available online at [http://www.ppv.org/ppv/publications/assets/111_
publication.pdf].
15
16
These programs are a sampling of some of the programs profiled.
Susan Jekielek et al., Mentoring Programs and Youth Development: A Synthesis, Child
Trends, January 2002, available at [http://www.childtrends.org/what_works/clarkwww/
(continued...)
CRS-7
!
!
!
Improved educational outcomes: Youth in the year-long Across
Ages mentoring program showed a gain of more than a week of
attended classes. Evaluations of the program also showed that
mentored youth had better attitudes toward school than
non-mentored youth.
Reduction in some negative behaviors: All studies that examined
delinquency showed evidence of reducing some, but not all, of the
tracked negative behaviors. Mentored youth in the BELONG
program committed fewer misdemeanors and felonies. In the Buddy
System program, youth with a prior history of criminal behavior
were less likely to commit a major offense compared to their nonmentored counterparts with a prior history.
Improved social and emotional development: Youth in the Across
Ages program had significantly more positive attitudes toward the
elderly, the future, and helping behaviors than non-mentored youth.
Participants in the Big Brothers Big Sisters program felt that they
trusted their parents more and communicated better with them,
compared to their non-mentored peers.
Similarly, a 2007 study of Big Brothers Big Sisters school-based mentoring
programs demonstrated some positive results. This study — among the most
rigorous scientific evaluations of a school-based mentoring program — found that
mentored youth (randomly selected into the treatment group) made improvements in
their first year in overall academic performance, feeling more competent about
school, and skipping school, among other areas, compared to their non-mentored
counterparts (randomly selected into the control group).17
Some Outcomes Do Not Improve or Are Short Lived. Although
research has documented some benefits of mentoring, findings from studies of
mentoring programs show that mentoring is limited in improving all youth outcomes.
The 2002 review of mentoring program evaluations found that programs did not
always make a strong improvement in grades and that some negative behaviors —
stealing or damaging property within the last year — were unaffected by whether the
youth was in a mentoring program.18 In the Big Brothers Big Sisters school-based
mentoring evaluation, the nonschool, related outcomes, including substance use and
self worth, did not improve.19 Other research has indicated that mentored youth make
16
(...continued)
mentor/mentorrpt.pdf]. (Hereafter reference Jekielek et al., Mentoring Programs and Youth
Development.)
17
Carla Herrera et al., Making a Difference in Schools: The Big Brothers Big Sisters SchoolBased Mentoring Impact Study, Public/Private Ventures, August 2007, pp. 34-35, available
at [http://www.ppv.org/ppv/publications/assets/220_publication.pdf]. (Hereafter referenced
as Herrera et al., Making a Difference in Schools.)
18
Jekielek et al., Mentoring Programs and Youth Development, p. 15.
19
Herrera et al., Making a Difference in Schools, pp. 37-38.
CRS-8
small gains or do not sustain positive gains over time.20 The 1995 Big Brothers Big
Sisters study found that mentored youth and non-mentored youth showed decreased
functioning over time, although those in the mentoring group declined more slowly
than those in the non-mentoring group. Further, the Big Brothers Big Sisters schoolbased mentoring evaluation found that, in the second year of the program, none of the
academic gains were maintained (however, mentored youth were less likely to skip
school, and more likely to feel that they would start and finish college).21 The
evaluation also pointed to weaknesses in the program’s design, such as high attrition
(due likely to the transitioning for some youth to middle school, or high school),
limited contact with mentors and youth over the summer, and delays in beginning the
program at the start of the school year.22 The remainder of this report provides an
overview of the federal role in mentoring and select federal programs, as well as a
discussion of mentoring issues.
Current Federal Mentoring Programs
As discussed above, there are currently three primary federal mentoring
programs, all of which were created since FY2001:
!
!
!
Mentoring Children of Prisoners program administered by the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS);
Safe and Drug Free Schools Mentoring program administered by the
U.S. Department of Education (ED); and
Mentoring Initiative for System-Involved Youth administered by the
U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ).
Table 1 shows the appropriation funding levels since FY2002 for the programs,
where applicable.
For FY2009, the Administration proposes to fund the Mentoring Children of
Prisoners program at $50 million and to eliminate funding for the Safe and Drug Free
Schools Mentoring program. No funding is proposed for the Mentoring Initiative for
System Involved Youth initiative. The initiative was funded under a one-time
appropriation in FY2006.
20
Jean E. Rhodes and David L. DuBois, “Understanding and Facilitating the Youth
Mentoring Movement,” pp. 3-5.
21
22
Herrera et al., Making a Difference in Schools, pp. 47-78.
Ibid., pp. iv-v.
CRS-9
Table 1. Appropriations for
Current Federal Mentoring Programs, FY2002-FY2009
(dollars in millions)
Program
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Estimate Request
Mentoring Children
of Prisoners (HHS)
n/a
10.0
49.7
49.6
49.5
49.5
48.6
50.0
Safe and Drug Free
Schools Mentoring
(ED)
17.5
17.4
49.7
49.2
48.8
19.0
48.5
0
Mentoring Initiative
for System Involved
Youth (DOJ)
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
2.6a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Source: FY2002 to FY2007 funding data based on information provided by the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, Family and Youth Services Bureau; U.S. Department of Education,
Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools; and U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,
2007. FY2008 funding data based on U.S. House, Committee on Rules, Joint Explanatory Statement
to Accompany FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Amendment to H.R. 2764/P.L. 110-161, Division
G. FY2009 funding based on U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for
Children and Families, FY2009 Justification of Estimates, pp. D-53 through D-55 and U.S.
Department of Education, Safe Schools and Citizenship Education, FY 2009 Justifications of
Appropriation Estimates, pp. F-8, F-16.
a. Funding for the initiative is authorized under Part G of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention Act. Part G received $10 million for FY2006, of which $2.6 was a one-time
allocation for the Mentoring Initiative for System Involved Youth. No other DOJ funding
source for mentoring is included in this table.
The remainder of this report describes these three programs, other current
federal mentoring activities and services, and issues that may arise in any discussions
of the federal role in mentoring.
Mentoring Children of Prisoners Program
(U.S. Department of Health and Human Services)
Overview
The Mentoring Children of Prisoners (MCP) Program was proposed as part of
the President’s FY2003 budget and was signed into law under the Promoting Safe
and Stable Families Amendments of 2001 (enacted in law in 2002 under P.L.
107-133) as Section 439 of the Social Security Act. The program is administered by
the Family and Youth Services Bureau in the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services’ Administration for Children and Families. The program funds public or
private entities — in areas of high concentrations of children with parents in prison,
including urban, rural, and tribal areas — to provide mentoring services to children
of prisoners. Mentoring through the MCP is defined as a structured program that
matches each eligible child (with the permission of one or both their parents) to a
CRS-10
screened and trained adult volunteer who serves as a positive role model to the child.
This one-on-one relationship, involving activities based in the community and not
primarily on school grounds or the workplace, is intended to improve academic and
behavioral outcomes. Mentors are to supplement existing caring relationships that the
child has with his or her parents, teachers, and other adults. The Child and Family
Services Improvement Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-288) expanded the scope of the
program by authorizing HHS to enter into a three-year cooperative agreement with
a national mentoring support organization to operate a new program that provides
vouchers for mentoring services.
Purpose. The MCP program was created in response to the growing number
of children under age 18 with at least one parent who is incarcerated in a federal or
state correctional facility. Between 1991 and 1999, the children-of-prisoners
population grew from 936,000 to 1.5 million.23 Today, an estimated two million
children between the ages of four and 18 have a parent in prison or jail.24 Minority
youth are overrepresented among the population. Less than 1% of white children
have a parent in prison, compared to 7% of African American children and 3% of
Hispanic children.25
Studies of children of prisoners show that parental confinement can lead to
stress, trauma, and separation problems.26 The living arrangements of these children
often change when a parent is imprisoned. Nearly 65% of children of incarcerated
mothers must live with another relative and 6% are placed under the care of a foster
care agency.27 Further, children of prisoners may need to contend with compounding
issues, such loss of emotional and financial support provided by the imprisoned
parent and stigmatization by peers and others.28 The trauma of parental incarceration
can trigger anti-social behavior in these children. Some children may also have
difficulty maintaining contact with their parents. The majority of incarcerated
23
Christopher J. Mumola, Incarcerated Parents and Their Children, U.S. Department of
Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, August 2000, p. 2, available at [http://www.ojp.usdoj.
gov/bjs/pub/pdf/iptc.pdf].
24
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and
Families, The Mentoring Children of Prisoners Program, Report to Congress, September
12, 2007, p. 3. (Hereafter referenced as The Mentoring Children of Prisoners Program,
Report to Congress.)
25
Ibid.
26
Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Mentoring Children
of Prisoners Assessment, 2005, available at [http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/
summary/10003505.2005.html]. (Hereafter referenced as Office of Management and
Budget, Mentoring Children of Prisoners Assessment.)
27
Elizabeth Inez Johnson and Jane Waldfogel, Children of Incarcerated Parents:
Cumulative Risk and Children’s Living Arrangements, July 2002, p. 2, available at
[http://www.jcpr.org/wpfiles/johnson_waldfogel.pdf].
28
Nancy G. La Vigne, Elizabeth Davies, and Diana Brazzell, Broken Bonds: Understanding
and Addressing the Needs of Children with Incarcerated Parents, Urban Institute, Research
Report, February 2008, available at [http://www.urban.org/publications/411616.html].
CRS-11
parents reside over 100 miles away from their previous home, and long-distance
phone calls may be prohibitively expensive.
In passing P.L. 107-133, Congress cited the success of the Amachi program29
as a reason for supporting a national program for children of incarcerated parents.30
The Amachi program was developed by Public/Private Ventures and Big Brothers
Big Sisters in Southeastern Pennsylvania, in partnership with secular and faith-based
organizations to provide mentors to eligible youth of incarcerated parents.
Grantee Requirements. A number of entities may apply for an MCP grant:
any state or local government unit, independent school districts, federally recognized
American tribal governments, Native American tribal groups (other than federally
recognized groups), private nonprofit organizations, and community and faith-based
groups. In awarding grants, HHS must consider the qualifications and capacity of the
applicants to carry out a mentoring program for children of prisoners; the need for
mentoring services in local areas, taking into consideration data on the number of
children (and in particular of low-income children) with an incarcerated parent (or
parents) in the area; and evidence of consultation with existing youth and family
services.31 Grant funds are to be expended within one year and are to be used for
mentoring services exclusively (i.e., not wraparound services or other social
services).32
Grantees may recruit mentors from the child’s family and community, church
congregations, religious nonprofit groups, community-based groups, service
organizations, Senior Corps, and from the business community. Grantees provide
mentor training and criminal background checks, and monitor mentoring
relationships. They also evaluate youth outcomes. Grantees are expected to
incorporate a message of positive youth development into their programs and
coordinate with other organizations to develop a plan that addresses the needs of the
entire family.33 (Positive youth development refers to a philosophy of serving youth
29
For further information about the Amachi program, see [http://www.amachimentoring.org/
index.html].
30
U.S. Congress, House Committee on Ways and Means, Promoting Safe and Stable
Families Amendments, report to accompany H.R. 2873, 107th Cong., 1st sess., H.Rept. 107281 (Washington: GPO, 2001), p. 19.
31
HHS has given preference to grantees that have demonstrated a need for mentoring
services in their areas based on the concentration of children of prisoners who are currently
not mentored. Grantee applicants have determined the number of eligible participants by
contacting local school systems for student/parent information and/or the Bureau of Prisons.
Others have collaborated with child social service programs such as the foster care system
and/or their state prisons. Organizations with well-established ministry programs recruited
participants as part of their ministry work.
32
33
Office of Management and Budget, Mentoring Children of Prisoners Assessment.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and
Families, Mentoring Children of Prisoners Competitive Grant Announcement, 2007, pp. 5-6,
available at [http://www.acf.hhs.gov/grants/open/HHS-2007-ACF-ACYF-CV-0029.html].
(Hereafter referenced as U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Mentoring
(continued...)
CRS-12
that emphasizes youth empowerment and the development of skills and assets that
prepare youth for adulthood.)
Mentored Youth and Mentors. Children ages four to 18 (as specified in the
MCP grant announcement) are eligible for the program only if their parent is in state
or federal prison, although they may continue to receive services if their parent is
released from prison during the mentoring relationship; children whose parents are
in halfway houses, under supervision, or house arrest are not eligible unless the
detention follows a federal or state prison sentence.
Since the creation of the program, through March 2007, the program has served
over 57,000 youth in 44 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico.34 In
FY2006, over 27,500 youth were served by the MCP.35 Nearly 70 MCP programs
are administered by the Big Brothers and Big Sisters programs (some of these same
programs may receive funding through Department of Justice funds for Big Brothers
Big Sisters of America; see below for further discussion).36
Mentors undergo screenings that include in-depth interviews and criminal
background checks. They must commit to attending training and meeting with their
assigned youth one hour per week for one year. Mentors are not paid for their
participation, except for reimbursement for incidental expenses such as food and
mileage on a case-by-case basis.
Voucher Demonstration Project: Caregiver’s Choice Program
The Child and Family Services Improvement Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-288)
extended funding and authorization for the Mentoring Children of Prisoners program
and authorized a demonstration project to test the effectiveness of using vouchers to
deliver MCP services more broadly to youth who have not already been matched to
a mentor. The law specified that vouchers would be distributed by an organization
with considerable experience in mentoring services for children, and in developing
program standards for planning and evaluating mentoring programs for children.37
In November 2007, HHS awarded a competitive three-year cooperative agreement
grant (which may be renewed for an additional two years) to MENTOR, a national
mentoring advocacy group and clearinghouse on mentoring issues, to administer the
program. The voucher program is known as the Caregiver’s Choice Program.
33
(...continued)
Children of Prisoners Competitive Grant Announcement, 2007).
34
Six states (Indiana, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah, and Vermont) do not appear
to have programs funded by the MCP grant.
35
Based on correspondence with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Administration for Children and Families, Family and Youth Services Bureau, December
2007.
36
37
Ibid., June 2007.
HHS is required to provide a description of how the organization should ensure
collaboration and cooperation with other interested parties, including courts and prisons,
with respect to the delivery of mentoring services under the demonstration project.
CRS-13
According to HHS, in the first year of the demonstration project, MENTOR is
to begin the program, targeting efforts in geographically diverse targeted
communities with high rates of incarceration, crime or poverty, rural populations, or
areas with American Indian children.38 These areas are Atlanta, Chicago, and
Philadelphia, as well as the Arizona, Connecticut, Idaho, Massachusetts, North
Carolina, and Washington.39 HHS has stated that these targeted efforts are to allow
systems to be implemented, reviewed, and adjusted when needed. In years two and
three of the demonstration program, the demonstration is to be expanded nationally.
In year one, no less than 3,000 vouchers are to be distributed to children and families;
in year two, no less than 8,000 vouchers are to be distributed and in year three, no
less than 10,000 vouchers are to be distributed.
As required by law, MENTOR is not providing direct mentoring services. HHS
reports that the organization is to coordinate with national networks for re-entry and
incarcerated families, caregiver support networks, school districts, social service
agencies, and faith- and community-based organizations to identify children to
participate in the program. Families and caregivers are to be directed to a national
call center to enroll in the voucher program and provided with a mentoring
information packet that corresponds to the family’s stated preferences and provides
mentoring options in their community. The voucher for mentoring services is
included in the packet and contains an identification code. (This identifier becomes
the primary means of data collection and system management for the voucher
demonstration project.) The families redeem the vouchers at organizations deemed
to be quality providers of mentoring services.
MENTOR is conducting an advertising campaign to encourage mentoring
programs to become certified as “quality providers” (allowing them to receive MCP
vouchers).40 MENTOR, in consultation with FYSB, is required to identify quality
standards for these providers, including, at minimum, criminal background checks
of mentors. It must also monitor and oversee delivery of mentoring services.
MENTOR has established several requirements for programs: they must also meet
certain volunteer screening and matching requirements, have at least one year of
experience matching and supporting mentoring relationships, provide training and
orientation to mentors and mentored children and youth, provide ongoing support and
case management to matches, and offer clear policies and procedures for ending
matches, among other requirements.41 To be eligible for voucher funding, mentoring
organizations must also demonstrate that significant mentoring services can be
provided for an eligible child and that after the voucher expires, they can continue
38
Based on correspondence with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Administration for Children and Families, Family and Youth Services Bureau, December
2007. Receipt of a voucher is not counted for purposes of determining eligibility of federal
or federally supported assistance for the child’s family.
39
See [http://www.mentoring.org/downloads/mentoring_1033.pdf].
40
For information about the publicity campaign, see [http://www.mentoring.org/caregivers
choice].
41
For additional information about the program’s eligibility requirements, see
[http://www.mentoring.org/downloads/mentoring_1031.pdf].
CRS-14
providing such services through non-federal resources. For those organizations with
general MCP grants, they must exhaust these funds before receiving funds through
the voucher project.
Funding and Grant Awards
The MCP program, including the voucher component, is authorized to receive
“such sums as may be necessary” for every year through FY2011. Funding for the
general grant program is distributed on a competitive basis to eligible applicants for
up to three years. The size of the average grant is $186,245 for each year of the
three-year period, with grants ranging from $26,000 to $2 million per year.42 (Some
of these organizations make sub-awards to other organizations for mentoring
services.) Grantees are required to provide a nonfederal share or match of at least
25% of the total project budget in the first and second years of the project, rising to
50% in the third year.
Funding may not be awarded to the national mentoring support organization
(i.e., MENTOR for FY2008 to FY2010) to distribute the vouchers unless $25 million
in program appropriations is first available for site-based grants. If funding is
available, the organization is to receive up to $5 million in the first year of the
cooperative agreement, $10 million in the second year, and $15 million in the third
year. The organization’s administrative expenditures for the demonstration project
may not exceed 10% of the amount awarded. Individual vouchers of up to $1,000
can be awarded on behalf of an individual child to redeem for mentoring services.43
The MCP program received initial funding of $10 million in FY2003 and has
been funded at approximately $50 million in each year since then. For FY2009, the
Administration proposes to fund the program at $50 million. Table 2 shows the level
of funding for the program and the number of general grants and vouchers awarded
from FY2003 to FY2008, where applicable.
42
43
The Mentoring Children of Prisoners Program, Report to Congress, p. 1.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Mentoring Children of Prisoners
Competitive Grant Announcement, 2007.
CRS-15
Table 2. Mentoring Children of Prisoners:
Funding and Grant and Voucher Awards, FY2003-FY2009
(dollars in millions)
Funding
Appropriated
New Grants Awarded
Grants
In Progress
Vouchers Awarded
FY
2003
Actual
FY
2004
Actual
FY
2005
Actual
FY
2006
Actual
FY
FY
2007
2008
Actual Estimate
FY
2009
Request
10.0
52
49.7
169
49.6
0
49.5
76
49.5
144
48.6
0
$50.0
188
n/a
n/a
52
n/a
221
n/a
169
n/a
220
n/a
220
8,000
144
13,000
Source: FY2002 to FY2007 funding data based on information provided by the U.S. Health and
Human Services, Family and Youth Services Bureau, 2007. FY2008 funding data based on U.S.
House, Committee on Appropriations, Joint Explanatory Statement to Accompany FY2008
Consolidated Appropriations Amendment to H.R. 2764/P.L. 110-161, Division G. FY2009 funding
based on U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families,
FY2009 Justification of Estimates, pp. D-53 through D-55.
Program Performance and Oversight
Of all MCP funds, 4% must be set aside for research, evaluation, and technical
assistance related to site-based and voucher-related mentoring services.44
Research. HHS collects caseload demographics and characteristics from
grantee progress reports and from an online data collection instrument, administered
by HHS, and used by grantees to input caseload data. This information allows HHS
to assess the average number of days that a child is on the waitlist for a mentor, the
number of hours that the child met with their mentor over the course of a reporting
period, the average number of hours in pre-training/orientation and post-training that
mentors received, and the number of staff contacts with mentors to address mentor
skills or critical issues. Table A-1, in the appendix, displays demographics and
characteristics for youth enrolled in the program in FY2006.
In 2006, HHS introduced the Relationship Quality Survey Instrument (RQI) to
assess the dynamics of the mentor/mentored youth relationship. The RQI seeks
information from youth ages nine and above engaged in long-term (i.e., minimum of
nine months by the time the survey is administered in July of each year) mentoring
relationships. The survey asks the youth about their satisfaction with the
relationship, the extent to which mentors have helped them cope with their problems,
how happy the youth feel when they are with their mentors, and whether there is
evidence of trust in the mentoring relationship.45 According to HHS, research has
44
The percentage of funds set aside for this purpose was increased from 2.5% to 4% under
P.L. 109-288.
45
Department of Health and Human Services, Mentoring Children of Prisoners Competitive
Grant Announcement, 2007, p. 7.
CRS-16
demonstrated that answers to the questions are predictive of the psychological and
academic benefits of mentoring.
Evaluations. Pursuant to the original legislation (P.L. 107-133) authorizing
the MCP, HHS was required to evaluate the program and submit its findings to
Congress no later than April 15, 2005 (see below). The reauthorizing legislation
(P.L. 109-288) requires the Secretary to evaluate the voucher demonstration project.
The evaluation of the project is to be submitted to the House Ways and Means
Committee and the Senate Finance Committee no later than 90 days after the end of
the second fiscal year the project is conducted. The report is to include the number
of children who received vouchers for mentoring services and any conclusions
regarding the use of vouchers to deliver mentoring services to children of prisoners.
In addition to the evaluations, HHS is required to submit to Congress, within 12
months after the reauthorizing legislation was passed (i.e., September 28, 2007), a
report that includes the following: 1) the characteristics of the funded general MCP
programs; 2) the plan for implementing the voucher demonstration project; 3) a
description of the outcome-based evaluation of the programs, and how the evaluation
has been expanded to include an evaluation of the demonstration project; and 4) the
date HHS will submit the final report on the evaluation to Congress.
In response to some of these legislative requirements, HHS subcontracted with
Abt Associates to conduct process and outcome evaluations of the general mentoring
program. A report about the features of the program was submitted to Congress on
September 12, 2007. The report discusses the general program’s design, strategy,
implementation, current operation status, and characteristics. The outcome evaluation
has not yet been completed, as required by P.L. 107-133, but survey instruments have
been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), grantee sites have
been selected, and participating grantee staff have received training on administering
the surveys. This evaluation is to measure child baseline characteristics and status in
a sample of the program’s caseload when a mentoring match is first formed.
Outcomes are to be measured in a follow-up survey of participating youth 12 to 15
months following the baseline survey. The results are to be matched, through a data
sharing agreement, against similar at-risk youth who served as controls in the recent
evaluation of the Big Brothers Big Sisters school-based mentoring program
(discussed above). (Abt plans to use consistent definitions and other methods to
make valid comparisons between the groups.) The evaluation is to assess the
operational design of the program as well as child outcomes, including attitude
towards and performance in school; relationships with parents, peers, and teachers;
self-esteem; and engagement in risky behaviors, including alcohol and drug use.
Findings from the evaluation of the general program are likely be available during
FY2010.
As required by P.L. 109-288, an evaluation of the voucher component is in the
planning stages and according to HHS, will attempt to use the same methodology and
definitions as the general mentoring program, to the extent practicable, given the
program design. HHS is to produce an interim report, sometime in calendar year
2008, on the status of the voucher component of the program.
PART Evaluation. As part of the FY2005 budget process, the MCP program
was evaluated by the Performance Assessment Rating Tool (PART), an instrument
CRS-17
developed by the current Administration to examine the performance of certain
programs across federal agencies. The PART evaluation assessed the MCP’s
purpose and design, strategic planning, management, and results/accountability.
While the program received maximum scores for these first three measurements, it
was rated as “Results Not Demonstrated” because the program performance data to
assess results had only recently begun to be collected from grantees. In addition, the
program also did not meet its mentor match goal. (By FY2007, the program was
targeted to make 75,000 matches to date, but instead, 70,425 matches had been
made.46) According to HHS, mentor match targets were not met because many MCP
grantees had never previously received a federal grant and/or were new and formed
specifically to operate the grant.47 In its 2007 Report to Congress, HHS stated that
it has taken steps to improve the number of matches, such as conducting site visits
to grantees.48 The program missed the goal of increasing the percentage of mentoring
matches that endure at least 12 months in FY2007 (the goal was 60% but the actual
share was 34%) and reducing the percentage of matches that terminate at three
months or less to 20% (the actual share was 26%). However, the program increased
the share of mentored youth in active relationships that have already been sustained
more than 12 months, surpassing the goal of 20% by 13 percentage points in
FY2007.
Training and Technical Assistance. HHS has contracted with Dare
Mighty Things (DMT) to serve as the training and technical assistance provider for
the program. DMT conducts a needs assessment for MCP grantees, and organizes
an annual national conference for all MCP grantees and multiregional workshops
throughout the year. DMT also conducts up to 100 days of site visits and provides
on-site assistance as needed by phone and email.49 Through its newsletters, DMT
conveys important federal information, a mentor/mentored youth of the month
highlight, funding opportunities, and general mentoring information.50
In addition to the assistance provided by DMT, the National Child Welfare
Resource Center for Youth Development at the University of Oklahoma (the
contractor for FYSB on select child welfare issues and the Runaway and Homeless
Youth program) is developing a peer-to-peer monitoring tool that is to allow for
grantees to join federal staff on visits to other grantees to monitor compliance with
the legislative intent of the program and to encourage cross-fertilization of ideas
46
Based on correspondence with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Administration for Children and Families, Family and Youth Services Bureau, December
2007.
47
The Mentoring Children of Prisoners Program, Report to Congress, p. 11.
48
Ibid.
49
Based on correspondence with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Administration for Children and Families, Family and Youth Services Bureau, June 2007.
50
Based on correspondence with U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Administration for Children and Families, Family and Youth Services Bureau, July 2007.
See also Case Study: Supporting a Government Agency, Mentoring Children of Prisoners
Program on the DMT website, [http://www.daremightythings.com/company/casestudy/MCP
%20052507_v2.pdf].
CRS-18
between peer mentoring professionals.51 If the peer reviewers determine that
technical assistance is needed (or is requested by an organization), DMT is to be
notified and develop a plan for delivering services.
Finally, HHS staff provide direct assistance to grantees.52 Program specialists
assist grantees in grant management, service delivery planning, program start-up and
implementation, reporting, and building partnerships. HHS staff monitor grantee
activities and oversee detailed quarterly narrative and financial information. The
staff also facilitates transfers of promising practices from experienced to less
experienced grantees.
Safe and Drug Free Schools Mentoring Program
(U.S. Department of Education)
Overview
The Safe and Drug Free Schools (SDFS) program was enacted as Title IV-A of
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1994 (P.L. 103-382) in
response to concerns about increased school violence and drug use among schoolaged youth. The program awards funding to states to support activities that promote
school safety. In 2001 (P.L. 107-110), the No Child Left Behind Act reauthorized
and amended ESEA, and enacted a school-based mentoring program under the SDFS
program.53
The SDFS Mentoring program is administered by the Office of Safe and Drug
Free Schools in the U.S. Department of Education, and provides grants to establish
and support mentoring programs that are school based. School-based mentoring
refers to mentoring activities that are closely coordinated with school (i.e., involve
teachers, counselors, and other school staff who identify and refer students for
mentoring services) and assist youth with improving their academic achievement,
reducing disciplinary referrals, and increasing their bonding to school.54 Generally,
51
This on-site monitoring tool is to be similar to one that has been used by FYSB’s
Runaway and Homeless Youth program for the past twenty years. Based on correspondence
with U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and
Families, Family and Youth Services Bureau, October 2007.
52
The Mentoring Children of Prisoners Program, Report to Congress, p. 8.
53
The SDFS program supports two major grant programs — one for states and one for
national programs. The mentoring program is authorized under the national programs grant.
For further information, see CRS Report RL33980, School and Campus Safety Programs
and Requirements in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and Higher Education
Act, by Rebecca R. Skinner and Gail McCallion.
54
U.S. Department of Education, “Notice of Final Priorities, Requirements, and Selection
Criteria Under the Mentoring Program,” 69 Federal Register 30794, May 28, 2004.
(Hereafter referenced as U.S. Department of Education, “Notice of Final Priorities.”)
CRS-19
mentored youth are paired with one adult55 who serves as a positive role model and
provides the child with academic assistance (e.g., tutoring, helping with homework,
learning a game like chess, developing computer skills), exposure to new experiences
that promote positive youth development (e.g., attending concerts and plays, visiting
colleges, shadowing mentor at his/her job), and recreational opportunities (e.g.,
playing sports, creating arts and crafts projects, attending professional sports
games).56 According to a June 2004 GAO report of the program, many of these
mentoring activities are carried out on school grounds, but some activities take place
in the community and in the workplace.57
Purpose. The mentoring program targets children with the greatest need,
defined as those children at risk of educational failure or dropping out of school,
involved with criminal or delinquent activities, or who lack strong positive role
models. The purpose of the program is to provide school-based mentoring programs
that improve academic outcomes, improve interpersonal relationships, and reduce
involvement in delinquency and gang involvement.
Grantee Requirements. The Secretary of the Department of Education is
authorized to award competitive grants to three entities to carry out the SDFS
Mentoring program: (1) local education agencies (LEAs); (2) nonprofit communitybased organizations (CBOs), including faith-based groups; and (3) partnerships
between LEAs and CBOs. The Secretary prioritizes grant applications that propose
a school-based mentoring program, provide high quality background checks and
technical assistance, and serve children with greatest need living in particular areas.
In applying for grants, an eligible entity must provide information on the
children for which the grant is sought; a description of the method to match children
with mentors based on the needs of the children; information on how the entity will
recruit, screen, and provide training to mentors; information on the system for
managing and monitoring information related to the program’s background checks
of mentors and procedures for matching children to mentors. Grantees must also
make assurances that no mentor will be matched with so many children that the
assignment will undermine the mentor’s ability to be an effective mentor or the
mentor’s ability to establish a close relationship (i.e., a one-to-one relationship, where
practicable), with each mentored child. Further, grantees must assure that the
mentoring program will provide children with certain supports (i.e., emotional,
academic, and exposure to new experiences) and assign a new mentor if the
relationship between the original mentor and the child is not beneficial to the child.
Mentored Youth and Mentors. As noted above, the SDFS Mentoring
program targets children with the greatest need. In awarding grants, the Secretary is
to prioritize entities that serve children in grades four to eight with greatest need
55
In a 2004 GAO analysis of the 121 SDFS Mentoring Program grantees who received
awards in FY2002, 75% provided one-to-one mentoring only; 22% provided both one-to-one
mentoring and group mentoring; and 3% provided group mentoring only.
56
GAO, Student Mentoring Programs, p. 17.
57
Ibid.
CRS-20
living in rural areas, high-crime areas, or troubled home environments or who attend
schools with violence problems.58 The Department of Education does not aggregate
demographic and other data on youth participants, and therefore, the number and
characteristics of youth that have been served by the program is unknown.59
Mentors may be a responsible adult, a postsecondary school student, or a
secondary school student. While the Department of Education does not mandate a
set amount of hours that mentors and students must meet, it advises that programs
require at least one hour each week.60 Mentors are screened using appropriate
reference checks, child and domestic abuse record checks, and criminal background
checks; and receive training and support in mentoring. Mentors are uncompensated.
Funding and Grant Awards
The mentoring program is one component of the Safe and Drug Free Schools
program. The SDFS program has two funding streams: one for state grants awarded
by formula and another for discretionary national grants. The SDFS mentoring
program is funded through the national grants component.61 The program has
received about $17 million to $49 million each year since grants were first awarded
in FY2002. The average amount awarded for FY2008 to each grantee was
$167,000.62 There is no match requirement and grantees are ineligible to apply for
subsequent SDFS mentoring grants if they are currently receiving funds through the
program (though they may apply for other Department of Education grants for which
they are eligible).63 Table 3 shows the amount of funding appropriated for the
program and the number of grants awarded.
58
U.S. Department of Education, “Notice of Final Priorities.”
59
Based on correspondence with the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Safe and Drug
Free Schools, October 2007.
60
Based on correspondence with the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Safe and Drug
Free Schools, July 2007.
61
State grants are awarded to states based on a formula that incorporates poverty and
population factors. States must use 93% of their allocation to make formula grants to local
educational agencies (LEAs) based on poverty factors and each LEA’s share of student
enrollment in public and private nonprofit elementary and secondary schools. National
grants are used primarily for a variety of discretionary programs designed to prevent drug
abuse and violence in elementary and secondary schools. For further information, see CRS
Report RL33980, School and Campus Safety Programs and Requirements in the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act and Higher Education Act, by Rebecca R. Skinner and Gail
McCallion.
62
U.S. Department of Education, Safe Schools and Citizenship Education, FY 2009
Justifications of Appropriation Estimates, pp. F-37. (Hereafter referenced U.S. Department
of Education, FY 2009 Justifications of Appropriation Estimates.)
63
Based on correspondence with U.S. Department of Education, Office of Safe and Drug
Free Schools, December 2007. Also, see U.S. Department of Education, “Office of Safe and
Drug-Free Schools: Notice of Final Eligibility Requirement,” 71 Federal Register 70369,
December 4, 2006.
CRS-21
In the FY2007, FY2008, and FY2009 budget justifications, the President
proposed no funding for the program, on the basis that it has met its objectives. The
FY2009 budget also proposes to consolidate the SDFS national grants component,
which currently has several sub-programs, into a single-flexible discretionary
program.64
Table 3. Safe and Drug Free Schools Mentoring Program:
Funding and Grant Awards, FY2002-FY2009
(dollars in millions)
Program
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Estimate Request
Funding
Appropriated
17.5
17.4
49.7
49.2
48.8
19.0
48.5
0
New Grants
Awarded
122
0
163
90
0
170
110
0
Grants
In Progress
n/a
122
122
163
253
86
170
170
Source: FY2002 to FY2007 funding data based on information provided by the U.S. Department of
Education, Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools, 2007. FY2008 funding data based on U.S. House,
Committee on Appropriations, Joint Explanatory Statement to Accompany FY2008 Consolidated
Appropriations Amendment to H.R. 2764/P.L. 110-161, Division G. FY2009 data based on U.S.
Department of Education, Safe Schools and Citizenship Education, FY2009 Justifications of
Appropriation Estimates, pp. F-8, F-16.
Program Performance and Oversight
The No Child Left Behind Act does not specify whether or how the SDFS
mentoring program is to be monitored and evaluated, or how grantees are to receive
technical assistance and support. However, regulations promulgated in March 2004
specify that grant applicants must include in their application an assurance that they
will (1) establish clear, measurable performance goals; and (2) collect and report to
the agency data related to the established Government Performance and Results Act
(GPRA) performance indicators for the mentoring program’s grant competition.65
The Department of Education requires grantees to provide an evaluation of their
program at the end of the three-year grant period. Further, the agency established
three performance measures for assessing the effectiveness of the mentoring
program:
(1) The percentage of mentor-youth matches that are sustained for a period of nine
months. The goal for 2007 was 44.9% and the actual figure was 38.6%.
64
U.S. Department of Education, FY 2009 Justifications of Appropriation Estimates, p. F30.
65
U.S. Department of Education, “Notice of Final Priorities.”
CRS-22
(2) The percentage of mentored students who demonstrate improvement in core
academic subjects as measured by grade point average after 12 months. The goal for
2007 was 49.6% and the actual figure was 22%.
(3) The percentage of mentored students who have unexcused absences from school.
The goal for 2007 was 39.6% and the actual figure was 28.9%.66
Evaluation. In 2004, GAO conducted a study of the program and made three
recommendations to the Department of Education to facilitate monitoring and
evaluation of the program: (1) explore ways to facilitate the sharing of successful
practices and lessons learned among grantees, (2) ensure that the agency uses
grantees’ single audit reports, and (3) undertake a national study of the program’s
outcomes.67 (This second recommendation refers to audit reports of grantees that
provide information on weaknesses related to grantee financial management, internal
control, and compliance issues; these reports are available through the Office of
Management and Budget’s Federal Auditing Clearinghouse.) In response to GAO’s
first recommendation, the Department of Education has developed an electronic
listserve to promote communication among grantees. To ensure that the agency
monitors single audit reports, the agency began to provide a comprehensive training
to grant monitors (of the audit reports) to assist them access the information. In
addition, the agency added a requirement to the grant monitoring procedures that
directs staff to review audit findings at least annually.
Finally, in response to GAO’s third recommendation, the Department of
Education has subcontracted with Abt Associates to conduct process and outcome
evaluations. To conduct the process evaluation, data on the nature of mentoring
program services are to be collected through a survey of the program grantees and
mentors to provide context for the outcome evaluation and to provide information to
the agency about how the program can improve. According to the department, the
outcome evaluation will use a randomized control trial with a sample size of
approximately 2,600 students in grades four through eight that are or were mentored
at 32 grant sites from the 2004 and 2005 cohorts of mentoring projects.68 Data are
being collected for the student sample on school engagement, academic performance,
dropping out of school, the quality of interpersonal relationships, and involvement
with high-risk and delinquent behaviors. To measure program impact, student
surveys and student school records are to be collected both at baseline and at the end
66
U.S. Department of Education, FY 2009 Justifications of Appropriation Estimates, pp. F39, F-40.
67
68
GAO, Student Mentoring Programs.
Approximately half of this sample is to be randomly assigned to be matched with a
mentor. The study uses a nonrandom sample of 33 mentoring grantees, meaning that Abt is
to select certain grantee organizations for the study. According to ED, many programs
could not support a study that randomly assigns students to mentoring. According to ED, the
agency will spend $5.6 million for the national evaluation. Funding began in FY2005 and
extends through FY2008. Based on correspondence with U.S. Department of Education,
Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools, July 2007.
CRS-23
of the school year. The agency expects the findings to be available in October
2008.69
Training and Technical Assistance. In 2004, the Department of
Education awarded a performance-based contract to EMT Associates, Inc., to operate
the Mentoring Program Resource Training and Technical Assistance Center until
2009.70 The purpose of this center is to ensure that programs funded under the
mentoring program receive assistance, as appropriate, in the management and
implementation of their projects. Grantees receive assistance with (1) training to
ensure that they are using high-quality, evidence-based programs; (2) identifying gaps
and weaknesses in their program design; and (3) collaborating with other
organizations; and (4) planning for program sustainability.71 In FY2007, EMT held
three regional meetings for more than 500 participants that focused on sustaining
projects; and with Department of Education staff, EMT conducted three webinars
(web-based seminars).72 For FY2008, the agency reports that EMT will develop and
deliver four webinars; produce four manuals that capture best practices; develop six
fact sheets for distribution to grantees via the program’s resource center website;
develop four new case studies around promising prevention practices among
mentoring programs; and conduct two regional training sessions.73
Department of Education staff also provide needed assistance to grantees.
Mechanisms to assist grantees include a post-award call to ensure that grantees
understand established outcomes and to offer technical assistance, semiannual calls
to grantees to determine the implementation process and issues and to provide
technical assistance, reviews of annual grantee performance reports to determine
successes and needed corrective action, monitoring of expenditure rates to determine
if grants were expended at an appropriate rate, and visits to a limited number of
grantees.74
69
U.S. Department of Education, FY 2009 Justifications of Appropriation Estimates, p. F47.
70
Funding for training and technical assistance is approximately $5.5 million from FY2004
through FY2008. Based on correspondence with the U.S. Department of Education, Office
of Safe and Drug Free Schools, July 2007.
71
Based on correspondence with the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Safe and Drug
Free Schools, October 2007.
72
U.S. Department of Education, FY 2009 Justifications of Appropriation Estimates, p. 46.
73
Ibid.
74
This process is described in greater detail in GAO, Student Mentoring Programs, pp. 2426.
CRS-24
Mentoring Initiative for System-Involved Youth
(U.S. Department of Justice)
Overview
As noted above, the Department of Justice is the first federal agency to have
funded a structured mentoring program. The 1992 amendments (P.L. 102-586) to the
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) added Part G to the act,
authorizing the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) to
establish a mentoring program, which came to be known as the Juvenile Mentoring
Program (JUMP). The program was created in response to the perception that youth
in high-crime areas would benefit from one-on-one adult relationships.75 The
objectives of JUMP were to reduce juvenile delinquent behavior and improve
scholastic performance, with an emphasis on reducing school dropout. From FY1994
through FY2003, Congress appropriated a total of $104 million ($4 million to $15.8
million each year) to the program.
JUMP was repealed by the 21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations
Authorization Act of 2001 (P.L. 107-273). This law incorporated the Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention Act of 2001 (H.R. 1900), which eliminated several
juvenile justice programs, including Part G (Mentoring), and replaced it with a block
grant program under new Part C (Juvenile Delinquency Prevention Block Grant
Program, to be used for activities designed to prevent juvenile delinquency). The act
also created a new Part D (Research, Evaluation, Technical Assistance and Training)
and a new Part E (Developing, Testing, and Demonstrating Promising New
Initiatives and Programs). According to the accompanying report for H.R. 1900, the
small amount of funding for JUMP may have been a factor in its elimination. The
report states: “In creating this block grant, the [Senate Judiciary] Committee has
eliminated separate categorical programs under current law.... Funding for the Part
E — State Challenge Activities and Part G — Mentoring Program received minimal
funding.”76 77 The report goes on to say that the Committee does not discourage
mentoring activities under the new block grant program.78
75
Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg, “Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Authorization
Act,” remarks in the Senate, Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 138 (October 7,
1992).
76
U.S. Congress, House Committee on Education and the Workforce, Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention Act of 2001, report to accompany H.R. 1900, 107th Cong., 1st sess.
H.Rept. 107-203 (Washington; GPO, 2001), p. 31.
77
An evaluation of JUMP found that the program did not recruit the desired number of
mentors, that many of the relationships appeared to have ended prematurely, and that some
youth outcomes did not improve. Nonetheless, the results of the evaluation do not appear
to have been a factor in eliminating the program.
78
The Department of Justice did not request that these funds be discontinued. According
to the agency, no letters or budget justifications advocating for these funds to be
discontinued were submitted to Congress. Based on correspondence with the U.S.
Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and
(continued...)
CRS-25
Since the JUMP program was discontinued, the Administration has requested
funding for mentoring under Part C (Juvenile Delinquency Prevention Block Grant
Program) and Part E (Developing, Testing, and Demonstrating Promising New
Initiatives and Programs), which can fund mentoring demonstration projects.79
However, Congress has appropriated mentoring funds under a separate mentoring
line item titled “Mentoring Part G” or “Mentoring” for FY2005 through F72008 (no
mentoring funds were appropriated for FY2004); the line item does not specify under
which part of the JJDPA, as amended, the funding is authorized.80 The Department
of Justice has interpreted the appropriations language as requiring the agency to
allocate funds pursuant to old Part G.81
Most DOJ mentoring activities are coordinated through the Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention.82 Pursuant to the mentoring line item, OJJDP
has allocated funding for mentoring initiatives. For FY2006, OJJDP proposed a new
juvenile mentoring project, the Mentoring Initiative for System Involved Youth
(MISIY), to provide mentoring to youth involved in the juvenile justice system or
foster care, or juvenile offenders re-entering the community.83 Congress appropriated
$10 million for mentoring (under the mentoring line item) that fiscal year, with
approximately $2.6 million for the MISIY program and the balance for specific set
asides for jurisdictions and other organizations that support youth mentoring,
including Big Brothers Big Sisters of America (see page 31 for further discussion of
DOJ’s other mentoring efforts).
Grantees
Entities eligible to apply for MISIY funds include public agencies (state
agencies, units of local government, public universities and colleges, and tribal
governments) and private organizations (including secular and nonprofit, faith-based
groups).84 The initiative awarded a total of $1.6 million to four sites ($400,000 per
78
(...continued)
Delinquency Prevention, November 2007.
79
Based on correspondence with the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, March 2006 and U.S. Department
of Justice, 2007 Congressional Authorization and Budget Submission, p. 141.
80
See, for example, House Committee on Appropriations, Making Appropriations for
Science, the Departments of State, Justice, and Commerce, and Related Agencies for the
Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2006, and for Other Purposes, report to accompany H.R.
2862, 109th Cong., 2nd sess., CP-3 (Washington: GPO, 2006).
81
Based on correspondence with the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, November 2007.
82
The Bureau of Justice Assistance has provided some funding for mentoring.
83
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, FY2005 Budget Justifications.
84
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention, “Application for Funding: Mentoring Initiative for System
Involved Youth,” available at [http://www.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/grants/solicitations/06mentoring
(continued...)
CRS-26
site) for a four-year period (FY2006 to FY2009).85 (See below for a discussion on
the $1 million in funding for the training and technical assistance provider and the
organization conducting the evaluation.) Grantees are not required to provide a
match.
The four grantees are nonprofit, youth-serving organizations, and the City of
Chicago. (As part of its grant requirements, the City of Chicago was to develop a
pilot mentoring program that sub-contracts with community-based organizations.)
Each of the organizations is required to meet performance standards that focus on
building protective factors (e.g., youth are to gain at least two responsible nonparent
adults in their life that support them, experience improved self esteem, and develop
better relationships with their families and peers) and improving school outcomes
(e.g., greater attendance, higher reading and math scores, and fewer behavior
referrals). The four MISIY grantees are described below.
!
The Boys and Girls Aid Society’s Mentor Portland program in
Portland, Oregon provides mentoring to youth ages 10 to 14 who are
in the foster care system or have an incarcerated parent. With its
MISIY grant, the organization is implementing a mentoring program
for 136 youth in foster care that focuses on one-on-one and teambased mentoring in the community. The youth are to be referred
primarily by the Oregon Department of Human Services. Each
mentoring pair is to be placed on a team with six other pairs. In
addition to meeting with their mentors, youth are expected to attend
monthly team activities and community events, and attend a
weekend camp with their mentor.86
!
Lutheran Family Services of Virginia’s Mentor Match in Roanoke,
Virginia, provides one-on-one, community-based mentoring to youth
ages 8 to 18 in foster care and the juvenile justice system. With the
MISIY grant, the organization anticipates serving 140 additional
youth by 2010. Youth are to be recruited through established
relationships with the local juvenile court system, the local social
services agency, and Lutheran Family Services. The program is to
include the following: (1) therapeutic mentoring for children in
treatment foster care provided by mentors employed by Lutheran
Family Services, involving structured recreation and goal setting,
and open dialogue about emotions and problems or other topics; (2)
therapeutic mentoring for court-involved youth provided by mentors
84
(...continued)
initiative.pdf]. (Hereafter referenced as U.S. Department of Justice, “Application for
Funding: Mentoring Initiative for System Involved Youth.”)
85
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention, “OJJDP Awards Foster Mentoring for System Involved Youth,”
available at [http://www.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/enews/07juvjust/070123.html].
86
The Boys and Girls Aid Society’s Mentor Portland, Grant Application for Mentoring
Initiative for System Involved Youth, provided to the Congressional Research Service by
the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, September 2007.
CRS-27
who work with the juvenile justice system; (3) non-therapeutic
mentoring for foster care children provided by volunteers; and (4) a
volunteer mentor pilot project for system-involved youth provided
by volunteers trained in therapeutic mentoring.87
!
The City of Chicago, Department of Children and Youth Services,
is using its MISIY funds to support four community-based
organizations that provide mentoring to adolescent males who are
involved in the juvenile justice system or are at risk for entering the
system. These organizations include Agape, Southwest Youth
Collaborative, Uchlich Children’s Advocacy network, and Building
with Books. Youth are to enter the program in 8th to 10th grade and
are eligible to remain in the program through the 12th grade.
Participants are to be walk-ins or be referred by the Chicago Juvenile
Intervention Support Center (JICS), Cook County State’s Attorneys
Office, and the Cook County Juvenile Probation Department. Each
youth is to receive a case manager and service referrals, and is to be
assigned a mentor (known as a youth advocate) to help them
overcome obstacles to successful enrollment and completion of
JICS programs and to achieve regular attendance in the appropriate
school program. The MISIY program anticipates assisting youth
develop an individual plan to ensure that they are connected to work
and/or school.88
!
The Mentoring Center in Oakland, California, serves youth reentering the community from the Alameda County juvenile
residential rehabilitation facility. The organization is using its
MISIY funds to develop the Camp Sweeney Transformative
Mentoring Program with the long-term goal of reducing re-arrest and
re-commitment rates among 240 youth ages 15 to 18. Youth in the
program are to participate in: (1) group mentoring and a group
counseling program that focuses on behavior change through weekly
curriculum-based cognitive behavior sessions; (2) pre-release
individual mentoring and case management provided by a case
manager that focuses on identifying the needs and services for the
youth; and (3) post-release mentoring. The individual mentoring is
to be provided through the program’s case manager.89
87
Lutheran Family Services of Virginia, Grant Application for Mentoring Initiative for
System Involved Youth, provided to the Congressional Research Service by the U.S.
Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, September 2007.
88
City of Chicago, Grant Application for Mentoring Initiative for System Involved Youth,
provided to the Congressional Research Service by the U.S. Department of Justice, Office
of Justice Programs, September 2007.
89
The Mentoring Center, Grant Application for Mentoring Initiative for System Involved
Youth, provided to the Congressional Research Service by the U.S. Department of Justice,
Office of Justice Programs, September 2007.
CRS-28
Evaluations
OJJDP awarded a four-year grant of approximately $500,000 to the Pacific
Institute for Research and Evaluation in FY2006 to conduct process and outcome
evaluations of the program.90 The process evaluation is to document how the
selected mentoring sites adapt mentoring approaches (e.g., individual, group
mentoring, counseling); how the programs and/or strategies are being implemented
for the target populations; and how these types of mentoring approaches and
strategies could impact outcomes for mentoring.91 The evaluator is also to gather
data from the grantees, through annual site visits and telephone interviews, to inform
best practices in the mentoring field. These data are to be shared with the training
and technical assistance provider.
The outcome evaluation is underway and the first wave of data collection was
reported to OJJDP by the end of calendar year 2007. The evaluation measures youth
behaviors and their school performance at intake into their respective programs, three
months after youth are matched with mentors, and nine months after they are
matched. Measured outcomes include short-term outcomes (i.e., quality of match),
intermediate outcomes (i.e., academic self-esteem, aggression and violence,
delinquency, and substance use), and long-term outcomes (i.e., improved academic
performance, involvement with the juvenile justice system, and stability in the foster
care system). These data are to be aggregated and compared across the four grant
recipients. The data are also to be analyzed in sub-groups, based on race and
ethnicity, gender, age, type of participant (foster care youth, juvenile justice youth,
or both), and the individual grantee.92
The outcome evaluation includes a treatment group — those youth who are in
the mentoring programs — and a control group made up of youth who either agree
to be on a waiting list for at least six months or are in a local geographic area not
served by the grant recipient. The same demographic and survey data is collected
from youth in the control group (except they are not be asked for information about
the quality of their match) and are to be compared to the data from the treatment
group.
90
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention, “Application for Evaluation of Mentoring Initiative for System
Involved Youth,” available at [http://www.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/grants/solicitations/06mentoring
eval.pdf].
91
The process evaluation involves the monthly collection of data on the date of each
mentoring and related activity, duration of each activity, the type of activity (e.g.,
recreational, academic), location of activity (e.g., at mentoring agency, school), structure of
activity (e.g., face to face, by phone), and whether the activity was conducted one-on-one
or in a group. These data are to be submitted by each of the four grant recipients
electronically.
92
Based on correspondence with the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, November 2007.
CRS-29
According to OJJDP, the Administration will await results from the evaluation
prior to determining whether the program should be expanded.93
Training and Technical Assistance
The Education Development Center (EDC) was awarded a two-year grant of
approximately $500,000 in FY2006 to provide training and technical support to the
grantees.94 To date, EDC had conducted telephone pre-assessments and in-depth
assessments of all grantees to determine what type of assistance is needed, as well as
on-site and off-site training. EDC has also researched and created a literature review
containing resources related to mentoring system-involved youth; created two
technical assistance briefs on mentor recruitment and retention; and identified a
series of teleconferences targeted to the specific needs of grantees, including one that
focuses on recruiting African American male mentors to their programs, among other
types of assistance.95 EDC is working with the grant recipients to develop their plans
for becoming financially sustainable.
Other Federal Mentoring Support
In addition to the three primary mentoring programs, the federal government
supports other mentoring initiatives, administered both independently and jointly by
the Corporation for National and Community Service, Department of Health and
Human Services, Department of Justice, and Department of Defense.96
Funding Provided by the Corporation for National and
Community Service
The Corporation for National and Community Service is an independent federal
agency that administers programs to support volunteer services, including
volunteering. CNCS is authorized by two statutes: the National and Community
Service Act (P.L. 101-610) of 1990, as amended, and the Domestic Volunteer
Service Act (P.L. 93-113) of 1973, as amended. The agency has provided mentoring
through two of its volunteer organizations, AmeriCorps and SeniorCorps. In
FY2005, CNCS devoted more than $250 million to support approximately 400,000
93
Ibid, September 2007.
94
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention, “Application for Training and Technical Assistance for Mentoring
Initiative for System Involved Youth,” available at [http://www.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/grants/
solicitations/ttamentoring06.pdf]. In FY2007, EDC received a supplement of $197,446.
95
Based on correspondence with the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, September 2007.
96
This section is not exhaustive of the mentoring services that may be available through
other federal programs and initiatives. See, for example, Executive Office of the President,
White House Task Force for Disadvantaged Youth Final Report, October 2003, pp. 165-179,
available online at [http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/fysb/content/docs/white_house_task_
force.pdf].
CRS-30
youth, including 16,000 children of prisoners, through mentoring, tutoring, and
related services.97 (The amount of funding for mentoring alone cannot be
disaggregated.98) CNCS has also partnered with MENTOR, the mentoring advocacy
group, in an effort to match three million youth with mentors by 2010.99 The
campaign has also secured commitments from corporate and foundation partners for
funding to support mentoring programs.
America’s Promise. America’s Promise, a national nonprofit children’s
advocacy organization, was formed after the Presidents’ Summit for America’s
Future was convened in Philadelphia in 1997.100 The organization promotes five
“commitments” (or factors) that attendees at the summit determined to be essential
for the success of young people. One of the factors was caring adults who are actively
involved in a child’s life, such as mentors, parents, teachers, and coaches.101
America’s Promise has promoted mentoring, and the organization is funded through
a combination of federal and private funds. The Corporation for National and
Community Service has provided some funding. In FY2006, Congress appropriated
$5 million for the organization from the CNCS budget.102 (Congress did not
appropriate funds in FY2007 and FY2008.)
Funding Provided by the Department of Justice
Mentoring Funding Generally. Since JUMP was discontinued in FY2003,
through FY2007, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention has
97
Corporation for National & Community Service, Issue Brief: National Service and
Mentoring, available at [http://www.nationalservice.gov/pdf/06_0503_mentoring_issue
brief.pdf].
98
Based on correspondence with the Corporation for National and Community Service,
December 2007.
99
Corporation for National and Community Service, “Cross-Sector Leaders Unveil Major
New Plan to Close Mentoring Gap,” press release, May 3, 2006, available at
[http://www.usafreedomcorps.gov/about_usafc/newsroom/announcements_dynamic.asp?
ID=1299]. (Hereafter referenced as Corporation for National and Community Service,
“Close Mentoring Gap.”)
100
The five surviving Presidents (at that time) convened the summit to mobilize Americans
in all sectors to ensure that all youth have adequate resources to assist them in leading
healthy, productive lives.
101
The organization’s 2006 report, Every Child, Every Promise: A Report on America’s
Young People, correlated the presence of the five commitments in young people’s lives with
success in adolescence and adulthood. The report concluded that children who have at least
four of the five commitments are more likely to be academically successful, civically
engaged, and socially competent, regardless of their race or family income. The report is
available online at [http://www.americaspromise.org/uploadedFiles/AmericasPromise/Our_
Work/Strategic_Initiatives/Every_Child_Every_Promise/EC-EP_Documents/MAIN%20
REPORT%20DRAFT%2011.1.pdf].
102
U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, Making Appropriations for the Departments
of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies for the Fiscal
Year Ending September 30, 2006, and for Other Purposes, report to accompany H.R. 3010,
109th Cong., 2nd sess., H.Rept. 109-337 (Washington: GPO, 2006), p. 41.
CRS-31
awarded more than $31 million total in funding to support mentoring programs
across the country (no funds were appropriated for mentoring programs through the
DOJ budget in FY2004).103 These funds were appropriated under a mentoring line
item. Some of this funding has gone to the MISIY program ($2.6 million in FY2006
only). The balance of this funding has been allocated to community- and faith-based
mentoring organizations through competitive awards and specific set asides in
appropriation bills. Most of the funding for these organizations has gone to Big
Brothers Big Sisters of America (see below). OJJDP has also funded youth-serving
organizations such as the National Network of Youth Ministries, Youth Friends,
Virginia Mentoring Partnership, People for People, the Pittsburgh Leadership
Foundation, and the Messiah College, among others, to provide mentoring to at-risk
youth.
Big Brothers Big Sisters of America. In most years from FY1998 to
FY2007, the Department of Justice allocated more than $40 million to Big Brothers
Big Sisters of America and its affiliates in specific set asides in appropriation bills.104
Funding for the national organization ($12.4 million in FY1998, $5.0 million in
FY2003, $6.0 million in FY2004, and $7.0 million in FY2005 and in FY2006) has
been used to build a national infrastructure that supports 450 local affiliates in
serving one million children (this initiative is known as “Building Capacity for HighVolume Quality Growth”).105 Congress has also appropriated funds directly to state
and regional affiliates, including Kansas Big Brothers Big Sisters ($497,750 in 2003
and $246,807 in FY2006) and Big Brothers Big Sisters of South Georgia ($98,948
in FY2004).
Also in FY2007, the Department of Justice awarded Part E (Developing,
Testing, and Demonstrating Promising New Initiatives and Programs) funds to Big
Brothers Big Sisters under a competitive solicitation (Prevention and Intervention
Programs) designed to advance juvenile justice, child protection, or delinquency
prevention by expanding knowledge in these areas.106 The funding is used to support
mentoring services for Alaskan Native youth.
Funding for Targeted Mentoring Activities Beginning in FY2008.
The FY2008 appropriations law (P.L. 110-161) provides a line item of $70 million
for mentoring grants and directs the Office of Justice Programs (which oversees the
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention) to provide a report and
spending plan to congressional appropriations committees that detail the scope of the
grant program and the criteria and methodology DOJ will employ to award these
grants. In its joint explanatory statement to accompany H.R. 2764 (which was signed
103
Based on correspondence with the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice
Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, December 2007.
104
Ibid, November 2007.
105
Ibid.
106
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention, OJJDP FY2007 Prevention and Intervention Programs grant
solicitation, available online at [http://www.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/grants/solicitations/FY2007/
intervention.pdf].
CRS-32
into law as P.L. 110-161), Congress stated that it expects national programs that have
received funding under the Byrne discretionary program107 or the JJDPA Part E
program to be eligible for funding under the mentoring grant program.108
Pursuant to P.L. 110-161, the Department of Justice is funding three new
mentoring programs beginning in FY2009: National Mentoring Programs,
Strengthening Youth Mentoring Through Community Partnerships Program, and
Latino Youth Mentoring Program.109 Although the programs have different purposes,
they seek to support mentoring programs in communities and schools and to provide
vulnerable youth with one-on-one mentors for at least one year. They also intend to
achieve specific goals for the youth, such as improved academic performance or
social or job schools and to deter youth from engaging in truancy and gang activity.
The programs require applicants to meet three broad objectives, including (1)
improve youth outcomes, (2) establish or improve the administration of mentoring
programs and strategies, and (3) enhance and improve the organizational capacity and
cost effectiveness through training and technical assistance and other strategies.
Entities funded by the three programs must report performance data to DOJ that
focuses on the number of mentoring program partnerships in place, the number of
youth served, the number of youth who offend or reoffend, the number of mentors,
and average length of time mentors remain in the program, among other data.
The National Mentoring Programs funding is available for national
organizations, including community- and faith-based non-profit entities, that engage
in mentoring activities or provide training and technical assistance on mentoring in
multiple states. In particular, the program targets organizations that work to increase
participation of mentors by underrepresented groups, involve single-parent families,
and focus on truancy prevention. The initiative also seeks to promote collaboration
among both national youth service organizations and community organizations that
support mentoring activities. The program is to fund multiple awards (funding levels
not specified) for up to three years.
Entities eligible to apply for the Strengthening Youth Mentoring Through
Community Partnerships Program include state governments, units or subunits of
local government, and federally recognized tribal governments. These entities must
demonstrate they have formed a community partnership with one or more
community-based organizations to provide mentoring services. The program is
107
Byrne Discretionary Grant program funds activities that are to improve the functioning
of the criminal justice system. For additional information, see CRS Report RS22416,
Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program: Legislative and Funding
History, by Nathan James.
108
U.S. House, Committee on the Appropriations, Joint Explanatory Statement to
Accompany FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Amendment to H.R. 2764/P.L. 110-161,
Division G, available at [http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/house/appropriations/
08conappro.html].
109
The solicitations are available online at [http://ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/grants/solicitations/
FY2008/CommMentoring.pdf], [http://ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/grants/solicitations/FY2008/Natl
Mentoring.pdf], and [http://ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/grants/solicitations/FY2008/Latino
Mentoring.pdf].
CRS-33
intended to encourage collaboration among nontraditional partners (including those
that may not have mentoring as their primary mission), but have areas of common or
overlapping interest in serving at-risk youth. The program is to fund multiple awards
of $250,000 to $500,000 for up to three years.
Finally, the Latino Youth Mentoring Program seeks applications from school
districts with a demonstrable Latino gang problem. The school district is to establish
a mentoring program that reaches Latino youth before they are recruited to gangs as
well as to develop their protective factors against gang involvement and other
problem behaviors. Mentoring is to take place at high schools; is to be directed by
a teacher, social worker, or school psychologist; and is to involve incoming students
as mentored youth and older peers as mentors. The program is to award four awards
up to $500,000 each for three years.
Funds have been set aside to evaluate the programs; however, DOJ has not
determined how the funds will be used.110 All program grantees will have access to
training and technical services through the National Training and Technical
Assistance Center, which contracts with DOJ to assist OJJDP grantees generally.
FY2009 Budget Request. As with the FY2008 budget, the Administration’s
FY2009 budget request does not provide a specific sum of funding for mentoring.111
The budget proposes to consolidate grants now authorized under the Missing
Children’s Assistance Act, Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, Victims
of Child Abuse Act, and other acts into a “single flexible grant program,” and OJP
would use the funds to make competitive discretionary grants to assist state and local
governments “in addressing multiple child safety and juvenile justice needs to reduce
incidents of child exploitation and abuse, including those facilitated by the use of
computers and the Internet, improve juvenile justice outcomes, and address school
safety needs.”
Funding Provided by the Department of Defense
Youth ChalleNGe Program.112 The Youth ChalleNGe Program is a
quasi-military training program administered by the Army National Guard to improve
outcomes for youth who have dropped out of school or have been expelled. The
program was established as a pilot program under the National Defense
Authorization Act for FY2003 (P.L. 102-484), and Congress permanently authorized
the program under the National Defense Authorization Act for FY1998 (P.L. 10585). Congress has since provided an annual appropriation for the program as part of
the Department of Defense authorization acts. For FY2008, Congress appropriated
110
Based on correspondence with the Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs
June 9, 2008.
111
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, FY2009 Performance Budget,
pp. 23 through 26.
112
Unless otherwise noted, this information is based on correspondence with the U.S.
Department of Defense, National Guard, June 12, 2008.
CRS-34
$83.1 million to the program. Currently, 35 programs operate in 28 states, the
District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico.
Youth are eligible for the program if they are ages 16 to 18 and enroll prior to
their 19th birthday; have dropped out of school or been expelled; are unemployed; are
not currently on parole or probation for anything other than juvenile status offenses
and not serving time or awaiting sentencing; and are drug free.113 From 1993 through
2007, nearly 94,000 youth enrolled and approximately 74,000 youth have graduated
from the program.114 The program consists of three phases: a two-week pre-program
residential phase where applicants are assessed to determine their potential for
completing the program; a 20-week residential phase; and a 12-month
post-residential phase.115 During the residential phase, youth — known as cadets —
work toward their high school diploma or GED and develop life-coping, job, and
leadership skills. They also participate in activities to improve their physical wellbeing, and they engage in community service. Youth develop a “Post-Residential
Action Plan (P-RAP)” that sets forth their goals, as well as the tasks and objectives
to meet those goals. The post-residential phase begins when graduates return to their
communities, continue in higher education, or enter the military. The goal of this
phase is for graduates to build on the gains made during the residential phase and to
continue to develop and implement their P-RAP.
A core component of the post-residential phase is mentoring in which a cadet
works with a mentor to meet his or her goals set forth in the P-RAP. This component
is referred to as the “Friendly Mentor Match” process. Parents and youth are asked
to nominate at least one prospective mentor prior to acceptance into the program.
They are advised to identify an individual who is respected by the youth and would
be a good role model. Cadets tend to know their mentors before enrolling in the
program; however, members of an applicant’s immediate family or household and
ChalleNGe staff members and their spouses are not eligible to become mentors. By
week 13 of the residential phase, and prior to the formal matching of a cadet and a
mentor, programs are required to use a National Guard-approved curriculum to train
the mentors and the cadets for their roles and responsibilities during the formal
mentoring relationship.
Mentors be at least 21 years old, of the same gender as the youth (unless
otherwise approved by the director of the program), and within reasonable
geographic proximity. Mentors must also undergo a background check that includes
two reference checks, an interview, and a criminal background investigation that
includes a sex offender registry check. In some programs, the mentors are required
to initiate the background investigation and have the results provided to the program
prior to their acceptance as a mentor. Mentors and cadets begin weekly contact
during the last two months of the residential phase and maintain monthly contacts
113
U.S. Department of Defense, National Guard, Youth ChalleNGe Program 2007
Performance and Accountability Highlights, 2008.
114
115
Ibid.
U.S. Department of Defense, National Guard, “Youth ChalleNGe Program, About Us,”
at [http://www.ngycp.org/aboutus_dependant_T2_R29.php].
CRS-35
during the post-residential phase. Cadets and mentors are encouraged to participate
in community service activities or job placement activities. Although the program
prefers that the pair meet in person, contact may be made by telephone calls, emails,
or letters, particularly for those cadets who enlist in the military or attend school in
a different community.
Mentors report each month during the post-residential phase about the cadets’
placement activities, progress toward achieving their goals, and the activities
associated with the mentoring relationship. Some programs also require the cadets
to report monthly about their progress. At the end of the post-residential phase, an
exit interview is conducted between program staff and the mentor, and the match is
formally concluded.
Federal Mentoring Council
The chief executive officer of CNCS and the Commissioner of HHS’s Family
and Youth Services Bureau chair the Federal Mentoring Council (“Council”), which
is comprised of the leadership teams of eight federal agencies with multiple youthfocused programs.116 The Council was created in 2006 to address the ways these
agencies can combine resources and training and technical assistance to federally
administered mentoring programs, and to serve as a clearinghouse on federal
mentoring.117 The Council was funded in FY2007 through CNCS, the Department
of Education, and the Department of Health and Human Services; CNCS has pledged
to continue funding the initiative in FY2008.118 (The current director of the initiative
is funded in FY2008 through the CNCS budget.) A national working group
comprised of leading mentoring experts and practitioners (including the chief
executive officers of MENTOR, Big Brothers Big Sisters of America, the Boys and
Girls Club, and America’s Promise, among others) advises and shares effective
mentoring practices with the Council.119
Since the Council was convened, it has met quarterly to identify federal
programs with mentoring components, and training and technical assistance
resources for mentoring organizations, which is to be posted on a CNCS-sponsored
website; to develop a common set of criteria and broad description of mentoring that
116
These leadership teams also serve on the Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention (“Coordinating Council”), established by the Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-415) and administered by the Department of
Justice’s Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. The Council’s primary
functions are to coordinate federal programs and policies concerning juvenile delinquency
prevention, unaccompanied juveniles, and missing and exploited children. The Council is
led by the Administrator of OJJDP. The Federal Mentoring Council consults with the
Coordinating Council.
117
U.S. Department of Justice, Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention, Minutes from the Quarterly Meeting on November 30, 2006, p. 10, available at
[http://www.juvenilecouncil.gov/meetings.html].
118
Based on correspondence with the Corporation for National and Community Service,
December 2007.
119
Ibid.
CRS-36
can be used across agencies; and to explore how agencies can collaborate in research
on youth mentoring.120 The Council has held a public forum on mentoring and is
now developing a mentoring initiative for young people aging out of foster care
tentatively known as the Foster Youth Mentoring Campaign.121 The campaign is
working to recruit federal employees to serve as mentors. The initiative is to
incorporate the recommendations of the White House Task Force for Disadvantaged
Youth, including strategies to assist foster youth as they transition to adulthood.
Finally, the Council is drafting an Executive Order on mentoring, which would
promote mentoring across agencies, including engaging federal employees as
mentors.
Federal Issues in Mentoring
Six bills have been introduced in the 110th Congress that primarily concern
mentoring.122 The Mentoring America’s Children Act (H.R. 2611/S. 1812) would
make changes to the SDFS Mentoring program. The Foster Care Mentoring Act (S.
379) seeks to provide additional mentoring services for youth in the foster care
system.123 Another pending bill (H.R. 5660), introduced by Representative Kendrick
Meek, provides tax incentives for adults who provide or facilitate mentoring for
adults ages 18 through 21. Finally, the Mentor-Mentee Teen Pregnancy Reduction
Act of 2008 (H.R. 5810) would authorize grants for school-based mentoring
programs for at risk teenage girls to prevent and reduce teen pregnancy, and to
provide student loan forgiveness for mentors participating in the programs.
Issues that may be relevant to any discussions around the federal role in
mentoring include (1) the limitations of research on outcomes for mentored youth;
(2) the potential need for additional mentors, particularly for vulnerable populations;
(3) grantees’ challenges in sustaining funding; and (4) the possible discontinuation
of federal mentoring funding.
120
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention, Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention, September 14, 2007, meeting, available at [http://www.juvenilecouncil.gov/
materials/2007_09/MeetingSummary%209-14-07-ed.doc].
121
Based on correspondence with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Administration for Children and Families, April 2007.
122
Other legislation (most notably, H.R. 3168 and S. 990/H.R. 1692) would authorize
programs and funding for mentoring, among additional activities. Three resolutions (H.Res.
29, H.Res. 908, and S.Res. 61) establish January as national mentoring month or support
the goals of national mentoring month.
123
An amendment to the College Opportunity and Affordability Act (H.R. 4137) would
allow community college students to have $10 forgiven from their student loans for every
hour they dedicate to mentoring an at-risk child. Another bill, the Families Beyond Bars Act
of 2008 (H.R. 5654), would authorize a grant program through the Department of Justice
for youth-serving organizations that carry out visitation programs for incarcerated parents
and their children.
CRS-37
Limited Research on Mentored Youth Outcomes
A few positive evaluations of mentoring programs may have provided some
justification for federal support of these programs.124 The 1995 landmark study of
community-based mentoring programs at select Big Brothers and Big Sisters chapters
demonstrated that mentored youth were less likely than their non-mentored
counterparts to use drugs and alcohol, hit someone, and skip school, among other
outcomes. A recent evaluation of the Big Brothers Big Sisters school-based
mentoring program found similar promising results for mentored youth.
Nonetheless, findings from these and other studies are limited and/or show that
mentoring is limited in improving all youth outcomes. The long-term influence of
mentoring for youth is unknown. The 1995 study tracked youth for 18 months,
which is among the longest periods of time mentored youth have been studied. No
study appears to address issues around how well youth transition to adulthood, such
as whether they attend college or secure employment. Further, studies of mentoring
programs have shown that some gains made by mentored youth, compared to their
non-mentored counterparts, are short-lived and that mentored youth do not improve
in certain areas.
A related issue is the use of mentoring techniques, such as group mentoring, that
have not been rigorously evaluated. The Mentoring Initiative for System-Involved
Youth grant solicitation encouraged applicants to “consider a variety of mentoring
approaches, such as one-to-one, group, student/peer, team education, and sports
mentoring; professional development coaching; and other approaches best suited to
meet the needs of the target population.”125 Two of the MISIY grantees appear to use
group mentoring or team-based mentoring as a primary technique, and one of the
programs uses therapeutic mentoring provided by paid case managers.126 The 2004
GAO report on the Safe and Drug Free Schools Mentoring program found that 3%
of grantees used group mentoring exclusively and that 20% used group mentoring in
combination with one-to-one mentoring.127 Compared to mentoring pairs, these other
mentoring techniques have not been thorougly evaluated.
Finally, researchers have noted that evaluations of certain mentoring techniques
are often not in place prior to implementation. In response to GAO’s finding that the
SDFS Mentoring program lacked an evaluative component, the Department of
124
Gary Walker, “Youth Mentoring and Public Policy,” in David L. Dubois and Michael J.
Karcher, eds., Handbook of Youth Mentoring (Thousand Oaks, California: Sage
Publications, 2005), pp. 510-512. (Hereafter referenced as Walker, “Youth Mentoring and
Public Policy.”)
125
U.S. Department of Justice, “Application for Funding: Mentoring Initiative for System
Involved Youth.”
126
Mentoring programs for juvenile justice-involved youth that employ paraprofessionals
may be the most appropriate and cost effective. See Elaine A. Blechman and Jedediah M.
Bopp, “Special Populations: Youth Offenders,” in David L. Dubois and Michael J. Karcher,
eds., Handbook of Youth Mentoring (Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, 2005).
127
GAO, Student Mentoring Programs, p. 15.
CRS-38
Education has contracted with a research organization to evaluate outcomes of
students in programs funded by the program.
Gap in Mentoring Services
A 2002 poll by MENTOR, a mentor advocacy group, estimated that 15 million
at-risk128 youth need a mentor.129 Recruiting and retaining volunteers appears to be
a major challenge for mentoring organizations, including those funded through
federal mentoring programs.130 In its 2004 report of the Safe and Drug Free Schools
Mentoring program, GAO found that new grantees had more difficulty than
established grantees in recruiting and supporting mentors.131 Similarly, HHS reports
that some mentors in organizations that receive Mentoring Children of Prisoners’
funding have dropped out before being matched with a youth because of the time and
energy commitment mentoring entails.132 While research on mentor recruitment and
retention is nascent, it reveals that mentoring organizations tend to attract individuals
who are middle aged, educated, and have children in their household, and that word
of mouth is among the top strategies for recruiting new volunteers.133 Further,
individuals are likely to remain in formal mentoring programs if they feel adequately
prepared to serve as mentors. According to the research on mentoring, retention may
be high when programs continually monitor mentoring relationships for effectiveness
and respond to the needs of mentors.
To address the perceived mentoring gap, the Corporation for National and
Community Service has partnered with MENTOR to match three million youth with
mentors by 2010. The campaign has also secured commitments from corporate and
foundation partners for funding to support research on mentoring programs and
engage their networks of employees in mentoring. The Federal Mentoring Council
is also undertaking efforts to recruit federal employees to serve as mentors.
A related issue is that the mentoring gap may be wider for special populations.
Mentoring programs primarily serve youth ages 9 through 11 who come to the
attention of a parent or teacher, rather than the most at-risk populations, which
include, but are not limited to, older youth, runaway and homeless youth, and youth
128
This definition encompasses youth with poor academic performance or substance abuse
issues, or are sexually active, and may overstate the number of youth who need mentoring.
129
MENTOR, “The National Agenda For Action: How to Close America’s Mentoring Gap,”
2006, available at [http://www.mentoring.org/downloads/mentoring_399.pdf], p. 10.
130
Arthur Astukas and Chris Tanti, “Recruiting and Sustaining Volunteer Mentors,” in
David L. Dubois and Michael J. Karcher, eds., Handbook of Youth Mentoring, (Thousand
Oaks, California: Sage Publications, 2005), p. 245. (Hereafter referenced as Astukas and
Tanti, “Recruting and Sustaining Volunteer Mentors.”)
131
GAO, Student Mentoring Programs, pp. 20-21.
132
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Report to Congress: The Mentoring
Children of Prisoners Program, September 2007.
133
Astukas and Tanti, “Recruiting and Sustaining Volunteer Mentors,” pp. 235-249.
CRS-39
in foster care or the juvenile justice system.134 According to a 2005 study by
MENTOR, less than one-fifth of mentors reported mentoring a youth involved in the
juvenile justice or foster care systems or with a parent in prison.135 However, most
of these mentors said they would be willing to work with vulnerable youth
populations. Recent efforts to recruit volunteers for vulnerable populations are also
underway, as evidenced by two of the three current federal mentoring programs that
target youth involved in the foster care or juvenile justice systems and children with
imprisoned parents. The three recent DOJ mentoring grants target vulnerable youth,
including Latino high school students that attend schools in areas with a significant
gang presence. In addition, provisions in the proposed Foster Care Mentoring Act (S.
379) are intended to help recruit mentors for children in the foster care system. These
provisions would forgive the federal student loan debt of mentors who serve 200
hours each year, at $2,000 each year, not to exceed $20,000 total. Nonetheless,
potential mentors may still be discouraged from working with youth facing serious
personal difficulties. In addition, creating financial incentives for mentors may raise
the concern that this type of mentoring would not be strictly voluntary.
Sustaining Resources
Some organizations that receive federal mentoring grants report challenges with
securing diverse sources of funding and expanding their programs because of limited
funding.136 While the Safe and Drug Free Schools Mentoring program does not
require grantees to provide a match, they are ineligible to apply for subsequent grants,
even in the last year of the grant cycle. (They may, however, apply for other
Department of Education grants for which they are eligible and/or apply for
subsequent SDFS Mentoring grants after the grant cycle ends.) For example,
grantees awarded funds in FY2007 are only eligible to apply for a subsequent grant
after FY2009, the final year of their grant. This may lead to gaps in funding for
organizations that rely on federal dollars to sustain their services. According to the
Department of Education, grantees must wait to reapply for continuation grants
because the agency would like to provide funding opportunities for new grantees and
to encourage current grantees to secure other sources of funding.137
To improve the prospects that organizations continue providing mentoring
services beyond the life of their grants, the three federal mentoring programs provide
training and technical assistance to help grantees in becoming financially
134
Walker, “Youth Mentoring and Public Policy,” pp. 509-510.
135
MENTOR, “Mentoring in America 2005: A Snapshot of the Current State of Mentoring,”
2006, available at [http://www.mentoring.org/downloads/mentoring_404.pdf].
136
Erika Fitzpatrick, “Surviving Without Uncle Sam’s Money: Mentoring Grant Cutoff
Sparks Talk About How to Diversify Funding,” Youth Today, June 2007, p. 10.
137
Based on correspondence with U.S. Department of Education, Office of Safe and Drug
Free Schools, December 2007. Also, see U.S. Department of Education, “Office of Safe and
Drug-Free Schools: Notice of Final Eligibility Requirement,” 71 Federal Register 70369,
December 4, 2006.
CRS-40
sustainable.138 For example, the Education Development Center is working with
MISIY grantees to develop strategies and tools to secure additional financial
resources. EDC has conducted pre-assessments of the grantees to gauge their need
for this type of assistance.139 Further, pending legislation to reauthorize the Safe and
Drug Free Schools program would enable grantees to reapply for additional funding
after their grant terminates. The Mentoring America’s Children Act (H.R. 2611/S.
1812) would enable grantees to seek additional funding. Specifically, the act provides
that in awarding grants, the Secretary must consider entities who have received prior
grant funding only if they meet specific criteria: (I) performance during the initial
grant cycle was satisfactory, in terms of program design and number of children
served (the bills do not specify which entity or persons are to determine if the
performance was satisfactory); (ii) the subsequent grant is to support expanded
services to a new geographic area or target population; and (iii) the eligible entity
demonstrates that it is able to provide a 50% match to federal funds for all three years
of the new grant. The act would also require first-time grantees to provide a match
of at least l0% in the first year, at least 25% in the second year, and 50% in the third
year.
Possible Discontinuation of Select
Federal Mentoring Funding
Funding appears uncertain for two of the three primary federal mentoring
programs. The Administration has proposed eliminating the Safe and Drug Free
Schools Program, claiming that the program has met its objectives.140 Funding for
the program will continue in FY2008, pursuant to the FY2008 appropriations law
(P.L. 110-161) signed by the President on December 26, 2007. MISIY is funded as
a pilot project that may not continue beyond FY2009, the last year of grant funding.
The Administration plans to await results from the evaluation prior to determining
the feasibility of expanding the program.141 However, a pending omnibus crime
control bill (S. 2237) proposes to expand the MISIY program to additional sites and
authorize an annual appropriation of $4.8 million for FY2008 to FY2012.142
138
Based on correspondence with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Family and Youth Services Bureau, November 2007; U.S. Department of Education, Office
of Safe and Drug Free Schools, September 2007; and U.S. Department of Justice, Office of
Justice Programs, September 2007.
139
Ibid.
140
U.S. Department of Education, FY 2009 Justifications of Appropriation Estimates, p. F16.
141
Based on correspondence with the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice
Programs, September 2007.
142
The bill proposes to amend Section 261(a) of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5665(a)) by adding, “The Administrator shall expand the
number of sites receiving [MISIY] grants from 4 to 12.” This proposed change appears to
be a drafting error. Section 261(a) does not currently authorize funding specifically for
MISIY or any other pilot project; rather, it authorizes funds generally for demonstration
grants and projects.
CRS-41
Appendix
Table A-1. Mentoring Children of Prisoners: Demographics and
Characteristics of Children, Mentors, and Relationships
(FY2006)
Demographic or Characteristic
Total Number of Matches
Average age of youth
27,525
11 years
Percent of children who were male
44%
Percent of mentors who were male
38%
Total number of matches that began in FY2006 and were across gender (e.g.,
female mentor and male youth)
2,461
(8.9%)
Total number of matches that began in FY2006 and were across race or ethnicity
(e.g., Asian mentor and white youth)
6,380
(23.2%)
Average number of days youth was waiting for a mentor
53 days
Share of children with fewer than 12 hours of regular mentor/youth contact
during the past quarter (i.e., four-month period)
24%
Share of children with 12 to 24 hours of regular mentor/youth contact during the
past quarter
22%
Share of children with more than 24 hours of regular mentor/youth contact during
the past quarter
32%
Share of children for whom the frequency or length of their contacts with
mentors is unknown
22%
Average number of initial pre-match training/orientation(s) per mentor
Average number of hours post-match training per mentor
Average number of staff follow-up contacts in person or by phone per mentor per
fiscal quarter addressing the following: key mentor skills, commitment, or
mentor’s response to child crisis or other critical issue in child’s life
5
4.5
15.7
Source: Congressional Research Service presentation of data provided by the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Family and Youth Services
Bureau, June and December 2007.
updated as legislative activity warrants.
Congressional Research Service
.
Vulnerable Youth: Federal Mentoring Programs and Issues
Congressional Research Service
.
Vulnerable Youth: Federal Mentoring Programs and Issues
Contents
Overview and Purpose of Mentoring ...........................................................................................2
Origins of Contemporary Mentoring Programs ......................................................................2
Characteristics of Successful Mentoring Programs ................................................................3
Characteristics of Successful Mentoring Relationships ..........................................................6
Evaluation of Mentoring Programs........................................................................................6
Examples of the Positive Effects of Mentoring ................................................................6
Some Outcomes Do Not Improve or Are Short Lived ......................................................7
Current Federal Mentoring Programs ..........................................................................................8
Mentoring Children of Prisoners Program (U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services) ..................................................................................................................................9
Overview ..............................................................................................................................9
Purpose...........................................................................................................................9
Grantee Requirements ................................................................................................... 10
Mentored Youth and Mentors ........................................................................................ 11
Voucher Demonstration Project: Caregiver’s Choice Program ............................................. 11
Funding and Grant Awards .................................................................................................. 12
Program Performance and Oversight ................................................................................... 14
Research ....................................................................................................................... 14
Reports to Congress and Evaluations............................................................................. 14
Training and Technical Assistance................................................................................. 16
Safe and Drug Free Schools Mentoring Program (U.S. Department of Education) ..................... 16
Recent Developments.......................................................................................................... 16
Overview ............................................................................................................................ 17
Purpose......................................................................................................................... 17
Grantee Requirements ................................................................................................... 18
Mentored Youth and Mentors ........................................................................................ 18
Funding and Grant Awards .................................................................................................. 19
Program Performance and Oversight ................................................................................... 19
Evaluations ................................................................................................................... 20
Training and Technical Assistance................................................................................. 21
Other Federal Mentoring Support.............................................................................................. 21
Department of Justice.......................................................................................................... 22
Overview ...................................................................................................................... 22
Other Notable DOJ Funding Allocations for Mentoring................................................. 26
Corporation for National and Community Service ............................................................... 27
America’s Promise........................................................................................................ 28
Federal Mentoring Council.................................................................................................. 28
Department of Defense ....................................................................................................... 29
Youth ChalleNGe Program............................................................................................ 29
Federal Issues in Mentoring ...................................................................................................... 31
Limitations of Research on Mentoring................................................................................. 31
Gap in Mentoring Services .................................................................................................. 33
Sustaining Resources .......................................................................................................... 34
Congressional Research Service
.
Vulnerable Youth: Federal Mentoring Programs and Issues
Figures
Figure 1. Elements, Policies, and Procedures of Successful Mentoring Programs........................5
Tables
Table 1. FY2003-FY2009 (Appropriated) and FY2011 (Proposed) Funding for the
Mentoring Children of Prisoners Program .............................................................................. 13
Table 2.FY2003-FY2010 Funding (Appropriated) for the Safe and
Drug Free Schools Program ................................................................................................... 19
Table A-1. Demographics and Characteristics of Children, Mentors, and Relationships
(FY2006 Through FY2009).................................................................................................... 35
Table B-1.Department of Justice Mentoring Programs, FY2009 ................................................ 36
Table B-2.Department of Justice Mentoring Programs, FY2008 ................................................ 39
Appendixes
Appendix A. Mentoring Children of Prisoners Program............................................................. 35
Appendix B. Descriptions of Department of Justice Mentoring Programs, Select Years.............. 36
Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 40
Congressional Research Service
.
Vulnerable Youth: Federal Mentoring Programs and Issues
S
ince the mid-1990s, Congress has supported legislation to establish structured mentoring
programs for the most vulnerable youth. The Department of Justice’s Juvenile Mentoring
Program (JUMP), the first such program, was implemented in 1994 to provide mentoring
services for at-risk youth ages five to 20. The purpose of contemporary, structured mentoring
programs is to reduce risks by supplementing (but not supplanting) a youth’s relationship with his
or her parents. Some of these programs have broad youth development goals while others focus
more narrowly on a particular outcome such as reducing gang activity or substance abuse, or
improving grades. Research has shown that mentoring programs have been associated with some
positive youth outcomes, but that the long-term effects of mentoring on particular outcomes and
the ability for mentored youth to sustain gains over time are less certain.
Although there is no single overarching policy today on mentoring, the federal government
supports multiple mentoring efforts for vulnerable youth since JUMP was discontinued in
FY2003, including the Mentoring Children of Prisoners (MCP) program, administered by the
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS); and the Safe and Drug Free Schools (SDFS)
Mentoring program, which, through FY2009, was administered by the Department of Education
(ED). The purpose of the programs is to improve the outcomes of vulnerable youth across a
number of areas, including education, criminal activity, health and safety, and social and
emotional development.
The federal government also supports other mentoring efforts through short-term grants and
initiatives. Many of these grants are carried out by the Department of Justice (DOJ), which has
allocated funding for multiple mentoring initiatives for youth in foster care, the juvenile justice
system, and minority youth. In addition, the federal government has provided funding to
programs with vulnerable youth that have a strong (but not exclusive) mentoring component.
Youth ChalleNGe, an educational and leadership program for at-risk youth administered by the
Department of Defense, helps to engage youth in work and school, and leadership opportunities.
Adult mentors assist enrolled youth with their transition from the program for at least one year.
Finally, federal agencies coordinate on mentoring issues. The Federal Mentoring Council was
created in 2006 to address the ways agencies can combine resources and training and technical
assistance to federally administered mentoring programs, and to serve as a clearinghouse on
mentoring issues for the federal government.
This report begins with an overview of the purpose of mentoring, including a brief discussion on
research of structured mentoring programs. The report then describes the evolution of federal
policies on mentoring since the early 1990s. The report provides an overview of the components
and funding for each of two major federal mentoring programs, as well as a discussion of other
federal mentoring initiatives that are currently funded. Note that additional federal programs and
policies authorize funding for mentoring activities, among multiple other activities and services.1
These programs are not discussed in this report. The report concludes with an overview of issues
that may be of interest to Congress. These issues include the limitations of research on outcomes
for mentored youth, the potential need for additional mentors, grantees’ challenges in sustaining
funding, and the possible discontinuation of federal mentoring funding.
1
The White House Task Force for Disadvantaged Youth, convened in 2003 to identify issues in coordinating federal
youth policy, identified approximately 123 federally funded programs administered by 10 agencies with a mentoring
component. The task force’s final report is available at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/fysb/content/docs/
white_house_task_force.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
1
.
Vulnerable Youth: Federal Mentoring Programs and Issues
Overview and Purpose of Mentoring
Mentoring refers to a relationship between two or more individuals in which at least one of those
individuals provides guidance to the other. In the context of this report, mentoring refers to the
relationship between a youth and an adult who supports, guides, and assists the youth.2 Youth can
receive mentoring through informal and formal relationships with adults. Informal relationships
are those that develop from a young person’s existing social network of teachers, coaches, and
family friends. This report focuses on formal mentoring relationships for vulnerable youth. These
relationships are cultivated through structured programs sponsored by youth-serving
organizations, faith-based organizations, schools, and after-school programs. Volunteers in
structured programs are recruited from communities, churches, and the workplace, and undergo
an intensive screening process. Youth eligible for services through structured mentoring programs
are often identified as at “high risk” of certain negative outcomes.3
The purpose of modern structured mentoring programs is to reduce risks by supplementing (but
not replacing) a youth’s relationship with his or her parents. Some programs have broad youth
development goals, while others focus more narrowly on a particular outcome such as reducing
gang activity or substance abuse, or improving grades. Structured mentoring programs are often
community based, meaning that mentored youth and adults engage in community activities (e.g.,
going to the museum and the park, playing sports, playing a board game, and spending time
together outside of work and school). Other programs are characterized as school based because
they take place on school grounds or some other set location, like a community center. The colocation of mentoring programs in schools facilitates relationships with teachers, who can meet
with mentors and refer youth to the programs.4 Mentors provide academic assistance and
recreational opportunities and expose youth to opportunities that promote their cognitive and
emotional development.
Origins of Contemporary Mentoring Programs
The origin of today’s structured mentoring programs is credited to the efforts of charity groups
that formed during the Progressive Movement of the early 1900s. These groups sought adult
volunteers for vulnerable youth—defined at the time as youth who were poor or had become
involved in the then nascent juvenile court system. 5 These early organizations provided practical
assistance to youth, including help with finding employment, and created recreational outlets. The
most prominent mentoring organization at the time, Big Brothers (now known as Big Brothers
Big Sisters of America), continues today as the oldest and largest mentoring organization in the
country with over 275,000 youth ages five to 18 served in 5,000 communities.6
2
See U.S. General Accounting Office, Student Mentoring Programs: Education’s Monitoring and Information Sharing
Could Be Improved, GAO Report GAO-04-581 (Washington, June 2004), p. 6. (Hereafter referenced GAO, Student
Mentoring Programs.) After this report was issued, the name of the General Accounting Office was changed to the
Government Accountability Office.
3
For further discussion of risk factors and groups of at-risk youth, see CRS Report RL33975, Vulnerable Youth:
Background and Policies, by Adrienne L. Fernandes.
4
U.S. Government Accountability Office, Student Mentoring Programs, p. 6.
5
George L. Beiswinger, One to One: The Story of the Big Brothers Big Sisters Movement in America. (Philadelphia:
Big Brothers Big Sisters of America, 1985), pp. 15-20.
6
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, “OJJDP Helps Big Brothers Big
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
2
.
Vulnerable Youth: Federal Mentoring Programs and Issues
The contemporary youth mentoring movement began in the late 1980s with the support of
foundations and corporations, including Fannie Mae, Commonwealth Fund, United Way of
America, Chrysler, Procter & Gamble, and the National Urban League. 7 In addition,
nongovernmental organizations such as One to One in Philadelphia and Project RAISE in
Baltimore were established by entrepreneurs seeking to expand mentoring services to vulnerable
youth.
The federal government has supported structured mentoring programs and initiatives since the
beginning of the contemporary mentoring movement. At that time, mentoring was becoming
increasingly recognized by the government as a promising strategy to enrich the lives of youth,
address the isolation of youth from adult contact, and provide one-to-one support for the most
vulnerable youth, particularly those living in poverty.8 Among the first projects undertaken by the
federal government was a youth mentoring initiative in the early 1990s implemented by the newly
created Points of Light Foundation, a federally funded nonprofit organization that promotes
volunteering.9 Then Secretary of Labor Elizabeth Dole made the case for mentoring as a way to
improve the lives of youth and prepare them for the workforce. 10 Other early initiatives included
the Juvenile Mentoring Program (see below). The federal government also signaled the
importance of mentoring during the 1997 Presidents’ Summit, which was convened by the living
Presidents (at the time) to pledge their support for policies that assist youth. The Presidents and
other national leaders called for adults to volunteer as mentors for over two million vulnerable
youth. 11
Characteristics of Successful Mentoring Programs
Studies of structured mentoring programs, including those that have received federal funding,
indicate that the programs are most successful when they include a strong infrastructure and
facilitate caring relationships. Infrastructure refers to a number of activities including identifying
the youth population to be served and the activities to be undertaken, screening and training
mentors, supporting and supervising mentoring relationships, collecting data on youth outcomes,
and creating sustainability strategies.12 The mentor screening process provides programs with an
opportunity to select those adults most likely to be successful as mentors by seeking volunteers
who can keep their time commitments and value the importance of trust. Further, these studies
(...continued)
Sisters Celebrate 100th Anniversary,” OJJDP News @ a Glance, vol. 3, no. 3, May/June 2004, p. 1. (Hereafter
referenced as U.S. Department of Justice, Big Brothers Big Sisters.)
7
Marc Freedman, The Kindness of Strangers: Mentors, Urban Youth, and the New Volunteerism (San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1993), p. 5. (Hereafter referenced as Freedman, The Kindness of Strangers.)
8
U.S. Department of Justice, “Juvenile Mentoring Program (JUMP) Guidelines,” 59 Federal Register 3820, July 28,
1994.
9
Freedman, The Kindness of Strangers, p. 4. The Points of Light Foundation is funded by the Corporation for National
and Community Service.
10
Ibid, p. 16.
11
The Presidents’ Summit on America’s Future, Remarks at the Presidents’ Summit on America’s Future, available at
http://clinton3.nara.gov/WH/New/Summit/Remarks_index.html.
12
See, Jean Baldwin Grossman, ed., Contemporary Issues in Mentoring, Public/Private Ventures, p. 6.;
Mentor/National Mentoring Partnership, “Elements of Effective Practice in Mentoring,” 3rd ed., 2009; and Jean E.
Rhodes and David L. DuBois, “Understanding and Facilitating the Youth Mentoring Movement,” Social Policy Report,
vol. 20, no. 3 (2006), pp. 8-11. (Hereafter referenced as Rhodes and DuBois, “Understanding and Facilitating the Youth
Mentoring Movement.”)
Congressional Research Service
3
.
Vulnerable Youth: Federal Mentoring Programs and Issues
assert that orientation and training ensure youth and mentors share a common understanding of
the adult’s role and help mentors develop realistic expectations of what they can accomplish.
Ongoing support and supervision of the matches assist mentored pairs in negotiating challenges.
Staff can help the pairs maintain a relationship over the desired period (generally a year or more).
According to the studies, successful programs are known to employ strategies to retain the
support of current funders and garner financial backing from new sources. Finally, the studies
demonstrate that successful programs attempt to measure any effects of mentoring services on the
participating youth. Programs can then disseminate these findings to potential funders and
participants. Figure 1 summarizes the elements, policies, and procedures of successful mentoring
programs.
Congressional Research Service
4
.
Vulnerable Youth: Federal Mentoring Programs and Issues
Figure 1. Elements, Policies, and Procedures
of Successful Mentoring Programs
Source: Congressional Research Service, based on Figure 1 in GAO, Student Mentoring Programs. This
information was originally presented in MENTOR/National Mentoring Partnership, “Elements of Effective
Practice in Mentoring,” 2nd ed., 2003.
Congressional Research Service
5
.
Vulnerable Youth: Federal Mentoring Programs and Issues
Characteristics of Successful Mentoring Relationships
Research on youth mentoring demonstrates that mentoring relationships are likely to promote
positive outcomes for youth and avoid harm when they are close, consistent, and enduring.13
Closeness refers to a bond that forms between the youth and mentor, and has been found to have
benefits for the youth. Mentor characteristics, such as prior experience in helping roles or
occupations, an ability to appreciate salient socioeconomic and cultural influences, and a sense of
efficacy for mentoring youth appear to facilitate close mentoring relationships. Consistency refers
to the amount of time mentors and youth spend together. Regular contact has been linked to
positive youth outcomes, and relationships become strong if they last one year or longer. Youth in
relationships that lasted less than six months showed declines in functioning relative to their nonmentored peers.
Evaluation of Mentoring Programs
Some studies have found that formal mentoring programs in community-based and school-based
settings are associated with improved academic and behavioral outcomes for youth, but that the
effects of mentoring on particular outcomes and the ability for mentored youth to sustain gains
over time is less certain.
Examples of the Positive Effects of Mentoring
A landmark study in 1995 of the Big Brothers Big Sisters of America program compared
outcomes of eligible youth who were randomly selected to receive mentoring services (the
treatment group) against those eligible youth who were randomly selected to remain on a waiting
list for mentoring services (the control group). The study found that 18 months after the youth
were assigned to their groups, the mentored youth skipped half as many days of school, were 46%
less likely than their control group counterparts to use drugs, 27% less likely to initiate alcohol
use, and almost one-third less likely to hit someone. 14
A 2002 review of studies of major community-based programs (the 1995 Big Brothers Big Sisters
evaluation and evaluations of Across Ages, Project BELONG, and Buddy System, among
others15) with an experimental design—meaning that some youth were randomly assigned to get a
mentor—found that the outcomes for youth with a mentor were better than outcomes for their
counterparts without a mentor.16 These outcomes included the following:
•
13
Improved educational outcomes: Youth in the year-long Across Ages mentoring
program showed a gain of more than a week of attended classes. Evaluations of
Rhodes and DuBois, “Understanding and Facilitating the Youth Mentoring Movement,” p. 9.
14
Joseph P. Tierney and Jean Baldwin Grossman, with Nancy L. Resch, Making A Difference: An Impact Study of Big
Brothers Big Sisters, Public/Private Ventures, reissued September 2000, available online at http://www.ppv.org/ppv/
publications/assets/111_publication.pdf.
15
These programs are a sampling of some of the programs profiled.
16
Susan Jekielek et al., Mentoring Programs and Youth Development: A Synthesis, Child Trends, January 2002,
available at http://www.childtrends.org/what_works/clarkwww/mentor/mentorrpt.pdf. (Hereafter reference Jekielek et
al., Mentoring Programs and Youth Development.)
Congressional Research Service
6
.
Vulnerable Youth: Federal Mentoring Programs and Issues
the program also showed that mentored youth had better attitudes toward school
than non-mentored youth.
•
Reduction in some negative behaviors: All studies that examined delinquency
showed evidence of reducing some, but not all, of the tracked negative behaviors.
Mentored youth in the BELONG program committed fewer misdemeanors and
felonies. In the Buddy System program, youth with a prior history of criminal
behavior were less likely to commit a major offense compared to their nonmentored counterparts with a prior history.
•
Improved social and emotional development: Youth in the Across Ages program
had significantly more positive attitudes toward the elderly, the future, and
helping behaviors than non-mentored youth. Participants in the Big Brothers Big
Sisters program felt that they trusted their parents more and communicated better
with them, compared to their non-mentored peers.
Similarly, a 2007 study of Big Brothers Big Sisters school-based mentoring programs, with adults
serving as mentors, demonstrated some positive results. This study—among the most rigorous
scientific evaluations of a school-based mentoring program—found that mentored youth
(randomly selected into the treatment group) made improvements in their first year in overall
academic performance, feeling more competent about school, and skipping school, among other
areas, compared to their non-mentored counterparts (randomly selected into the control group).17
Some Outcomes Do Not Improve or Are Short Lived
Although research has documented some benefits of mentoring, findings from studies of
mentoring programs show that mentoring is limited in improving all youth outcomes. The 2002
review of mentoring program evaluations found that programs did not always make a strong
improvement in grades and that some negative behaviors—stealing or damaging property within
the last year—were unaffected by whether the youth was in a mentoring program.18 In the 2007
Big Brothers Big Sisters school-based mentoring evaluation, the nonschool, related outcomes,
including substance use and self worth, did not improve. 19
Other research has indicated that mentored youth make small gains or do not sustain positive
gains over time. 20 The 1995 Big Brothers Big Sisters study found that mentored youth and nonmentored youth showed decreased functioning over time, although those in the mentoring group
declined more slowly than those in the non-mentoring group. Further, the 2007 Big Brothers Big
Sisters school-based mentoring evaluation found that, in the second year of the program, none of
the academic gains were maintained (however, mentored youth were less likely to skip school,
and more likely to feel that they would start and finish college).21 The evaluation also pointed to
weaknesses in the program’s design, such as high attrition (due likely to the transitioning for
17
Carla Herrera et al., Making a Difference in Schools: The Big Brothers Big Sisters School-Based Mentoring Impact
Study, Public/Private Ventures, August 2007, pp. 34-35, available at http://www.ppv.org/ppv/publication.asp?
section_id=22&search_id=&publication_id=220. (Hereafter referenced as Herrera et al., Making a Difference in
Schools.)
18
Jekielek et al., Mentoring Programs and Youth Development, p. 15.
19
Herrera et al., Making a Difference in Schools, pp. 37-38.
20
Jean E. Rhodes and David L. DuBois, “Understanding and Facilitating the Youth Mentoring Movement,” pp. 3-5.
21
Herrera et al., Making a Difference in Schools, pp. 47-78.
Congressional Research Service
7
.
Vulnerable Youth: Federal Mentoring Programs and Issues
some youth to middle school, or high school), limited contact with mentors and youth over the
summer, and delays in beginning the program at the start of the school year.22 A 2008 study of Big
Brothers Big Sisters school-based mentoring that used high schools students as mentors and drew
on data used for the 2007 study, found that while the mentored students experienced gains on
some outcomes, the improvements were not sustained for students who ended their involvement
in the program after one school year (the minimum time commitment).23 Similarly, a recent
evaluation of the federal school-based mentoring program demonstrates that the program does not
have an impact on students overall in terms of interpersonal relationships, academic outcomes,
and delinquent behaviors.24
The remainder of this report provides an overview of the federal role in mentoring and select
federal programs, as well as a discussion of mentoring issues.
Current Federal Mentoring Programs
In recent years, two federal programs have provided a significant source of funding for mentoring
services: the Mentoring Children of Prisoners program, which is administered by the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, and the Safe and Drug Free Schools Mentoring
program, which was administered by the U.S. Department of Education until funding was
discontinued beginning in FY2010. The Mentoring Children of Prisoners program was created in
response to the growing number of children under age 18 with at least one parent who is
incarcerated in a federal or state correctional facility. The program is intended, in part, to reduce
the chance that mentored youth will use drugs and skip school. Similarly, the SDFS Mentoring
program has provided school-based mentoring to reduce school dropout and improve
relationships for youth at risk of educational failure and with other risk factors.
Funding has ranged for the programs, but has remained relatively stable in the last few years at
$50 million for each program annually. Congress did not appropriate funding for the SDFS
Mentoring program in FY2010. As part of its FY2010 budget justifications, the Obama
Administration proposed eliminating the program because of an evaluation showing that it does
not have an impact on students overall in terms of interpersonal relationships, academic
outcomes, and delinquent behaviors. The evaluation is discussed further below. The remainder of
this report describes the two programs, other current federal mentoring activities and services,
and issues that may arise in any discussions about the federal role in mentoring.
22
Ibid., pp. iv-v.
23
Carla Herrera et al., High School Students as Mentors: Findings from the Big Brothers Big Sisters School-Based
Mentoring Impact Study, Public/Private Ventures, September 2008, available at http://www.ppv.org/ppv/
publication.asp?section_id=22&search_id=&publication_id=252.
24
Lawrence Bernstein et al., Impact Evaluation of the U.S. Department of Education’s Student Mentoring Program
Final Report, Abt Associates, March 2009, available at http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20094047/. (Hereafter referenced as
Bernstein et al., Impact Evaluation of the U.S. Department of Education’s Student Mentoring Program Final Report.)
Congressional Research Service
8
.
Vulnerable Youth: Federal Mentoring Programs and Issues
Mentoring Children of Prisoners Program
(U.S. Department of Health and Human Services)
Overview
The Mentoring Children of Prisoners (MCP) Program was proposed as part of the Bush
Administration’s FY2003 budget and was signed into law under the Promoting Safe and Stable
Families Amendments of 2001 (enacted in law in 2002 under P.L. 107-133) as Section 439 of the
Social Security Act. The program is administered by the Family and Youth Services Bureau in the
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Administration for Children and Families. The
program funds public or private entities—in areas of high concentrations of children with parents
in prison, including urban, rural, and tribal areas—to provide mentoring services to children of
prisoners. Mentoring through the MCP is defined as a structured program that matches each
eligible child (with the permission of one or both their parents) to a screened and trained adult
volunteer who serves as a positive role model to the child. This one-on-one relationship,
involving activities based in the community and not primarily on school grounds or the
workplace, is intended to improve academic and behavioral outcomes. Mentors are to supplement
existing caring relationships that the child has with his or her parents, teachers, and other adults.
The Child and Family Services Improvement Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-288) expanded the scope of
the program by authorizing HHS to enter into a three-year cooperative agreement with a national
mentoring support organization to operate a new program that provides vouchers for mentoring
services.
Purpose
The MCP program was created in response to the growing number of children under age 18 with
at least one parent who is incarcerated in a federal or state correctional facility. Between 1991 and
1999, the children-of-prisoners population grew from 936,000 to 1.5 million.25 Today, an
estimated two million children between the ages of four and 18 have a parent in prison or jail. 26
Minority youth are overrepresented among the population. Less than 1% of white children have a
parent in prison, compared to 7% of African American children and 3% of Hispanic children.27
Studies of children of prisoners show that parental confinement can lead to stress, trauma, and
separation problems. 28 The living arrangements of these children often change when a parent is
imprisoned. Nearly 65% of children of incarcerated mothers must live with another relative and
6% are placed under the care of a foster care agency.29 Further, children of prisoners may need to
25
Christopher J. Mumola, Incarcerated Parents and Their Children, U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice
Statistics, August 2000, p. 2, available at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/iptc.pdf.
26
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, The Mentoring Children
of Prisoners Program, Report to Congress, September 12, 2007, p. 3. (Hereafter referenced as The Mentoring Children
of Prisoners Program, Report to Congress.)
27
Ibid.
28
Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Mentoring Children of Prisoners Assessment,
2005, available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/summary/10003505.2005.html. (Hereafter referenced
as Office of Management and Budget, Mentoring Children of Prisoners Assessment.)
29
Elizabeth Inez Johnson and Jane Waldfogel, Children of Incarcerated Parents: Cumulative Risk and Children’s
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
9
.
Vulnerable Youth: Federal Mentoring Programs and Issues
contend with compounding issues, such loss of emotional and financial support provided by the
imprisoned parent and stigmatization by peers and others.30 The trauma of parental incarceration
can trigger anti-social behavior in these children. Some children may also have difficulty
maintaining contact with their parents. The majority of incarcerated parents reside over 100 miles
away from their previous home, and long-distance phone calls may be prohibitively expensive.
In passing P.L. 107-133, Congress cited the success of the Amachi program31 as a reason for
supporting a national program for children of incarcerated parents.32 The Amachi program was
developed by Public/Private Ventures and Big Brothers Big Sisters in Southeastern Pennsylvania,
in partnership with secular and faith-based organizations to provide mentors to eligible youth of
incarcerated parents.
Grantee Requirements
A number of entities may apply for an MCP grant: any state or local government unit,
independent school districts, federally recognized American tribal governments, Native American
tribal groups (other than federally recognized groups), private nonprofit organizations, and
community and faith-based groups. In awarding grants, HHS must consider the qualifications and
capacity of the applicants to carry out a mentoring program for children of prisoners; the need for
mentoring services in local areas, taking into consideration data on the number of children (and in
particular of low-income children) with an incarcerated parent (or parents) in the area; and
evidence of consultation with existing youth and family services. 33 Grant funds are to be
expended within one year and are to be used for mentoring services exclusively (i.e., not
wraparound services or other social services).34
Grantees may recruit mentors from the child’s family and community, church congregations,
religious nonprofit groups, community-based groups, service organizations, Senior Corps, and
from the business community. Grantees provide mentor training and criminal background checks,
and monitor mentoring relationships. They also evaluate youth outcomes. Grantees are expected
to incorporate a message of positive youth development into their programs and coordinate with
other organizations to develop a plan that addresses the needs of the entire family.35 (Positive
(...continued)
Living Arrangements, July 2002, p. 2, available at http://www.jcpr.org/wpfiles/johnson_waldfogel.pdf.
30
Nancy G. La Vigne, Elizabeth Davies, and Diana Brazzell, Broken Bonds: Understanding and Addressing the Needs
of Children with Incarcerated Parents, Urban Institute, Research Report, February 2008, available at
http://www.urban.org/publications/411616.html.
31
For further information about the Amachi program, see http://www.amachimentoring.org/index.html.
32
U.S. Congress, House Committee on Ways and Means, Promoting Safe and Stable Families Amendments, report to
accompany H.R. 2873, 107th Cong., 1st sess., H.Rept. 107-281 (Washington: GPO, 2001), p. 19.
33
HHS has given preference to grantees that have demonstrated a need for mentoring services in their areas based on
the concentration of children of prisoners who are currently not mentored. Grantee applicants have determined the
number of eligible participants by contacting local school systems for student/parent information and/or the Bureau of
Prisons. Others have collaborated with child social service programs such as the foster care system and/or their state
prisons. Organizations with well-established ministry programs recruited participants as part of their ministry work.
34
Office of Management and Budget, Mentoring Children of Prisoners Assessment.
35
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Mentoring Children of
Prisoners Competitive Grant Announcement, 2007, pp. 5-6, available at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/grants/open/HHS2007-ACF-ACYF-CV-0029.html. (Hereafter referenced as U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Mentoring
Children of Prisoners Competitive Grant Announcement, 2007).
Congressional Research Service
10
.
Vulnerable Youth: Federal Mentoring Programs and Issues
youth development refers to a philosophy of serving youth that emphasizes youth empowerment
and the development of skills and assets that prepare youth for adulthood.)
Mentored Youth and Mentors
From the creation of the program through FY2009, the program has served 161,607 youth in the
50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico.36 (See Appendix A for the number of
matches in each of FY2006-FY2009.) Several MCP programs are administered by the Big
Brothers and Big Sisters programs. 37 Children ages four to 18 (as specified in the MCP grant
announcement) are eligible for the program if their parent is in state or federal prison, although
they may continue to receive services if their parent is released from prison during the mentoring
relationship; children whose parents are in halfway houses, under supervision, or house arrest are
not eligible unless the detention follows a federal or state prison sentence.
Mentors undergo screenings that include in-depth interviews and criminal background checks.
They must commit to attending training and meeting with their assigned youth one hour per week
for one year. Mentors are not paid for their participation, except for reimbursement for incidental
expenses such as food and mileage on a case-by-case basis.
Voucher Demonstration Project: Caregiver’s Choice Program
The Child and Family Services Improvement Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-288) extended funding and
authorization for the Mentoring Children of Prisoners program and authorized a demonstration
project to test the effectiveness of using vouchers to deliver MCP services more broadly to youth
who have not already been matched to a mentor. The law specified that vouchers would be
distributed by an organization with considerable experience in mentoring services for children,
and in developing program standards for planning and evaluating mentoring programs for
children. 38 In November 2007 (FY2008), HHS awarded a competitive three-year cooperative
agreement grant (which may be renewed for an additional two years) to MENTOR, a national
mentoring advocacy group and clearinghouse on mentoring issues, to administer the program.
The voucher program is known as the Caregiver’s Choice Program.
According to HHS, MENTOR began the program by targeting efforts in geographically diverse
targeted communities with high rates of incarceration, crime or poverty, rural populations, or
areas with American Indian children.39 These areas included Atlanta, Chicago, and Philadelphia,
as well as the Arizona, Connecticut, Idaho, Massachusetts, North Carolina, and Washington.40
HHS has stated that these targeted efforts are to allow the voucher initiative to be implemented,
reviewed, and adjusted as needed. The program has been expanded to other locations nationally,
36
Based on correspondence with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and
Families, Family and Youth Services Bureau, January 2010.
37
Ibid., December 2008.
38
HHS is required to provide a description of how the organization should ensure collaboration and cooperation with
other interested parties, including courts and prisons, with respect to the delivery of mentoring services under the
demonstration project.
39
Based on correspondence with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and
Families, Family and Youth Services Bureau, December 2007. Receipt of a voucher is not counted for purposes of
determining eligibility of federal or federally supported assistance for the child’s family.
40
See http://www.mentoring.org/downloads/mentoring_1033.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
11
.
Vulnerable Youth: Federal Mentoring Programs and Issues
with nearly 600 providers in total. 41 The law specified that in year one, no less than 3,000
vouchers were to be distributed to children and families. The law also specified that in year two,
no less than 8,000 vouchers are to be distributed and in year three, no less than 13,000 vouchers
are to be distributed.
As required by law, MENTOR is not providing direct mentoring services. HHS reports that the
organization is coordinating with national networks for re-entry and incarcerated families,
caregiver support networks, school districts, social service agencies, and faith- and communitybased organizations to identify children to participate in the program. Families and caregivers are
directed to a national call center to enroll in the voucher program and provided with a mentoring
information packet that corresponds to the family’s stated preferences and provides mentoring
options in their community. The voucher for mentoring services is included in the packet and
contains an identification code. (This identifier becomes the primary means of data collection and
system management for the voucher demonstration project.) The families redeem the vouchers at
organizations deemed to be quality providers of mentoring services.
MENTOR is conducting an advertising campaign to encourage mentoring programs to become
certified as “quality providers” (allowing them to receive MCP vouchers).42 MENTOR, in
consultation with FYSB, has identified quality standards for these providers that addresses
program capacity, sustainability, design, management, and operations.43 It must also monitor and
oversee delivery of mentoring services. MENTOR has established several requirements for
providers: they must meet certain volunteer screening and matching requirements, have at least
one year of experience matching and supporting mentoring relationships, provide training and
orientation to mentors and mentored children and youth, provide ongoing support and case
management to matches, and offer clear policies and procedures for ending matches, among other
requirements. 44 To be eligible for voucher funding, mentoring organizations must also
demonstrate that significant mentoring services can be provided for an eligible child and that after
the voucher expires, they can continue providing such services through non-federal resources. For
those organizations with general MCP grants, they must exhaust these funds before receiving
funds through the voucher project.
Funding and Grant Awards
The MCP general grant program is authorized to receive “such sums as may be necessary” for
each year through FY2011. Funding for the program is distributed on a competitive basis to
eligible applicants for up to three years. The size of the average grant is approximately $186,000
for each year of the three-year period, with grants ranging from $26,000 to $2 million per year.45
(Some of these organizations make sub-awards to other organizations for mentoring services.)
Grantees are required to provide a nonfederal share or match of at least 25% of the total project
budget in the first and second years of the project, rising to 50% in the third year.
41
Based on correspondence with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and
Families, Family and Youth Services Bureau, January 2010.
42
For information about the publicity campaign, see http://www.mentoring.org/caregiverschoice.
43
Based on correspondence with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and
Families, Family and Youth Services Bureau, December 2008.
44
For additional information about the program’s eligibility requirements, see http://www.mentoring.org/downloads/
mentoring_1031.pdf.
45
The Mentoring Children of Prisoners Program, Report to Congress, p. 1.
Congressional Research Service
12
.
Vulnerable Youth: Federal Mentoring Programs and Issues
As required by the reauthorizing legislation (P.L. 109-288), funding may not be awarded to the
national mentoring support organization to distribute the vouchers unless $25 million in program
appropriations is first available for site-based grants. If funding is available, the organization is to
receive up to $5 million in the first year of the cooperative agreement, $10 million in the second
year, and $15 million in the third year. The organization’s administrative expenditures for the
demonstration project may not exceed 10% of the amount awarded. Individual vouchers of up to
$1,000 can be awarded on behalf of an individual child to redeem for mentoring services.46
The MCP program received initial funding of $10 million in FY2003 and has been funded at
approximately $50 million in each year since then, as shown in Table 1. The general mentoring
program supports over 200 new and continuing grants each year. For example, in FY2009, the
program funded 214 grantees; HHS expects that the program will fund 216 grantees in FY2010.47
Funding has been appropriated for the voucher component since FY2007. In FY2008, over 3,000
(3,008) vouchers (with FY2007 funds) were distributed.48 In FY2009, over 8,000 (8,130)
vouchers (with FY2008 funds) were distributed. HHS expects to distribute 13,000 vouchers in
FY2010 (with FY2009 funds). Given that the law authorizes funding for three years (FY2007FY2009), it is unclear whether additional funding will be made available.
Table 1. FY2003-FY2009 (Appropriated) and FY2011 (Proposed) Funding for the
Mentoring Children of Prisoners Program
(dollars in millions)
Funding
Appropriated
FY2003
Actual
FY2004
Actual
FY2005
Actual
FY2006
Actual
FY2007
Actual
FY2008
Actual
FY2009
Actual
FY2010
Actual
FY2011
Proposed
$10.0
$49.7
$49.6
$49.5
$49.5
$48.6
$49.3
$49.3
$49.3
Source: FY2002 to FY2007 funding data based on information provided by the U.S. Health and Human Services,
Family and Youth Services Bureau, 2007. FY2008 funding data based on U.S. Congress, House Committee on
Appropriations, Joint Explanatory Statement to Accompany FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Amendment to H.R.
2764/P.L. 110-161, Division G. FY2009 funding data based on U.S. Congress, House Committee on Rules, Joint
Explanatory Statement to Accompany FY2009 Consolidated Appropriations Amendment to H.R. 1105/P.L. 111-8,Division
F. FY2010 funding based on U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Departments of Transportation
and Housing and Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010, report to accompany H.R. 3288/P.L.
111-117, 111th Cong., 1st sess., December 8, 2009, H.Rept. 111-366; and FY2011 funding data based on U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families Justification of Estimates for
Appropriations Committees, FY2011.
46
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Mentoring Children of Prisoners Competitive Grant
Announcement, 2007.
47
Based on correspondence with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and
Families, Family and Youth Services Bureau, January 2010.
48
Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
13
.
Vulnerable Youth: Federal Mentoring Programs and Issues
Program Performance and Oversight
Of all MCP funds, 4% must be set aside for research, evaluation, and technical assistance related
to site-based and voucher-related mentoring services.49
Research
HHS collects caseload demographics and characteristics from grantee progress reports and from
an online data collection instrument, administered by HHS, and used by grantees to input
caseload data. This information allows HHS to assess the average number of days that a child is
on the waitlist for a mentor, the number of hours that the child met with their mentor over the
course of a reporting period, the average number of hours in pre-training/orientation and posttraining that mentors received, and the number of staff contacts with mentors to address mentor
skills or critical issues. Table A-1, at the end of the report, displays demographics and
characteristics for youth enrolled in the program in FY2006 through FY2009, excluding those
youth who received a voucher. Among the more notable trends is the increase in the number of
matches, from 27,525 in FY2006 to 42,666 in FY2009. Further, an increasing share of children
appear to be spending more time with their mentors. Training for mentors before they are
matched has increased by a few hours, and the number of training hours for mentoring after they
are matched has decreased. The number of days that children wait to be matched has increased. In
FY2009, children waited about 90 days on average, compared to 53 days in FY2006.
In 2006, HHS introduced the Relationship Quality Survey Instrument (RQI) to assess the
dynamics of the mentor/mentored youth relationship. The RQI seeks information from youth ages
nine and above engaged in long-term (i.e., minimum of nine months by the time the survey is
administered in July of each year) mentoring relationships. The survey asks the youth about their
satisfaction with the relationship, the extent to which mentors have helped them cope with their
problems, how happy the youth feel when they are with their mentors, and whether there is
evidence of trust in the mentoring relationship.50 According to HHS, research has demonstrated
that answers to the questions are predictive of the psychological and academic benefits of
mentoring.
Reports to Congress and Evaluations
The authorizing legislation (P.L. 107-133) directed HHS to evaluate the program and submit its
findings to Congress. The reauthorizing legislation (P.L. 109-288) directed HHS to include the
voucher demonstration component as part of the larger evaluation. The legislation also specified
that a report on the status of the voucher component is to be submitted to the House Ways and
Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee no later than 90 days after the end of the
second fiscal year the project is conducted (i.e., December 2009). The report is to include the
number of children who received vouchers for mentoring services and any conclusions regarding
the use of vouchers to deliver mentoring services to children of prisoners. Finally, the
reauthorization legislation directed HHS to submit, within 12 months after the reauthorizing
49
The percentage of funds set aside for this purpose was increased from 2.5% to 4% under P.L. 109-288.
Department of Health and Human Services, Mentoring Children of Prisoners Competitive Grant Announcement,
2007, p. 7.
50
Congressional Research Service
14
.
Vulnerable Youth: Federal Mentoring Programs and Issues
legislation was passed (i.e., September 28, 2007), a report on the features of the mentoring
program.
In response to these legislative requirements, HHS subcontracted with Abt Associates to conduct
process and outcome evaluations of the general mentoring program. As required, HHS submitted
to Congress a report in September 2007 on the mentoring program that discussed the program’s
design, strategy, implementation, current operation status, and characteristics.51 Separately, the
outcome evaluation of the MCP is underway and seeks to determine the program’s effect upon
mentored children’s school attendance and performance, risk reduction, and youth development.52
Survey instruments for the evaluation were approved by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB), and surveys have been administered at select grantee sites. The sites were selected based
on the likelihood that new matches would be created. In addition, the sites had to have a track
record of both consistently creating matches that last for at least six months and ensuring that
mentors and youth meet regularly. The study also sought out sites where youth ages nine through
17 were adequately represented, given that this is the target population of the MCP program.
Finally, the sites were selected based on their geographic location so that the study includes sites
from various regions of the country, to the extent possible. In FY2008, the evaluation measured
child baseline characteristics and status in a sample of the program’s caseload of children who
have been in a mentoring relationship at least twelve months. In FY2009, follow-up interviews
were conducted.
According to HHS, the data will be analyzed in FY2010. The results of the outcome evaluation
will be matched, through a data sharing agreement, against similar at-risk youth who served as
controls in the recent evaluation of the Big Brothers Big Sisters school-based mentoring program
(discussed above). (The study uses consistent definitions and other methods to make valid
comparisons between the groups.) The objectives of the study are to record short-term outcomes
related to identity development, cognitive development, social and emotional relationships, and
relationships with peers and adults; and long-term measures related to behavioral outcomes,
academic outcomes, and psychological outcomes. The evaluation will also assess the design of
the program. HHS expects that findings from the evaluation will be available by December 2010.
HHS does not have plans to conduct an evaluation of the voucher component. According to HHS,
the agency would conduct an evaluation if the voucher component is authorized beyond the initial
three years that are specified in law.53
PART Evaluation
As part of the FY2005 budget process, the MCP program was evaluated by the Performance
Assessment Rating Tool (PART), an instrument developed by the current Administration to
examine the performance of certain programs across federal agencies. The PART evaluation
assessed the MCP’s purpose and design, strategic planning, management, and
results/accountability. While the program received maximum scores for these first three
measurements, it was rated as “Results Not Demonstrated” because the program performance
data to assess results had only recently begun to be collected from grantees. In addition, the
51
The Mentoring Children of Prisoners Program, Report to Congress.
52
Based on correspondence with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and
Families, Family and Youth Services Bureau, December 2008, May 2009, and January 2010.
53
Ibid, January 2010.
Congressional Research Service
15
.
Vulnerable Youth: Federal Mentoring Programs and Issues
program also did not meet its mentor match goal. According to HHS, mentor match targets were
not met because many MCP grantees had never previously received a federal grant and/or were
new and formed specifically to operate the grant.54 In its 2007 Report to Congress, HHS stated
that it has taken steps to improve the number of matches, such as conducting site visits to
grantees.55
Training and Technical Assistance
In September 2008, HHS entered into a competitively awarded cooperative agreement with the
Mid-Atlantic Network of Youth & Family Services (MANY) to provide training and technical
assistance for the program. 56 The agreement is authorized through FY2011. MANY is responsible
for conducting a needs assessment for MCP grantees, and organizing an annual national
conference for all MCP grantees and workshops throughout the year.57 The organization is also to
conduct site visits and provide on-site assistance, among other types of assistance.
In addition, the National Child Welfare Resource Center for Youth Development at the University
of Oklahoma (the contractor for FYSB on select child welfare programs and the Runaway and
Homeless Youth program) developed a peer-to-peer monitoring tool that allows grantees to join
federal staff on visits to other grantees to monitor compliance with the legislative intent of the
program and to encourage exchange of ideas between peer mentoring professionals.58
Finally, HHS staff provide direct assistance to grantees.59 Program specialists assist grantees in
grant management, service delivery planning, program start-up and implementation, reporting,
and building partnerships. HHS staff monitor grantee activities and oversee detailed quarterly
narrative and financial information. The staff also facilitates transfers of promising practices from
experienced to less experienced grantees.
Safe and Drug Free Schools Mentoring Program
(U.S. Department of Education)
Recent Developments
Until it was discontinued with the end of FY2009, the SDFS Mentoring program provided
school-based mentoring to reduce school dropout and improve relationships for youth at risk of
educational failure and with other risk factors. Congress did not appropriate funding for the
54
The Mentoring Children of Prisoners Program, Report to Congress, p. 11.
Ibid.
56
For further information, see http://www.manynet.org/.
55
57
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Mentoring Children of Prisoners Training and Technical
Assistance Grant Announcement, June 16, 2008.
58
This on-site monitoring tool is similar to one that has been used by FYSB’s Runaway and Homeless Youth program.
In FY2008, 18 peer monitoring visits were conducted. Based on correspondence with U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Family and Youth Services Bureau, October 2007 and
December 2008.
59
The Mentoring Children of Prisoners Program, Report to Congress, p. 8.
Congressional Research Service
16
.
Vulnerable Youth: Federal Mentoring Programs and Issues
program in FY2010. As part of its FY2010 budget justifications, the Obama Administration
proposed eliminating the program because of an evaluation showing that it does not have an
impact on students overall in terms of interpersonal relationships, academic outcomes, and
delinquent behaviors. Some grantees were in their second year of the grant period when funding
was discontinued (no grantees were in their third and final year of the grant period).60
Overview
The Safe and Drug Free Schools (SDFS) program was enacted as Title IV-A of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1994 (P.L. 103-382) in response to concerns about
increased school violence and drug use among school-aged youth. The program awarded funding
to states to support activities that promote school safety. In 2001 (P.L. 107-110), the No Child
Left Behind Act reauthorized and amended ESEA, and enacted a school-based mentoring
program under the SDFS program. 61
The SDFS Mentoring program was administered by the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools in
the U.S. Department of Education, and provided grants to establish and support mentoring
programs that are school based. School-based mentoring refers to mentoring activities that are
closely coordinated with school (i.e., involve teachers, counselors, and other school staff who
identify and refer students for mentoring services) and assist youth with improving their academic
achievement, reducing disciplinary referrals, and increasing their bonding to school.62 Generally,
mentored youth in the SDFS Mentoring program were paired with one adult63 who served as a
positive role model and provided the child with academic assistance (e.g., tutoring, helping with
homework, learning a game like chess, developing computer skills), exposure to new experiences
that promoted positive youth development (e.g., attending concerts and plays, visiting colleges,
shadowing mentor at his/her job), and recreational opportunities (e.g., playing sports, creating arts
and crafts projects, attending professional sports games).64 According to a June 2004 GAO report
of the program, many of these mentoring activities were carried out on school grounds, but some
activities take place in the community and in the workplace.65
Purpose
The mentoring program targeted children with the greatest need, defined as those children at risk
of educational failure or dropping out of school, involved with criminal or delinquent activities,
60
Based on correspondence with the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools, January
2010.
61
The SDFS program supports two major grant programs—one for states and one for national programs. The
mentoring program is authorized under the national programs grant. For further information, see CRS Report RL33980,
School and Campus Safety Programs and Requirements in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and Higher
Education Act, by Gail McCallion.
62
U.S. Department of Education, “Notice of Final Priorities, Requirements, and Selection Criteria Under the Mentoring
Program,” 69 Federal Register 30794, May 28, 2004. (Hereafter referenced as U.S. Department of Education, “Notice
of Final Priorities.”)
63
In a 2004 GAO analysis of the 121 SDFS Mentoring Program grantees who received awards in FY2002, 75%
provided one-to-one mentoring only; 22% provided both one-to-one mentoring and group mentoring; and 3% provided
group mentoring only.
64
GAO, Student Mentoring Programs, p. 17.
65
Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
17
.
Vulnerable Youth: Federal Mentoring Programs and Issues
or who lack strong positive role models. The purpose of the program was to provide school-based
mentoring programs that improve academic outcomes, improve interpersonal relationships, and
reduce involvement in delinquency and gang involvement.
Grantee Requirements
The Department of Education was authorized to award competitive grants to three entities to
carry out the SDFS Mentoring program: (1) local education agencies (LEAs); (2) nonprofit
community-based organizations (CBOs), including faith-based groups; and (3) partnerships
between LEAs and CBOs. The Secretary prioritized grant applications that proposed a schoolbased mentoring program, provided high quality background checks and technical assistance, and
served children with greatest need living in particular areas.
In applying for grants, an eligible entity was to provide information on the children for which the
grant was sought; a description of the method to match children with mentors based on the needs
of the children; information on how the entity recruited, screened, and provided training to
mentors; information on the system for managing and monitoring information related to the
program’s background checks of mentors and procedures for matching children to mentors.
Grantees were required to make assurances that no mentor would be matched with so many
children that the assignment would undermine the mentor’s ability to be an effective mentor or
the mentor’s ability to establish a close relationship (i.e., a one-to-one relationship, where
practicable), with each mentored child. Further, grantees were to make assurances that the
mentoring program would provide children with certain supports (i.e., emotional, academic, and
exposure to new experiences) and assign a new mentor if the relationship between the original
mentor and the child was not beneficial to the child.
Mentored Youth and Mentors
As noted above, the SDFS Mentoring program targeted children with the greatest need. In
awarding grants, the Department of Education was to prioritize entities that served children in
grades four to eight with greatest need living in rural areas, high-crime areas, or troubled home
environments or who attend schools with violence problems.66 The Department of Education did
not aggregate demographic and other data on youth participants, and therefore, the number and
characteristics of youth that have been served by the program is unknown. 67
Mentors were to be a responsible adult, a postsecondary school student, or a secondary school
student. While the Department of Education did not mandate a set amount of hours that mentors
and students were to meet, it advised that programs require at least one hour each week. 68
Mentors were screened using reference checks, child and domestic abuse record checks, and
criminal background checks; and received training and support in mentoring. Mentors were
uncompensated.
66
U.S. Department of Education, “Notice of Final Priorities.”
67
Based on correspondence with the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools, October
2007.
68
Based on correspondence with the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools, July 2007.
Congressional Research Service
18
.
Vulnerable Youth: Federal Mentoring Programs and Issues
Funding and Grant Awards
The mentoring program was one component of the Safe and Drug Free Schools program. The
SDFS program has two funding streams: one for state grants awarded by formula (which was also
not funded for FY2010) and another for discretionary national grants. The SDFS mentoring
program was funded through the national grants component.69 The program received about $17
million to $49 million each year since grants were first awarded in FY2002, as shown in Table 2.
For FY2009, 264 continuing grantees were funded and no new grants were awarded. 70 No new
grants were funded in FY2010 and the Obama Administration has not proposed funding for the
program in FY2011.
In the FY2007, FY2008, and FY2009 budget justifications, the Bush Administration proposed no
funding for the mentoring program, on the basis that it has met its objectives. The Bush
Administration budget for FY2009 also proposed to consolidate the SDFS national grants
component, which currently has several sub-programs, into a single-flexible discretionary
program. 71 Similarly, the Obama Administration proposed to eliminate the program as part of the
FY2010 budget because of an evaluation showing that it is ineffective, as discussed below. Also
according to the Administration, many other federal programs support mentoring activities.
Table 2. FY2003-FY2010 Funding (Appropriated) for the Safe and
Drug Free Schools Program
(dollars in millions)
Program
FY2002
Actual
FY2003
Actual
FY2004
Actual
FY2005
Actual
FY2006
Actual
FY2007
Actual
FY2008
Actual
FY2009
Actual
FY2010
Actual
Funding
Appropriated
$17.5
$17.4
$49.7
$49.2
$48.8
$19.0
$48.5
$48.5
0
Source: FY2002 to FY2007 funding data based on information provided by the U.S. Department of Education,
Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools, 2007. FY2008 funding data based on U.S. House, Committee on
Appropriations, Joint Explanatory Statement to Accompany FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Amendment to H.R.
2764/P.L. 110-161, Division G. FY2010 data taken from U.S. Department of Education, FY2010 Budget Summary,
Programs Proposed for Elimination. FY2010 funding based on U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations,
Departments of Transportation and Housing and Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010, report
to accompany H.R. 3288/P.L. 111-117, 111th Cong., 1st sess., December 8, 2009, H.Rept. 111-366.
Program Performance and Oversight
The No Child Left Behind Act does not specify whether or how the SDFS mentoring program
was to be monitored and evaluated, or how grantees were to receive technical assistance and
support. However, regulations promulgated in March 2004 specify that grant applicants were to
69
State grants are awarded to states based on a formula that incorporates poverty and population factors. States must
use 93% of their allocation to make formula grants to local educational agencies (LEAs) based on poverty factors and
each LEA’s share of student enrollment in public and private nonprofit elementary and secondary schools. National
grants are used primarily for a variety of discretionary programs designed to prevent drug abuse and violence in
elementary and secondary schools. For further information, see CRS Report RL33980, School and Campus Safety
Programs and Requirements in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and Higher Education Act, by Gail
McCallion.
70
Based on correspondence with U.S. Department of Education, Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools, May 2007.
71
U.S. Department of Education, FY2009 Justifications of Appropriation Estimates, p. F-30.
Congressional Research Service
19
.
Vulnerable Youth: Federal Mentoring Programs and Issues
include in their application an assurance that they would (1) establish clear, measurable
performance goals; and (2) collect and report to the agency data related to the established
Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) performance indicators for the mentoring
program’s grant competition.72 The Department of Education required grantees to provide an
evaluation of their program at the end of the three-year grant period. Further, the agency
established three performance measures for assessing the effectiveness of the mentoring program,
using data from the 2004 cohort (the most recent data available):73
•
The percentage of mentor-youth matches that are sustained for a period of nine
months. The goal for 2007 was 44.9% and the actual figure was 38.6%.
•
The percentage of mentored students who demonstrate improvement in core
academic subjects as measured by grade point average after 12 months. The goal
for 2007 was 49.6% and the actual figure was 22%.
•
The percentage of mentored students who have unexcused absences from school.
The goal for 2007 was 39.6% and the actual figure was 28.9%.74
Evaluations
In 2004, GAO conducted a study of the program and made three recommendations to the
Department of Education to facilitate monitoring and evaluation of the program: (1) explore ways
to facilitate the sharing of successful practices and lessons learned among grantees, (2) ensure
that the agency uses grantees’ single audit reports, and (3) undertake a national study of the
program’s outcomes.75 (This second recommendation refers to audit reports of grantees that
provide information on weaknesses related to grantee financial management, internal control, and
compliance issues; these reports are available through the Office of Management and Budget’s
Federal Auditing Clearinghouse.) In response to GAO’s first recommendation, the Department of
Education developed an electronic listserv to promote communication among grantees. To ensure
that the agency monitored single audit reports, the agency began to provide a comprehensive
training to grant monitors (of the audit reports) to assist them access the information. In addition,
the agency added a requirement to the grant monitoring procedures that directs staff to review
audit findings at least annually. Finally, in response to GAO’s third recommendation, the
Department of Education subcontracted with Abt Associates to conduct process and outcome
evaluations.
The findings of the outcome evaluation were made available in March 2009.76 The purpose of the
evaluation was to determine the program’s effect upon mentored children’s school attendance and
performance, risk reduction, and relationships with adults. The evaluation measured the
characteristics and status of 2,400 students in grades four through eight who were randomly
assigned to participate in the program or to a control group. However, the programs from which
they received mentoring were not randomly selected and in fact, were not representative of all
72
U.S. Department of Education, “Notice of Final Priorities.”
Based on correspondence with U.S. Department of Education, Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools, May 2009.
74
U.S. Department of Education, FY2009 Justifications of Appropriation Estimates, pp. F-39, F-40.
75
GAO, Student Mentoring Programs.
76
Bernstein et al., Impact Evaluation of the U.S. Department of Education’s Student Mentoring Program Final Report,
Abt Associates, March 2009, available at http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20094047/.
73
Congressional Research Service
20
.
Vulnerable Youth: Federal Mentoring Programs and Issues
grantees. For example, the grantees in the study tended to serve more female and minority youth
than grantees generally.
The study involved two cohorts of students—those who were referred to the program during the
2005 and 2006 school year, and those who were referred during the 2006 and 2007 school year.
The data were collected from student self-reports; school records; and surveys of students,
mentors, and grantees. The study found that the program did not lead to statistically significant
effects on students across the three domains evaluated: school attendance and performance, risk
reduction, and relationships with adults. However, impacts were significant among certain subgroups. For example, the program improved academic outcomes for girls and produced mixed
academic outcomes for boys. The program also led to a decrease in truancy for younger students.
Further, the program found that the program was carried out similarly to other school-based
mentoring programs. Among other findings, the majority of mentors received pre-match training
and had access to ongoing support from the program; the majority of students were matched with
mentors of the same race and gender; mentors and mentored youth tended to meet one-on-one;
and the average length of the mentoring relationship was about six months.
Training and Technical Assistance
In 2004, the Department of Education awarded a performance-based contract to EMT Associates,
Inc., to operate the Mentoring Program Resource Training and Technical Assistance Center
through FY2009.77 The purpose of this center was to ensure that programs funded under the
mentoring program receive assistance, as appropriate, in the management and implementation of
their projects. Grantees received assistance with (1) training to ensure that they are using highquality, evidence-based programs; (2) identifying gaps and weaknesses in their program design;
and (3) collaborating with other organizations; and (4) planning for program sustainability.78
According to the Department of Education, department staff also provided needed assistance to
grantees.79 Mechanisms to assist grantees included a post-award call to ensure that grantees
understand established outcomes and to offer technical assistance, semiannual calls to grantees to
determine the implementation process and issues and to provide technical assistance, reviews of
annual grantee performance reports to determine successes and needed corrective action,
monitoring of expenditure rates to determine if grants were expended at an appropriate rate, and
visits to a limited number of grantees.
Other Federal Mentoring Support
In addition to the MCP and SDFS mentoring programs, the federal government supports
mentoring through short-term grants and Congressionally-directed appropriations, and by funding
programs that have a strong, but not exclusive, focus on mentoring. Efforts to support mentoring
are carried out both independently and jointly by the Department of Justice, Corporation for
77
Based on correspondence with the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools, July 2007
and May 2009.
78
Ibid, October 2007.
79
This process is described in greater detail in GAO, Student Mentoring Programs, pp. 24-26.
Congressional Research Service
21
.
Vulnerable Youth: Federal Mentoring Programs and Issues
National and Community Service, Department of Health and Human Services, and Department of
Defense. 80
Department of Justice
Overview
As noted above, the Department of Justice is the first federal agency to have funded a structured
mentoring program. The 1992 amendments (P.L. 102-586) to the Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) added Part G to the act, authorizing the Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) to establish a mentoring program, which came to be
known as the Juvenile Mentoring Program (JUMP). The program was created in response to the
perception that youth in high-crime areas would benefit from one-on-one adult relationships.81
The objectives of JUMP were to reduce juvenile delinquent behavior and improve scholastic
performance, with an emphasis on reducing school dropout. From FY1994 through FY2003,
Congress appropriated a total of $104 million ($4 million to $15.8 million each year) to the
program.
JUMP was repealed by the 21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act
of 2001 (P.L. 107-273). This law incorporated the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
Act of 2001 (H.R. 1900), which eliminated several juvenile justice programs, including Part G
(Mentoring), and replaced it with a block grant program under a new Part C (Juvenile
Delinquency Prevention Block Grant Program, to be used for activities designed to prevent
juvenile delinquency). The act also created a new Part D (Research, Evaluation, Technical
Assistance and Training) and a new Part E (Developing, Testing, and Demonstrating Promising
New Initiatives and Programs). According to the accompanying report for H.R. 1900, the
relatively small amount of funding appropriated for JUMP may have been a factor in its
elimination. The report states: “In creating this block grant, the [Senate Judiciary] Committee has
eliminated separate categorical programs under current law.... Funding for the Part E—State
Challenge Activities and Part G—Mentoring Program received minimal funding.”82 The report
goes on to say that the Committee does not discourage mentoring activities under the Part C block
grant program.83
80
This section is not exhaustive of the mentoring services that may be available through other federal programs and
initiatives. See, for example, Executive Office of the President, White House Task Force for Disadvantaged Youth
Final Report, October 2003, pp. 165-179, available online at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/fysb/content/docs/
white_house_task_force.pdf.
81
Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg, “Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Authorization Act,” remarks in the Senate,
Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 138 (October 7, 1992).
82
U.S. Congress, House Committee on Education and the Workforce, Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act
of 2001, report to accompany H.R. 1900, 107th Cong., 1st sess. H.Rept. 107-203 (Washington; GPO, 2001), p. 31. An
evaluation of JUMP found that the program did not recruit the desired number of mentors, that many of the
relationships appeared to have ended prematurely, and that some youth outcomes did not improve. Nonetheless, the
results of the evaluation do not appear to have been a factor in eliminating the program.
83
The Department of Justice did not request that these funds be discontinued. According to the agency, no letters or
budget justifications advocating for these funds to be discontinued were submitted to Congress. Based on
correspondence with the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention, November 2007.
Congressional Research Service
22
.
Vulnerable Youth: Federal Mentoring Programs and Issues
After the JUMP program was discontinued, the Bush Administration requested funding for
mentoring under Part C (Juvenile Delinquency Prevention Block Grant Program) and Part E
(Developing, Testing, and Demonstrating Promising New Initiatives and Programs), which can
fund mentoring demonstration projects.84 However, in most years since JUMP’s discontinuation,
Congress has appropriated mentoring funds under a separate mentoring line item titled
“Mentoring Part G” or “Mentoring;” the line item does not specify under which part of the
JJDPA, as amended, the funding is authorized.85 The Department of Justice has interpreted the
appropriations language as requiring the agency to allocate funds pursuant to old Part G.86 Below
is a discussion of funding appropriated to the Department of Justice for mentoring since JUMP
was discontinued. Much of the funding has been dedicated to specific types of mentoring
programs through the “Mentoring Part G” or “Mentoring” line item. Funds have also been
appropriated under other parts of the JJDPA, including Part E and Title V (Incentive Grants for
Local Delinquency Prevention Programs). Most DOJ mentoring activities are coordinated
through the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.87
FY2011 Funding
For FY2011, the Obama Administration proposes funding mentoring programs at $45 million.88
FY2010 Funding
For FY2010, the Obama Administration proposed funding mentoring programs and training and
technical assistance for those programs through the Department of Justice at $80 million. 89
According to the budget request, the funds would support faith-based organizations, community
organizations, and non-profit and for-profit agencies to enhance and expand existing mentoring
programs and strategies; as well as to pilot mentoring strategies and programs designed for youth
in the juvenile justice or foster care systems or youth re-entering the community after detention in
a juvenile justice facility. Separately, the Administration proposes funding mentoring activities,
among other activities, through the Prisoner Reentry Initiative, as authorized by the Second
Chance Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-199) and in coordination with the Department of Labor. The
Administration proposed funding the initiative through the Department of Justice at $100,000.
For FY2010, Congress appropriated $100 million for DOJ mentoring grants. The conference
report to accompany the budget law specifies that the grants are to be competitive and used to
84
Based on correspondence with the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention, March 2006 and U.S. Department of Justice, 2007 Congressional Authorization and
Budget Submission, p. 141.
85
See, for example, House Committee on Appropriations, Making Appropriations for Science, the Departments of
State, Justice, and Commerce, and Related Agencies for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2006, and for Other
Purposes, report to accompany H.R. 2862, 109th Cong., 2nd sess., CP-3 (Washington: GPO, 2006).
86
Based on correspondence with the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention, November 2007.
87
The Bureau of Justice Assistance has provided some funding for mentoring.
88
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, FY2011 Performance Budget, pp. 113-114.
89
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, FY2010 Performance Budget, pp. 112-113.
Congressional Research Service
23
.
Vulnerable Youth: Federal Mentoring Programs and Issues
“support the critical work of national, regional, and local organizations in nurturing and
mentoring at-risk children and youth.”90
On December 1, 2009, OJJDP issued a notice in the Federal Register for soliciting comments, by
January 15, 2010, about the office’s proposed spending plan for FY2010.91 As part of its plan for
supporting mentoring, OJJDP stated that it seeks to support mentoring programs that draw on the
strengths of youth and engage youth in the community.
New Mentoring Programs and Initiatives Funded by Appropriations for FY2009
The FY2009 appropriations law (P.L. 111-8) provided a line item of $80 million for mentoring
grants. In May 2009, DOJ announced six new grants for mentoring programs, research, and
training and technical assistance funded by P.L. 111-8. Grant solicitations were also announced
for two grants authorized under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 1115). P.L. 111-5 authorized that funds appropriated for the Byrne Memorial Competitive grant
program92 could be used for youth mentoring grants, among other purposes. Most of these eight
grants are intended to provide mentoring to at-risk youth under the age of 18, including youth in
foster care and the juvenile justice systems. Other grants provide funding for training and
technical assistance, and to conduct an evaluation of mentoring programs that used paid mentors.
Table B-1 in Appendix B summarizes the purpose and goals of the programs, the number of
grants, and other information.
Mentoring Programs Funded by Appropriations for FY2008
The FY2008 appropriations law (P.L. 110-161) provided a line item of $70 million for mentoring
grants.93 Pursuant to the mentoring line item in P.L. 110-161, the Department of Justice is
administering three new mentoring initiatives that began with FY2009 and will extend over
multiple years: National Mentoring programs, Strengthening Youth Mentoring Through
Community Partnerships program, and Latino Youth Mentoring program. 94 The programs
received $64.3 million. The remaining $5.7 million was obligated for management and
90
U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Departments of Transportation and Housing and Development,
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010, report to accompany H.R. 3288/P.L. 111-117, 111th Cong., 1st sess.,
December 8, 2009, H.Rept. 111-366.
91
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention,
“Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Proposed Plan for Fiscal Year 2010,” 229 Federal Register
62821, December 1, 2009.
92
The Byrne Competitive Grant program funds activities that are to improve the functioning of the criminal justice
system. For additional information, see CRS Report RS22416, Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant
Program: Legislative and Funding History, by Nathan James.
93
In its joint explanatory statement to accompany H.R. 2764 (which was signed into law as P.L. 110-161), Congress
stated that it expected national programs that have received funding under the Byrne Discretionary Grant program or
the JJDPA Part E program to be eligible for funding under the mentoring grant program. U.S. House, Committee on the
Appropriations, Joint Explanatory Statement to Accompany FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Amendment to H.R.
2764/P.L. 110-161, Division G, available at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/house/appropriations/
08conappro.html. The Byrne Discretionary Grant program funds activities that are to improve the functioning of the
criminal justice system. For additional information, see CRS Report RS22416, Edward Byrne Memorial Justice
Assistance Grant Program: Legislative and Funding History, by Nathan James.
94
The solicitations are available online at http://ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/grants/solicitations/FY2008/CommMentoring.pdf,
http://ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/grants/solicitations/FY2008/NatlMentoring.pdf, and http://ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/grants/solicitations/
FY2008/LatinoMentoring.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
24
.
Vulnerable Youth: Federal Mentoring Programs and Issues
administration ($3.4 million) and other mentoring-related costs ($2.3 million). 95 Funds were not
set aside to evaluate the programs.96 A fourth mentoring program, Mentoring Programs for AtRisk Tribal Youth, received funding pursuant to the Title V (Incentive Grants for Local
Delinquency Prevention Programs) line item in P.L. 110-161. All program grantees have access to
training and technical services through the National Training and Technical Assistance Center,
which contracts with DOJ to assist OJJDP grantees generally. 97
Table B-2 in Appendix B summarizes the purpose and goals of the programs, number of grants,
and other information.
Mentoring Programs Funded by Appropriations for FY2007
For FY2007, DOJ awarded JJDPA Part E (Developing, Testing, and Demonstrating Promising
New Initiatives and Programs) funds to Big Brothers Big Sisters under a competitive solicitation
(Prevention and Intervention Programs) designed to advance juvenile justice, child protection, or
delinquency prevention by expanding knowledge in tribal areas.98 The funding is used, in part, to
support mentoring services for Alaskan Native youth.
Mentoring Programs Funded by Appropriations for FY2006
The Mentoring Initiative for System Involved Youth (MISIY) was created pursuant to a FY2006
appropriation under a line item for mentoring. MISIY seeks to identify and expand effective
mentoring programs for youth in the juvenile justice or foster care systems. Entities eligible to
apply for MISIY funds included public agencies (state agencies, units of local government, public
universities and colleges, and tribal governments) and private organizations (including secular
and nonprofit, faith-based groups). 99 The initiative awarded a total of $1.6 million to four sites
($400,000 per site) through FY2010. 100 Grantees are not required to provide a match.
The four grantees are nonprofit, youth-serving organizations, and the City of Chicago. (As part of
its grant requirements, the City of Chicago sub-contracts with community-based organizations.)
Each of the organizations is required to meet performance standards that focus on building
protective factors (e.g., youth are to gain at least two responsible nonparent adults in their life that
support them, experience improved self esteem, and develop better relationships with their
95
Based on correspondence with the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention, January 2009. Some of the mentoring-related funds were used to conduct the first of a
three-year rigorous evaluation designed to determine the impact of the Amachi Texas mentoring program on outcomes
for children impacted by incarceration.
96
Based on correspondence with the Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, January 2009.
97
Ibid.
98
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention,
OJJDP FY2007 Prevention and Intervention Programs grant solicitation, available online at
http://www.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/grants/solicitations/FY2007/intervention.pdf.
99
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention,
“Application for Funding: Mentoring Initiative for System Involved Youth,” available at http://www.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/
grants/solicitations/06mentoringinitiative.pdf. (Hereafter referenced as U.S. Department of Justice, “Application for
Funding: Mentoring Initiative for System Involved Youth.”)
100
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention,
“OJJDP Awards Foster Mentoring for System Involved Youth,” available at http://www.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/enews/
07juvjust/070123.html.
Congressional Research Service
25
.
Vulnerable Youth: Federal Mentoring Programs and Issues
families and peers) and improving school outcomes (e.g., greater attendance, higher reading and
math scores, and fewer behavior referrals). The Education Development Center (EDC) was
awarded a two-year grant of approximately $500,000 to provide training and technical support to
the grantees through site visits, regional training, and over-the-phone support.101 EDC is assisting
grantees on a range of topics including outreach strategies for recruiting mentors and youth,
training mentors and youth, and addressing the emotional needs of youth. 102
OJJDP also awarded a four-year grant of approximately $500,000 to the Pacific Institute for
Research and Evaluation (PIRE) to conduct process and outcome evaluations of the program. 103
(In FY2007, EDC received a supplementary award of $197,446.) The process evaluation is
underway, and is documenting how the selected mentoring sites adapt mentoring approaches
(e.g., individual, group mentoring, counseling); how the programs and/or strategies are being
implemented for the target populations; and how these types of mentoring approaches and
strategies could impact outcomes for mentoring. 104 The outcome evaluation is also underway and
baseline data have been collected; follow-up data are being collected three and nine months after
a youth is matched with a mentor. The evaluation measures youth behaviors and their school
performance at intake into their respective programs, three months after they are matched with
mentors, and nine months after they are matched. Measured outcomes include short-term
outcomes (i.e., quality of match), intermediate outcomes (i.e., academic self-esteem, aggression
and violence, delinquency, and substance use), and long-term outcomes (i.e., improved academic
performance, involvement with the juvenile justice system, and stability in the foster care
system). These data are to be aggregated and compared across the four grant recipients. The data
are also to be analyzed in sub-groups, based on race and ethnicity, gender, age, type of participant
(foster care youth, juvenile justice youth, or both), and the individual grantee. 105 The outcome
evaluation includes a treatment group—those youth who are in the mentoring programs—and a
control group made up of youth who either agree to be on a waiting list for at least six months or
are in a local geographic area not served by the grant recipient. The same demographic and
survey data is collected from youth in the control group (except they are not be asked for
information about the quality of their match) and are to be compared to the data from the
treatment group.
Other Notable DOJ Funding Allocations for Mentoring
Youth-serving organizations have received funding for mentoring through congressionally
directed awards that are not part of grant programs authorized under JJDPA. For multiple years
101
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention,
“Application for Training and Technical Assistance for Mentoring Initiative for System Involved Youth,” available at
http://www.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/grants/solicitations/ttamentoring06.pdf.
102
Based on correspondence with the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention, December 2008.
103
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention,
“Application for Evaluation of Mentoring Initiative for System Involved Youth,” available at
http://www.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/grants/solicitations/06mentoringeval.pdf.
104
The process evaluation involves the monthly collection of data on the date of each mentoring and related activity,
duration of each activity, the type of activity (e.g., recreational, academic), location of activity (e.g., at mentoring
agency, school), structure of activity (e.g., face to face, by phone), and whether the activity was conducted one-on-one
or in a group. These data are to be submitted by each of the four grant recipients electronically.
105
Based on correspondence with the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention, November 2007.
Congressional Research Service
26
.
Vulnerable Youth: Federal Mentoring Programs and Issues
from at least FY1998 through FY2009, the Department of Justice has funded the Big Brothers
and Big Sisters mentoring organizations and its affiliates via specific set asides in appropriation
bills.106 Over this period, DOJ has allocated more than $30 million to the organization from these
set asides. Funding for the national organization ($12.4 million in FY1998, $5.0 million in
FY2003, $6.0 million in FY2004, and $7.0 million in FY2005 and in FY2006) has been used to
build a national infrastructure that supports 450 local affiliates in serving one million children
(this initiative is known as “Building Capacity for High-Volume Quality Growth”).107 Congress
has also appropriated funds directly to state and regional affiliates.
Corporation for National and Community Service
The Corporation for National and Community Service is an independent federal agency that
administers programs to support volunteer services. CNCS is authorized by two statutes: the
National and Community Service Act (NCSA, P.L. 101-610) of 1990, as amended, and the
Domestic Volunteer Service Act (DVSA, P.L. 93-113) of 1973, as amended. Though CNCS does
not administer a program explicitly for mentoring, the agency has provided funding for
mentoring, among other purposes, through two of its volunteer organizations, AmeriCorps108 and
SeniorCorps. The recently enacted Serve America Act (P.L. 111-13), which amended NCSA and
DVSA, authorizes funding for programs in which mentoring is a permissible activity, among
several other activities. 109 For example, the new law provides that AmeriCorps can fund new
programs – including the Education Corps, Clean Energy Services Corps, Veterans Corps – that
can be used for mentoring, among other activities. In addition, the law authorizes the program to
fund initiatives that seek to expand the number of mentors for disadvantaged youth, as defined
under the act.
In a recent fiscal year, CNCS devoted more than $250 million to support approximately 400,000
youth, including 16,000 children of prisoners, through mentoring, tutoring, and related
services.110 (The amount of funding for mentoring alone cannot be disaggregated. 111) As
discussed below, CNCS has funded America’s Promise, an organization that strongly promotes
mentoring. Finally, CNCS has also partnered with MENTOR, the mentoring advocacy group, in
an effort to match three million youth with mentors.112
106
This does not include funding received through the various grant programs, such as $8.6 million awarded to the
organization through the National Mentoring grant in FY2008.
107
Ibid.
108
This program is authorized under Title I-C of DVSA as the National Service Trust Program and is also known as
AmeriCorps State and National Grants Program or AmeriCorps.
109
For further information about the new law, see CRS Report R40432, Reauthorization of the National and
Community Service Act of 1990 and the Domestic Volunteer Service Act of 1973 (P.L. 111-13), by Ann Lordeman.
110
Corporation for National & Community Service, Issue Brief: National Service and Mentoring, available at
http://www.nationalservice.gov/pdf/06_0503_mentoring_issuebrief.pdf.
111
Based on correspondence with the Corporation for National and Community Service, December 2007.
112
Corporation for National and Community Service, “Cross-Sector Leaders Unveil Major New Plan to Close
Mentoring Gap,” press release, May 3, 2006, available at http://www.usafreedomcorps.gov/about_usafc/newsroom/
announcements_dynamic.asp?ID=1299. (Hereafter referenced as Corporation for National and Community Service,
“Close Mentoring Gap.”)
Congressional Research Service
27
.
Vulnerable Youth: Federal Mentoring Programs and Issues
America’s Promise
America’s Promise, a national nonprofit children’s advocacy organization, was formed after the
Presidents’ Summit for America’s Future was convened in Philadelphia in 1997.113 The
organization promotes five “commitments” (or factors) that attendees at the summit determined to
be essential for the success of young people. One of the factors was caring adults who are actively
involved in a child’s life, such as mentors, parents, teachers, and coaches.114 America’s Promise
has promoted mentoring, and the organization is funded through a combination of federal and
private funds. The Corporation for National and Community Service has provided some funding,
most recently in FY2006.115
Federal Mentoring Council
The chief executive officer of CNCS and the Commissioner of HHS’s Family and Youth Services
Bureau chair the Federal Mentoring Council (“Council”), which is comprised of the leadership
teams of eight federal agencies with multiple youth-focused programs. The Council was created
in 2006 to address the ways these agencies can combine resources and training and technical
assistance to federally administered mentoring programs, and to serve as a clearinghouse on
federal mentoring.116 A national working group comprised of leading mentoring experts and
practitioners (including the chief executive officers of MENTOR, Big Brothers Big Sisters of
America, the Boys and Girls Club, and America’s Promise, among others) advises and shares
effective mentoring practices with the Council.117
Since the Council was convened, it has met quarterly. According to CNCS, the Council has three
priorities. 118
•
One of the priorities is to increase federal coordination around mentoring
programs and issues by creating a website that will include articles, papers,
program evaluations, and research from practitioners in the mentoring field. The
site will also contain a record of Council meetings and initiatives, and will link to
a new federal website (http://www.findyouthinfo.gov) on resources for assisting
youth. The findyouthinfo.gov website was created pursuant to Executive Order
13459, which established a federal Interagency Working Group on Youth
Programs. Among other things, the Working Group is charged with identifying
113
The five surviving Presidents (at that time) convened the summit to mobilize Americans in all sectors to ensure that
all youth have adequate resources to assist them in leading healthy, productive lives.
114
The organization’s 2006 report, Every Child, Every Promise: A Report on America’s Young People, correlated the
presence of the five commitments in young people’s lives with success in adolescence and adulthood. The report
concluded that children who have at least four of the five commitments are more likely to be academically successful,
civically engaged, and socially competent, regardless of their race or family income. The report is available online at
http://www.americaspromise.org/uploadedFiles/AmericasPromise/Our_Work/Strategic_Initiatives/
Every_Child_Every_Promise/EC-EP_Documents/MAIN%20REPORT%20DRAFT%2011.1.pdf.
115
U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, Making Appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human
Services, and Education, and Related Agencies for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2006, and for Other
Purposes, report to accompany H.R. 3010, 109th Cong., 2nd sess., H.Rept. 109-337 (Washington: GPO, 2006), p. 41.
116
U.S. Department of Justice, Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Minutes from
the Quarterly Meeting on November 30, 2006, p. 10, available at http://www.juvenilecouncil.gov/meetings.html.
117
Based on correspondence with the Corporation for National and Community Service, December 2007.
118
Ibid, December 2008.
Congressional Research Service
28
.
Vulnerable Youth: Federal Mentoring Programs and Issues
and promoting initiatives and activities that merit strong interagency
collaboration because of their potential to offer cost-effective solutions, including
mentoring. At the Working Group’s April 2008 meeting, the Federal Mentoring
Council presented about its history, structure, and goals, and to brainstorm about
how to collaborate with the Working Group, such as through expanding
information about mentoring on the group’s website.119
•
Another priority of the Council is to identify common measures approved by the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) that all partner agencies can use, and
thereby enable the Council to assess the aggregate impact of the federal
investment in mentoring.
•
A third priority of the Council is to review federal requests for proposals to
ensure that the language used about mentoring is clear, consistent, and easily
identifiable by potential applicants.
The Council is not funded, although staff at HHS, CNCS, and the other agencies commit time to
serving on the Council and carrying out its activities. When funding has been required to
implement their initiatives, such as the website, member agencies have contributed funding as
they were able. 120
Department of Defense
Youth ChalleNGe Program121
The Youth ChalleNGe Program is a quasi-military training program administered by the Army
National Guard to improve outcomes for youth who have dropped out of school or have been
expelled. As discussed below, mentoring is a major (and not optional) component of the program.
The program was established as a pilot program under the National Defense Authorization Act for
FY2003 (P.L. 102-484), and Congress permanently authorized the program under the National
Defense Authorization Act for FY1998 (P.L. 105-85). Congress has since provided an annual
appropriation for the program as part of the Department of Defense authorization acts. Currently,
35 programs operate in 28 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico.
Youth are eligible for the program if they are ages 16 to 18 and enroll prior to their 19th birthday;
have dropped out of school or been expelled; are unemployed; are not currently on parole or
probation for anything other than juvenile status offenses and not serving time or awaiting
sentencing; and are drug free. 122 From 1993 through 2007, nearly 94,000 youth enrolled and
approximately 74,000 youth have graduated from the program. 123 The program consists of three
phases: a two-week pre-program residential phase where applicants are assessed to determine
119
Interagency Working Group on Youth Programs, Progress Report to the President, Implementation of Executive
Order 13459: Improving the Coordination and Effectiveness of Youth Programs, August 7, 2008.
120
Based on correspondence with the Corporation for National and Community Service, December 2008.
121
Unless otherwise noted, this information is based on correspondence with the U.S. Department of Defense, National
Guard, June 12, 2008.
122
U.S. Department of Defense, National Guard, Youth ChalleNGe Program 2007 Performance and Accountability
Highlights, 2008.
123
Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
29
.
Vulnerable Youth: Federal Mentoring Programs and Issues
their potential for completing the program; a 20-week residential phase; and a 12-month postresidential phase.124 During the residential phase, youth—known as cadets—work toward their
high school diploma or GED and develop life-coping, job, and leadership skills. They also
participate in activities to improve their physical well-being, and they engage in community
service. Youth develop a “Post-Residential Action Plan (P-RAP)” that sets forth their goals, as
well as the tasks and objectives to meet those goals. The post-residential phase begins when
graduates return to their communities, continue in higher education, or enter the military. The
goal of this phase is for graduates to build on the gains made during the residential phase and to
continue to develop and implement their P-RAP.
A core component of the post-residential phase is mentoring in which a cadet works with a
mentor to meet his or her goals set forth in the P-RAP. This component is referred to as the
“Friendly Mentor Match” process. Parents and youth are asked to nominate at least one
prospective mentor prior to acceptance into the program. They are advised to identify an
individual who is respected by the youth and would be a good role model. Cadets tend to know
their mentors before enrolling in the program; however, members of an applicant’s immediate
family or household and ChalleNGe staff members and their spouses are not eligible to become
mentors. By week 13 of the residential phase, and prior to the formal matching of a cadet and a
mentor, programs are required to use a National Guard-approved curriculum to train the mentors
and the cadets for their roles and responsibilities during the formal mentoring relationship.
Mentors be at least 21 years old, of the same gender as the youth (unless otherwise approved by
the director of the program), and within reasonable geographic proximity. Mentors must also
undergo a background check that includes two reference checks, an interview, and a criminal
background investigation that includes a sex offender registry check. In some programs, the
mentors are required to initiate the background investigation and have the results provided to the
program prior to their acceptance as a mentor. Mentors and cadets begin weekly contact during
the last two months of the residential phase and maintain monthly contacts during the postresidential phase. Cadets and mentors are encouraged to participate in community service
activities or job placement activities. Although the program prefers that the pair meet in person,
contact may be made by telephone calls, emails, or letters, particularly for those cadets who enlist
in the military or attend school in a different community.
Mentors report each month during the post-residential phase about the cadets’ placement
activities, progress toward achieving their goals, and the activities associated with the mentoring
relationship. Some programs also require the cadets to report monthly about their progress. At the
end of the post-residential phase, an exit interview is conducted between program staff and the
mentor, and the match is formally concluded.
Youth ChalleNGe was evaluated by MDRC, a social policy research organization, and findings
were released in February 2009.125 The evaluation used a random assignment research design,
whereby youth were randomly selected to receive the treatment (i.e., to participate in the
program) or to a control group that did not participate in the program. The results of the
evaluation are based on a survey administered about nine months after the members of the
124
U.S. Department of Defense, National Guard, “Youth ChalleNGe Program, About Us,” at http://www.ngycp.org/
aboutus_dependant_T2_R29.php.
125
Dan Bloom, Alissa Gardenhire-Crooks, and Conrad Mandsager, Reengaging High School Dropouts: Early Results
of the National Guard Youth ChalleNGe Program, MDRC, February 2009.
Congressional Research Service
30
.
Vulnerable Youth: Federal Mentoring Programs and Issues
program and control groups entered the study, when youth had just begun the program’s postresidential phase. The evaluation found that the program group was much more likely than the
control group to have obtained a GED (45.6% vs. 10.1%), to be working (51.2% vs. 42.1%)
and/or attending college (10.9% vs. 14.0%), to report having good or excellent health (76.7% vs.
68.4%), to have high levels of self-efficacy (11.0 vs. 7.0%), and to be less likely to have been
arrested since the start of the evaluation (14.2% vs. 20.0%). These differences are statistically
significant, meaning that they can be attributed to the program intervention.
Federal Issues in Mentoring
Issues that may be relevant to any discussions around the federal role in mentoring include the
limitations of research on outcomes for mentored youth; the potential need for additional mentors,
particularly for vulnerable populations; and limited funding for mentoring.
Limitations of Research on Mentoring
A few positive evaluations of mentoring programs may have provided some justification for
federal support of these programs.126 The 1995 landmark study of community-based mentoring
programs at select Big Brothers and Big Sisters chapters found that mentored youth were less
likely than their non-mentored counterparts to use drugs and alcohol, hit someone, and skip
school, among other outcomes.127 A recent evaluation of the Big Brothers Big Sisters schoolbased mentoring program found similar promising results for mentored youth. Nonetheless,
findings from these and other studies show that mentoring was limited in improving all youth
outcomes. The long-term influence of mentoring for youth is unknown. The 1995 study tracked
youth for 18 months, which is among the longest periods of time mentored youth have been
studied. No study appears to address issues around how well youth transition to adulthood, such
as whether they attend college or secure employment. Further, studies of mentoring programs
have shown that some gains made by mentored youth, compared to their non-mentored
counterparts, were short-lived and that mentored youth did not improve in certain areas.
A related issue is the use of mentoring techniques, such as group mentoring, that have not been
evaluated using experimental design, where youth are randomly selected into control and
treatment groups. The Mentoring Initiative for System-Involved Youth grant solicitation
encouraged applicants to “consider a variety of mentoring approaches, such as one-to-one, group,
student/peer, team education, and sports mentoring; professional development coaching; and
other approaches best suited to meet the needs of the target population.”128 Two of the MISIY
grantees appear to use group mentoring or team-based mentoring as a primary technique, and one
of the programs uses therapeutic mentoring provided by paid case managers.129
126
Gary Walker, “Youth Mentoring and Public Policy,” in David L. Dubois and Michael J. Karcher, eds., Handbook of
Youth Mentoring (Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, 2005), pp. 510-512. (Hereafter referenced as Walker,
“Youth Mentoring and Public Policy.”)
127
Joseph P. Tierney and Jean Baldwin Grossman, with Nancy L. Resch, Making A Difference: An Impact Study of Big
Brothers Big Sisters, Public/Private Ventures, reissued September 2000, available online at http://www.ppv.org/ppv/
publications/assets/111_publication.pdf.
128
U.S. Department of Justice, “Application for Funding: Mentoring Initiative for System Involved Youth.”
129
Mentoring programs for juvenile justice-involved youth that employ paraprofessionals may be the most appropriate
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
31
.
Vulnerable Youth: Federal Mentoring Programs and Issues
Still, even the few evaluations of mentoring programs that use experimental design appear to
have limitations. For example, concerns have been raised about the methodology used in the
evaluation of the Safe and Drug Free Schools mentoring program. One concern is that grantees
were not randomly selected. Grantees involved in the study “reported being less focused on
improving students’ academic outcomes and on teaching risk avoidance” than grantees generally,
even though these domains were the focus of the evaluation.130 The grantees selected for the
evaluation were more likely to serve females and more Asian, Latino, and Pacific Islander
students but fewer white students than grantees overall. The grantees were also more likely to be
school districts, compared to non-profit or community-based organizations. They also tended to
have more years of experience running school mentoring and serving more students. These
differences may in fact have led to outcomes that were not representative of the entire pool of
grantees nationally. Further, some mentored youth did not receive certain services that were tied
to the outcomes of the study. For example, 43% of the mentored students reported working
frequently with their mentors on academics while 21% never worked on academics. Still, it is
unclear whether school-based mentoring programs should be tasked with improving academic
outcomes and certain other outcomes, like reducing involvement in gangs and other risky
behaviors.131
Another arguable limitation of the SDFS mentoring evaluation was its design. Although the SDFS
mentoring evaluation used random assignment, whereby youth were randomly assigned to the
treatment (i.e., SDFS mentoring) or the control group (no SDFS mentoring), over one-third of the
control group received mentoring, either from the SDFS grantee or from other organizations in
the community. This finding raises questions about the extent to which the evaluation could have
assessed the true effects of the program, since the outcomes for the control group may have been
influenced by the participation of some of the youth in mentoring programs. According to the
study, this may have “led to some dilution of the impacts on students compared to
expectations.”132
The program delivery also did not appear to have adhered to certain established best practices in
mentoring, such as matches that lasted one year or more and ongoing training for mentoring. The
average length of the mentoring relationship for students surveyed was 5.8 months, and on
average, students were not assigned their mentor until about five weeks after they were randomly
assigned to the treatment group. 133 Ongoing training did not appear to be widely available.
Approximately 41% of mentors reported that ongoing training was available after they begun
meeting regularly with their students.134 This is in contrast to recommendations by researchers in
mentoring that mentors receive support and ongoing training after matches have been
(...continued)
and cost effective. See Elaine A. Blechman and Jedediah M. Bopp, “Special Populations: Youth Offenders,” in David
L. Dubois and Michael J. Karcher, eds., Handbook of Youth Mentoring (Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications,
2005).
130
Bernstein et al., Impact Evaluation of the U.S. Department of Education’s Student Mentoring Program Final
Report, p. xvii.
131
Jen Russell, “School-Based Mentoring Needs a Friend,” Youth Today, June 1, 2009. (Hereafter, Russell, “SchoolBased Mentoring Needs a Friend.”)
132
Bernstein et al., Impact Evaluation of the U.S. Department of Education’s Student Mentoring Program Final
Report, p. 92.
133
Evaluations of other school-based mentoring programs have reported similar findings.
134
Ibid, p. 47.
Congressional Research Service
32
.
Vulnerable Youth: Federal Mentoring Programs and Issues
established. 135 Still, nearly all mentors received pre-match training or orientation and talked with
their program supervisor about how things were going with their mentoring relationship. Most
mentors (62.3%) reported having access to social workers or staff when they needed support.
In a similar vein, one of the Abt researchers raised questions about the extent of technical
assistance available to grantees about implementing the program: “The legislation ... and the
program guidance ... said to focus on the academic and social needs of students. Beyond that,
there weren’t any prescriptive protocols for how people were going to conduct their mentoring
activities, or how they were going to supervise their mentors, or how they were going to train
their mentors.”136 Nonetheless, the Department of Education reported that training and technical
assistance was provided by a contractor and ED staff.
Gap in Mentoring Services
A 2002 poll by MENTOR, a mentor advocacy group, estimated that 15 million at-risk137 youth
need a mentor.138 Recruiting and retaining volunteers appears to be a major challenge for
mentoring organizations, including those funded through federal mentoring programs.139 In its
2004 report of the Safe and Drug Free Schools Mentoring program, GAO found that new grantees
had more difficulty than established grantees in recruiting and supporting mentors.140 Similarly,
HHS reports that some mentors in organizations that receive Mentoring Children of Prisoners’
funding have dropped out before being matched with a youth because of the time and energy
commitment mentoring entails.141 While research on mentor recruitment and retention is nascent,
it reveals that mentoring organizations tend to attract individuals who are middle aged, educated,
and have children in their household, and that word of mouth is among the top strategies for
recruiting new volunteers.142 Further, individuals are likely to remain in formal mentoring
programs if they feel adequately prepared to serve as mentors. According to the research on
mentoring, retention may be high when programs continually monitor mentoring relationships for
effectiveness and respond to the needs of mentors.
To address the perceived mentoring gap, the Corporation for National and Community Service
has partnered with MENTOR to match three million youth with mentors by 2010. The campaign
has also secured commitments from corporate and foundation partners for funding to support
research on mentoring programs and engage their networks of employees in mentoring.
135
MENTOR/National Mentoring Partnership, “Elements of Effective Practice in Mentoring,” 2nd ed., 2003.
136
Russell, “School-Based Mentoring Needs a Friend.”
137
This definition encompasses youth with poor academic performance or substance abuse issues, or are sexually
active, and may overstate the number of youth who need mentoring.
138
MENTOR, “The National Agenda For Action: How to Close America’s Mentoring Gap,” 2006, available at
http://www.mentoring.org/downloads/mentoring_399.pdf, p. 10.
139
Arthur Astukas and Chris Tanti, “Recruiting and Sustaining Volunteer Mentors,” in David L. Dubois and Michael J.
Karcher, eds., Handbook of Youth Mentoring, (Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, 2005), p. 245. (Hereafter
referenced as Astukas and Tanti, “Recruiting and Sustaining Volunteer Mentors.”)
140
GAO, Student Mentoring Programs, pp. 20-21.
141
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Report to Congress: The Mentoring Children of Prisoners
Program, September 2007.
142
Astukas and Tanti, “Recruiting and Sustaining Volunteer Mentors,” pp. 235-249.
Congressional Research Service
33
.
Vulnerable Youth: Federal Mentoring Programs and Issues
A related issue is that the mentoring gap may be wider for special populations. Mentoring
programs primarily serve youth ages 9 through 11 who come to the attention of a parent or
teacher, rather than the most at-risk populations, which include, but are not limited to, older
youth, runaway and homeless youth, and youth in foster care or the juvenile justice system. 143
According to a 2005 study by MENTOR, less than one-fifth of mentors reported mentoring a
youth involved in the juvenile justice or foster care systems or with a parent in prison. 144
However, most of these mentors said they would be willing to work with vulnerable youth
populations. Recent efforts to recruit volunteers for vulnerable populations are also underway, as
evidenced by the MISIY program’s focus on youth involved in the foster care or juvenile justice
systems and children with imprisoned parents. The four short-term DOJ mentoring grants target
vulnerable youth, including Latino high school students that attend schools in areas with a
significant gang presence. 145 Nonetheless, potential mentors may still be discouraged from
working with youth facing serious personal difficulties and challenges in their communities.
Sustaining Resources
Some organizations that receive federal mentoring grants report challenges with securing diverse
sources of funding and expanding their programs because of limited funding or cuts in funding, 146
especially in light of the elimination of the Safe and Drug Free Schools Mentoring program. To
improve the prospects that organizations continue providing mentoring services beyond the life of
their grants, the MCP and SDFS Mentoring program provide training and technical assistance to
help grantees in becoming financially sustainable.147 Still, issues around funding are ongoing.
143
Walker, “Youth Mentoring and Public Policy,” pp. 509-510.
MENTOR, “Mentoring in America 2005: A Snapshot of the Current State of Mentoring,” 2006, available at
http://www.mentoring.org/downloads/mentoring_404.pdf.
144
145
Provisions in the 110th Congress’ Foster Care Mentoring Act (S. 379) were intended to help recruit mentors for
children in the foster care system. These provisions would forgive the federal student loan debt of mentors who serve
200 hours each year, at $2,000 each year, not to exceed $20,000 total.
146
Erika Fitzpatrick, “Surviving Without Uncle Sam’s Money: Mentoring Grant Cutoff Sparks Talk About How to
Diversify Funding,” Youth Today, June 2007, p. 10.
147
Based on correspondence with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Family and Youth Services
Bureau, November 2007; U.S. Department of Education, Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools, September 2007; and
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, September 2007.
Congressional Research Service
34
.
Vulnerable Youth: Federal Mentoring Programs and Issues
Appendix A. Mentoring Children of
Prisoners Program
Table A-1. Demographics and Characteristics of Children, Mentors, and
Relationships (FY2006 Through FY2009)
Demographic or Characteristic
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
FY2009
27,525
28,256
37,380a
42,666b
11
10.5
11
11
Share of children who were male
45%
43%
45%
47%
Share of mentors who were male
38%
40%
40%
41%
Total number of matches in the fourth quarter of the
fiscal year that were across gender
2,461
n/a
3,106
1,044
Total number of matches in the fourth quarter of the
fiscal year that were across race or ethnicity
6,380
n/a
12,844
3,610
Average number of days youth was waiting for a mentor
53
n/a
60.5
87.7
Share of children with fewer than 12 hours of regular
mentor/youth contact during the past quarter (i.e., fourmonth period)
24%
n/a
23%
23%
Share of children with 12 to 24 hours of regular
mentor/youth contact during the past quarter
22%
n/a
42%
42%
Share of children with more than 24 hours of regular
mentor/youth contact during the past quarter
32%
n/a
28%
27%
Share of children for whom the frequency or length of
their contacts with mentors is unknown
22%
n/a
7%
8%
Average number of initial pre-match training/orientation(s)
hours per mentor
5.0
4.1
7.3
7.0
Average number of hours post-match training per mentor
4.5
3.4
2.4
2.3
Average number of staff follow-up contacts in person or
by phone per mentor per fiscal quarter addressing the
following: key mentor skills, commitment, or mentor’s
response to child crisis or other critical issue in child’s life
15.7
n/a
12.5
19.4
Total number of matches
Average age of youth
Source: Congressional Research Service presentation of data provided by the U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Family and Youth Services Bureau, June and
December 2008, December 2008, and January 2009.
Note: Data are not available for some characteristics for FY2007 because of changes that year in the archiving
feature of the MCP program’s management information system.
a.
Does not include the 3,008 matches under the Voucher Demonstration Project.
b.
Does not include the 8,130 matches under the Voucher Demonstration Project.
Congressional Research Service
35
.
Vulnerable Youth: Federal Mentoring Programs and Issues
Appendix B. Descriptions of Department of Justice
Mentoring Programs, Select Years
Table B-1.Department of Justice Mentoring Programs, FY2009
Mentoring
Grant
Purpose and Goals
Entities Eligible to Apply
Number
of Awards
Total
Amount of
Funding
National
Mentoring
Programsa
To support organizations with
mentoring programs that are ready
for implementation of new,
innovative strategies that will
strengthen existing activities. The
goal of the program is to reduce
juvenile delinquency, drug abuse,
truancy, and other high-risk
behaviors.
National organizations,
including faith-based and
community non-profit
organizations. These
organizations must be
located in one or more
states in at least four of six
regions throughout the
country.
Eight
awards,
ranging
from $2.8
million to
$10 million
$45.5
million
National Youth
Mentoring
Training and
Technical
Assistance
Initiativea
To address the training and
technical assistance needs of
varying mentoring organizations.
The goals of the program are to
build competency, performance,
and capacity for mentoring
programs; and to provide training
and technical assistance to OJJDPfunded mentoring initiatives.
Public agencies, including
state agencies, units of local
government, public
universities and colleges, and
tribal governments; and
private agencies, including
faith-based and community
organizations.
One award
$1.5 million
Mentoring
Initiative for
Foster Care
Youtha
To support the development and
enhancement of mentoring
programs and support services for
at-risk youth in the foster care
system. The goals of the program
are to reduce and prevent juvenile
delinquency, integrate best
practices into mentoring service
models for foster youth, and
develop strategies to recruit and
maintain mentors for these youth.
Public agencies, including
state agencies, units of local
government, public
universities and colleges, and
tribal governments; and
private agencies, including
faith-based and community
organizations.
11 awards,
ranging
from
$166,600
to
$500,000
$4.8 million
Gang
Prevention
Youth
Mentoring
Programa
To assist organizations establish or
expand mentoring programs that
engage youth at risk of gang activity
and delinquency with activities that
enable them to practice healthy
behaviors with a positive peer
group. The goals of the program
are to offer core services that
address adolescent development
needs and include certain
attributes, such as significant
training for mentors.
Private organizations;
federally recognized tribes;
nonprofit organizations,
including faith-based,
community, and tribal
organizations; and public
agencies, including schools,
colleges, universities, and
units of local governments in
communities that have
completed a comprehensive
community gang assessment.
20 awards,
ranging
from
$247,161
to
$500,000
$9.5 million
Congressional Research Service
36
.
Vulnerable Youth: Federal Mentoring Programs and Issues
Mentoring
Grant
Number
of Awards
Total
Amount of
Funding
Purpose and Goals
Entities Eligible to Apply
Mentoring
Research
Programa
To fund an evaluation that answers
the following research questions: Is
there a significant difference in the
effectiveness of a volunteer versus
paid mentor? What will the impact
of paying mentors be on
recruitment efforts? What is the
impact of the length of the
matches? The goal of the
evaluation is to assess the ways
that adding a paid component to a
previous volunteer mentoring
program can impact both process
and effectiveness.
Public agencies, including
state agencies, units of local
government, public
universities and colleges, and
tribal governments; and
private agencies, including
faith-based and community
organizations.
One award
$3.5 million
Strategic
Enhancement
to Mentoring
Programsa
To enhance already existing
mentoring programs’ abilities to
improve the involvement of and
services for the mentoring
participants’ parents and family;
expand structured activities and
opportunities for mentoring pairs;
and increase the availability of
mentor training and support. The
goal of the program is to reduce
juvenile delinquency, drug abuse,
truancy, and other problems and
high-risk behaviors.
Public agencies, including
state agencies, units of local
government, public
universities and colleges, and
tribal governments; and
private agencies, including
faith-based and community
organizations.
13 awards,
ranging
from
$149,800
to
$500,000
$5.4 million
Second Chance
Juvenile
Mentoring
Initiativeb
To support the successful and safe
transition of youth offenders from
correctional facilities to their
communities. The goals of the
program are to reduce recidivism
among youth ex-offenders,
enhance the safety of communities,
and enhance the capacity of local
partnerships to address the needs
of youth ex-offenders.
Public agencies, including
state agencies, units of local
government, public
universities and colleges, and
tribal governments; and
private agencies, including
faith-based and community
organizations.
11 awards,
ranging
from
$124,449
to
$625,000
$4.7 million
Tribal Youth
Mentoringa
To develop, mature, and expand
community programs that provide
mentoring services to tribal youth
populations that are underserved
due to location, shortage of
mentors, emotional or behavioral
problems of the target population,
or other situations identified by
federally recognized tribes.
National tribal organizations
and federally recognized
Indian tribes that may
partner with tribal or
nontribal sub-grantee
national organizations,
including faith-based and
community organizations.
Three
awards,
ranging
from $1.3
million to
$1.9 million
$5.0 million
Congressional Research Service
37
.
Vulnerable Youth: Federal Mentoring Programs and Issues
Mentoring
Grant
Purpose and Goals
Entities Eligible to Apply
Number
of Awards
Total
Amount of
Funding
Recovery Act
National Youth
Mentoring
Programsc
To support organizations that have
mentoring programs ready for
implementation or that will
strengthen and expand existing
mentoring activities, particularly
for populations that are
underserved due to location,
shortage of mentors, special
physical or mental challenges of the
targeted population, or other
situations identified in the
community in need of mentoring
services. Special consideration will
be given to mentoring programs
that include education, job
readiness, employment skills
development, and training and
exposure to entrepreneurial
activities.
National organizations,
which are defined as having
an active program or
programs with a financial
relationship with affiliates in
a majority of states.
Four
awards,
ranging
from $3.7
million to
$17.9
million
$85.1
million
Recovery Act
Local Youth
Mentoring
Initiativec
To support local organizations that
develop, implement, or expand
local mentoring programs leading
to measurable, positive outcomes
for at-risk youth. The programs’
goals are to reduce juvenile
delinquency and gang participation,
improve academic performance,
and reduce school dropout rates.
Public agencies, including
state agencies, units of local
government, public
universities and colleges, and
tribal governments; and
private agencies, including
faith-based and community
organizations.
26 awards,
ranging
from
$401,272
to
$500,000
$12.4
million
Total Funding
$177.4
million:
$79.9 million
for FY2009
and $97.5
million for
Recovery Act
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) review of grant announcements available at
http://ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/funding/funding.html, and grant recipients at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/funding/
09grantawards.htm.
a.
Funding for this program was appropriated under the U.S. Department of Justice mentoring line item of the
FY2009 appropriations law (P.L. 111-8).
b.
This program was authorized by the Second Chance Act (P.L. 110-199) and funded pursuant to the
mentoring line item of the FY2009 appropriations law (P.L. 111-8). The Second Chance Act authorizes
various types of assistance to help adult and juvenile ex-offenders make a successful transition from
incarceration to the community. Funding for this program was appropriated under the U.S. Department of
Justice’s COPS Program and transferred to the Office of Justice Programs (OJP), as enacted by the FY2009
appropriations law (P.L. 111-8). The Department of Justice also provided funding for the Second Chance
Act Mentoring Grant to Nonprofit Organizations, targeted to adult offenders.
c.
Funding for this program was appropriated under the U.S. Department of Justice’s Edward Byrne Memorial
Competitive Grant program in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5).
Congressional Research Service
38
.
Vulnerable Youth: Federal Mentoring Programs and Issues
Table B-2.Department of Justice Mentoring Programs, FY2008
Mentoring
Grant
Number
of
Awards
Total
Amount
of
Funding
Purpose and Goals
Entities Eligible to Apply
National
Mentoring
Programsa
To support organizations that have
mentoring programs ready for
implementation or that will
strengthen and expand existing
mentoring activities, especially those
programs that seek to increase
participation of mentors by
underrepresented groups, target
children of single-parent families, and
focus on making truancy prevention
a priority. The goal of the program is
to improve outcomes of at-risk
youth, among other related goals.
National organizations,
including community and
faith-based organizations,
which are defined as having
an active presence in a
majority of states, having
materials or programs in use
by organizations located in a
significant number of states,
or those with a national
reputation that have
pioneered programs that
serve as a basis for other
organizations.
10 awards,
ranging
from
$65,000 to
$40 million
$57.4
million
Strengthening
Youth
Mentoring
Through
Community
Partnershipsa
To assist state and local government
leaders in further developing
community partnerships designed to
foster new mentoring approaches
and initiatives or in expanding
existing mentoring programs. The
goals of the program are to improve
partnerships around mentoring and
to increase the numbers of youth
served in a cost efficient manner,
among other related goals.
A nonfederal unit or subunit
of government, such as a
state, city or township
government, or a federally
recognized tribal community;
one or more private
organizations, such as nonprofits, for-profits,
community organizations, and
faith-based organizations.
Applicants must have
demonstrated they entered
into a partnership with one
or more private entities.
13 awards,
ranging
from
$295,000
to
$500,000
$5.7
million
Latino Youth
Mentoringa
To assist local school districts, in
partnership with organizations, in
communities with a demonstrable
Latino gang problem. The goals of
the program are to prevent gang
participation and violence by at-risk
Latino youth by offering alternatives;
and reduce or prevent delinquency,
violence, dropping out of school, and
truancy.
Private organizations; nonprofit organizations, including
faith-based and community
organizations; and public
agencies, including schools,
colleges, universities, and
units of local government.
Four
awards,
ranging
from
$377,000
to
$500,000
$1.8
million
Mentoring
Programs for
At-Risk Tribal
Youthb
To support national tribal
organizations and national
organizations that support
mentoring activities in tribal
communities. The goal of the
program is to improve outcomes of
at-risk tribal youth, among other
related goals.
National tribal organizations
and national organizations,
including community, secular,
and faith-based non-profit
organizations. A national
organization must
demonstrate the capacity to
operate programs with
multiple tribes in multiple
states and tribal jurisdictions.
Two
awards of
$2 million
$4
million
Total Funding
Congressional Research Service
$65.0
million
39
.
Vulnerable Youth: Federal Mentoring Programs and Issues
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) review of grant announcements available at
http://ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/funding/funding.html; CRS review of grant awardees at http://ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/funding/
fy08awards.html; and CRS correspondence with the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, December 2008.
a.
Funding for this program was appropriated under the U.S. Department of Justice’s mentoring line item in
the FY2008 appropriations law (P.L. 110-161).
b.
Funding for this program was appropriated under the U.S. Department of Justice’s Title V (Incentive Grants
for Local Delinquency Prevention Programs) of JJDPA line item in the FY2008 appropriations law (P.L. 110161).
Author Contact Information
Adrienne L. Fernandes
Specialist in Social Policy
afernandes@crs.loc.gov, 7-9005
Congressional Research Service
40