.
Vulnerable Youth: Federal Mentoring
Programs and Issues
Adrienne L. Fernandes-Alcantara
Specialist in Social Policy
February 5, 2010January 20, 2012
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 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 justice-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. 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 of
mentoring on particular outcomes and the ability for mentored youth to sustain gains over time
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—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 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. 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 activityare less certain.
The federal government provides funding for mentoring primarily through a grant program to the
Department of Justice (DOJ), with annual appropriations for the program of about $80 million to
$100 million in recent years. This funding is used for research and direct mentoring services to
select populations of youth, such as those involved or at risk of being involved in the juvenile
justice system. Separately, other DOJ funds are used to provide mentoring to Indian youth and
youth who are reentering the community after being in a correctional facility. Other federal
agencies provide or are authorized to support mentoring as one aspect of a larger program. For
example, select programs carried out by the Corporation for National and Community Service
(CNCS) can provide mentoring, among other services. Youth ChalleNGe, an educational and
leadership program for at-risk youth administered by the Department of Defense (DOD), includes
mentoring as an aspect of its program. Federal agencies also coordinate on federal mentoring
issues. The Federal Mentoring Council serves as a clearinghouse on mentoring issues for the
federal government.
In recent years, two mentoring programs—the Mentoring Children of Prisoners (MCP) program
and Safe and Drug Free Schools (SDFS) Mentoring program—provided a significant source of
federal funding for mentoring services. However, the programs were short-lived: funding for the
MCP program was discontinued beginning in FY2011 and funding for the SDFS program 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 was intended, in part, to
reduce the chance that mentored youth would use drugs and skip school. Similarly, 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. As part of its
FY2010 budget justifications, the Obama Administration had proposed eliminating the program
because of an evaluation showing that it did not have an impact on students overall in terms of
interpersonal relationships, academic outcomes, and delinquent behaviors.
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
funding, and the possible discontinuation of federal mentoring funding. This report will be
updated as legislative activity warrants.
Congressional Research Service
.
Vulnerable Youth: Federal Mentoring Programs and Issues
Congressional Research Service
.
Congressional Research Service
Vulnerable Youth: Federal Mentoring Programs and Issues
Contents
Overview and Purpose of MentoringRecent Developments ...........................................................................................2
Origins of Contemporary Mentoring Programs ........................... 1
FY2012 Appropriations ...........................................2
Characteristics of Successful Mentoring Programs ................................................................3
Characteristics of Successful Mentoring Relationships .. 1
FY2011 Appropriations ...........................................................................................6
Evaluation of Mentoring Programs.................. 1
Introduction......................................................................6
Examples of the Positive Effects of Mentoring ................................................................6
Some Outcomes Do Not Improve or Are Short Lived 2
Overview and Purpose of Mentoring...........................................................7
Current Federal Mentoring Programs .................................... 3
Origins of Contemporary Mentoring Programs..................................................................8
Mentoring Children of Prisoners Program (U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services) ....... 4
Characteristics of Successful Mentoring Programs................................................................... 5
Characteristics of Successful Mentoring Relationships ............................................................ 7
Evaluation of Mentoring Programs .................9
Overview ............................................................................. 7
Examples of the Positive Effects of Mentoring.................................................9
Purpose.................. 8
Some Outcomes Do Not Improve or Are Short Lived ........................................................ 9
Department of Justice Mentoring Program ...................................................................9
Grantee Requirements .................... 10
Overview ......................................................................................... 10
Mentored Youth and Mentors .................................. 10
Funding...................................................... 11
Voucher Demonstration Project: Caregiver’s Choice Program ............................................. 11
Funding and Grant Awards ................................. 11
Corporation for National and Community Service.................................................................. 12
Program Performance and Oversight 16
Federal Mentoring Council................................................................................... 14
Research ................... 17
Department of Defense......................................................................................................... 14
Reports to Congress and Evaluations... 18
Youth ChalleNGe Program....................................................................................... 14
Training and Technical Assistance............... 18
Overview of Discontinued Mentoring Programs........................................................................... 16
Safe and Drug Free Schools Mentoring20
Mentoring Children of Prisoners Program (U.S. Department of EducationHealth and Human
Services) ..................... 16
Recent Developments............................................................................................................ 16.... 20
Overview ............................................................................................................................ 17
Purpose..... 20
Purpose.............................................................................................................................. 1721
Grantee Requirements ....................................................................................................... 22 18
Mentored Youth and Mentors ............................................................................................ 22
Voucher Demonstration Project: Caregiver’s Choice Program ........................................... 18.... 23
Funding and Grant Awards .................................................................................................. 19.... 24
Program Performance and Oversight ................................................................................... 19
Evaluations ... 26
Reports to Congress and Evaluations................................................................................ 26
Research ........................................................................................................................ 20.... 28
Training and Technical Assistance ................................................................................... 21
Other Federal Mentoring Support. 29
Safe and Drug Free Schools Mentoring Program (U.S. Department of Education) ...................... 29
Recent Developments................................................................................................. 21
Department of Justice............. 29
Overview ............................................................................................................. 22
Overview .................... 30
Purpose.......................................................................................................................... 22
Other Notable DOJ Funding Allocations for Mentoring.... 30
Grantee Requirements ...................................................................... 26
Corporation for National and Community Service ................................. 31
Mentored Youth and Mentors............................................................... 27
America’s Promise............................. 31
Funding and Grant Awards ........................................................................... 28
Federal Mentoring Council........................... 31
Program Performance and Oversight ............................................................................... 28
Department of Defense ....... 32
Evaluations....................................................................................................... 29
Youth ChalleNGe Program.................................. 33
Training and Technical Assistance ........................................................................... 29......... 34
Federal Issues in Mentoring ........................................................................................................... 3134
Limitations of Research on Mentoring.................................................................................... 35
Focusing on Quality of Programs 31
Gap in Mentoring Services .................................................................................................. 33
Sustaining Resources ....36
Gap in Mentoring Services...................................................................................................... 3437
Congressional Research Service
.
Vulnerable Youth: Federal Mentoring Programs and Issues
Sustaining Resources............................................................................................................... 38
Figures
Figure 1. Select Figures
Figure 1. Elements, Policies, and Procedures of SuccessfulEffective Mentoring Programs.... ....................5
Tables
Table 1. FY2003-FY2009 (Appropriated) and FY2011 (Proposed) Funding for the
Mentoring Children of Prisoners 6
Tables
Table 1. FY2005-FY2012 Appropriated Funding for the Department of Justice Mentoring
Program .............................................................................. 13
Table 2.FY2003-FY2010 Funding (Appropriated) for the Safe and
Drug Free Schools Program .................................................................. 11
Table 2. Description of Department of Justice Mentoring Grants, FY2011 .................................. 19
Table A-1. Demographics and Characteristics of Children, Mentors, and Relationships
(FY2006 Through FY2009)13
Table 3. FY2003-FY2010 Appropriated Funding for the Mentoring Children of Prisoners
Program ................................................................................................................................. 35
Table B-1.Department of Justice Mentoring Programs, FY2009 ..... 25
Table 4. FY2003-FY2009 Appropriated Funding for the Safe and
Drug Free Schools Program................................................... 36
Table B-2.Department of Justice Mentoring Programs, FY2008 ................................................... 39
Appendixes
Appendix A.. 32
Table A-1. Mentoring Children of Prisoners Program: Select Demographics and
Characteristics of Children, Mentors, and Relationships (FY2006-FY2010) ............................. 39
Appendixes
Appendix. Mentoring Children of Prisoners Program................................ 35
Appendix B. Descriptions of Department of Justice Mentoring Programs, Select Years............................ 36....... 39
Contacts
Author Contact Information ........................................................................................................... 40
Congressional Research Service
.
Vulnerable Youth: Federal Mentoring Programs and Issues
S
inceVulnerable Youth: Federal Mentoring Programs and Issues
Recent Developments
In recent years, two mentoring programs—the Mentoring Children of Prisoners (MCP) program
and Safe and Drug Free Schools (SDFS) Mentoring program—have provided a significant source
of federal funding for mentoring services. However, the programs were short-lived: funding for
the MCP program, carried out by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) since
FY2003, was discontinued beginning in FY2011; and funding for the SDFS program, carried out
by the Department of Education (ED) since FY2002, was discontinued beginning in FY2010.
Congress continues to support another mentoring program administered by the Department of
Justice (DOJ). Funding for this program declined from FY2011 to FY2012.
Separately, a law (P.L. 112-34) enacted on September 30, 2011, extended authorization for
programs that have been authorized in the past with the MCP program; however, the law did not
extend program or funding authorization for the MCP program, which most recently had been
authorized to receive “such sums as may be necessary” for each of FY2007-FY2011.
FY2012 Appropriations
After passing two temporary appropriations measures, Congress provided final funding for DOJ
and select other departments under the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act,
2012 (P.L. 112-55), including $78 million for the mentoring program. For FY2012, the
Administration proposed funding for DOJ mentoring grants at $45 million.1 According to the
Administration, this decrease was proposed as part of the overall goal of reducing the deficit.
FY2011 Appropriations
On April 15, 2011, President Obama signed the Department of Defense and Full Year Continuing
Appropriations Act, 2011 (P.L. 112-10), which provided almost $276 million ($275,975,000) for
DOJ programs authorized under the Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA),
including the JJDPA mentoring program.2 This was a reduction of $56.5 million (or 17%) from
the FY2010 level of $332.5 million for JJDPA programs.3 By applying this same percentage
(17%) to the mentoring program, which was funded at $100 million in FY2010, it received $83
million under P.L. 112-10. P.L. 112-10 included an across-the-board rescission for most programs,
which further reduced funding for the program to $82.8 million.4 However, P.L. 112-10 also gave
the Department of Defense (DOD) the option to transfer $20 million for DOJ mentoring grants.
DOD transferred these funds, bringing the total funding for the program to $102.8 million.
1
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, FY2012 Performance Budget, p. 232, http://www.justice.gov/
jmd/2012justification/pdf/fy12-ojp-justification.pdf.
2
FY2011 began on October 1, 2010. Until April 15, 2011, funding for FY2011 was provided at FY2010 levels for most
programs under a series of continuing resolutions.
3
JJDPA programs received $423,595,000 in FY2010, including $91,095,000 in earmarks. The $332.5 million excludes
the earmarks, per P.L. 112-10.
4
Congressional Research Service (CRS) analysis of FY2011 appropriations law.
Congressional Research Service
1
Vulnerable Youth: Federal Mentoring Programs and Issues
P.L. 112-10 does not reference the Mentoring Children of Prisoners (MCP) program;5 however, it
was included in a table, provided by the House Appropriations Committee, showing programs to
be eliminated or reduced in funding.6 HHS has interpreted the FY2011 funding law (P.L. 112-10)
to mean that the program would not be funded in FY2011.7
Introduction
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 such program, was implemented in 1994 to provide mentoring
services services
for at-risk youth ages five5 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 has
supported 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 (ED). These
programs were discontinued in FY2010 and FY2009, respectively. The purpose of these programs
was 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, including mentoring for certain vulnerable
youth and research on mentoring. 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.
5
Unlike other recent appropriation acts, P.L. 112-10 is not accompanied by a published table and an explanatory
statement indicating congressional intent for program funding levels.
6
U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, “Historic Spending Cuts the Centerpiece for Final Continuing
Resolution (CR) for Fiscal Year 2011,” press release, 112th Congress, April 12, 2011, http://appropriations.house.gov/
index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=285&Month=4&Year=2011.
7
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, FY2011 Operating Plan,
http://www.hhs.gov/asfr/ob/docbudget/2011operatingplan.html.
Congressional Research Service
2
Vulnerable Youth: Federal Mentoring Programs and Issues
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 majorrecent (discontinued) 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
8 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
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.29 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.310
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
11 Mentors provide academic assistance and
8
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.
9
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
Hereinafter, Government
Accountability Office, Student Mentoring Programs.) After this report was issued, the name of the General Accounting
Office was changed to the
Government Accountability Office.
310
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. -Alcantara.
11
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
Congressional Research Service
3
Vulnerable Youth: Federal Mentoring Programs and Issues
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.12 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 mentoring organization in the country.13
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. 714 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.815 Among the first projects undertaken by the
the federal government was a youth mentoring initiative in the early 1990s implemented by the newly
newly created Points of Light Foundation, a federally funded nonprofit organization that promotes
promotes volunteering.916 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. 1017 Other early initiatives included
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)2 million vulnerable
youth.18
12
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.
13
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. Hereinafter, U.S.
Department of Justice, Big Brothers Big Sisters.)
7
14
Marc Freedman, The Kindness of Strangers: Mentors, Urban Youth, and the New Volunteerism (San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1993), p. 5. (Hereafter referenced asHereinafter, Freedman, The Kindness of Strangers.)
815
U.S. Department of Justice, “Juvenile Mentoring Program (JUMP) Guidelines,” 59 Federal Register 3820, July 28,
1994.
916
Freedman, The Kindness of Strangers, p. 4. The Points of Light Foundation is funded by the Corporation for National
and Community Service.
1017
Ibid., p. 16.
1118
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
Congressional Research Service
4
Vulnerable Youth: Federal Mentoring Programs and Issues
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.19 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 some of 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 Successfuleffective
mentoring programs, as identified in a report by MENTOR, Incorporated, a national mentoring
advocacy group and clearinghouse on mentoring issues.
19
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. (Hereinafter, Rhodes and DuBois, “Understanding and Facilitating the Youth Mentoring
Movement.”)
Congressional Research Service
5
Vulnerable Youth: Federal Mentoring Programs and Issues
Figure 1. Select Elements, Policies, and Procedures
of Effective Mentoring Programs
Source: Congressional Research Service, based on Figure 1 in GAO, Student Mentoring Programs. This
information was originallyis presented in MENTOR/National Mentoring Partnership Incorporated, “Elements of Effective
Practice in Mentoring,” 2nd3rd ed., 2003.2009.
(The GAO figure was based on an earlier, and similar, edition of the document.)
Congressional Research Service
5
.
6
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.1320
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.
A 2011 analysis assessed findings from 73 mentoring evaluations to determine the effectiveness
of mentoring.21 The analysis reviewed evaluations, published between 1999 and 2010,22 of
mentoring programs that were intended to promote positive youth outcomes through relationships
between children and youth under age 18 and adults (or older youth) serving as mentors. The
analysis encompasses programs that used various formats and strategies—including those that
used paid mentors, older mentors, and group formats—and took place for a relatively brief period
(e.g., a few months). Each of the evaluations included a comparison group of youth who were not
mentored. In some programs, the youth were randomly assigned to participate in the comparison
group, while in other programs the comparison group consisted of youth who did not participate
in the mentoring program for some other reason, such as attending a school where the mentoring
program was not offered.
The analysis found that overall, the programs resulted in modest gains for youth. According to the
analysis, the programs tended to have positive effects on outcomes across various categories,
including academics and education, attitudes and motivation, social skills and interpersonal
relationships, and psychological and emotional status, among other categories. Seven of the
studies included follow-up assessment of youth outcomes after they had completed the program,
with an average follow-up period of about two years. The studies showed an enduring positive
effect of participating in the programs that were evaluated. Further, the analysis pointed to factors
that influence the effectiveness of mentoring programs. These include whether (1) participating
youth have preexisting difficulties, such as delinquent behavior, or are exposed to significant
environmental risk (not defined, but presumably referring to the home and community in which
the youth resides); (2) programs serve greater proportions of males; (3) mentors’ educational or
occupational backgrounds are well matched to the program goals; (4) mentors and youth are
paired based on mutual interests, such as career interests; and (5) mentors serve as advocates and
teachers to provide guidance to youth and to help ensure their overall welfare.
20
Rhodes and DuBois, “Understanding and Facilitating the Youth Mentoring Movement,” p. 9.
David L. DuBois et al., “How Effective Are Mentoring Programs for Youth? A Systematic Assessment of the
Evidence,” Psychological Science in the Public Interest, vol. 12, no. 2 (2011). (Hereinafter, DuBois et al., “How
Effective Are Mentoring Programs for Youth? A Systematic Assessment of the Evidence.”)
22
An earlier analysis assessed findings from 55 evaluations of youth mentoring programs that had been published
through 1998. See David L. DuBois et al., “Effectiveness of Mentoring Programs: A Meta-Analytical Review,”
American Journal of Community Psychology, vol. 30, no. 2 (2002).
21
Congressional Research Service
7
Vulnerable Youth: Federal Mentoring Programs and Issues
The analysis ultimately found that a broad range of mentoring programs can benefit youth across
a number of domains. At the same time, it raised other considerations. For example, few
evaluations assessed key outcomes that are of interest to policymakers, such as educational
attainment, juvenile offending, and obesity prevention. In addition, few evaluations addressed
whether youth sustained the gains they made in the program at later points in their development.
The researchers point out that despite the positive effect of the programs overall, the effect
is small.
Examples of the Positive Effects of Mentoring
Some studies have shown strong gains for youth who are mentored. These studies use
experimental design, meaning that some youth are randomly assigned to receive a mentor (the
treatment group) and others are randomly selected to not receive mentoring (the control group).
There is wide consensus that using randomized assignment allows researchers to best estimate the
impact of an intervention such as mentoring.23
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 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.24
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
others25) with an experimental design found that the outcomes for youth with a mentor were
better than outcomes for their counterparts without a mentor.26 These outcomes included the
following:
•
Improved educational outcomes: Youth in the year-long Across Ages mentoring
program showed a gain of more than a week of class attendance. 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.
23
For further information, see CRS Report RL33301, Congress and Program Evaluation: An Overview of Randomized
Controlled Trials (RCTs) and Related Issues, by Clinton T. Brass, Erin D. Williams, and Blas Nuñez-Neto.
24
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.
25
These programs are a sampling of some of the programs profiled.
26
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. (Hereinafter, Jekielek et al.,
Mentoring Programs and Youth Development.)
Congressional Research Service
8
Vulnerable Youth: Federal Mentoring Programs and Issues
•
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).1727
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.1828 In the 2007
Big Brothers Big Sisters school-based mentoring evaluation, the nonschool, related outcomes,
including substance use and self worth, did not improve. 1929
Other research has indicated that mentored youth make small gains or do not sustain positive
gains over time. 2030 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).2131 The evaluation also pointed to
weaknesses in the program’s design, such as high attrition (due likely to the transitioning for
17
Carla 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.32 A 2008 study of Big
Brothers Big Sisters school-based mentoring that used high school 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).33 Similarly, a recent
27
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 asHereinafter, Herrera et al., Making a Difference in
Schools.)
1828
Jekielek et al., Mentoring Programs and Youth Development, p. 15.
1929
Herrera et al., Making a Difference in Schools, pp. 37-38.
20
Jean E. Rhodes and David L.30
Rhodes and 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
31
Herrera et al., Making a Difference in Schools, pp. 47-78.
32
Ibid., pp. iv-v.
33
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.
Congressional Research Service
9
Vulnerable Youth: Federal Mentoring Programs and Issues
evaluation of the federal school-based mentoring program demonstrates that the program doesdid not
have an impact on students overall in terms of interpersonal relationships, academic outcomes,
and delinquent behaviors.2434
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.
24Department of Justice Mentoring Program
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.35
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
(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.”36 The report
goes on to say that the committee does not discourage mentoring activities under the Part C block
grant program.37
34
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 Hereinafter, 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
35
Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg, “Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Authorization Act,” remarks in the Senate,
Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 138 (October 7, 1992).
36
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.
37
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
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
10
Vulnerable Youth: Federal Mentoring Programs and Issues
After the JUMP program was discontinued with the end of FY2003, 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.38 However, in the 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.39 The Department of Justice has
interpreted the appropriations language as requiring the agency to allocate funds pursuant to old
Part G.40 Below is a discussion of funding appropriated to the Department of Justice for
mentoring since JUMP was discontinued.
Funding
The JUMP Program ended in FY2003 and Congress resumed funding for DOJ mentoring in
FY2005. Since this time, Congress has provided $9.9 million to $102.8 million annually for
mentoring. See Table 1 below.
Table 1. FY2005-FY2012 Appropriated Funding for the
Department of Justice Mentoring Program
($ in millions)
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
FY2009
FY2010
FY2011
FY2012
$15.0
$10.0
$9.9
$70.0
$80.0
$100.0
$102.8
$78.0
Source: Congressional budget submission for the Office of Justice Programs, FY2008-FY2011; FY2011 funding
data based on Department of Defense and Full Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 (P.L. 112-10); and
FY2012 funding based on Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2012 (P.L. 112-55).
After passing two temporary appropriation measures, Congress provided final FY2012 funding
for DOJ under an appropriations law for selected departments (P.L. 112-55), including $78
million for the mentoring grants, a reduction of nearly $4 million from FY2011 funding.41 As of
early January 2012, funding solicitations have not been announced for the program
(...continued)
correspondence with the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention, November 2007.
38
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.
39
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).
40
Based on correspondence with the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention, November 2007.
41
For FY2012, the Administration proposed funding for DOJ mentoring grants at $45 million According to the
Administration, this decrease was proposed as part of the overall goal of reducing the deficit. U.S. Department of
Justice, Office of Justice Programs, FY2012 Performance Budget, p. 232, http://www.justice.gov/jmd/2012justification/
pdf/fy12-ojp-justification.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
11
Vulnerable Youth: Federal Mentoring Programs and Issues
The FY2011 appropriations law (P.L. 112-10) provided almost $276 million ($275,975,000) for
programs authorized under the Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA), including
the JJDPA mentoring program.42 This was a reduction of $56.5 million (or 17%) from the FY2010
level of $332.5 million for JJDPA programs.43 By applying this same percentage (17%) to the
mentoring program, which was funded at $100 million in FY2010, it received $83 million under
P.L. 112-10. That law included an across-the-board rescission for most programs, which further
reduced funding for the program to $82.8 million. However, P.L. 112-10 also gave DOD the
option to transfer $20 million for DOJ mentoring grants. DOD transferred these funds, bringing
the total funding for the program to $102.8 million. Of this amount, $99.9 million was allocated
for mentoring grants and $2.9 million was used for grant performance measure reporting, OJJDP
technical assistance and training, peer review costs, and grant monitoring costs.
In January 2011, in anticipation of final funding for FY2011, OJJDP sought comments about the
office’s FY2011 proposed spending plan. OJJDP issued a notice on its final spending plan in July
2011, which stated that it would fund multiple mentoring grants to reduce juvenile delinquency
and gang participation, improve academic performance, and reduce the school dropout rate.44
DOJ subsequently allocated funding under multiple mentoring grants, including grants to support
mentoring programs and research. Separately, OJJDP provided $3.0 million for mentoring under
the Tribal Youth program, and $5.4 million (via DOJ’s Bureau of Justice Affairs) for mentoring
authorized under the Second Chance Act. Table 2 summarizes the purpose and goals of these
activities. For example, one of the grants funds research on mentoring while others provide direct
services. Of those grants that fund direct services, some provide mentoring to multiple groups of
at-risk youth and other grants focus on youth with disabilities and youth who are victims of
commercial sexual exploitation.
42
U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, “Historic Spending Cuts the Centerpiece for Final Continuing
Resolution (CR) for Fiscal Year 2011,” press release, 112th Congress, April 12, 2011, http://appropriations.house.gov/
index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=285&Month=4&Year=2011.
43
JJDPA programs received $423,595,000 in FY2010, including $91,095,000 in earmarks. The $332.5 million
excludes the earmarks, per P.L. 112-10.
44
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 2011,” 76 Federal Register
2135, January 15, 2011; and U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention, “Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Final Plan for Fiscal Year 2011,” 76
Federal Register 40394, July 8, 2011.
Congressional Research Service
12
Vulnerable Youth: Federal Mentoring Programs and Issues
Table 2. Description of Department of Justice Mentoring Grants, FY2011
Mentoring
Grant
Description
Entities Eligible
to Apply
Number of
Grantees
and Award
Amounts
Total
Amount of
Funding
DOJ Mentoring Program Grants
National
Mentoring
Programs
The grant seeks to strengthen and
expand existing mentoring
activities. The grant prioritizes
programs that seek to increase
participation of mentors from
underrepresented groups, target
children of single-parent families,
and make truancy prevention a
priority. The goal of the grant is to
reduce juvenile delinquency, drug
abuse, truancy, and other high-risk
behaviors.
National organizations,
which are those with an
active program or
programs with a financial
relationship with affiliates in
at least 45 states.
Five awards
ranging from
$3.0 million to
$48.3 million
$72,930,000a
Multi-state
Mentoring
Initiative
The grant seeks to enhance the
capacity of organizations to
develop or expand their current
mentoring programs that strive to
reduce juvenile delinquency and
gang participation, improve
academic performance, and
reduce school dropout rates.
These programs must have a
strategy for supporting the
involvement of parents of
mentoring participants or
providing/coordinating services for
them, providing opportunities for
structured activities for mentoring
matches, and providing ongoing
options for mentors to further
develop their mentoring-related
skills and abilities.
Private nonprofit and forprofit organizations,
including faith-based,
community-based, and
tribal organizations. The
organizations must have
been in existence for at
least three years, have had
programs in five or more
states for at least a full
calendar year, and have a
strong presence in their
communities. National
organizations—those with
a program or programs or
affiliates in at least 45
states—are ineligible to
apply.
Nine awards
ranging from
$570,000 to
$3.0 million
$21,070,000b
Research on
Best Practices
for Mentoring
The grant seeks to support
research that will further the
understanding of evidence-based
and effective practices in
mentoring programs that serve atrisk youth. The goal is to generate
research that has practical
application for these programs.
States, including territories;
units of local government,
including federally
recognized tribal
governments; nonprofit and
for-profit organizations,
including tribal nonprofit
and for-profit organizations;
and institutions of higher
education, including tribal
institutions of higher
education.
Five awards
ranging from
$283,987 to
$500,000
$2,218,963
Congressional Research Service
13
Vulnerable Youth: Federal Mentoring Programs and Issues
Mentoring
Grant
Description
Entities Eligible
to Apply
Number of
Grantees
and Award
Amounts
Total
Amount of
Funding
Mentoring for
Youth with
Disabilities
Initiative
The grant seeks to support the
prevention and reduction of
delinquency and other negative
behaviors (e.g., truancy, school
disciplinary infractions) in at-risk
youth with disabilities and to
enhance their positive behaviors
and personal strengths, among
other attributes. The program
seeks to fund organizational and
community capacity building to
effectively serve youth with
disabilities, including the creation
or improvement of training for
staff, mentors, and community
members focused on supporting
youth with disabilities; the design
or integration of a wellcoordinated network of services
to meet youth and family needs;
the development of creative
strategies to recruit and retain
mentors and mentored youth; and
the creation of a culturally
competent system to elicit and
sustain family, school, and
community involvement
States, including territories;
units of local government,
including federally
recognized tribal
governments; nonprofit and
for-profit organizations,
including tribal nonprofit
and for-profit organizations;
and institutions of higher
education, including tribal
institutions of higher
education.
Eight awards
ranging from
$238,797 to
$280,964
$2,205,393
Mentoring for
Child Victims
of
Commercial
Sexual
Exploitation
Initiative
The grant seeks to support efforts
of community service
organizations to develop or
enhance their mentoring capacity,
facilitate outreach efforts, and
increase the availability of direct
services for child victims (younger
than age 18) of commercial sexual
exploitation or domestic sex
trafficking, including children who
are U.S. citizens or legal
permanent residents. The grant
recipient(s) will integrate
promising practices and proven
principles into mentoring service
models; develop strategies to
recruit, train, support, and
maintain mentors; and provide a
comprehensive array of support
services to empower children to
move past their experiences with
victimization to develop their full
potential.
States, including territories;
units of local government,
including federally
recognized tribal
governments; nonprofit and
for-profit organizations,
including tribal nonprofit
and for-profit organizations;
and institutions of higher
education, including tribal
institutions of higher
education.
Three awards
ranging from
$499,831 to
$500,000
$1,499,831
Total Funding for DOJ Mentoring Program
Congressional Research Service
$99,924,187c
14
Vulnerable Youth: Federal Mentoring Programs and Issues
Mentoring
Grant
Description
Entities Eligible
to Apply
Number of
Grantees
and Award
Amounts
Total
Amount of
Funding
Other DOJ Mentoring Grants, Administered by the Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention
Tribal Youth
National
Mentoring
Programd
The grant seeks to build the
capacity of tribes to develop and
implement culturally sensitive
mentoring activities on tribal
reservations. Funded mentoring
programs are to strengthen and
expand mentoring activities in
reservation communities that
intend to increase participation of
tribal youth in interactions with
adult tribal mentors. Programs
must incorporate best practices
based on research and consider a
variety of national and tribal
mentoring approaches and consult
with tribes in developing a
mentoring program.
National organizations,
including community,
secular, and faith-based
nonprofit organizations and
federally recognized tribal
governments. National
organizations are those
with an active program or
programs with affiliates in
at least 45 states.
Two awards
ranging from
$1.0 million to
$2.0 million
$2,999,854
Second
Chance
Juvenile
Mentoring
Initiativee
The grant seeks to support the
successful and safe transition of
youth offenders from correctional
facilities to their communities
through mentoring programs and
transitional services. Funded
mentoring programs are to
integrate best practices and
proven principles into mentoring
service models, develop strategies
to recruit and maintain mentors,
and assess and develop services to
respond to the needs of youth
offenders reentering their
communities. The grant seeks 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 exoffenders.
Public agencies, including
state agencies, units of local
government, public
universities and colleges,
and tribal governments; and
private nonprofit
organizations, including
faith-based, tribal, and
community organizations.
Nine awards
ranging from
$547,083 to
$609,310
$5,408,358
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) review of grant announcements, available at
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/funding/archived_solicitations_11.htm; and of grant awards, available at
http://ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/funding/funding.html; and correspondence with the Department of Justice, October and
November 2011.
a.
This includes $16,930,000 in DOD funding for mentoring, per Section 1809 of the Department of Defense
Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act (P.L. 112-10). The purpose of these funds is to support mentoring
of children in military families.
b.
This includes $3,070,000 in DOD funding for mentoring, per Section 1809 of the Department of Defense
Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act (P.L. 112-10). The purpose of these funds is to support mentoring
of children in military families.
c.
This includes $20 million in DOD funding for mentoring, per Section 1809 of the Department of Defense
Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act (P.L. 112-10), bringing total funding to $102.8 million for the
Congressional Research Service
15
Vulnerable Youth: Federal Mentoring Programs and Issues
program. Of the $102.8 million, $2.9 million went to costs for grantee performance measures reporting,
overall technical assistance and training, peer review costs, and grant monitoring costs.
d.
This program is authorized by the Second Chance Act (P.L. 110-199) and funded by an account within the
DOJ’s Bureau of Justice Affairs.
e.
This program is authorized by the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, as amended, and funded
by the Tribal Youth Program, which is administered by OJJDP.
In addition to the DOJ mentoring program, 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 Corporation for National and Community Service, Department
of Health and Human Services, and Department of Defense.45
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, AmeriCorps46 and
SeniorCorps. AmeriCorps members serve directly as mentors (through the AmeriCorps State and
National program) or focus their efforts on building the capacity of mentoring organizations to
increase the number of children they serve (through the AmeriCorps Vista program).47 Senior
Corps, through its RSVP and Foster Grandparents programs, provides mentoring to children and
youth from disadvantaged backgrounds, including children of prisoners. CNCS also leads federal
efforts to promote National Mentoring Month, which is intended to raise awareness of mentoring,
recruit individuals to mentor, and promote the growth of mentoring by recruiting organizations to
engage their constituents in mentoring.
The 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.48 For
example, the new law provides that AmeriCorps can fund new programs—including the
Education Corps, Clean Energy Services Corps, and 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.
45
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.
46
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.
47
Based on correspondence with the Corporation for National and Community Service, March 2011.
48
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.
Congressional Research Service
16
Vulnerable Youth: Federal Mentoring Programs and Issues
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.49 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.50
Since the Council was convened, it has met quarterly. According to CNCS, the Council has three
priorities.51
•
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
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.52
•
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
49
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.
50
Based on correspondence with the Corporation for National and Community Service, March 2011.
51
Ibid., December 2008 and March 2011.
52
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.
Congressional Research Service
17
Vulnerable Youth: Federal Mentoring Programs and Issues
implement their initiatives, such as the website, member agencies have contributed funding as
they were able.53
Department of Defense
Youth ChalleNGe Program54
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
FY1993 (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.55 In recent years, more than 8,000 young people have enrolled and
approximately 7,000 have graduated annually.56 The program consists of three phases: a twoweek 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.57
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 “PostResidential 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 PRAP.
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
53
Based on correspondence with the Corporation for National and Community Service, December 2008.
Unless otherwise noted, this information is based on correspondence with the U.S. Department of Defense, National
Guard, June 12, 2008.
55
U.S. Department of Defense, National Guard, Youth ChalleNGe Program 2010 Performance and Accountability
Highlights, 2011, http://www.ngycp.org/site/node/18
56
Ibid.”
57
U.S. Department of Defense, National Guard, Youth ChalleNGe Program, About Us,” http://www.ngycp.org/
aboutus_dependant_T2_R29.php.
54
Congressional Research Service
18
Vulnerable Youth: Federal Mentoring Programs and Issues
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 Manpower Development Research Corporation (MDRC), a
social policy research organization. The evaluation began in 2005, when 12 state ChalleNGe
programs agreed to participate in the evaluation.58 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, 21 months, and
three years after the members of the program and control groups entered the study.59 MDRC
issued reports after each survey wave. The two earlier reports found that youth in the program
group had higher education attainment and a stronger work history than the control group. The
most recent report—more than a year after the post-residential phase had ended—shows that
these favorable outcomes persisted at the three-year mark. Those who enrolled in Youth
ChalleNGe were significantly more likely to have earned a GED (but not necessarily a high
school diploma),60 to have earned any college credit, to be employed, to have higher earnings, and
to be working. Although the earlier reports found positive impacts on criminal justice
involvement and health, these impacts faded over time. At the three-year survey, about half of
youth in both the program and control groups reported ever having been arrested and about twothirds of each group reported being in good or excellent health. Further, on some outcomes, there
were few statistically significant differences between the treatment and control groups or the
58
Dan Bloom, Alissa Gardenhire-Crooks, and Conrad Mandsager, Reengaging High School Dropouts: Early Results of
the National Guard Youth ChalleNGe Program, MDRC, February 2009; and Megan Millenky, Dan Bloom, and
Colleen Dillon, Making the Transition: Interim Results of the National Guard Youth ChalleNGe Evaluation, May 2010;
and Megan Millenky et al., Staying on Course: Three-Year Results of the National Guard Youth ChalleNGe
Evaluation, June 2011, http://www.mdrc.org/project_32_80.html.
59
The treatment group includes 68% of program group members who went on to enroll in Youth ChalleNGe and the
33% who did not enroll.
60
During the time the evaluation was conducted, most programs helped participants prepare for the GED exam, but a
few of them offered a high school diploma.
Congressional Research Service
19
Vulnerable Youth: Federal Mentoring Programs and Issues
outcomes were worse for the treatment group, including that that they were more likely to not use
birth control61 or had tried illegal drugs other than marijuana.
Overview of Discontinued Mentoring Programs
In recent years, two federal programs provided a significant source of funding for mentoring
services until they were discontinued: the Mentoring Children of Prisoners program, which was
administered by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services since FY2003, and the Safe
and Drug Free Schools Mentoring program, which was administered by the U.S. Department of
Education since FY2002. 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 was intended, in part, to reduce the chance that
mentored youth would use drugs and skip school. Similarly, 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 discontinued funding for the Mentoring Children of Prisoners program beginning in
FY2011 and the SDFS Mentoring program beginning in FY2010. For FY2012, the Obama
Administration has proposed funding the Mentoring Children of Prisoners program at $25
million, a reduction of $24.3 million from FY2010 (and the FY2011 budget request).62 The
FY2012 request has proposed these reductions because many of the mentoring matches had not
been sustained. As part of its FY2010 budget justifications, the Obama Administration proposed
eliminating the SDFS 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.63 The evaluation is discussed further below.
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. Until it was discontinued as of FY2011, the program was 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 funded public or private entities—in
61
Those who reported never using birth control did not match closely with those who are married or living with a
partner.
62
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, FY2012 Justification of
Estimates for Appropriations Committee, Children and Families Services Programs, p. 115, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/
programs/olab/budget/2012/cj/CFS.pdf.
63
U.S. Department of Education, FY2010 Justifications of Appropriation Estimates, Safe Schools and Citizenship
Education, p. G-15. http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/budget10/justifications/g-ssce.pdf
Congressional Research Service
20
Vulnerable Youth: Federal Mentoring Programs and Issues
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 was
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, was intended to improve academic and behavioral
outcomes. Mentors were to supplement existing caring relationships that the child had 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. A recently enacted law (P.L. 112-34) extended
authorization for programs that have been authorized in the past with the MCP program; however,
the law did not extend program or funding authorization for the MCP program, which most
recently had been authorized to receive “such sums as may be necessary” for each of FY2007FY2011.
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. Data from the
Department of Justice’s (DOJ’s) Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) show that over the past two
decades a growing number of parents are incarcerated in state and federal prisons, which means a
greater number of children are spending some period of their childhood without one of their
parents present.64 In 1991, approximately 452,000 parents were incarcerated in state and federal
prisons and these parents had approximately 946,000 children. By 2007, nearly 810,000 parents
were incarcerated and they had over 1.7 million children.65 The BJS data further indicate that
higher incarceration rates for African Americans compared to whites and Hispanics are having a
disproportionate effect on African American children. BJS estimates that 6.7% of African
American children in the United States have an incarcerated parent compared to 2.4% of Hispanic
children and 0.9% of white children.
When parents are sent to prison it is likely to reduce the frequency and quality of contacts they
have with their children. In many cases, parents are incarcerated in facilities that are more than
100 miles from where their families live, which can make personal visits between incarcerated
parents and children difficult.66 In addition, prisons can be uninviting places for children to visit
with their parents, and procedures at correctional facilities can make it difficult for children to
meet with their parents in the first place. Data from BJS indicate that parents are much less likely
to receive personal visits from their children compared to telephone calls or letters.67 Research
suggests that the absence of a parent can have negative consequences for childhood development,
64
Lauren E. Glaze and Laura M. Maruschak, Parents in Prison and Their Minor Children, U.S. Department of Justice,
Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, NCJ 222984, Washington, DC, January 2009, pp. 2, 14,
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/pptmc.pdf. (Hereinafter, Glaze and Maruschak, Parents in Prison and Their
Minor Children.)
65
Ibid.
66
Jeremy Travis, But They All Come Back: Facing the Challenges of Prisoner Reentry (Washington, DC: Urban
Institute Press, 2005), pp. 132-142. (Hereinafter, Travis, But They All Come Back.)
67
Glaze and Maruschak, Parents in Prison and Their Minor Children, p. 18.
Congressional Research Service
21
Vulnerable Youth: Federal Mentoring Programs and Issues
and parental incarceration may negatively affect children, to the extent that incarceration
contributes to parental absence.68
Grantee Requirements
A number of entities were eligible to 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 was to 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.69 Grant funds were to be
expended within one year and are to be used for mentoring services exclusively (i.e., not
wraparound services or other social services).70
Grantees recruited mentors, including individuals from the child’s family and community, church
congregations, religious nonprofit groups, community-based groups, service organizations, Senior
Corps,71 and the business community. Grantees provided mentor training and criminal
background checks, and monitored mentoring relationships. They also evaluated youth outcomes.
Grantees were expected to incorporate a message of positive youth development into their
programs and coordinate with other organizations to develop a plan that addressed the needs of
the entire family.72 (Positive 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
In FY2010, the program served more than 28,000 youth in the 50 states, the District of Columbia,
and Puerto Rico.73 (See the Appendix for the number of matches in each of FY2006-FY2010.)
Children ages 4 to 18 were eligible for the program if their parent was in state or federal prison,
although they could have continued to receive services if their parent was released from prison
during the mentoring relationship; children whose parents are in halfway houses, under
68
Travis, But They All Come Back, pp. 138-140.
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.
70
Office of Management and Budget, Mentoring Children of Prisoners Assessment.
71
Senior Corps is a program administered by the Corporation for National and Community Service that provides
volunteer opportunities for individuals ages 55 and older.
72
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Family and Youth
Services Bureau, Report to Congress on the Mentoring Children of Prisoners Program, October 8, 2010.
73
Based on correspondence with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and
Families, Family and Youth Services Bureau, February 2011.
69
Congressional Research Service
22
Vulnerable Youth: Federal Mentoring Programs and Issues
supervision, or house arrest were not eligible unless the detention follows a federal or state prison
sentence.74
Mentors were to undergo screenings that included in-depth interviews and criminal background
checks. They were required to commit to attending training and meeting with their assigned youth
one hour per week for one year. Mentors were 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 had not already been matched to a mentor. The law specified that vouchers were to 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.75 In November 2007 (FY2008), HHS awarded a competitive three-year cooperative
agreement grant to MENTOR Incorporated, a national mentoring advocacy group and
clearinghouse on mentoring issues, to administer the voucher demonstration program.
The law gave HHS the discretion to renew the three-year agreement for up to two years, if HHS
determined that the grantee had met the requirements of the agreement, and evaluations of the
demonstration project show that it is effective in providing mentoring services. Based on an
evaluation of the first two years of the voucher demonstration project, HHS did not exercise the
option to extend funding for this demonstration beyond the initial three years in which it was
funded (see below for further information). The voucher program was known as the Caregiver’s
Choice Program.
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 were to be
distributed and in year three, no less than 13,000 vouchers were to be distributed. As required by
law, MENTOR was to identify and recruit qualified mentoring programs and eligible families,
coordinate the distribution and redemption of vouchers, and oversee the quality of the mentoring
services. The law stipulated that it could not provide direct mentoring services. To this end,
MENTOR coordinated 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.76 Families and caregivers were
directed to a national call center to enroll in the voucher program and to learn about mentoring
options in their community. The voucher for mentoring services was included in the packet and
74
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Family and Youth
Services Bureau, Mentoring Children of Prisoners Funding Opportunity, HHS-2010-ACF-ACYF-CV-0070, June 15,
2010.
75
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.
76
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Family and Youth
Services Bureau, Report to Congress on the Mentoring Children of Prisoners Service Delivery Demonstration Project,
October 8, 2010 (Hereinafter, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Report to Congress on the Mentoring
Children of Prisoners Service Delivery Demonstration Project, October 8, 2010.)
Congressional Research Service
23
Vulnerable Youth: Federal Mentoring Programs and Issues
contained an identification code. (This identifier became the primary means of data collection and
system management for the voucher demonstration project.) The families redeemed the vouchers
at organizations deemed to be quality providers of mentoring services.
MENTOR conducted an advertising campaign to encourage mentoring programs to become
certified as “quality providers” (allowing them to receive MCP vouchers).77 MENTOR, in
consultation with FYSB, also identified quality standards for these providers that addresses
program capacity, sustainability, design, management, and operations.78
Funding and Grant Awards
Overall, the program received initial funding of $10 million in FY2003 and was funded at
approximately $50 million in each subsequent year, until FY2010, as shown Table 3.79 On April
15, 2011, President Obama signed the Department of Defense and Full Year Continuing
Appropriations Act, 2011 (P.L. 112-10).80 That law does not reference the Mentoring Children of
Prisoners program;81 however, it is included in a table, provided by the House Appropriations
Committee, that shows programs to be eliminated or reduced in funding.82 The Department of
Health and Human Services (HHS), the department that administers the program, interprets the
FY2011 funding law (P.L. 112-10) to mean that the program was not funded in FY2011.83
According to HHS, the department did not have latitude to shift funding from other programs.84
Funding for the program was obligated at the end of the fiscal year, and therefore no grantees
received funds that were appropriated under continuing resolutions for FY2011.
For FY2012, the Administration proposed funding the program at $25 million, a reduction of $24
million from FY2010 (and the FY2011 budget request).85 The FY2012 request proposed these
reductions because many of the mentoring matches have not been sustained: fewer than 40% of
youth in the program have remained in mentoring relationships beyond 12 months and 20% of
matches ended within six months. The budget request cites research indicating that short-term
77
For information about the publicity campaign, see http://www.mentoring.org/caregiverschoice.
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.
79
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.
80
FY2011 began on October 1, 2010. Until April 15, 2011, funding for FY2011 was provided at FY2010 levels for
most programs under a series of continuing resolutions.
81
Unlike other recent appropriation acts, P.L. 112-10 is not accompanied by a published table and an explanatory
statement indicating congressional intent for program funding levels.
82
U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, “Historic Spending Cuts the Centerpiece for Final Continuing
Resolution (CR) for Fiscal Year 2011,” press release, 112th Congress, April 12, 2011, http://appropriations.house.gov/
index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=285&Month=4&Year=2011.
83
Based on correspondence with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and
Families, Office of Legislative Affairs and Budget, April 2011.
84
Although P.L. 112-10 increased funding for the Children and Families Services account within HHS’s
Administration for Children and Families (which includes Mentoring Children of Prisoners), the increased funds are
available only for the Head Start program. Funding for certain other programs or activities within the Children and
Families account was also decreased or eliminated.
85
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, FY2012 Justification of
Estimates for Appropriations Committee, Children and Families Services Programs, p. 115, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/
programs/olab/budget/2012/cj/CFS.pdf.
78
Congressional Research Service
24
Vulnerable Youth: Federal Mentoring Programs and Issues
(less than six months) mentoring relationships can be detrimental to children, and that grantees
experience “significant loss in financial investment through training, screening and other
elements of the mentoring match process.” It goes on to state that the Administration would
encourage grantees to concentrate on program elements that result in positive mentoring
experiences and outcomes rather than the number of matches. HHS stated that it intends to focus
on identifying and disseminating evidence-based best practices on mentoring relationships.
Table 3. FY2003-FY2010 Appropriated Funding for the
Mentoring Children of Prisoners Program
(dollars in millions)
FY2003
FY2004
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
FY2009
FY2010
$10.0
$49.7
$49.6
$49.5
$49.5
$48.6
$49.3
$49.3
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, 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. FY2011 funding data based
on Department of Defense and Full Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 (P.L. 112-10).
Note: The FY2011 appropriations law (P.L. 112-10) does not reference the Mentoring Children of Prisoners
program;86 however, it is included in a table, provided by the House Appropriations Committee, that shows
programs to be eliminated or reduced in funding. See U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations,
“Historic Spending Cuts the Centerpiece for Final Continuing Resolution (CR) for Fiscal Year 2011,” press
release, 112th Congress, April 12, 2011, http://appropriations.house.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=
PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=285&Month=4&Year=2011.
The MCP site-based program was authorized to receive “such sums as may be necessary” for
each year through FY2011. Funding for the site-based grantees was distributed on a competitive
basis for up to three years. There were 149 site-based grantees in FY2010.87 In recent years, the
amount of the grants ranged from $26,000 to $2 million annually.88 (Some of these organizations
make sub-awards to other organizations for mentoring services.) Grantees were 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.
As required by the reauthorizing legislation (P.L. 109-288), funding could not be awarded to the
national mentoring support organization to distribute the vouchers unless $25 million in program
appropriations was first available for site-based grants. If funding was available, the organization
was to receive up to $5 million in the first year of the cooperative agreement, $10 million in the
86
Unlike other recent appropriation acts, P.L. 112-10 is not accompanied by a published table and an explanatory
statement indicating congressional intent for program funding levels.
87
Ibid., December 2010.
88
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Report to Congress on the Mentoring Children of Prisoners
Program, October 8, 2010, p. 5. (Hereinafter, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Report to Congress on
the Mentoring Children of Prisoners Program, October 8, 2010.).
Congressional Research Service
25
Vulnerable Youth: Federal Mentoring Programs and Issues
second year, and $15 million in the third year. Vouchers of up to $1,000 could be awarded on
behalf of an individual child to be redeemed for mentoring services.89
Funding was appropriated for the voucher component from FY2007 through FY2009. In FY2008,
3,008 vouchers (with FY2007 funds) were distributed; in FY2009, 8,173 vouchers (with FY2008
funds) were distributed; and in FY2010, 6,128 vouchers (with FY2009 funds) were distributed.90
As discussed further below, HHS did not exercise the option to extend funding for the voucher
demonstration beyond these three years.
Program Performance and Oversight
Of all MCP funds, 4% was to be set aside for evaluations, research, and technical assistance
related to site-based and voucher-related mentoring services.91
Reports to Congress and Evaluations
The authorizing legislation (P.L. 107-133) directed HHS to evaluate the site-based program and
submit its findings to Congress by April 15, 2005.92 The reauthorizing legislation (P.L. 109-288)
directed HHS to include the voucher demonstration component as part of the larger evaluation.
P.L. 109-288 also required HHS to submit, within 12 months after the reauthorizing legislation
was passed (i.e., September 28, 2007), a report on the characteristics of the mentoring program, a
plan for implementing the voucher program, a description of the evaluation, and the date that
HHS would submit the final report on the evaluation. The legislation further specified that a
report on the status of the voucher component was 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 was 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 September 2007, HHS submitted a report to Congress that provided an overview of the MCP
program and plans for an evaluation that compares the outcomes of children in the program with
outcomes among groups of similar children.93 In October 2010, HHS submitted two additional
reports—one that addresses the MCP program and evaluation and another that addresses the
voucher demonstration project.94 HHS anticipates that a final report of the evaluation will be
available in December 2013.
89
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Mentoring Children of Prisoners Competitive Grant
Announcement, 2007.
90
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Report to Congress on the Mentoring Children of Prisoners Service
Delivery Demonstration Project, October 8, 2010, p. 7; and based on correspondence with the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Family and Youth Services Bureau, March
2011.
91
The percentage of funds set aside for this purpose was increased from 2.5% to 4% under P.L. 109-288.
92
The law was general and stated that HHS was to “conduct an evaluation of the program and submit to the Congress
not later than April 15, 2005, a report on the findings of the evaluation.”
93
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Report to Congress on the Mentoring Children of Prisoners
Program, September 12, 2007. This report was in response to the reporting requirement under P.L. 107-133.
94
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Report to Congress on the Mentoring Children of Prisoners
Program, October 8 2010; and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Report to Congress on the Mentoring
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
26
Vulnerable Youth: Federal Mentoring Programs and Issues
HHS subcontracted with Abt Associates to conduct process and outcome evaluations of the
mentoring program, including the voucher component. As described in the October 2010 report
that addresses the MCP program, the outcome evaluation of the program began in November
2007. The objectives of the study are to record short-term outcomes related to identity
development, cognitive development, social and emotional development, and relationships with
peers and adults; and long-term measures related to behavioral outcomes, academic outcomes,
and psychological outcomes.95 Youth were surveyed at the beginning of their mentoring
relationship and again 15 months later. 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).96 The major comparison will be the rate of change in risk behaviors or positive outcomes
(the study will not examine whether the MCP program would have made a difference among the
children had they not received mentoring). In addition to surveying youth, HHS (and Abt
Associates) is surveying grantees to assess how the MCP program was carried out, including by
examining the structure of the program; staffing; and strategies for recruiting, screening, training,
and supporting mentors and youth. From this survey, HHS plans to identify and disseminate
promising practices for mentoring programs.
HHS is also evaluating the outcomes of children and grantees participating in the voucher
component of the MCP program (specifically, the first two years of the project)97 to determine
whether the voucher approach provided quality services and whether parents and children had
been given more options and access to mentoring. As part of its October 2010 report to Congress
on the vouchers, HHS described its concerns with the voucher component based on how the
program was carried out in its first two years (FY2008 and FY2009).98 Among other things, the
report noted that the program had been largely unable to locate and engage caregivers of children
of prisoners in the targeted areas (e.g., rural areas); that even as the number of vouchers
distributed met the statutory goals in the law, many went unredeemed (so that no mentoring
occurred); and that the large majority of mentoring matches that were made through vouchers
were not sustained for a full 12 months (meaning they were less likely to have positive effect on
the mentee). Further, MENTOR, Incorporated, had challenges with identifying and recruiting
qualified mentor programs that could provide mentoring services, and mentoring providers found
the application process burdensome. While the statute enables HHS to extend the original
cooperative agreement beyond the initial three years, HHS chose not to do so and as of FY2010
all mentoring grants went to site-based entities.99
(...continued)
Children of Prisoners Service Delivery Demonstration Project, October 8 2010. These reports were in response to the
reporting requirements under P.L. 109-288.
95
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.
96
Carla Herrera et al., Making a Difference in Schools: The Big Brothers Big Sisters School-Based Mentoring Impact
Study, Public/Private Ventures, August 2007. The study uses consistent definitions and other methods to make
comparisons between the groups.
97
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 March 2011.
98
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Report to Congress on the Mentoring Children of Prisoners Service
Delivery Demonstration Project, October 8, 2010.
99
Ibid. See also HHS, Report to Congress on the Mentoring Children of Prisoners Service Delivery Demonstration
Project (sent to relevant committees October 8, 2010).
Congressional Research Service
27
Vulnerable Youth: Federal Mentoring Programs and Issues
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
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.100 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.101
Research
HHS collected 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 allowed 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, among other features of the program. Table A-1, at the end of this report, displays
select demographics and characteristics for youth enrolled in the program in FY2006 through
FY2010, excluding those youth who received a voucher. Among the more notable trends is the
recent decline in the number of mentoring matches, from 42,666 in FY2009 to 28,534 in FY2010
(the number of mentoring matches ranged from 27,525 to 37,380 in each year from FY2006
through FY2008). The share of children spending certain amounts of time with their mentors was
relatively stable across time: about 25% of all mentored children have spent less than 12 hours a
month with their mentors; about 45% have spent 12 to 24 hours per month; and about 25% have
spent more than 24 hours per month (the amount of time was unknown for about 5% of the
mentored children). The number of training hours for mentors before they were matched ranged
from about four to seven hours each year, and the number of training hours for mentors after they
were matched ranged from about two to 4.5 hours annually. The number of days that children
wait to be matched fluctuated over time. In FY2010, children waited about 71 days on average,
compared to about 88 days in FY2009, 53 days in FY2006, and 61 days in FY2008 (data are not
available for FY2007).
In 2006, HHS introduced the Relationship Quality Survey Instrument (RQI) to assess the
dynamics of the mentor/mentored youth relationship. The RQI sought 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 asked 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
100
101
The Mentoring Children of Prisoners Program, Report to Congress, p. 11.
Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
28
Vulnerable Youth: Federal Mentoring Programs and Issues
evidence of trust in the mentoring relationship. According to HHS, the percentage of youth who
respond positively or very positively to the questions increased over time.102
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.103 The agreement was authorized through FY2011. MANY was
responsible for conducting a needs assessment for MCP grantees, and organizing an annual
national conference for all MCP grantees and workshops throughout the year.104 The organization
also conducted site visits and provided 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 allowed 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.105
Finally, HHS staff provided direct assistance to grantees.106 Program specialists assisted grantees
in grant management, service delivery planning, program start-up and implementation, reporting,
and building partnerships. HHS staff monitored grantee activities and oversaw detailed quarterly
narrative and financial information. The staff also facilitated 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
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
102
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Report to Congress on the Mentoring Children of Prisoners
Program, October 8, 2010, pp. 5-6.
103
For further information, see http://members.mcpsupport.com/default.aspx /.
104
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Mentoring Children of Prisoners Training and Technical
Assistance Grant Announcement, June 16, 2008.
105
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.
106
The Mentoring Children of Prisoners Program, Report to Congress, p. 8.
Congressional Research Service
29
Vulnerable Youth: Federal Mentoring Programs and Issues
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).107
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, the No Child Left Behind Act
(P.L. 107-110) reauthorized and amended ESEA, and enacted a school-based mentoring program
under the SDFS program.108
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.109 Generally,
mentored youth in the SDFS Mentoring program were paired with one adult110 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).111 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.112
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,
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.
107
Based on correspondence with the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools, January
2010.
108
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.
109
U.S. Department of Education, “Notice of Final Priorities, Requirements, and Selection Criteria Under the
Mentoring Program,” 69 Federal Register 30794, May 28, 2004. (Hereinafter, U.S. Department of Education, “Notice
of Final Priorities.”)
110
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.
111
GAO, Student Mentoring Programs, p. 17.
112
Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
30
Vulnerable Youth: Federal Mentoring Programs and Issues
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 4 to 8 with greatest need living in rural areas, high-crime areas, or troubled home
environments or who attend schools with violence problems.113 The Department of Education did
not aggregate demographic and other data on youth participants, and therefore, the number and
characteristics of youth that were served by the program are unknown.114
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.115
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.
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
113
U.S. Department of Education, “Notice of Final Priorities.”
Based on correspondence with the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools, October
2007.
115
Based on correspondence with the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools, July 2007.
114
Congressional Research Service
31
Vulnerable Youth: Federal Mentoring Programs and Issues
program was funded through the national grants component.116 The program received about $17
million to $49 million each year since grants were first awarded in FY2002, as shown in Table 4.
For FY2009, 264 continuing grantees were funded and no new grants were awarded.117
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.118 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.119
Also according to the Administration, many other federal programs support mentoring activities.
Table 4. FY2003-FY2009 Appropriated Funding for the Safe and
Drug Free Schools Program
(dollars in millions)
FY2002
FY2003
FY2004
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
FY2009
$17.5
$17.4
$49.7
$49.2
$48.8
$19.0
$48.5
$48.5
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 data 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. 111366.
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
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
116
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.
117
Based on correspondence with U.S. Department of Education, Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools, May 2007.
118
U.S. Department of Education, FY2009 Justifications of Appropriation Estimates, Safe Schools and Citizenship
Education, p. F-30, http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/budget09/justifications/f-ssce.pdf. (Hereinafter, U.S.
Department of Education, FY2009 Justifications of Appropriation Estimates.)
119
U.S. Department of Education, FY2010 Justifications of Appropriation Estimates, Safe Schools and Citizenship
Education, p. G-15, http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/budget10/justifications/g-ssce.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
32
Vulnerable Youth: Federal Mentoring Programs and Issues
program’s grant competition.120 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):121
•
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%.122
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.123 (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 2009.124 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 4 through 8 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 grantees. For
example, the grantees in the study tended to serve more female and minority youth than grantees
generally.
120
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.
122
U.S. Department of Education, FY2009 Justifications of Appropriation Estimates, pp. F-39, F-40.
123
GAO, Student Mentoring Programs.
124
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/.
121
Congressional Research Service
33
Vulnerable Youth: Federal Mentoring Programs and Issues
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,
Incorporated, to operate the Mentoring Program Resource Training and Technical Assistance
Center through FY2009.125 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;
(3) collaborating with other organizations; and (4) planning for program sustainability.126
According to the Department of Education, department staff also provided needed assistance to
grantees.127 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.
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.
125
Based on correspondence with the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools, July 2007
and May 2009.
126
Ibid., October 2007.
127
This process is described in greater detail in GAO, Student Mentoring Programs, pp. 24-26.
Congressional Research Service
34
Vulnerable Youth: Federal Mentoring Programs and Issues
Limitations of Research on Mentoring
A few positive evaluations of mentoring programs may have provided some justification for
federal support of these programs.128 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.129 A recent evaluation of the Big Brothers Big Sisters schoolbased mentoring program found similar 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 shortlived and that mentored youth did not improve in certain areas. Still, these improvements, albeit
temporary and limited to certain outcomes, may be a worthwhile public policy goal.
A related issue is the use of mentoring techniques that have not been evaluated using
experimental design, where youth are randomly selected into control and treatment groups. 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 nonprofit 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 schoolbased mentoring programs should be tasked with improving both 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
128
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. (Hereinafter, Walker, “Youth
Mentoring and Public Policy.”)
129
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.
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. (Hereinafter, Russell, “SchoolBased Mentoring Needs a Friend.”)
Congressional Research Service
35
Vulnerable Youth: Federal Mentoring Programs and Issues
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
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.
A 2010 meta-analysis of three major school-based mentoring programs, including the SDFS
mentoring program, suggests that the effects of these programs are small but are in a range that
“makes their interpretation subject to underlying perspectives and priorities.”137 In other words,
some stakeholders may have reason to be skeptical of the findings, while others may argue that
these findings are promising and should lead to further efforts to improve the programs.
Focusing on Quality of Programs
The number of mentoring programs appears to have grown in recent years, likely due to a variety
of reasons, including federal attention to mentoring as an intervention for at-risk youth and
promising associations between mentoring and multiple outcomes.138 These programs have
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.
135
MENTOR/National Mentoring Partnership, “Elements of Effective Practice in Mentoring,” 2nd ed., 2003.
136
Russell, “School-Based Mentoring Needs a Friend.”
137
Mark E. Wheeler, Thomas E. Keller, David L. DuBois, “Review of Three Recent Randomized Trials of SchoolBased Mentoring: Making Sense of Mixed Findings,” Social Policy Report, vol. 24, no. 3 (2010).
138
DuBois et al., “How Effective Are Mentoring Programs for Youth? A Systematic Assessment of the Evidence,” pp.
59-60.
Congressional Research Service
36
Vulnerable Youth: Federal Mentoring Programs and Issues
different formats and serve specific populations of youth. For example, in FY2011 DOJ provided
funding to mentoring organizations that serve youth with disabilities and youth who are victims
of commercial sexual exploitation.
In light of this perceived expansion, researchers and policymakers caution that administrators
should carefully implement mentoring programs while adhering to core practices of effective
mentoring that have been informed by research (see Figure 1 for select elements of effective
mentoring practices). The Obama Administration stated, as part of its FY2012 proposal to fund
the Mentoring Children of Prisoners program, that it would encourage grantees to concentrate on
program elements that result in positive mentoring experiences and outcomes rather than the
number of matches.139 HHS went on to say that it intended to focus on identifying and
disseminating evidence-based best practices on mentoring relationships. Separately, the
Administration is funding, through FY2011 appropriations for the DOJ mentoring program, a
grant on research of best practices in mentoring. As discussed in Table 2, the grant seeks to
support research that will further the understanding of evidence-based and effective practices in
mentoring programs that serve at-risk youth. The goal is to generate research that has practical
application for these programs.
Gap in Mentoring Services
A 2002 poll by MENTOR, a mentor advocacy group, estimated that 15 million at-risk140 youth
need a mentor.141 Recruiting and retaining volunteers appears to be a major challenge for
mentoring organizations, including those funded through federal mentoring programs.142 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.143 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.144 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.145 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.
139
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, FY2012 Justification of
Estimates for Appropriations Committee, Children and Families Services Programs, p. 115, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/
programs/olab/budget/2012/cj/CFS.pdf.
140
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.
141
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.
142
Astukas and 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. (Hereinafter,
Astukas and Tanti, “Recruiting and Sustaining Volunteer Mentors.”)
143
GAO, Student Mentoring Programs, pp. 20-21.
144
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Report to Congress: The Mentoring Children of Prisoners
Program, September 2007.
145
Arthur Astukas and Chris Tanti, “Recruiting and Sustaining Volunteer Mentors,” pp. 235-249.
Congressional Research Service
37
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.146
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.147
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 DOJ’s focus on youth involved in the foster care or juvenile justice systems and
children with imprisoned parents. 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,148
especially in light of the elimination of the Safe and Drug Free Schools Mentoring program and
Mentoring Children of Prisoners program.
146
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.
148
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
Congressional Research Service
38
Vulnerable Youth: Federal Mentoring Programs and Issues
Appendix. Mentoring Children of
Prisoners Program
Table A-1. Mentoring Children of Prisoners Program: Select Demographics and
Characteristics of Children, Mentors, and Relationships (FY2006-FY2010)
Demographic or Characteristic
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
FY2009
FY2010
27,525
28,256
37,380a
42,666b
28,534
11
10.5
11
11
11
Share of children who were male
45%
43%
45%
47%
45%
Share of mentors who were male
38%
40%
40%
41%
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
981
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
3,026
Average number of days youth was waiting for
a mentor
53
n/a
60.5
87.7
70.6
Share of children with fewer than 12 hours of
regular mentor/youth contact during the past
quarter (i.e., four-month period)
24%
n/a
23%
23%
22%
Share of children with 12 to 24 hours of
regular mentor/youth contact during the past
quarter
22%
n/a
42%
42%
44%
Share of children with more than 24 hours of
regular mentor/youth contact during the past
quarter
32%
n/a
28%
27%
26%
Share of children for whom the frequency or
length of their contacts with mentors is
unknown
22%
n/a
7%
8%
5%
Average number of initial pre-match
training/orientation(s) hours per mentor
5.0
4.1
7.3
7.0
4.5
Average number of hours post-match training
per mentor
4.5
3.4
2.4
2.3
2.6
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
17.1
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 2008,
December 2008, January 2009, and February 2010.
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
39
Vulnerable Youth: Federal Mentoring Programs and Issues
Author Contact Information
Adrienne L. Fernandes-Alcantara
Specialist in Social Policy
afernandes@crs.loc.gov, 7-9005
Congressional Research Service
40