Mentoring Programs Funded by the Federal Government Dedicated to Disadvantaged Youth: Issues and Activities

Mentoring Programs Funded by the Federal Government Dedicated to Disadvantaged Youth: Issues and Activities

Order Code RL32633
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Mentoring Programs Funded by
the Federal Government Dedicated to
Disadvantaged Youth: Issues and Activities
Updated March 20, 2006
Edith Fairman Cooper
Analyst in Social Legislation
Domestic Social Policy Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

Mentoring Programs Funded by the Federal
Government Dedicated to Disadvantaged Youth:
Issues and Activities
Summary
Mentoring is often defined as a relationship maintained between a youth and an
adult who supports, guides, and assists the youth. Federal funding for targeted
mentoring programs has increased in recent years, and the Bush Administration has
indicated that expansion of mentoring services for certain disadvantaged youth is a
priority.
A 2003 report by the White House Task Force for Disadvantaged Youth
identified and listed about 123 federally funded programs under a mentoring heading.
Closer scrutiny of those listed programs, however, revealed that all except three
appeared to be programs that were not solely dedicated to mentoring, but actually
were projects that had mentoring components, or that would allow funding for
mentoring programs, if requested. The federal government appears to fund only three
programs in which mentoring is the primary focus — the Department of Education’s
(ED’s) school-based mentoring project authorized by the Safe and Drug-Free Schools
and Communities Act; the Department of Health and Human Service’s (HHS’s)
Mentoring Children of Prisoners (MCP) program authorized by the Promoting Safe
and Stable Families Act; and the Department of Justice’s (DOJ’s) juvenile mentoring
activities.
The school-based mentoring program is designed to serve disadvantaged middle
school students. For FY2004, the three-year grant program was appropriated $49.7
million; for FY2005, $49.3 million; and $48.8 million for FY2006. The President
has requested $19 million for the program for FY2007.
MCP is designed to nurture children in the nation with one or both parents
incarcerated. In FY2004, $49.7 million was appropriated for the program; for
FY2005, $49.6 million; and for FY2006, $49.5 million. The President has requested
$40 million for MCP for FY2007.
From FY1994 to FY2003, DOJ authorized and funded the Juvenile Mentoring
Program (JUMP) as Part G of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act
(JJDPA, P.L. 93-415, as amended) to provide one-to-one adult mentoring of at-risk
youth. In FY2002, JJDPA was reauthorized, eliminating JUMP and folding
mentoring efforts into a Juvenile Delinquency Prevention Block Grant (JDPBG)
program as Part C of JJDPA. Although Part G was repealed in FY2002, Congress
has continued appropriating Part G funding for DOJ mentoring projects, including
$9.87 million for FY2006. In FY2005, OJJDP proposed a new mentoring project,
“The Mentoring for System Involved Youth Initiative,” to expand existing mentoring
plans/projects designed to help youth involved in the juvenile justice system, and
those in foster care. The President has not requested FY2007 funding for mentoring
under Part G, but has requested $33.4 million for Part C, JDPBG, out of which
mentoring can be funded, and $6.54 million for mentoring demonstration projects.

Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
The White House Task Force Final Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
The Federal Government’s Primary Youth Mentoring Programs . . . . . . . . . 4
The Department of Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
School-Based Mentoring Programs for At-Risk Youth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Program Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Program Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Appropriations and Funding History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Department of Health and Human Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Mentoring Children of Prisoners Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Program Issues and Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Appropriations and Funding History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Department of Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Mentoring Initiative for System Involved Youth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Juvenile Mentoring Program (JUMP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Barriers and Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
JUMP Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Appropriations and Funding History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Mentoring Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Mentoring Legislation in the 109th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Concluding Observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
List of Tables
Table 1. ED Mentoring Program Funding, FY2004 to FY2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Table 2. Mentoring Children of Prisoners Appropriations,
FY2003 to FY2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Table 3. JUMP — Appropriations History, FY1995 to FY2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Mentoring Programs Funded by
the Federal Government Dedicated to
Disadvantaged Youth: Issues and Activities
Introduction
Mentoring is often defined as a relationship maintained between a youth and an
adult who supports, guides, and assists the youth.1 The Department of Justice (DOJ)
has found through program evaluations that mentoring can be a promising approach
to enriching the lives of disadvantaged children and youth by discouraging juvenile
delinquency, improving school attendance and performance, and by providing
positive adult role models.2 The origin of the mentoring concept has been credited
to Ernest K. Coulter, who in 1904 created a movement that was called “big brothers,”
which comprised adult volunteers who reached out to assist and connect with needy
children. The work of those volunteers led to the Big Brothers/Big Sisters of
America (BBBS) program that continues 100 years later — the oldest and largest
mentoring organization in the nation. DOJ notes that BBBS has served over 275,000
youth ages 5 to 18 in 5,000 communities.3 Federal funding for targeted mentoring
programs has increased in recent years, and the Bush Administration has indicated
that expansion of mentoring services for certain disadvantaged youth is a priority.
The White House Task Force Final Report
The White House Task Force for Disadvantaged Youth: Final Report, released
in October 2003, identified and listed about 123 federally funded programs with a
mentoring component,4 and in an Appendix E (Federal Youth-serving Programs with
Type of Service Funded, FY2003) enumerated 10 federal agencies that administered
these programs. Those agencies were the Departments of Agriculture, Defense,
Education, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Interior,
1 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. Since this report was issued, the name of the General Accounting Office was
changed to the Government Accountability Office.
2 Jean Baldwin Grossman and Eileen M. Garry, “Mentoring — A Proven Delinquency
Prevention Strategy,” Juvenile Justice Bulletin, NCJ 164834 (Washington, Apr. 1997), p. 1.
3 “OJJDP Helps Big Brothers Big Sisters Celebrate 100th Anniversary,” OJJDP News @ a
Glance, vol. 3, no. 3, May/June 2004, p. 1 (Hereafter cited as OJJDP News @ a Glance).
4 White House Task Force for Disadvantaged Youth: Final Report, Oct. 2003, Appendix E:
Federal Youth-serving Programs with Type of Service Funded, FY2003, pp. 165-179, at
[http://www.ncfy.com/whreport.htm].

CRS-2
Justice, Labor, Transportation, and the Corporation for National and Community
Service (CNCS). The Task Force’s report noted that “mentoring is the 8th most
frequent activity identified among the 41 types of activity identified in the 339
Federal programs that serve youth.”5 Also, the Task Force observed that many of the
agencies were often unaware of the mentoring activities occurring in their agency or
by other agencies, which many times resulted in duplication of efforts. Furthermore,
this lack of awareness resulted in little coordination or collaboration among the
various agencies, as well as the absence of a single agency with the responsibility to
cultivate and advance “the expertise and knowledge of ‘best practices’ with regard
to mentoring.”6
On May 20, 2004, the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight
held a hearing titled Redundancy and Duplication in Federal Child Welfare
Programs: A Case Study in Executive Branch Reorganization. The concern of the
congressional hearing was that federal funds were being spent on duplicative
programs. In testimony at the hearing, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay stated
that, “... a White House report on disadvantaged youth shows that 339 federal
programs are specifically charged with helping children in one way or another, and
13 federal agencies administer more than 120 different programs that provide for
mentoring alone.”7 Closer scrutiny of the Task Force’s listed programs, however,
revealed that all but three of the programs appeared to be projects that were not solely
dedicated to mentoring, but actually were programs that had mentoring components,
or that would allow funding for mentoring programs, if requested.8
As an example of a federal program that included mentoring activities as a part
of its efforts, the Task Force report briefly discussed the Youth ChalleNGe program
administered by the Department of Defense’s (DOD’s) Army National Guard. This
program assists 16- to 18-year-old school dropouts with enhancing their life skills,
educational attainments, and employment potential through quasi-military training.
After participants experienced five months of a “residential phase,” one year of
mentoring was provided with a trained mentor from the youth’s community.9 The
Task Force report mentioned that the Department of Labor’s (DOL’s) Job Corps
program was similar to the Youth ChalleNGe program.
5 White House Task Force for Disadvantaged Youth: Final Report, p. 40.
6 Ibid.
7 Redundancy and Duplication in Federal Child Welfare Programs: A Case Study in
Executive Branch Reorganization, Hearing before the House Committee on Government
Reform and Oversight, May 20, 2004, p. 2, at [http://reform.house.gov/UploadedFiles/
DeLay%20Exec%20Reorg%20Testimony.pdf], visited Oct. 13, 2004.
8 The author corroborated this assessment of the 123 listed mentoring activities in the White
House Task Force’s final report through telephone discussions with spokesmen at the
Department of Health and Human Service’s Family and Youth Services Bureau on Mar. 31,
2004, DOJ’s Office of Justice Programs and its Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention on Apr. 9, 2004 and May 20, 2004, respectively, and with the National
Mentoring Center at the Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory on June 25, 2004.
9 White House Task Force for Disadvantaged Youth: Final Report, p. 5.

CRS-3
DOL’s Job Corps program is a national predominately residential educational
and vocational training program for at-risk 16- to 24-year-olds that assists such youth
with finding jobs and becoming independent adults.10 Mentoring initiatives are
included in various areas of the Job Corps program. Because of program similarities,
the Task Force recommended that DOD work with DOL to better align the Youth
ChalleNGe program with other DOL-sponsored youth programs such as Job Corps.
Because DOL has over 30 years of experience with employment and training
programs — in particular the nation’s One-Stop Career Center system, created
through the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (which provides jobs and training
services to both youth and adults) — the Task Force suggested that Youth ChalleNGe
might be aligned with and enhanced by DOL’s strategic goals of a prepared and a
competitive workforce.11
The Task Force also recommended that a Federal Interagency Workgroup on
Mentoring (FIWM) be created “to engage in a variety of activities ... that would aid
the coordination and collaboration of all mentoring programs and activities supported
by Federal agencies.”12 Another suggestion was that the FIWM could expand the
federal mentoring program effort by targeting special groups, such as youth in foster
care and migrant youth. In particular, the report mentioned the possibility of mentors
assisting foster care youth at two developmental points — (1) at ages 5 to 17 years
when first entering the child welfare system when a mentor could serve in a big
brother/big sister role, and (2) at age 18 when youth age out of the system and need
some support to transition into independent adulthood. Furthermore, a migrant youth
who comes into the nation from Mexico at the age of 13 and becomes a farm worker
without family support could receive adult guidance provided by a mentor to assist
the youth in seeking a better life and avoiding risky behaviors. A migrant youth who
enters the nation with a family might benefit from an adult mentor to help the youth
reach important educational goals and profitable career paths.13
The Task Force stated that the President indicated his commitment to mentoring
in his 2003 State of the Union address when he announced a three-year mentoring
initiative. The Task Force report points out that the President proposed placing
mentors in the lives of over one million disadvantaged children who are shifting from
childhood to adolescence. His mentoring initiative has two components — (1)
seeking to link mentors with children under 18 years of age who have an incarcerated
parent; and (2) providing mentors for middle school youth to help improve their
academic performances. Those components comprise what appears to be two of
three federal government programs in which mentoring is the primary focus. The
first such program is the school-based mentoring project that is sponsored by the
Department of Education (ED) for disadvantaged middle school students. The
second effort is the Mentoring Children of Prisoners (MCP) program that is managed
10 U. S. Dept. of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, “What is Job Corps?”
at [http://jobcorps.doleta.gov/about.cfm], visited Sept. 30, 2004; and “Mission Statement,”
at [http://jobcorps.doleta.gov/mission.cfm], visited Sept. 30, 2004.
11 White House Task Force for Disadvantaged Youth: Final Report, pp. 34-36.
12 Ibid., p. 5.
13 Ibid., pp. 119-120.

CRS-4
by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The third is the Mentoring
for System Involved Youth Initiative (MISIY) that will replace the repealed Juvenile
Mentoring Program (discussed below). In addition to funding those three mentoring
programs, the federal government also provides earmarked funds for at least 25
primary mentoring efforts throughout the nation that are supported by ED, HHS, and
DOJ. Such programs include the Boys and Girls Club of Philadelphia, PA, Big
Brothers/Big Sisters14 of Greater Pittsburgh, PA, Mentoring Program for Children
Affected by HIV/AIDS in Portland, OR, and several others.
The Federal Government’s Primary Youth Mentoring Programs
On January 30, 2003, President Bush proposed $450 million for a three-year
program initiative to continue and enhance two federal youth mentoring programs.
He suggested $100 million each year (totaling $300 million over three years) to
develop, expand, and strengthen ED’s mentoring program, and $50 million for each
year (totaling $150 million over three years) to focus primarily on assisting more than
100,000 adolescent children of prisoners through HHS’s Mentoring Children of
Prisoners Program. The President’s funding proposals covered fiscal years 2004
through 2006. Funding for each program is discussed below.
In 1992, the Juvenile Mentoring Program (JUMP) was established as DOJ’s
primary mentoring project to provide one-on-one adult mentoring for at-risk youth,
administered through its Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
(OJJDP). Initial funding for the program began in FY1994. In 2002, however,
categorical federal funding for JUMP was eliminated by the reauthorization of the
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA, P.L. 107-273, amended).
Under the 21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act of
2002 (P.L. 107-273), Part G (JUMP) was repealed. Mentoring program activities
were folded into the Juvenile Delinquency Prevention Block Grant (JDPBG)
program. In FY2003, DOJ funded 32 grants for the last JUMP activity.15
Although JUMP was repealed, the Administration expected similar mentoring
efforts to be continued through JDPBG. Despite the Administration’s
recommendation of continued funding for mentoring efforts by way of JDPBG,
Congress did not appropriate funding for the block grant. For FY2005 and FY2006,
however, Congress appropriated funding under the defunct Part G. A new mentoring
initiative (MISIY) has been launched, which, along with program funding, is
discussed below.
14 Since 1998, DOJ has allotted over $23 million in earmarked funding through OJJDP to
the BBBS organization. This funding assistance helps over 200 BBBS local affiliates
provide training, technical assistance, and other support. “OJJDP Helps Big Brothers Big
Sisters Celebrate 100th Anniversary,” OJJDP News @ a Glance, p. 1.
15 “Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Juvenile Mentoring Program
(JUMP) Grant Awardees — FY2003,” at [http://www.ojjdp.ncjrs.org/JUMP/
03grantees.html].

CRS-5
Some of the major common issues of mentoring programs include maintaining
and expanding programs, recruiting volunteers, maintaining funding, and developing
a system to continually assess programs.16
This report discusses the primary federal mentoring programs for disadvantaged
youth that are funded by ED, HHS, and DOJ. Under each agency, the authorization
and the appropriations for the program are provided, and the program’s purpose, how
it works, its issues and activities, and its evaluation information, if available, are
discussed.
The Department of Education
In 1994, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was reauthorized
and amended creating the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act
(SDFSCA). In 2001, the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA) reauthorized and
amended ESEA and SDFSCA as Part A of Title IV — 21st Century Schools (20 U.S.
C. 7101). ED administers SDFSCA through the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and
Communities program, which is the federal government’s major initiative to prevent
drug abuse and violence in and around schools. The program is administered through
the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools (OSDFS). Grants are authorized for state
programs, and for a variety of national programs, to promote school safety and assist
in preventing drug abuse in the nation’s schools. Under SDFSCA’s National
Programs component, funding is authorized for various projects to foster safe and
drug-free school environments for students, and to assist at-risk youth. School-based
mentoring programs are projects designed to assist at-risk youth that were initiated
as a new specific activity under NCLBA.
School-Based Mentoring Programs for At-Risk Youth
Under SDFSCA, the purpose of ED’s mentoring programs is to create and
support mentoring projects and activities to improve the academic achievement of
children with greatest need in middle schools. The statute indicates that when
awarding grants to eligible groups, the ED Secretary must consider among other
things, the quality of the proposed mentoring program, including the degree in which
the program will serve children in grades four through eight, and the degree in which
the program will continue to serve children from grades nine through graduation, if
necessary.17 The mandate defines a child with greatest need as “a child who is at risk
of educational failure, dropping out of school, or involvement in criminal or
delinquent activities, or who lacks strong positive role models.” A mentor is defined
as “a responsible adult, a postsecondary school student, or a secondary school student
16 Contemporary Issues in Mentoring, edited by Jean Baldwin Grossman, June 1999,
Public/Private Ventures Publication, Philadelphia, PA, p. 85, at [http://www.ppv.org/
ppv/publications/assets/37_publication.pdf], visited Mar. 31, 2004.
17 Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as amended, Title IV, Part A, Safe and Drug-
Free Schools and Communities Act, Subpart 2, National Programs, Mentoring Programs,
Section 4130(b)(5)(C)(ii)(IV)(V).

CRS-6
who works with a child.”18 Mentors would assist such students in successfully
making the transition from elementary to secondary school. Under SDFSCA, the
Secretary of Education is authorized to award competitive grants to eligible entities,
that is, local educational agencies (LEAs), non-profit community-based organizations
(CBOs) (which may include faith-based groups), and to partnerships between LEAs
and CBOs to conduct such mentoring programs.
Three-year grants awarded to eligible entities are designed to link children with
greatest need (particularly those who live in rural areas, high-crime areas, stressful
home environments, or children experiencing educational failures), with trained
mentors. Such mentors are screened through appropriate reference checks, child and
domestic abuse record checks, and criminal background checks. They must be
deemed to be interested in working with such children. When awarding grants,
priority must be given to eligible entities that provide adequate service for children
with greatest need who live in rural or high-crime areas, reside in troubled homes, or
attend schools with violence problems. Also, priority is given to entities that provide
high-quality background screening and training of mentors, provide technical
assistance in administering mentoring programs, or to those that propose a school-
based mentoring program.19
Mentors are expected to achieve one or more of several goals with the children.
These include:
! providing general guidance;
! promoting growth in personal and social responsibilities;
! enhancing participation in and abilities to profit from school;
! discouraging illegal use of drugs and alcohol, violent behavior, use
of dangerous weapons, promiscuous behavior, and other criminal,
harmful, or potentially harmful behavior;
! discouraging involvement in gang activities; and
! encouraging youth to set goals and make plans for the future.20
In addition to those ESEA requirements, the Government Accountability Office
(GAO) notes in its report, Student Mentoring Programs: Education’s Monitoring
and Information Sharing Could Be Improved, that ED challenges applicants to meet
goals that are not specified in the ESEA, as amended. Those requirements include
outlining how grantees intend “to achieve performance goals, such as improved
academic achievement among participating children, or reduced incidences of
involvement in gangs, illegal drugs, and alcohol.”21
An April 2000 document of a conference held by the Center for Substance
Abuse Prevention (CSAP), a component of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Services Administration (SAMSHA) within HHS, reports that school-based
18 Ibid., Section 4130(2)(B)(C).
19 Ibid., Section 4130(b)(5).
20 Ibid., Section 4130(b).
21 GAO, Student Mentoring Programs, p. 8.

CRS-7
mentoring programs have an advantage over other mentoring programs22 because of
a readily available group of youth. Also, CSAP suggests that such school-based
programs are advantageous, because the typical adult mentor volunteer can be
recruited, along with adults who are busier than the typical volunteers, as well as
younger high school or college-age student volunteers.23 Another source notes that
primarily school-based efforts appear to provide an advantage for such mentors
logistically. Since school-based mentoring occurs on school grounds in a supervised
setting and youth attendance hopefully is consistent, meeting times do not have to be
coordinated and negotiated with parents, and even the busiest volunteer can meet
regularly at a pre-arranged time with their charge at school. In addition, school
personnel familiar with the students’ lives and situations usually can assist with
easing the process of developing relationships among mentors and youth.24 Usually,
a mentor is matched with a student for an entire school year, and mentoring activities
are scheduled by the student’s teacher or guidance counselor.25
Most school-based mentoring programs focus on improving grades, but also
might help to improve the attitudes of students by increasing their confidence and
sense of achievement. A change in attitude also might be beneficial to resolving
problem areas in a student’s life, such as helping to prevent substance abuse.26
GAO has found that successful student mentoring programs are carefully
planned by grantees who make decisions regarding the number of youth they can
realistically serve, the kinds of services they will offer, and the expected outcomes.
Such grantees develop policies and procedures for screening and training mentors to
ensure their commitment to mentoring and that they understand the needs of the
youth. Successful grantees also create ways to collect data for monitoring and
assessing the programs. Furthermore, GAO noted that grantees who administer
successful student mentoring programs have strategies in place that will sustain the
programs, retain current funding support, and assist in acquiring new financial
22 CSAP reports that other types of youth mentoring programs include formal mentoring,
which is relatively structured and involves long-term relationships between a mentor and
youth; informal mentoring programs, which have no minimum time requirements, nor
involve frequent or regular contact between a mentor and youth; and community-based
mentoring programs that can be run by nonprofit groups, churches, or public social service
agencies. This type program provides a broader range of mentoring options, such as
working with youth at various levels and including various activities like attending movies,
going to the mall, or to the park.
23 “Mentoring Initiatives: An Overview of Youth Mentoring,” A Center for Substance Abuse
Prevention Conference and Meeting Document, Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Services Administration, Apr. 2000, p. 7.
24 Jennifer G. Roffman, Jean E. Rhodes, and Jean B. Grossman, “NAESP: An Overview of
School-Based Mentoring,” Middle Matters, Fall 2002, p. 3, at [http://www.naesp.org/
ContentLoad.do?contentId=529], visited May 21, 2004.
25 Ibid., p. 3.
26 “Mentoring Initiatives: An Overview of Youth Mentoring,” p. 7.

CRS-8
backing. In addition, such grantees make sure that outcomes are evaluated and
findings are widely broadcast.27
Program Issues
As previously stated, some of the major common mentoring program issues
include maintaining and expanding programs, recruiting volunteers, maintaining
funding, and developing a system to continually assess programs. In examining ED’s
school mentoring program, GAO found that as far as maintaining and expanding
programs were concerned, the majority of ED’s student mentoring grantees visited
had five or more years of experience in mentoring youth. Also, they shared other
characteristics, such as having similar program goals and providing “one-to-one”
mentoring. They differed, however, in program design regarding the number and
characteristics of at-risk youth to be served, how much funding was available to
them, and which specific type of at-risk youths they planned to serve.
Regarding program implementation (that is, recruiting volunteers), GAO found
that grantees experienced difficulties recruiting mentors. The problem appeared to
be a greater challenge for newer grantees than among established grantees. The
established grantees indicated that they also had experienced difficulties in recruiting
mentors when they initiated their mentoring programs, but subsequently refined their
programs over the early years and had better success. Additionally, the newer
grantees stated that they benefitted from learning about implementation strategies
from more experienced mentoring program groups.
Funding issues involving how grantees handled mentoring grants could not be
assessed because the mentoring program was relatively new. Instead, GAO
researchers tried to determine whether those same grantees had experienced problems
in handling other ED grant funds received before or near the time that they received
mentoring program funds. How well the new grantees handled previous funds, GAO
theorized, might suggest how the mentoring funds would be managed. After
reviewing all 121 mentoring grantees who had 2001 or 2002 audits, GAO found that
8% had audits indicating problems with cash management and procurement issues.28
Program Evaluation
According to one source, to determine whether a mentoring program is working
or not, measurement should be made of changes in specific outcomes, such as
changes in meaningful relationships of participants and in characteristics of
participating youth.29 In order to receive funding for ED’s mentoring program,
applicants must include in their applications assurances that they will “establish clear,
measurable performance goals; and collect and report to the Department data related
to the established Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) performance
27 GAO, Student Mentoring Programs, pp. 3-4.
28 Ibid., pp. 4-5.
29 Contemporary Issues in Mentoring, p. 7.

CRS-9
measures for the Mentoring Programs grant competition.”30 According to GAO, the
Department of Education does not currently plan to assess the mentoring program’s
outcomes or effectiveness, but is discussing the possibility of doing so. ED requires
individual grantees to provide final evaluation reports at the end of their three-year
grant period. While ED’s evaluation plans were undefined, more established
grantees planned to use student data regarding grades and attendance for reporting
student outcomes. Newer grantees planned to use self-reported data, such as teacher
surveys, to measure outcomes.31
GAO stated that grantees were regularly monitored by ED officials who
contacted them by telephone, examined their performance reports, visited a few of
them annually, and monitored the amount of funds grantees spent. During one such
observation, ED officials discovered that a grantee spent mentoring program funds
before the program was operational. Consequently, that grantee voluntarily gave up
its mentoring grant. Furthermore, GAO found that the Office of Safe and Drug-Free
Schools, which is responsible for monitoring mentoring grants, did not review
grantees’ single audit reports as required. ED’s Office of the Chief Financial Officer
reviewed these reports, but did not share its findings with OSDFS because none of
the findings related to mentoring grants.
To improve the mentoring program and to provide fundamental information
about the operations and outcomes of the program, GAO recommended that ED
“explore ways to facilitate the sharing of successful practices and lessons learned,
ensure that the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools use grantees’ single audit
reports, and undertake a national study of its mentoring program’s outcomes.”32
Appropriations and Funding History
In FY2002, the first year of the ED mentoring program, the agency awarded 117
three-year grants to recipients that included LEAs and CBOs. In FY2003, those
grants were continued with no new grants awarded. In FY2004, 165 new mentoring
grants were awarded.33
As shown below, the President requested $100 million for the mentoring
program in FY2005, which would have been more than a six-fold increase over the
amount appropriated for FY2003. For FY2005, Congress appropriated, however,
$49.307 million for the mentoring program ($0.398 million less than the FY2004
appropriation).34 In FY2005, 90 new mentoring grants were awarded. For FY2006,
the President requested $49.3 million for the program (the same as the FY2005
30 GAO, Student Mentoring Programs, p. 4.
31 Ibid., p. 5.
32 Ibid., pp. 4-5.
33 U.S. Dept. of Education, “Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities: National
Programs, Fiscal Year 2006 Justifications of Appropriation Estimates to Congress, vol. 1,
p. F-30.
34 This figure reflects the 0.80% across-the-board reduction through the FY2005
Consolidated Appropriations Act (P. L. 108-447).

CRS-10
appropriation), to fund 265 continuation awards.35 Congress appropriated $49.3
million, the exact amount of the President’s request for such funding. A required 1%
across-the-board discretionary FY2006 budget reduction, however, slightly lowered
mentoring funding to $48.813 million. For FY2007, the President has requested $19
million for the program to pay continuation costs for mentoring grants awarded in
2005 and 2006, and for supporting related technical assistance. Also, $1 million of
the funds would be used for continuing national evaluations of those projects. As
stated previously, the Administration believes that by the end of FY2007, the
mentoring program will have met its objectives. Therefore, FY2007 is the final year
of a two-year proposed phase-out of the mentoring program.36
Table 1. ED Mentoring Program Funding, FY2004 to FY2007
($ in thousands)
FY2007 Pres. Budget
FY2004
FY2005
FY2006
Request
$49,705
$49,219a
$48,814b
$19,000
Source: Department of Education Fiscal Year 2006 Congressional Action, Nov.1, 2005, p. 7, and
Department of Education Fiscal Year 2007 President’s Budget, Feb. 6, 2006, p. 7.
a. This figure reflects a reprogramming of $1,088,000 from the Mentoring Program to other National
Programs.
b. Reflects a 1% across-the-board rescission required by P. L. 109-148.
Department of Health and Human Services
According to HHS, research data reveals that between 1991 and 1999, the
number of children and youth in the nation who had at least one parent who was
incarcerated in a federal or state correctional facility increased from about 900,000
to 2 million.37 Furthermore, 7% of African American children have an incarcerated
parent, nearly 3% of Hispanic children have an incarcerated parent, while less than
1% of white children have a parent in prison. Research has determined that the long-
term physical absence of a parent has a deep impact upon children who have an
incarcerated parent. Many times such children experience stress, trauma, shame, and
35 U.S. Dept. of Education, “Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities: National
Programs, Fiscal Year 2006 Justifications of Appropriation Estimates to Congress, Vol. 1,
p. F-30.
36 U.S. Dept. of Education, “Fiscal Year 2007 Budget Summary,” Feb. 6, 2006, p. 25, at
[http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/budget07/summary/edlite-section2a.html], and
U.S. Dept. of Education, “Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities: National
Programs, Fiscal Year 2007 Justifications of Appropriation Estimates to Congress, Vol. 1,
p. F-23.
37 U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families,
Family and Youth Services Bureau, “Mentoring Children of Prisoners,” Competitive Grant-
Initial Announcement, p. 3, at [http://www.acf.hhs.gov/grants/pdf/ACYF_FYSB_
Mentoring_Revised_1_28.pdf], visited Apr. 13, 2004.

CRS-11
other problems because their parent is incarcerated. Also, according to HHS,
children whose parent was in prison were more likely to exhibit a broad array of
behavioral, emotional, health, and educational problems. Such children were more
likely to lash out in anger at others, which led to confrontations with law
enforcement. HHS stated that those children were seven times more likely to become
involved in the juvenile justice and adult criminal systems.38
HHS reported that mentoring such children was a “potent force for improving
youth outcomes.” Specifically, HHS noted that mentoring increased the likelihood
of regular school attendance and academic achievement, and decreased the chances
that such children would engage in self-destructive or violent behavior. Furthermore,
HHS stated that “a trusting relationship with a caring adult will provide stability and
often have a profound, life-changing effect on the child. Mentoring provides the
incarcerated parent with the assurance that somebody is there to look after the best
interests of their child.”39
Congress created the Mentoring Children of Prisoners program in order to
provide 100,000 new mentors to children and youth of imprisoned parents.40 The
program is discussed below.
Mentoring Children of Prisoners Program
The Mentoring Children of Prisoners program, which is administered through
HHS’s Family and Youth Services Bureau (FYSB) within the Administration of
Children and Families (ACF), is authorized by the Promoting Safe and Stable
Families Act of 2001 (SSFA, P.L. 107-133), as Section 439 of the Social Security
Act. The purpose of MCP is to provide competitive grants to applicants in urban,
suburban, and rural areas, or tribal populations with significant numbers of children
who have one or both parents incarcerated. The grants are to be used for creating and
operating mentoring programs through a network of public and private entities to
serve such children.41 In FY2003, FYSB began approving grant applications from
communities, faith-based groups, and state and local governments to operate
mentoring activities through MCP.
Under this program, mentoring is defined as “a structured, managed program in
which children are appropriately matched with screened and trained adult volunteers
for one-on-one relationships, involving meetings and activities on a regular basis,
intended to meet, in part, the child’s need for involvement with a caring and
38 Ibid.
39 Ibid., p. 4.
40 U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families,
Family and Youth Services Bureau, Grant Programs — “Mentoring Children of Prisoners
Programs,” at [http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/fysb/mcp.htm], visited July 9, 2004.
41 U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families,
“Mentoring Children of Prisoners Program,” at [http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/fbci/
progs/fbci_mcp.html], visited July 13, 2004.

CRS-12
supportive adult who provides a positive role model.”42 Mentors cannot be paid for
their participation, except for reimbursement for incidental expenses, such as
mileage, food, and other such activities related to mentoring. Any requests for such
compensations are considered on a case-by-case basis.43 Children must be 4 to 15
years old when they begin receiving MCP program services.44
Eligible applicants include any state or local government unit, federally
recognized American tribal governments, Native American tribal groups (other than
federally recognized tribal governments), private nonprofit organizations, plus
community and faith-based groups. Grant recipients can recruit mentors from a
variety of places, including the child’s family and community, church congregations,
religious non-profit groups, community-based groups, service organizations, Senior
Corps, and from the business community.45
Grantees must find mentors who can commit at least one hour per week for one
year to spend with their assigned child; conduct extensive screening of mentors by
providing suitable reference and criminal background checks, plus child and
domestic abuse records checks to ensure the child’s safety; train mentors by requiring
them to attend an orientation and training session in mentoring skills and in the
practice of mentoring before being assigned to a young person; provide continuing
monitoring of mentors through ongoing support and oversight to ensure that mentees
are benefitting from the mentor match; and evaluate mentoring outcomes by
measuring such factors as the youth’s academic achievements and escape from risky
and unacceptable behaviors.46
MCP projects must cultivate the components of positive youth development by
providing youth with “safe and trusting relationships; healthy messages about life
and social behavior; guidance from a positive adult role model; increased and
enhanced participation in education for positive outcomes”; and by encouraging
youth to take part in civic service and community activities.47 Furthermore, MCP
projects should “coordinate with partnering groups to develop a plan for the whole
family.” This effort could be accomplished by getting the youth connected with the
incarcerated parent with the permission of the other parent or guardian; coordinating
services that support the youth’s siblings and other family members; and supporting
caregivers by providing training and assistance with using the services provided
through the mentoring network.48
42 Social Security Act, as amended, Section 439(b)(2).
43 Discussed in a telephone conversation with a spokesman in HHS’s Administration for
Children and Families’ Office of Legislative Affairs, Sept. 7, 2004.
44 “Mentoring Children of Prisoners,” Competitive Grant-Initial Announcement, p. 6.
45 Ibid., p. 4.
46 Grant Programs — “Mentoring Children of Prisoners,” p. 2.
47 “Mentoring Children of Prisoners,” Competitive Grant — Initial Announcement, p. 8.
48 Ibid., p. 8.

CRS-13
Program Issues and Evaluation
The MCP program began functioning on September 30, 2003. The mandate
required the HHS Secretary to conduct an evaluation of the program and submit its
findings to Congress no later than April 15, 2005.49 According to a HHS spokesman,
the required evaluation report is forthcoming. Data collection for the evaluation
began during the second year of the program. Grantees provided reports for the first
two quarters of operation. Updated information since the first two quarters of MCP’s
operation was provided by grantees, and is being included in the required evaluation
report that will be submitted to Congress.50 At the time of this writing, the report is
being updated to reflect the more timely data.51
In the early stages of the program, HHS observed that three type of grantees
were being funded — (1) new grantee groups that were in start-up mode, that is, in
the planning and organizing stages; (2) grantees that were just beginning to serve
youth with mentors; and (3) grantees with viable programs that began serving youth
with mentors right away.
Some general trends regarding the first two quarters of operation indicated that
about 1,300 youth were being served nationwide, with a comparable number of
mentors, although some mentors were serving more than one youth.52 Also,
according to Harry Wilson, the Associate Commissioner of FYSB, grantees
experienced more problems than expected with recruiting and retaining program
volunteers. Volunteers often encountered challenges in dealing with the children,
who in many cases had attachment disorders, as well as with their caregivers who
experienced stress in part because of the incarceration of the spouse. Surprisingly,
however, grantees reported few problems with the attitudes of the inmates regarding
their children’s participation in the program. Wilson explained that the main
difficulty expected was that incarcerated parents might resent or be hostile toward the
volunteer mentors. So far, however, this concern has not become an issue. Parents
he spoke with who had recently been released from prison had very positive attitudes
and were grateful that their children had access to the program. Also, they often
wanted the mentor to continue the relationship.53
49 Social Security Act, as amended, Section 439(g).
50 Discussed in a telephone conversation with a spokesman in ACF’s Office of Legislative
Affairs and Budget, April 12, 2005.
51 Discussed in a telephone conversation with a spokesman in ACF’s Family and Youth
Services Bureau, March 15, 2006.
52 Information provided and discussed in a telephone conversation with a spokesman in
ACF’s Office of Legislative Affairs and Budget, Sept. 8, 2004.
53 “‘Mentoring Children of Prisoners’ Gears Up for Its Second Full Year,” Child Protection
Report, Aug. 26, 2004, pp. 131-132.

CRS-14
Appropriations and Funding History
As previously stated, MCP awards are made for a three-year funding period.
Funds awarded for the second and third years, however, depend on the grantees’
performance during the first year of the award and the availability of funds. In
FY2003, the first year for MCP grant awards, 52 mentoring program grants totaling
$9.93 million were awarded to urban, suburban, rural, and tribal grantees. For
FY2004, Congress appropriated $49.7 million for the program. HHS reported in
August 2004, that 169 new MCP grants had been awarded and funding was provided
to continue FY2003 grants, for a total of $45.6 million.54 Louisiana’s Volunteers of
America, Florida’s Anchorage Children’s Home, and Michigan’s Big Brothers/Big
Sisters groups were some of the 164 recipients selected by HHS’s Administration for
Children and Families to receive new MCP grant awards totaling $35 million. In
addition, five tribal grantees would receive new awards totaling $1.7 million for
MCP projects, and $8.9 million would be awarded to continue the second year of 52
mentoring programs.55 For FY2005, Congress appropriated $49.6 million for MCP,
and for FY2006, $49.5 million. There were no new grants awarded in FY2005, but
an estimated 47 new grants will be awarded in FY2006, and approximately 138
awards are anticipated for FY2007.56 The President has requested $40 million for
MCP grants for FY2007.
There is a 75% federal share for MCP grants for the first and second fiscal years
of the program, and a 50% federal share for the third year. Grantees must provide at
least a 25% non-federal share or match of the total project budget for the first two
fiscal years, and at least 50% for the third year. The non-federal share of the project
costs may be in cash or in kind, but applicants are encouraged to provide cash
contributions.57
Table 2 shows an appropriations history for MCP.
54 “President Announces Mentoring Grants for Children of Prisoners: $46 Million for
Program of Compassion,” HHS Release, Aug. 3, 2004.
55 Ibid.
56 Information received in an email from a HHS spokesman in ACF’s Office of Legislative
Affairs and Budget, Division of Budget, March 16, 2006.
57 “Mentoring Children of Prisoners,” Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, pp. 1278-
1279, para. 93.616, at [http://12.46.245.173/CFDA/pdf/catalog.pdf].

CRS-15
Table 2. Mentoring Children of Prisoners Appropriations,
FY2003 to FY2007
($ in millions)
FY2007 Pres.
FY2003
FY2004
FY2005
FY2006
Budget Req.
$9.93
$49.7
$49.6a
$49.5b
$40.0
Source: HHS, Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Office of Legislative Affairs and
Budget, April 1, 2005, and HHS, ACF, Fiscal Year 2007 Justification of Estimates for
Appropriations Committees, p. D-57.
a. This figure reflects the 0.80% across-the-board reduction through the FY2005 Consolidated
Appropriations Act.
b. Reflects a 1% across-the-board rescission required by P. L. 109-148.
Department of Justice
Congress authorized the Juvenile Mentoring Program until FY2003, as
previously stated. Through the reauthorization of JJDPA, under the 21st Century
Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act of 2002, Congress
consolidated seven previously independent DOJ programs into one prevention block
grant.58 This action, which was effective in October 2003, incorporated JUMP’s
mentoring program function into the Juvenile Delinquency Prevention Block Grant
(Part C), a state formula program.59 To date, Congress has not appropriated funding
for JDPBG, but has continued to provide funding for mentoring under the defunct
Part G of JJDPA, even though the Administration has requested no further funding
under this authority. Although JUMP was repealed, the Administration expected
similar mentoring efforts to be continued through the block grant.60
The new OJJDP mentoring activity, entitled the Mentoring Initiative for System
Involved Youth, and JUMP, is discussed below.
Mentoring Initiative for System Involved Youth
For FY2005, OJJDP proposed a new juvenile mentoring project, the Mentoring
Initiative for System Involved Youth, that would provide funds to faith- and
community-based nonprofit and for-profit agencies to expand and improve existing
mentoring plans/projects designed to help youth involved in the juvenile justice
system, reentry youth, and those in foster care. Competitive grants of up to $400,000
58 See CRS Report RS22070, Juvenile Justice: Overview of Legislative History and Funding
Trends.
59 “Juvenile Mentoring Program: Legislation,” at [http://www.ojjdp.ncjrs.org/jump/
leg.html].
60 Discussed in a telephone conversation with a spokesman in DOJ’s Office of Justice
Program’s Congressional Affairs Office, March 14, 2006.

CRS-16
each year for four years will be awarded to four sites. The initiative seeks to
encourage community organizations and agencies that are committed to backing
mentoring services for such youth. The goal of the program is to locate effective
mentoring programs and find out which ones could be enhanced and enlarged to use
with system involved teens.61 The OJJDP deadline for MISIY grant applications is
April 17, 2006.
Juvenile Mentoring Program (JUMP)
In the 1992 reauthorization of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
Act of 1974, Congress added Part G — Mentoring, and created the Juvenile
Mentoring Program. JUMP was administered through OJJDP, a component of the
Office of Justice Programs within DOJ. By providing mentors for at-risk children
and youth from ages five to 20, the program’s objectives were to reduce juvenile
delinquent behavior including substance abuse and gang involvement; improve
scholastic performance; and reduce the likelihood that such youth would drop out of
school. JUMP defined a mentor as “an adult, 18 years or older, who works with an
at-risk youth on a one-to-one basis, establishes a supportive relationship with the
youth and provides the youth with academic assistance and exposure to new
experiences which enhance the youth’s ability to become a responsible citizen.”62
Mentors could not be compensated, except for reimbursement for incidental
expenses, and they had to pass a criminal background check.
JJDPA authorized the OJJDP Administrator to make grants to and enter into
contracts with LEAs that were in partnership and collaborating with public/private
nonprofit agencies, institutions, or businesses, and to create and support programs
and activities that implemented mentoring programs.63 Such programs were to be
designed to link at-risk children, especially those living in high crime areas and
experiencing educational failures, with responsible adults (such as law enforcement
officers, fire department personnel, college students, senior citizens, federal
employees, persons working with local businesses, persons working for community-
based groups and agencies, as well as other private citizens). Therefore, it was not
uncommon for JUMP funds to be used for school-based mentoring programs by an
established mentoring agency that had provided community-based mentoring projects
61 U.S. Dept. of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention, “Mentoring Initiative for System Involved Youth,” at
[http://www.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/grants/solicitations/06mentoringinitiative.pdf].
62 Jean Baldwin Grossman and Eileen M. Garry, “Mentoring — A Proven Delinquency
Prevention Strategy,” Juvenile Justice Bulletin, Apr. 1997, p. 2.
63 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities,
Compilation of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 and Related
Provisions of Law, as Amended through Dec. 31, 1994, committee print, 104th Cong., 1st
sess. (Washington, GPO, 1995), 49.

CRS-17
for a number of years.64 JUMP was to accomplish one or more of the following
goals:
! providing basic guidance to at-risk youth;
! encouraging personal and social responsibility among such youth;
! enhancing interests, participation in, and benefits from elementary
and secondary school;
! discouraging criminal behavior, such as illegal drug use, getting
involved in violence and using dangerous weapons;
! discouraging gang involvement; and
! encouraging participation in community service and activities.
Three-year65 grants were awarded for JUMP projects with the specific goal of
grantees becoming self-sustaining by acquiring funding from other sources. Grant
recipients ranged in size from small groups with mentoring as their primary focus,
to larger groups with mentoring as one component of several services offered to at-
risk children and their families. Some JUMP projects focused on specific genders
while others targeted such populations as teen parents, youth involved in court cases,
those who lived in residential facilities, and those returning to community life from
juvenile facilities.66
The youth mentored by JUMP were the median age of 12 years old, half were
African Americans, although other participants were white, Latino, Asian American
or Native Americans. Most mentors were females (61%, ranging in age from 18- to-
87 years old with a median age of 32 years) who were college graduates and
employed. The majority of the youth/mentor matches lasted for one year or less,
while some matches lasted as long as two years or more. Most of the matches were
with persons of the same gender, however, when cross-gender matchers were made,
they usually were female mentors matched with male youth. Sixty-two percent of the
youth were matched with mentors of the same race or ethnic group, while 38% of the
youth were paired with someone of a different race or ethnic group.67
As noted earlier, JUMP, which was authorized under Part G of the JJDPA, was
repealed by the amendments of 2002 with the expectation that mentoring activities
64 Laurence C. Novotney, Elizabeth Mertinko, James Lange, Tim Falb and Hilary Kirk,
Juvenile Mentoring Program (JUMP): Early Evaluation Results Suggest Promise of
Benefits for Youth, Information Technology International, Potomac, MD, May 2002, p. 4,
[http://www.itiincorporated.com/Assets/pdf%20files/Bulletin.pdf], visited Oct. 13, 2004.
(Hereafter cited as Novotney et al., “Juvenile Mentoring Program.”)
65 According to a spokesman in DOJ’s Office of Justice Program’s Congressional Affairs
Office, grants were funded only for two years with $100,000 awarded to each grantee.
Discussed in a telephone conversation on March 14, 2006.
66 U.S. Dept. of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention, “Mentoring Makes a Difference,” OJJDP News @ a Glance, vol.
2, no. 6, Nov./Dec. 2003, p. 1.
67 Jump Annual Report, 2003, “Introduction,” Information Technology International, Inc.,
2003, at [http://www.itiincorporated.com], visited Sept. 10, 2004.

CRS-18
would be conducted through the newly created Juvenile Delinquency Prevention
Block Grant.
Barriers and Solutions
In DOJ’s Juvenile Mentoring Program: 1998 Report to Congress (hereafter
referred to as The 1998 Report to Congress), several unanticipated barriers were
presented that JUMP grantees experienced. The information was obtained from
regularly submitted grantee progress reports and personal conversations with project
staff. The most prominent barriers were grouped into five major categories — (1)
unrealistic project goals, (2) inadequate staff and volunteer resources, (3) lengthy and
cumbersome screening procedures, (4) insufficient community support, and (5) lack
of adequate parental involvement. DOJ analysts believed the barriers were
effectively addressed by grantees and discussed what they termed “solutions” to the
barriers.68
A few examples of barriers and solutions DOJ analysts mentioned were:69
! Barrier: There were not enough mentors to meet the demand of
youth desiring mentors. Solution: The service goals and eligibility
criteria for mentees were redefined, and the pool from which
mentors were recruited was expanded.
! Barrier: One individual served as the only full-time paid staff
member for a program, and found it to be an impossible task.
Solution: Volunteer help was recruited to assist with some of the
administrative tasks.
! Barrier: Some community organizations that wanted the mentoring
program failed to provide tangible support for the program.
Solution: Through outreach efforts, grantees educated community
groups regarding their specific program needs and how their
community support would help a youth. Grantees also realized that
this type of communication had to be an ongoing effort.
JUMP Evaluation
The 1998 Report to Congress stated that one of the positive aspects of JUMP
was the willingness of project staff to share their experiences and what they had
learned with their immediate colleagues, as well as with staff involved in a different
JUMP project. Regarding this program quality, the report stated that, “This peer
support ... has maximized opportunities for mentoring project success and for
68 U.S. Dept. of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention, “Juvenile Mentoring Program: 1998 Report to Congress,” Shay
Bilchik, Administrator, Dec. 1998, pp. 19-20.
69 Ibid.

CRS-19
strengthening the protective factors that help shield youth from the many risks in
their lives.”70
In 1997, OJJDP began an ongoing evaluation of JUMP to determine whether its
goals to improve academic performance and school attendance of youth through
mentoring efforts were actually being met, as well as whether delinquency and gang
participation among the youth were declining. The continuing evaluation effort was
conducted by Information Technology International (ITI), which encouraged grantees
to use various tools to collect data for the national evaluation. One such ITI tool that
was developed and distributed to each grantee was an automated data collection
system called the JUMP Management Information System (JUMP MIS). Although
JUMP received final funding in FY2003 for projects through FY2006, it is assumed
that via the JUMP MIS database program, grantees continue to gather and report data
about youth participants and mentor/youth match information for the national
evaluation. Also, grantees use a standardized risk screening tool called the Problem
Oriented Screening Instrument for Teenagers (POSIT).71 POSIT is administered to
JUMP participants who are 12 years and older when they begin the program, on the
six-month anniversary of their mentoring match, and when they conclude the project.
Additional information is provided through structured telephone interviews with
project staff, on-site visits, and quarterly written reports.
Early in the JUMP program, volunteer mentors had to be at least 21 years of age
at the time that they began participating as mentors. OJJDP lowered the minimum
age for JUMP mentors to 18 years after grantees reported problems with recruiting
mentors within specific populations, particularly in colleges and universities.
Because of the minimum mentor age change, younger mentors had to undergo
additional training and support in working with JUMP mentees in order to ensure the
greatest probability of success.72
In 2000, the contracted JUMP evaluators for OJJDP reported that some early
evaluation results indicated that both youth and mentors viewed their experiences as
positive. Participants were asked to respond with “a little, a lot, or not at all,”
regarding whether they felt that their mentoring relationship helped the youth receive
better grades, attend all classes, refrain from drinking alcohol or using drugs, avoid
fights, stay out of gangs, refrain from using knives or guns, avoid friends who were
troublemakers, and get along with family members. The evaluators found that “both
youth and mentors were very positive when rating various aspects of their mentoring
experiences, although perceptions of their relationships did not correspond
completely.”73 For example, how mentors and the youth were matched appeared to
70 “Juvenile Mentoring Program: 1998 Report to Congress,” p. 22.
71 POSIT is a tool that initially was developed by the National Institute on Drug Abuse and
adapted for use in JUMP’s evaluation.
72 Laurence C. Novotney, et al., “Juvenile Mentoring Program: Early Evaluation Results
Suggest Promise of Benefits for Youth,” pp. 3-4.
73 Laurence C. Novotney, Elizabeth Mertinko, James Lange, and Tara Kelley Baker,
“Juvenile Mentoring Program: A Progress Review,” OJJDP Juvenile Justice Bulletin, Sept.
(continued...)

CRS-20
affect how the benefits of mentoring were perceived. The boys who were matched
with female mentors reported that they liked their mentors and felt that they were
understood by them to the same degree as those youth who were paired with male
mentors. On the other hand, boys paired with male mentors indicated that they
received greater benefits regarding avoiding drug use and gang activity than did the
boys paired with female mentors. Furthermore, results indicated that there were
marginally significant differences in reports that mentoring helped deter youth from
alcohol and weapons use. In particular, female mentors paired with boys reported
that they noticed significantly less improvement than their male counterparts in the
boys avoiding alcohol and drugs, fights, gang activity, knives or guns, and staying
away from friends who started trouble.74
When youth and mentors were of different races or ethnic groups, mentors
reported significantly less improvement in all of the areas mentioned above, as well
as in school attendance. Mentors who were paired with youth of the same racial or
ethnic background stated that they believed they understood their charges better than
those mentors who were involved in cross-race matches. The evaluators concluded
that
The benefit of cross-race and cross-gender matches to youth is an important area
for further study. However, it is important to bear in mind that self-report data
are subject to various influences that can affect the data’s validity; therefore,
research using more objective measures is needed. In addition, more
sophisticated research designs and analyses are needed to control for potentially
confounding variables.75
The evaluators found that while the national evaluation was beginning to answer
overall questions about JUMP, project-level evaluations were encouraged because
they would answer questions related to specific internal operations. Such
evaluations, they noted, were particularly significant for mentoring programs because
of the unique nature of such projects as an intervention. Also, they found that
because mentoring relationships were personal, they varied widely from one match
to another, and likewise mentoring projects varied greatly from one another.
Additionally, they noted that relatively little mentoring research was available.
Therefore, it was important that continuing self-evaluations be integrated into project
activities.76 Overall, the evaluators concluded that
Through JUMP, OJJDP not only has helped communities to establish mentoring
projects that serve youth directly but also has supported research to enhance
understanding of the dynamics of mentoring relationships. Knowledge obtained
73 (...continued)
2000, NCJ 182209, p. 5.
74 Ibid.
75 Ibid.
76 Ibid., pp. 5-6.

CRS-21
from the JUMP national evaluation will help future mentoring projects provide
effective, pragmatic services to the Nation’s youth.77
A 2002 JUMP evaluation report noted that in exit questionnaires for youth and
adult mentors asking how beneficial they felt the mentoring relationship had been in
nine areas, the youth reported higher levels of perceived benefits than the adult
mentors.78 The nine areas included “getting better grades, attendance in class, staying
away from alcohol, staying away from drugs, avoiding fights, staying away from
gangs, not using knives or guns, avoiding friends starting trouble, and getting along
with family.”79 A larger percentage of youth than mentors reported that they had
been helped significantly in all areas, indicating a very positive response to the
experience of being mentored. Only 59% of the youth, however, reported that they
too would like to become mentors one day, while 41% indicated less enthusiasm, by
answering “only a little” or “not very much” would they desire to do so. In the same
manner, 61% of the mentors indicated that they believed that other adults would also
want to become mentors by answering, “pretty much” or “a lot.”80
A fundamental goal of JUMP was to provide communities across the nation
with the means of introducing the idea of mentoring to new populations. With this
goal in mind, OJJDP provided JUMP funds to support a larger number of grantees
for a limited time frame instead of providing longer continuing support for a smaller
number of programs. The evaluators reported that it was believed that a significant
measure of a program’s success would be the number of projects that could be
continued after JUMP grant funds had been spent.81 Of the now completed 1995 and
1997 JUMP grant projects (totaling 93 project grantees, that is, 41 and 52 for each
year respectively), 77% of grantees reported during exit interviews that JUMP
projects would continue through funding from various other sources. In contrast, 14
JUMP projects would not be continued after the grant ended. More than half of those
14 grantees indicated that they could not continue the projects primarily because of
a lack of financial resources.82 The fate of the projects of other JUMP grantees
within the remaining 23% of those given exit interviews was not disclosed.
The 2002 JUMP evaluation researchers concluded that
In general, agencies that begin planning for the financial futures of their projects
early are more likely to secure necessary resources to continue projects after
JUMP funds end. Many, however, do not explore funding sources and prepare
grant applications in a timely fashion, which leaves them without resources at the
end of the JUMP grant. One of the most common requests for technical
assistance is in the identification of potential funding sources, preparation of
77 Ibid., p. 8.
78 Novotney, et al., “Juvenile Mentoring Program,” pp. 8-9.
79 Ibid., p. 9.
80 Ibid.
81 Ibid., p. 6.
82 Ibid.

CRS-22
grant applications, and linking with local funding sources including State, city
and county funds.83
A Jump Annual Report, 2003 was released by the JUMP evaluators regarding
the outcome of the national evaluation effort. Since JUMP still has active projects
underway through FY2006, a large volume of data has not yet been collected.
Preliminary national evaluation findings of the evaluators are quoted as follows:84
! “Our aggregated analysis of the youth-level gain scores show
significant reductions in risk on three domains: aggressive
behavior/delinquency, peer relationships, and mental health”;
! “A meta-analytic look at project-level gain scores also indicates that
youth in many projects have shown small, but statistically
significant, reductions in their risk of aggressive
behavior/delinquency, peer relationships, and mental health between
pre-test and post-test. On average, risk did not significantly worsen
on the other three domains examined-substance abuse, family
relationships and educational status”;
! “Half of JUMP matches have ended within seven months, and 17%
of matches have ended within 90 days. The broader research
literature on mentoring is beginning to suggest that short-lived
mentoring relationships (i.e., those lasting less than three months)
may have detrimental effects on youth”;
! “We found no evidence that cross-sex or cross-race matches have
been shorter-lived than same-sex or same-race matches”;
! “Most projects do not comply fully with the reporting requirements
of the national evaluation. Non-compliance in three areas has been
especially detrimental: (1) administration of the POSIT risk survey
at pre-test and post-test, (2) reporting of match end dates and (3)
reporting on meetings between matched mentors and youth.”
The national evaluation contractors noted that they could not conclude that
JUMP had or had not reduced the risk behavior of participating youth. The national
evaluation design would not support such broad and causal deductions about the
program’s effectiveness.85
Appropriations and Funding History
From FY1994 through FY2003, Congress appropriated $104 million for JUMP.
During this time period, the program awarded 299 total grants across the nation, and
provided over 9,200 youth with mentors.86 Another source indicates that 17,000
83 Ibid.
84 Jump Annual Report, 2003, “Conclusions,” Information Technology International, Inc.,
2003, at [http://www.itiincorporated.com], visited Sept. 10, 2004.
85 Ibid.
86 Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, “Coach a Kid in the Game of Life
(continued...)

CRS-23
youth have been served by JUMP across the nation.87 Irrespective of the correct
number of youth mentored, JUMP funds were awarded to groups in 48 states, the
District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.88
Table 3 provides a history of JUMP appropriations.
Table 3. JUMP — Appropriations History, FY1995 to FY2003
($ in millions)
Fiscal year
Appropriation
1994
$4.0
1995
$4.0
1996
$4.0
1997
$7.0
1998
$12.0
1999
$12.0
2000
$13.5
2001
$15.9
2002
$15.9
2003a
$15.8
Source: U.S. Dept. of Justice, Office of Juvenile Programs, Office of Communications, May 21, 2004.
a. Last official year of funding.
Mentoring Funding
Although the JUMP program was discontinued after FY2003 and no funding
was provided in FY2004, Congress appropriated $14.8 million for mentoring projects
in FY2005 under the defunct Part G. A portion of those funds (that is, $6.9 million)
was awarded to the Big Brothers/Big Sisters Program, and the remaining $7.9 million
was used for other earmarked mentoring activities.89 For FY2006, Congress
appropriated $9.87 million for mentoring efforts, again under Part G. Of that
amount, $6.9 million will be used for the Big Brothers/Big Sisters program. The
86 (...continued)
... Be a Mentor,” at [http://www.ojjdp.ncjrs.org/mentoring/index.html], visited Apr. 1, 2004.
87 Jump Annual Report, 2003, “Introduction,” Information Technology International, Inc.,
2003, at [http://www.itiincorporated.com], visited Sept. 10, 2004.
88 Novotney, et al., “Juvenile Mentoring Program,” p. 1.
89 U.S. Dept. Of Justice, 2007 Congressional Authorization & Budget Submission, p. 149.

CRS-24
remaining amount will be used for MISIY grants, mentoring earmarks, and other
demonstration projects.90
For FY2007, the President has not requested funding for mentoring under Part
G, which has been his practice since FY2004. The President did request $33.4
million for Part C, the Juvenile Delinquency Prevention Block Grant, for FY2007,
out of which mentoring activities can be funded. In addition, the Administration has
requested $6.54 million under Part E (Developing, Testing, and Demonstrating
Promising New Initiatives and Programs) to carry out mentoring demonstration
projects.91
Mentoring Legislation in the 109th Congress
Thus far in the 109th Congress, two bills have been introduced that specifically
pertain to mentoring children and youth. H.R. 822, the Foster Care Mentoring Act
of 2005, was introduced by Representative Millender-McDonald on February 15,
2005, and a related bill, S. 1343, was introduced by Senator Landrieu on June 30,
2005. The measures would amend Title IV Part B (Child-Welfare Services) of the
Social Security Act and direct the Secretary of HHS to award grants to states to
support establishing or expanding and operating programs using networks of public
and private community groups to provide mentoring for children in foster care. The
bill was referred to the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Human Resources,
the House Education and the Workforce Subcommittee on 21st Century
Competitiveness, and the Senate Finance Committee, respectively. No further action
has occurred.
Resolutions have been introduced — H.Res. 46 on January 25, 2005, by
Representative Osborne (identical to S.Res. 20, introduced by Senator Kennedy on
January 26, 2005) to support the goals and ideals of National Mentoring Month
(designated as January 2005 by S.Res. 20); and H.Con.Res. 41 on February 1, 2005,
by Representative Schiff (identical to S.Con.Res. 9, introduced by Senator Ensign on
February 2, 2005), which recognizes the second century of Big Brothers Big Sisters
and supports its mission and goals. H.Res. 46 was passed and agreed to in the House
(414-0) on February 8, 2005, while the remaining resolutions were referred to the
appropriate committees. No further action has occurred. On January 27, 2006, S.
Res.357, introduced by Senator McCain, proclaimed January 2006 as “National
Mentoring Month.” After being referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, no
further action has occurred.
Concluding Observations
The ED school-based mentoring program and HHS’s Mentoring Children of
Prisoners program serving disadvantaged youth are in early stages of existence.
Whether they will be effective and/or considered successful remains to be seen. The
90 Discussed in a telephone conversation with a spokesman in DOJ’s Office of Justice
Program’s Congressional Affairs Office, March 16, 2006.
91 Ibid., and 2007 Congressional Authorization & Budget Submission, p. 141.

CRS-25
President has proposed placing mentors in the lives of over one million
disadvantaged children shifting from childhood to adolescence. It is questionable
whether such a desire is realistic since one of the concerns that has emerged from
early assessments of MCP and was mentioned as a JUMP barrier is the problem with
recruiting and retaining program volunteers.
Since JJDPA authorized grants for mentoring programs to achieve only one of
six specific goals (as discussed above) from a national evaluation of the now defunct
JUMP, it appears that the program did meet that requirement. The first goal, to
provide basic guidance to at-risk youth, appears to have been achieved by virtue of
a grantee establishing a JUMP project. According to OJJDP evaluators, however,
data regarding the three more prominent mentoring goals set forth by JJDPA —
helping youth to improve academically, reducing the drop-out rate, and reducing
juvenile delinquency and involvement in gangs — were not readily available and
were difficult to collect. Not all grantees were able to participate in the national
evaluation because of difficulties in collecting the necessary data. This difficulty
might be an important evaluation issue that needs to be addressed.92
92 Discussed in a telephone conversation with a spokesman at Information Technology
International (the group that supports JUMP’s national evaluation funded by DOJ/OJJDP)
on Sept. 10, 2004.