Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

JUVENILE

MENTORING

PROGRAM

1998 Report to Congress

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

OFF ICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS

BJA NI J OJJDP BJS OVC
1998 REPORT TO CONGRESS

JUVENILE MENTORING PROGRAM

(JUMP)

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 as

Amended in 1992 (Pub. L. 93-415: 42 U.S.C. 5667e et seq.)

Shay Bilchik, Administrator

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

December 1998
U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

810 Seventh Street NW.

Washington, DC 20531

Janet Reno

Attorney General

Raymond C. Fisher

Associate Attorney General

Laurie Robinson

Assistant Attorney General

Shay Bilchik

Administrator

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

This report was prepared under grant number 97-JN-FX-0003 and 98-JG-FX-0002 funded by the

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice.

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention is a component of the Office of

Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau of Justice

Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, and the Office for Victims of Crime.
Foreword i

FOREWORD

A positive bond between a developing child and a nurturing adult pays rich dividends that

can last a lifetime. With the growing erosion of family life and heavy demands on overburdened

support systems, this attachment is increasingly problematic. When a child’s family is unable or

unwilling to provide adequate supervision and support, a mentor can help fill this critical gap.

In 1992, Congress responded to this need by amending the Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 to establish the Juvenile Mentoring Program (JUMP). The

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) supports 93 mentoring projects

under JUMP, in addition to mentoring initiatives funded through our Formula Grants

Program—nearly 300 in 1997 alone.

This 1998 Report to Congress describes the initial stages of OJJDP’s ongoing evaluation

of the 93 projects funded under JUMP and includes its preliminary findings, which are hopeful.

Positive outcomes to date include reports from both mentors and youth that mentoring was a

positive experience, and that youth benefitted from the experience, specifically in staying away

from alcohol and drugs, avoiding fights and friends who are starting trouble, keeping away from

gangs, and not using guns or knives.

As OJJDP continues to expand mentoring efforts through JUMP, it will also further

develop the evaluation of mentoring. Data collection will be enlarged and refined, and more

comprehensive analyses will be conducted. Furthermore, the evaluation time period will be

extended to 2001. These enhancements should result in the most definitive national evaluation

of mentoring to date. OJJDP will also strengthen local evaluations by developing a manual to

assist JUMP sites in collecting and assessing program data. 

The knowledge gained from the national and local JUMP evaluations should strengthen

mentoring activities and enhance such beneficial results as reducing juvenile delinquency and

gang participation, improving academic performance, and reducing the school dropout rate. The

initial findings contained in this report to Congress give reason to expect these positive

outcomes.

Shay Bilchik

Administrator
Acknowledgments iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This report would not have been possible without the help of the JUMP grantees who

provided extensive information about their agencies, projects, youth, mentors, and the matches

they are supporting with their JUMP grants. They helped us to get very personal knowledge of

the issues in their communities that make mentoring such a necessary service for their youth at

risk. They allowed us to "meet" the families they serve.

We want to give special thanks to the following organizations that gave extra time to

provide additional information about their communities and stories about the struggles and

successes of the young people with whom they work:

California: Valley Youth Foundation

Florida: Pinnellas County Education Foundation

Maryland: Wicomico County Board of Education

Minnesota: Big Brothers/Big Sisters of Greater Minneapolis

Ohio: Cincinnati Youth Collaborative

Washington: Center for Career Alternatives

Wisconsin: Boys and Girls Club of Milwaukee

Names of youth and mentors whose stories have been shared by these grantees have been

changed to protect the confidentiality of the individuals involved.
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i

Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

Introduction ..................................................................1

1. A Response to Youth At Risk ..................................................3

Some Juvenile Crime Statistics are Down . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Justice Focus on Prevention Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Mentoring is Not New . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Mentoring Addresses Risk Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Mentoring Supports and Enhances Protective Factors ...........................7

Mentoring Holds Promise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

OJJDP’s Response to the Need . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

2. JUMP Project Descriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

JUMP Projects Target Multiple Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Community Collaboration is a Key Feature of JUMP Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

JUMP Project Activities Vary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Training and Supervision is a Key JUMP Project Component . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Grantees Find Creative Solutions to Barriers to Project Success . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

3. Profile of Youth Being Served . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Youth Being Served Vary Widely . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

JUMP Projects Address Multiple Risk Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

4. Characteristics of JUMP Mentors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Mentors Represent a Wide Range of Demographic Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Mentor Education and Work History Varies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Mentors Receive Structured Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Table of Contents v
5. The Mentoring Relationship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Waiting Time for a Match is Relatively Brief . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Most Projects Use Gender as a Matching Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Race and Ethnicity are Match Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Match Longevity Reflects Project Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

6. The Mentoring Promise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Youth and Mentors View their Mentoring Experience as Positive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Youth and Mentors Believe that Mentoring Helped . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Match Characteristics Affect Perceived Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

7. Next Steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Appendices:

A: JUMP Grant Awards by State

B: Summary of JUMP Grant Awards

C: JUMP Grantee Locations

D: Additional Resources

Table of Contents vi
Introduction 1

INTRODUCTION

Part G of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (JJDP) Act of 1974, as

amended in 1992 (Pub. L. 93-415: 42 U.S.C. 5667e et seq.), established a new delinquency

prevention program -- the Juvenile Mentoring Program (JUMP). Through the JUMP

legislation, Congress authorized the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

(OJJDP) to competitively award three year grants to community based not-for-profit

organizations or to local educational agencies (LEA’s) to support implementation and expansion

of collaborative mentoring projects. JUMP is designed to provide one-to-one mentoring for

youth at risk of delinquency, gang involvement, educational failure, or dropping out of school. 

Included in the authorizing legislation was a requirement that a report be prepared for Congress

which describes the nature, status, and successes of the Juvenile Mentoring Program (Sec. 288H). 

OJJDP is pleased to provide this report.

Information for this report was gathered from JUMP grantee proposals, from regularly

submitted grantee progress reports, and from direct phone contacts with program coordinators

and other staff. The information primarily reflects activities that took place during the first

quarter of FY 1998 (October 1, 1997-December 31, 1997), but also includes information from

earlier fiscal years. This information represents initial data gathered as part of a national

evaluation of mentoring as implemented through the individual JUMP projects. At the time of

the preparation of this report, the two groups of grantees that contributed data were: 

C Cohort I grantees that originally were funded in FY 1995 and were in their third year of

operations, and

C Cohort II grantees that were funded in FY 1997 and were in their start-up year of

operations.

The 1998 Report to Congress begins with an overview of the principles guiding OJJDP’s

approach to juvenile crime prevention and the community environment impacting that approach. 

The second chapter describes the individual JUMP grants and the intervention models that

grantees have selected to implement in their communities. Chapters 3, 4, and 5 provide

descriptions of the youth being served, their volunteer mentors, and the nature of their mentoring

relationship. Finally, the report examines initial evaluation findings and some promising

indicators of success, and presents anticipated directions for future mentoring and mentoringrelated activities.
 A Response to Youth at Risk 3

1. A RESPONSE TO YOUTH AT RISK

Some Juvenile Crime Statistics Are Down

A recent report on juvenile arrests (Snyder, 1997) brings welcome news of a decrease

between 1995 and 1996 in several indicators of juvenile crime, including:

• a 9% decrease in the juvenile violent crime arrest rate;

C a 14% reduction in the number of juveniles arrested for murder;

C 9% and 10% reductions respectively in weapons related arrests and motor vehicle theft;

and

C an 8% reduction in the number of juveniles arrested for robbery.

This was the second year in a row these numbers reflected an overall decline in juvenile violent

crime. These are reassuring data, but there is still much to be done. 

Juvenile crime remains unacceptably high. Youth involvement with gangs and associated

gang related criminal activities continues to be a problem for many of our communities. Use of

drugs, especially alcohol, prevents many young people from meeting their full potential. Our

national high school dropout rate of approximately 10% (Kids Count, 1998) results in too many

young people entering adulthood without the necessary skills and resources to maintain

productive adult lives. Members of our neighborhoods still do not feel safe. The projection of

further growth of our juvenile population indicates that we must enhance prevention efforts to

continue the progress we have seen in the past few years.

Justice Focus on Prevention Strategies

In response to juvenile crime and violence, the Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) has initiated a wide range of coordinated programs to address

the needs indicated by these statistics. OJJDP's Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and

Chronic Juvenile Offenders (Wilson and Howell, 1993) and its companion Guide to

Implementing the Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders

(Howell, Ed., 1995) provide a comprehensive framework for establishing a continuum of care

system -- from prevention to early intervention to graduated sanctions for juveniles who enter the

juvenile justice system -- in communities across the country. The National Juvenile Justice
 A Response to Youth at Risk 4

Provision of a mentor

offers youth a protective

factor to counter some of

the many risks they face in

their daily lives.

Action Plan established by the Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention (1996), provides further guidance to communities. The Comprehensive Strategy and

the Action Plan are dedicated to supporting healthy youth development and the primary

prevention of juvenile crime. They recognize, however, that some youth still will enter the

juvenile justice system, and these youth must be held accountable for their actions. Through a

system of graduated sanctions, treatment and rehabilitation services, and aftercare services, they

provide the tools needed to reduce the rates and seriousness of repeat offenses. 

To ensure that our efforts address the complexity of factors influencing today’s youth,

OJJDP has developed a blueprint for a Juvenile Justice System for the 21st Century (Bilchik,

1998) that is grounded in the knowledge that effective prevention must both reduce factors that

increase risk and enhance protective factors that buffer children from risk. Such "risk-focused

prevention" strategies identify risk factors and introduce protective factors at the earliest possible

time to reduce and counter those risks (Hawkins & Catalano, 1992). 

The legislation authorizing the JUMP

program focuses on providing an intervention for

youth at risk of entering or reentering the

juvenile justice system. The intervention --

provision of a mentor -- offers youth a protective

factor to counter the risks they face in their daily

lives. The ultimate goal is to support the

development of a population of healthy youth

that will become a part of the solution to the

Nation’s juvenile crime problem -- a solution

evidenced by reductions in juvenile delinquency and gang participation, improved academic

performance, and a decrease in school dropout rates. 

Mentoring is Not New

Although the exact nature and application of mentoring has varied over time, it generally

is defined as a one-to-one relationship between a pair of unrelated individuals, usually of

different ages. Within this relationship, one individual (the mentor) supports, teaches, counsels,

and assists another (the mentee) on a regular basis over an extended period of time (DHHS, in

press; Saito, 1994). As a concept, mentoring is not new. Examples can be found as far back as

the late 19th century when the Friendly Visiting campaign, supported by charitable societies,

recruited hundreds of middle-class women to work with poor and immigrant communities

(Freedman, 1993). These women were charged with "raising the character" and "elevating the

moral nature" of the poor families with the hope of smoothing class tensions.

Big Brothers/Big Sisters (BB/BS) of America, founded in 1904, is a well known

successor to the Friendly Visiting campaigns. BB/BS primarily connects middle-class adults

with disadvantaged youth. Although nearly as unstructured as the Friendly Visiting movement in
 A Response to Youth at Risk 5

Formal mentoring

programs such as JUMP

address the needs of at-risk

youth by structuring

relationships that might not

otherwise happen.

its early years, the BB/BS program has become more defined, with the mentoring relationships

more closely supervised.

Historically, the notion of one individual providing caring support and guidance to

another individual has been reflected in a variety of arenas. In the clinical mental health field, we

talk about bonding and the importance of a child feeling connected to a nurturing adult in the

early years of life. In the adoption field, we talk about need for attachment. In schools, tutors

help support successful educational experiences. In juvenile and family court, Court Appointed

Special Advocates (CASA’s) provide support and advocacy for children in need of assistance. In

the substance abuse field, we make use of sponsors to support sobriety. In the business field, we

create teams to ensure that new employees have the support they need to be successful in the

corporate organizational system. Currently, there are many types of formal mentoring programs

generally distinguishable by the goals of their sponsoring organization. Most youth oriented

programs recognize the importance of ensuring that each child they serve has at least one

significant adult in his/her own life that can be friend, role model, guide, and teacher of values. 

If that person is not available in the child’s family, mentors can help fill the critical gap.

Mentoring can take place in two ways -- 

informally (naturally), and through direct formal

programming (Bernard, 1992; Brown, 1996;

Crockett & Smink, 1991; Freedman, 1993). 

Informal, natural mentoring occurs as a result of

frequent, unstructured contacts over an extended

period of time. While some children are

fortunate to be part of large social networks

where they are exposed to numerous positive

adult influences, many other children have fewer

such natural resources. For at-risk youth, the

extra attention, affection, and guidance afforded by relatives, neighbors, and others in their

community often is not available. Formal mentoring projects have been established in

communities across the country to address the needs of these at-risk youth by structuring one-toone relationships that might not otherwise happen.

Mentoring Addresses Risk Factors

Youth today face a world that is vastly different from the one in which children grew up

even a few years ago. A confluence of events and circumstances has resulted in an environment

that hosts a substantially different social and familial landscape. Generally recognized risk

factors for youth exist in several domains including community, family, school, and

personal/peer (Hawkins, Catalano & Miller, 1992; Catalano & Hawkins, 1995; Howell, 1995). 

Risk factors within these domains include poverty, availability of drugs, family conflict,

academic failure, peers who are engaged in delinquent behaviors, and inability to gain positive

attention and engage in healthy relationships. The risk factors are influenced further by the fact

that:
 A Response to Youth at Risk 6

The very presence of a

mentor in a youth’s life can

help to reduce isolation and

provide needed supervision

and support.

< family members no longer routinely remain in the communities in which they grew up --

families often are isolated;

< fathers, mothers, and older children frequently work outside of the home creating an

increased need for alternative child care for younger children, and a higher incidence of

unsupervised youth in the absence of such alternative care; 

< the increases in both rates of divorce and rates of births to single teens during the early

1990’s resulted in more families being headed by one rather than two parents -- further

exacerbating parental isolation;

< increases in gang crime and domestic violence and other violent behaviors have diverted

scarce community resources from family support services to criminal investigations and

prosecutions;

< prevalence of alcohol and drug abuse has led to both family and community upheaval,

and to physically, mentally, and emotionally damaged youth who must struggle to

function effectively and productively; and

< ready availability of guns increases the likelihood that crimes will be increasingly lethal.

Each of these influences adds to the growing number of risks that must be navigated by

today’s youth. Alone or in combination, these risks can make it difficult for families to ensure

that their children develop the knowledge, skills, and positive life values needed to achieve

success and avoid problems later in life. While any one risk factor increases the likelihood of

negative life outcomes, at least one researcher (Rutter, 1979) concluded that the presence of two

or three risk factors interacting together have a negative impact that is even greater than double

or triple the original risk.

Several studies address the issue of lack of supervision, showing that in single-parent

households and in households where both parents work, alcohol and drug use among young

people is higher (Buckhalt, Halpin, Noel, & Meadows, 1992; Carnegie Council on Adolescent

Development, 1992; Dornbusch et al., 1985; Richardson et al., 1989; Stanton, 1979; VanNelson,

Thompson, Rice, & Cooley, 1991). Lack of

parental supervision may have more acute

consequences among youth from low-income

backgrounds because they have fewer options

for supervision (Austin & Bickel, in press).

Mentoring can directly address the lack

of parental supervision. The very presence of a

mentor in a youth’s life can help to reduce

isolation and provide needed supervision and 
 A Response to Youth at Risk 7

support. A positive adult role model offers new perspectives to youth who live in situations rife

with substance abuse and violence. The tutoring and other school support a mentor offers may

open an opportunity for academic and future career success that is not otherwise available.

Mentoring Supports and Enhances Protective Factors

Within this same social context, protective factors buffer the negative impact of identified

risks, allowing one child to succeed while another child flounders (Resnick, 1997). Some of the

frequently noted categories of protective factors are related to the categories of risk factors

addressing environmental or community supports, family conditions, school, and personal/peer

factors. Exhibit 1:1 provides examples of risk and protective factors in each of these four

categories.

One comprehensive review of literature and research on the development of competence

of children in both favorable and unfavorable environments (Masten and Coatsworth, 1998) 

points to key "systems for competence" that appear to be essential for healthy development. One

of these key systems is the capacity, ability, and opportunity to build relationships with caring

adults. The JUMP program addresses the opportunity for building healthy relationships with

caring adults by providing a mentor.

Mentoring Holds Promise

In recent years, much has been written about mentoring as an effective intervention, and

anecdotal evidence points to the importance of mentor-like relationships in children’s successful

development (Rak & Patterson, 1996; Bolig & Weddle, 1988; Garmezy, 1981; Hauser et al.,

1985; Grossman & Garry, 1997). The fact that mentoring programs, both formal and informal,

have been established in so many different arenas is further indication of the growing popularity

and acceptance of mentoring as an effective tool for supporting healthy growth and development.

Despite a growing belief in the effectiveness of mentoring in helping children negotiate

risks, there have been few research or evaluation studies that provide concrete and measurable

evidence of mentoring effectiveness. One notable exception is a study of the Big Brothers/Big

Sisters mentoring model (Tierney, Grossman & Resch, 1995) which compared data from youth

actively enrolled in a mentoring program with those youth on a waiting list. The goal of the

study, conducted by Public/Private Ventures (P/PV), was to determine whether participation in a

BB/BS mentoring experience made a tangible difference in the lives of the young people

involved. P/PV examined seven broad areas that mentoring might affect: antisocial activities,

academic performance, attitudes and behaviors, relationships with family, relationships with

friends, self-concept, and social and cultural enrichment.
 A Response to Youth at Risk 8

Exhibit 1:1 Examples of Risk and Protective Factors

COMMUNITY FAMILY

Risk Factors:

- Easy availability of drugs and guns

- Extreme economic deprivation

- High mobility and transitions

Risk Factors:

- Parental alcohol or drug abuse

- Lack of adequate supervision

- Family conflict or violence

Protective Factors:

- High neighborhood attachment

- Proactive community organization

- Community norms unfavorable toward

 crime and drug use

POSITIVE

YOUTH

DEVELOPMENT

SUPPORTS

JUMP GOALS

Protective Factors:

- Parental disapproval of delinquency and

 ATOD use

- Feeling of warmth, love and caring from

 parents

- Clear standards and consistent discipline

` b

_

Reduce Juvenile

Delinquency a

PERSONAL/PEERS Reduce Gang

Participation

SCHOOL

Risk Factors:

- Friends who use drugs, engage in

 delinquent behaviors.

- Working more than 20 hours per week

- Low impulse control, or sensation-seeking 

 behavior

Improve Academic

Performance

Reduce Dropout

Rate

Risk Factors:

- Poor grades

- Being behind grade level

- Sense of isolation from/prejudice by

 peers

Protective Factors:

- Perceived importance of religion or prayer

- Sense of social belonging

- Meaningful, challenging opportunities to

 contribute to family/community

Protective Factors:

- Realistically high parental expectations

 for achievement

- Connectedness and positive engagement

 with school

- Perceived caring from teachers.

P/PV used two criteria to select eight local BB/BS agencies for the study -- a caseload

large enough to ensure sufficient youth for the research sample, and geographic diversity. The

959 youth included in the study were assigned randomly to either the mentor group or the wait

list group. Findings were based on self-reported information gathered from baseline and followup interviews, or on information contained in forms completed by agency staff. 

At the end of the 18 month study period several positive results were documented for

those youth involved in the mentoring program. Although the study found few effects on social

and cultural enrichment, self-concept, or relationships with friends, it did find that mentored

youth who had not already initiated drug use, reported being 47% less likely to begin using drugs
 A Response to Youth at Risk 9

Beth

Beth’s mother is a crack addict who is in and out of

prison, leaving Beth to help her grandmother raise

her three younger siblings. Before getting a mentor,

Beth had poor school attendance and grade

performance. She was suspended several times for

fighting, and most of her friends were pregnant,

dropping out of school, or both. Project staff

interceded, matching Beth with a young, professional

woman who has helped her set personal and

academic goals, giving her direction. After a year

together, Beth’s attendance and grades have soared,

and she is beginning to thrive.

- Cincinnati Youth Mentoring Program

than their non-mentored counterparts. This finding primarily was based on minority youth. Of

the minority youth who had not already initiated drug use, matched youth were 70% less likely to

report having initiated drug use than similar minority youth on the waiting list. Among youth

who reported no prior drinking behavior, matched youth were 27% less likely to report initiating

alcohol use during the study period than non-mentored youth on the waiting list. In addition,

mentored youth reported being less likely to hit someone, and reported skipping half as many

days of school as the youth on the waiting list. 

Another study (Turner and Scherman, 1996) of the impact of mentoring on self-concept

and behavioral functioning of male youth in divorced families yielded mixed results. There was

some evidence that having a mentor positively impacted the boys’ self-concepts. While measures

of behaviors indicated positive trends, there was no significant difference between the matched

and the control groups.

Resilience research provides additional clues to possible reasons for mentoring’s success,

and supports the assumption that appropriate, constructive adult guidance and supervision are

key components in the development of resilient youth. For children, resilience is the capacity of

those who are exposed to identifiable risk factors to overcome those risks and avoid long term

negative outcomes such as delinquency or school problems (Rak and Patterson, 1996). Two

factors that are frequently cited as predictors of a child’s resilience are a close bond with a

caregiver during the first year of life and a personal temperament that elicits positive responses

from both family members as well as strangers. In other words, both the presence of someone to

relate to and the ability to generate that relationship are related to later success (Werner, 1984). 

In particular, Werner found that resilient children often had at least one significant person

(not necessarily a family member) who accepted them unconditionally (Werner, 1985; Werner &

Smith 1992). Other resiliency researchers

also identified adult role models outside the

family as potential buffers for at-risk children

(Garmezy, 1985; Beardslee and Podorefsky,

1988; Dugan and Coles, 1989). They suggest

that at-risk youth who are involved with at

least one caring adult are more likely to

withstand a range of negative influences,

including poverty, parental addiction, family

mental illness, and family discord than are

their peers who are not involved in a similar

relationship. These caring adults included

teachers, coaches, clergy, neighbors and

others. The researchers also found that

resilient children often had a number of

different significant adults who appeared to

have served in mentoring roles throughout
 A Response to Youth at Risk 10

the child’s development (Anthony & Cohler, 1987; Brook, Whiteman, Gordon, Nomura, &

Brook, 1986; Grossman et al., 1992; Rhodes, Gingiss & Smith, 1994).

The strength of mentoring may come from the fact that mentoring can impact many

different risk factors and can support many different protective factors at the same time. A

mentor’s presence can provide a youth with personal connectedness, supervision and guidance,

skills training, career or cultural enrichment opportunities, a knowledge of spirituality and values, 

a sense of self-worth, and perhaps most important, goals and hope for the future. The complex

interrelationships among and between the risk and protective factors require prevention

interventions that can take into account this complexity.

OJJDP’s Response to the Need

To build on the promise of mentoring as an effective prevention strategy, and add to the

understanding of mentoring as a protective factor, OJJDP announced the availability of combined

fiscal year (FY) 1994 and 1995 funds and competitively awarded grants of up to $180,000 each

for a 3-year period to 41 recipients to implement juvenile mentoring projects (JUMP) for at-risk

youth. Another 52 agencies were awarded grants of up to $190,000 with combined FY 1996 and

1997 funds for a total of 93 grant projects. In FY 1998, a third announcement of availability of

funds was made, with an additional 23 to 26 grant projects to be funded. A complete list of 

funded Cohort I and Cohort II JUMP projects is included in Appendix A. 

Additional funding for mentoring was provided through OJJDP’s SafeFutures initiative. 

OJJDP has awarded grants to each of six communities for a 5-year project period that began in

FY 1995. The six communities that received competitively awarded SafeFutures grants are:

-- Boston, Massachusetts, -- Imperial County, California,

-- Contra Costa County, California, -- Seattle, Washington, and

-- Fort Belknap Indian Reservation, Montana, -- St. Louis, Missouri.

The SafeFutures long term goal is to prevent and control youth crime and victimization through

the creation of a continuum of care that responds to the needs of youth at critical developmental

stages in their lives. This continuum includes programs that provide appropriate prevention,

intervention, treatment and sanctions for youth at risk of entering, or who already have entered,

the juvenile justice system. Mentoring is one component of each SafeFuture projects.

In addition to providing JUMP and SafeFutures project grants, the JJDP Act funds

support mentoring through the State Formula Grants program. Many projects funded through the

Formula Grants program include mentoring as a part or all of their project activities. OJJDP also

funds a variety of auxiliary services intended to support mentoring, including research and

evaluation, training and technical assistance, and information and technology transfer. 

Currently, two mentoring evaluation projects are underway. One, a national evaluation of 
 A Response to Youth at Risk 11

SafeFutures, will measure the success of the SafeFutures initiative and record lessons learned at

each of the six sites. One goal of this evaluation is to assess the extent to which each project has

mobilized its community to develop and implement an integrated system of services. Outcomes

are being tracked and analyzed in relation to service utilization data. Mentoring is one service

component that is being tracked. The second, a national JUMP evaluation will assess the extent

to which participation in a mentoring relationship changes youth behaviors that may be expected

to impact the long term JUMP goals of reducing juvenile delinquency and gang participation,

improving academic performance, and reducing drop-out rates.

OJJDP has committed training and technical assistance (T&TA) resources to both JUMP

and SafeFutures through a full-time T&TA coordinator for SafeFutures, and through the National

T&TA Center for JUMP. All lessons learned from the implementation of the projects and from

the evaluations will be disseminated to the mentoring community through a variety of means.

JUVENILE MENTORING PROGRAM (JUMP) BUDGET

 Program Element FY 1994 & 1995 FY 1996 & 1997 FY 1998 TOTAL

Costs Funded from Part G

Implementation Sites (nonSafeFutures)

$7,080,000 $9,800,000 $6,900,000 $23,780,000

SafeFutures Mentoring $920,000 $1,200,000 $1,200,000 $3,320,000

Training and Technical Assistance -0- -0- $2,000,000 $2,000,000

Evaluation funded by Part G -0- -0- $900,000 $900,000

Big Brothers/Big Sisters -0- -0- $1,000,000 $1,000,000

Total $8,000,000 $11,000,000 $12,000,000 $31,000,000

Part G Appropriations

FY 94 Part G Appropriation $4,000,000 $4,000,000

FY 95 Part G Appropriation $4,000,000 $4,000,000

FY 96 Part G Appropriation $4,000,000 $4,000,000

FY 97 Part G Appropriation $7,000,000 $7,000,000

FY 98 Part G Appropriation $12,000,000 $12,000,000

Costs Funded from Part C

Evaluation $43,789 $149,573 $193,362
 A Response to Youth at Risk 12

JUMP program guidelines were published in July, 1994 to ensure adherence to the intent

of the JUMP legislation and to provide the framework within which the grantee projects would

operate. The guidelines emphasize:

< clearly defined collaborative relationships between community-based providers and local

education agencies (LEA) with a focus on the goals of improving school performance,

reducing school drop out rates, and reducing juvenile delinquency;

< thorough background checks for all volunteer mentors to establish a safe environment for

each child;

< careful assessments of youth so appropriate matches that maximize opportunities for

success are established;

< mentor and project activities designed to enrich and enhance youth opportunities and

experiences; and

< procedures for gathering and routinely reporting programmatic data to support both

internal self-evaluations and a national JUMP evaluation.

Within these parameters, grantees have developed models for their mentoring projects that most

appropriately respond to the needs of their communities and the youth they are seeking to serve. 

The following chapter describes the JUMP grantee projects and the models of mentoring they

have implemented.
JUMP Project Descriptions 13

2. JUMP PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS

Within the program operation guidelines that OJJDP established, JUMP grantees are able

to design a mentoring project that best meets the needs of the communities in which they operate

and of the youth they serve. This chapter provides a summary of some of the primary JUMP

project features, barriers faced by JUMP grantees, and the creative approaches they have taken to

address those barriers. Data used in the preparation of this report was gathered through Quarterly

Progress Reports submitted by grantee organizations and phone interviews conducted by

evaluation staff. 

JUMP projects match an adult mentor with a youth who may be at risk for delinquency,

gang involvement, drug use, and failing or dropping out of school. The intent of the mentoring

relationship is to provide one-to-one support, guidance, and supervision for participating youth to

help buffer the risks that may interrupt their healthy development. JUMP projects may operate as

a component of a larger agency, or may stand alone to provide only mentoring services. To be

considered eligible for a JUMP grant, organizations must have identified:

C a community need, 

C a Local Educational Agency (LEA) with whom they will partner if they are not such an

organization themselves,

C a plan for recruiting, screening, training, supervising, and retaining volunteer mentors,

C the defined at-risk youth population they are planning to serve,

C procedures for ensuring appropriate matches between youth and mentors,

C clear guidelines for the frequency, duration, and nature of the mentor/youth meetings,

C a plan for project implementation, and

C procedures for monitoring their own progress toward project goals.

Each grantee has developed its mentoring project to meet specifically identified community

needs, and has structured its activities to ensure youth safety and to maximize the opportunity for

a positive mentoring relationship.

JUMP Projects Target Multiple Goals

Most JUMP projects cite delinquency prevention and improved school performance as

two of their primary project goals. In addition, most projects have a variety of other intended

goals for their mentoring relationships. The following are the overall JUMP project goals in the

order of frequency with which they were reported by the grantees:
JUMP Project Descriptions 14

Exhibit 2:1

Location of JUMP Projects

Urban: 76.0%

Suburban: 16.0%

Rural: 8.0%

Jeremy

Jeremy is living in a community that is facing many challenges. The school dropout rate is over four times the

statewide average; the truancy rate is unacceptably high (61%); and scores on third-grade reading

comprehension tests are well below average. Add to this his family circumstances, and eleven year old Jeremy

would appear to be a child with little chance for success. Cared for by an emotionally unstable mother and an

abusive grandmother, his situation is further complicated by auditory and written processing disabilities that

make school especially difficult for him. The mentoring program director worked persistently with Jeremy’s

mother over the course of the year he has been with the program, and finally managed to get her to request an

educational evaluation. Working collaboratively with other community services, the mentoring program has

arranged for Jeremy to receive special services to help him compensate for his learning disability, and as a

result, he is happier and harder working. The program also has arranged counseling to help him deal with

the stress of living with a parent who is mentally ill. Since Jeremy was matched with his mentor a year ago, he

has learned how to use a computer, became a member of the track team, joined Little League baseball and is

discovering that life can have hope.

- Milwaukee Youth Mentoring Network

< delinquency prevention (69),

< improved school performance (69),

< increased school attendance (67),

< violence prevention (41),

< prevention of gang involvement (37),

< career development (31),

< goal planning (29),

< anger management (17),

< prevention of alcohol, tobacco, and other

drug (ATOD) use (14), and

< development of independent living skills

(7).

Other JUMP projects also sought to impact early parenting and poor self esteem. In addition, a

number of projects focused on teaching youth, by example and by direct involvement in

community service activities, the importance of citizenship and the role each youth plays in

developing healthy communities. Goals are established based on community needs, and may

vary depending on whether the project is in an urban or rural area. Most JUMP projects are

located in urban areas, with a few in suburban or rural locales (Exhibit 2:1).

Community Collaboration is a Key Feature of JUMP Projects

The need for a multi-dimensional intervention requires that community-based

organizations and agencies work together to provide a comprehensive continuum of care for the

youth they are serving. Because risk factors are highly interrelated, no single intervention is as 
JUMP Project Descriptions 15

Exhibit 2:2

Types of Support Provided by Schools

66 63

54 52

48

43

Access to Grades

Attendance Reports

Other Information

Facilities/Equip.

Staff Support

Admin. Support

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

effective as a coordinated effort. Typically, such coordination involves mental health centers,

substance abuse treatment programs, recreation centers, or medical service providers. This

collaboration is evidenced in the ways the non-LEA JUMP grantees work with LEA’s, the

specific youth targeted for mentoring services, and the development of supplemental sources of

funding.

Those JUMP grantees that are not themselves educational institutions are required to have

an established collaborative relationship with a local educational agency. This collaboration

varies considerably in nature and content among the grantees. Many of the non-LEA JUMP

grantees have fully integrated the project with school activities and operate on school grounds

during the school day. In these instances, school staff – frequently a school counselor – may

serve as the official liaison between JUMP project staff and school personnel. Other projects

utilize a more remote relationship that is represented primarily through a defined referral system. 

Likewise, many LEA grantees collaborate with local community agencies to enhance their

school-based services. Regardless of the nature of the relationship, JUMP grantees benefit from

this community-school relationship in a number of ways, including using shared information and

resources. Under some formalized agreements, the collaboration allows community-based

grantees to access student academic and attendance information or to use school facilities and

equipment. These types of support from schools, and the frequency with which grantees report

receiving them, are summarized in Exhibit 2:2. It is important to note that reporting agencies

were permitted to list more than one type of support that they received from LEA's, therefore

totals are expressed as numbers, not as percentages.
JUMP Project Descriptions 16

Exhibit 2:3

Source of Supplemental Funding

General Agency: 32

Foundation Grants: 22

Individual Contributions: 16

Public Education: 10

Other Public: 6

Other*: 11

*Other funding includes public ATOD funds, other Federal grants, and monies

raised by community fundraising events.

Exhibit 2:4

Schedule of JUMP Project Activities

23%

40%

37%

Percentage

School Year Only

Year Round

School with Minimal Summer

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

A few grantees collaborate with community-based organizations to provide mentoring support

specifically to youth in residential facilities. These projects generally focus on providing support

that will sustain a youth as he/she transitions from a more restricted to a less restricted

environment. Some examples include projects that serve youth in residential educational

facilities or in juvenile justice facilities.

Almost 75% of JUMP grantees utilize funds other than their JUMP grant to assist in the

operation of their mentoring projects. In addition to in-kind or supplemental agency funds, many

grantees receive support from state and local agency (education and substance abuse) budgets. 

Some also receive private funds through individual donations and foundation or corporate grants

(Exhibit 2:3). 

JUMP Project Activities Vary

Twenty-three percent of JUMP

projects operate on a nine-month school

year schedule and provide mentoring

support only between September and June. 

Forty percent operate on a 12-month basis,

and the rest (37%) provide services

primarily during the school year with some

supplemental activities conducted during

the summer break (Exhibit 2:4). For the

most part, activities in which the mentor

and mentee participate are selected and

implemented individually by each

mentee/mentor pair (84%). Many

projects, however, also include structured

social/recreational activities (49%),

structured educational/vocational activities (27%), and community service activities (16%).

Mentors generally are expected to have

contact with their mentee an average of once per

week, but many keep in much closer contact with

additional visits and phone calls. Most grantees

sponsor project-wide activities and special events

in which all mentors and mentees participate

together. These typically are holiday

celebrations, field trips to museums or sporting

events, or recognition ceremonies. Strong

relationships with other agencies and

organizations in the community often make such 
JUMP Project Descriptions 17

Minimum Involvement Maximum Involvement 

Provide

Permission

! Help

Select

Mentor

! Meet with staff

and mentor to

develop and

review

mentoring

goals

! Attend

orientation

and other

special events

! Participate in

regular parent

activities (eg.

support group,

skills training)

! Participate with

youth and

mentor in

weekly activities

major events possible. Grantees rely on the donation of tickets, supplies, facilities, and other

forms of support to fully implement their project plan.

Many JUMP projects supplement their core mentoring activities with a variety of

additional services for mentees and their families. Most frequently reported supplemental

activities include: 

< parent support groups,

< self-help groups,

< in-agency referrals,

< referrals to other community organizations,

< case management, and 

< advocacy.

Each project involves parents in a different way. JUMP projects require that parents

provide written consent for their child(ren) to participate in the mentoring relationship. For some

projects this is the only family contact. At the other end of the continuum are projects that expect

parental participation in all aspects of the project including selection and approval of the mentor

and attendance at regularly scheduled activities. Most project models operate somewhere in the

middle with limited expectations and requirements for parents (Exhibit 2:5).

Exhibit 2:5 Continuum of Parental Involvement

Training and Supervision is a Key JUMP Project Component

JUMP grantees approach mentor training in a variety of different ways, typically

requiring that mentors participate in orientation training sessions prior to being matched with a

youth. Some projects conduct a series of intensive structured training sessions in the early

months of mentors’ participation in the project, and reduce the training schedule until it is on an

"as needed" level -- essentially becoming one-to-one supervision. Other projects continue to
JUMP Project Descriptions 18

Exhibit 2:6

Frequency of Mentor Supervision

Once per Month: 43%

Twice per Month: 14%

Four times per Month: 24%

Other: 7%

conduct regularly scheduled training and supervision meetings for mentors throughout the

duration of their mentoring contract. Some of the important training issues that have been

identified by many JUMP projects include: adolescent development, behavior modification 

skills, listening skills, identification of drugs and drug use, mediation, and anger management.

In addition to the formal

training, grantee staff carefully

monitor and supervise the

activities of the mentors through

regular in-person or phone

contacts. Most agencies also

require mentors to submit reports

of their activities and contacts

with youth for staff review. 

Generally, JUMP project staff

supervise mentors a minimum of

once a month (Exhibit 2:6).

Grantees Find Creative Solutions to Barriers to Project Success

JUMP staff have encountered a variety of unanticipated barriers that required creative

solutions. Most frequently noted barriers cluster in five major categories:

< unrealistic project goals,

< inadequate staff and volunteer resources,

< lengthy and cumbersome screening procedures,

< insufficient community support, and

< lack of adequate parental involvement.

As projects evolved, and staff gained more experience, many were able to modify their project

plans and strategies to effectively address these barriers. Exhibit 2:7 summarizes some of the

issues grantees have faced and examples of ways they have addressed them. This information

was gathered from regularly submitted grantee progress reports and from direct phone and inperson conversations with project staff. Because many grantees reported similar barriers, what is

presented here represents a summary of their comments.

Many projects responded to barriers with a change in their project procedures or model. 

When youth were unable to get to regular activities, one project developed a system for providing

transportation. Another project changed the location of the activities to a more central site. To

make it easier for mentors and youth to gain access to meeting places and special events, one

project created official identification badges. In response to feedback from youth and mentors

alike regarding limited one-on-one time, one project reduced the frequency with which it
JUMP Project Descriptions 19

conducted structured group activities. Several projects extended the length of the officially

sanctioned program when it became apparent that the youth needed more time in their

consistent, stable mentoring relationship. A project that served youth in a residential treatment

center (RTC) extended its program for those youth who did not return directly home upon

discharge from the RTC, but rather went to an intermediate facility. One goal of the mentoring

process was to provide support for the youth’s transition and aftercare, and staff decided that it

was important to do this regardless of where the youth currently was residing.

Exhibit 2:7 JUMP Project Barriers and Creative Solutions

BARRIER SOLUTION

 Unrealistic Project Goals

Based on the original interest expressed in the community, we

thought we would have more mentors than we needed and

could serve all the youth that showed an interest in having a

mentor.

We redefined our service goals and the eligibility criteria by

which we accepted referrals and we expanded the pool from

which we recruit mentors. To ensure that no child went unserved while waiting for a match, we initiated some regular

group activities in which they could participate while

waiting for a mentor to become available.

Our planned weekly meetings with the mentors were very

poorly attended and we realized that most mentors just did not

have that much time to give.

We changed our mentor supervision and training meetings

from weekly to monthly. Now we survey the mentors to

learn what issues they want help with and plan our program

around specific topics. Attendance has increased and

remains consistent.

Many of the youth referred to the project really were not

interested in having a mentor. This left us with a cumbersome

screening process that did not result in enrolled youth. We

never imagined that a youth might not want a mentor!

We worked with staff in the referring agencies to help them

develop and implement some pre-referral screening criteria. 

This has helped to narrow the referrals to those children

that are at least interested in finding out more about the

program.

We expected miracles! Most of the youth we are serving are

surrounded with too many risk factors and have too few

protective factors. In one school year, with one or two mentor

contact hours each week, a major transformation was not

going to happen.

We began developing specific, realistic goals for each child

we serve. We now are looking for small steps that actually

are achievable, like staying in school for the full day, or not

getting a discipline referral for one week. We all feel more

successful and know that these small steps lead to bigger

ones. 

Our anticipated implementation schedule was much too

optimistic. We did not appreciate how much time it would

take to implement, let alone institutionalize, our operating

procedures.

We did a really careful program review to determine what

activities we could start right away. Then we prioritized

steps for implementing the rest of our program plan

systematically.
BARRIER SOLUTION

JUMP Project Descriptions 20

 Inadequate staff and volunteer resources

As the only full-time paid staff, I found that I was trying to be

all things to all people. It was an impossible task!

There were no budget resources to hire additional staff so

we began recruiting volunteer help to do some of the

administrative tasks. We found several people who did not

feel they could serve as mentors, but wanted to support the

program in some tangible way.

Because of our limited staff resources, we were not able to

implement some of the supplementary activities we originally

planned, such as a monthly newsletter.

Rather than abandon the plan completely, we sought ways

to modify our approach to tasks. For example, we now

publish a periodic mentoring "bulletin" instead of a

newsletter. It takes less staff time, and its focus is of more

interest to the mentors and general community.

We have an ongoing problem recruiting enough mentors --

especially males, and especially males from targeted

populations.

We still don’t have a total "solution," but we have made

progress. We expanded the pool of organizations from

which we recruit. We spend much more time out in the

community making presentations to target groups. We have

had particular luck with businesses that identify our

program as the focus for their community service project

for the year. When one company allowed its staff to take a

few hours during the work day to mentor, our mentor pool

increased dramatically.

 Lengthy and cumbersome screening procedures

We believe that rigorous screening of mentors is essential,

however, it took us so long that we lost some potential

mentors in the process.

It took a very long time to receive the results from the police

criminal background checks.

We have instituted a graduated process which allows

mentors to begin participating in limited aspects of the

program as they complete each phase of the screening. 

They are not assigned to, nor do they have individual

contact with, a youth until the entire process is completed,

but there are some things they can do in the interim. This

has helped keep them interested and actually serves as part

of the training process, too.

Our youth screening process included home visits and other

requirements for the parents. For youth who do not have

supportive or available families, this presented a real

difficulty that often eliminated that youth from service.

We believe that for mentoring to be effective, parents need

to understand what we are doing and support our goals for

their child. Without parental support, the risk of a

dissolution of the match greatly increases. Rather than

change our screening procedures, we are exploring ways to

work with parents to get their cooperation. We also

recognize that mentoring may not be the best intervention

for all youth, and are working with other agencies to

provide alternative services.
BARRIER SOLUTION

JUMP Project Descriptions 21

We had to find a way to better screen potential staff members

to reduce our rate of staff turnover. 

Part of our initial difficulty stemmed from our own

unrealistic expectations. No wonder our key staff left! As

we have gained experience, we have been able to develop

more appropriate position descriptions for our Program

Director and other staff members, identify ways to utilize

volunteers for many routine tasks, and coordinate

responsibilities more effectively with our partners.

 Insufficient community-based support

Everyone in our community wanted the mentoring project, but

when it came to providing tangible support, it was a different

story. 

It helped when we got very specific about what our needs

were, and translated that into how their support would

actually help a youth. We had to educate our community

organizations. We did lots of outreach to help them find

creative ways that they could help. We were fortunate to

have made a connection with a local paper. Some of their

human interest stories generated substantial support. The

key, however, is that we had to keep working at this. It is

not a one-time effort.

In our rural area, getting corporate support is very difficult

because no major corporations are located in our immediate

community.

This remains a problem, but we are hopeful that we have

been able to persuade several smaller companies to work

together. It would benefit us and the community at large to

strengthen such community collaboration. 

 Lack of adequate parental involvement

One of the issues for the youth we serve is the lack of parental

involvement in all aspects of their lives. This creates a real

"catch 22" because these are the youth who usually are in

most need of a mentor and we are lucky if we can even get

permission from the families for the youth to participate.

We have done a variety of things just to make a connection

with the parent(s). Sometimes the school staff will let us

know when a parent is scheduled to be in school for a

meeting and we try to be there. We also have conducted inhome visits. Neither of these is a perfect solution, but both

work sometimes.

Part of our project model is to provide services to the parents,

but attendance was always very limited. Once they learned

what we were all about, they were more likely to return, but

getting them there the first few times was very tough.

We began to think about what would serve as an incentive

for parents (most often mothers) to participate in the

various parent support groups and classes we offer. By far

one of the most effective incentives was a visit to the local

food bank for those parents who showed up. We also had a

guest speaker come in from a local department store to do

"make-overs" for the moms. As trust built, we were able to

engage the parents themselves in the recruitment process

for other parents in their neighborhoods.
JUMP Project Descriptions 22

Each JUMP project is finding unique ways to best serve the community. One program

strength is the willingness of JUMP project staff to share their experiences and the lessons they

have learned with one another. This peer support, both among staff members in the same project,

as well as with other projects, has maximized opportunities for mentoring project success and for

strengthening the protective factors that help shield youth from the many risks in their lives. The

following chapter provides a profile of those youth that are being served in JUMP projects. It is

followed in the next chapter by a profile of the mentors, and finally by a description of the

characteristics of mentee/mentor matches.
Profile of Youth Being Served 23

Dante

Dante entered the Doorway Scholarship Program in

9th grade and has been with his mentor for the past

two years. Prior to his enrollment, his future was

bleak. He is one of 13 children, who have six

different fathers. He lives in a disadvantaged

neighborhood, was involved in delinquent activity,

and had dropped out of high school. Dante’s mentor

provided the guidance and motivation that helped

him get back on track to achieve his dreams. 

Through the scholarship program, Dante will have

the opportunity to attend college. He now is an

accomplished student with a 3.5 GPA, a member of

the school’s basketball team, an officer of several

school based clubs, and was recently named student

of the month.

- Pinellas County Education Foundation

3. PROFILE OF YOUTH BEING SERVED

In this chapter and the two that follow, we present descriptive information about the

youth being served in the JUMP projects, the volunteer mentors at the heart of the projects, and

the nature of the matches between the youth and mentors. This information was obtained from

the grantees as reported in their regularly submitted status reports using a standardized reporting

format to ensure some cross site consistency in the information. The review and analysis of this

initial information was undertaken as a part of the national JUMP evaluation currently being

conducted. The evaluation is examining mentoring outcomes, with particular focus on how the

outcomes may relate to the JUMP Program goals of reducing delinquency, gang participation,

school failure, and dropout rates. The

evaluation is also attempting to identify

effective practices that maximize

opportunities for success of projects in

reaching these goals.

Data in these chapters represent primarily

those youth, mentors, and matches that were

enrolled and active during one defined period

of time -- October 1, 1997 through December

31, 1997. Data were drawn from 26 Cohort I

grantees (1,631 youth) and 38 Cohort II

grantees (1,449 youth) for which data were

available. Because Cohort I grantees were in

their third year of operation, and Cohort II

grantees were in their first year start-up phase

of operations, it is not possible to draw

conclusions about differences or similarities

between these two groups. Unless otherwise

noted, data from the two Cohorts have been combined for the purposes of this report. A number

of analyses were conducted on sub-sets of data in an attempt to identify differences that may be

attributable to project models or community characteristics. The one sub-set of projects for

which the data did reveal evidence of some substantial difference was those JUMP grantees that

identified themselves as Big Brother/Big Sister (BB/BS) affiliates. The national BB/BS

organization provides uniform guidelines and requirements for program affiliation. 

Consequently, it is not surprising that these affiliated projects, as a group, demonstrate some 
Profile of Youth Being Served 24

Exhibit 3:1

Age of Youth At Time of Report

Age of Youth

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Exhibit 3:2

Grade Level of Youth

Grade Level

K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14 Legend

Female

Male

differences from non-affiliates. This report identifies those areas in which there appear to be

differences between BB/BS projects and nonBB/BS projects.

During the first quarter of fiscal year

1998, over 3,000 youth were being served by

the reporting agencies. Because the Cohort I

grantees were more established at this point in

time, it is understandable that they typically

had more youth enrolled than the Cohort II

grantees. Cohort I grantees had an average of

about 63 youth per agency (ranging from 9 to

208), while the Cohort II grantees had an

average of about 38 youth enrolled (ranging

from 4 to 153).

Youth Being Served Vary Widely

The typical JUMP youth is 12-14 years old with a range from 5 to 18 years old (Exhibit

3:1). There are slightly more girls being served by the JUMP projects (51.3%) than boys (48.7%)

and, based on age at enrollment into the project, the girls are slightly older than the boys. The

average age of girls in the program is 13.0 years, while for boys it is 12.7 years. In keeping with

this age difference, girls also are slightly over-represented among the higher grades when

compared with males (Exhibit 3:2). JUMP projects report targeting primarily youth in grades 4-9,

with special emphasis on the middle school

years. Interestingly, these numbers seem to

parallel those found among projects serving

runaway and homeless youth with Federal

grants from the Department of Health and

Human Services (Sedlak, 1997). It may be

that a variety of social pressures and general

disengagement from positive school

opportunities is more pronounced among

the older boys. The age and grade disparity

also may indicate the importance of early

intervention especially with males who may

move through the pathways to delinquency 

(Kelly, Loeber, Keenan, and DeLamatre,

1997) earlier and faster than females. In

addition, as will be presented in the next chapter, JUMP projects have recruited substantially

more female mentors than male mentors, and this may have encouraged or allowed more girls to

participate in the projects.
Profile of Youth Being Served 25

Exhibit 3:4

Youth Race (Cohort II)

African American: 57.7%

Other: 1%

Hispanic: 14.1%

Amer. Indian: 6.1%

White: 20.3%

Asain/Pacific: 0.7%

Exhibit 3:3

Youth Race (Cohort I)

White: 23.3%

Other: 0.6% Hispanic: 18.4%

Asain/Pacific: 1.8%

African American: 55.7%

Amer. Indian: 0.2%

Agencies reported ethnicity of youth by selecting one or multiple race/ethnic categories. 

Although grantees reported a single, primary ethnic category for most youth, 18 youth ethnicities

were identified by multiple categories. African American youth make up the majority of those 

enrolled across all JUMP projects, with white and Hispanic youth making up most of the

balance. 

It is interesting to note that the percentage of American Indian youth is substantially

higher for Cohort II grantees (Exhibits 3:3 and 3:4). This may be attributable to the addition of

1996 grant awards to agencies in South Dakota and Alaska, both of which serve a predominantly

American Indian/Alaska Native population. 

JUMP Projects Address Multiple Risk Factors

A majority of youth being served through JUMP projects face multiple risk factors in the

domains of their lives. Family related risk factors are commonly noted by grantees. In our

sample, 57.3% of the youth enrolled come from a single parent household. Only 25% of the

children live with their biological father (either as the single parent, or with the youth’s mother or

step-mother). The low percentage of youth with two parent households may, according to much

of the research cited in Chapter 1, indicate family stress and disruption that often translates into

greater risk of delinquent behaviors, school failure, or ATOD use. The mentoring projects seek

to offer an adult role model especially to those youth whose family situations lack one or both

parents. As with many at-risk populations, JUMP youth demonstrate the lack of a male parental

figure. Unfortunately, as we will discuss in Chapter 5, one obstacle encountered by many

grantees is recruitment of adequate numbers of male mentors.
Profile of Youth Being Served 26

In addition to the risks associated with family composition, JUMP grantees reported on

the occurrence of other risk factors present in the lives of the youth they serve (Exhibit 3:5). 

Risk factors were classified into five primary categories:

C school;

C social/family;

C delinquency;

C alcohol, tobacco, and other drug use; and

C pregnancy (includes males who are, or think they are, responsible for a sex

partner’s pregnancy).

In general, grantees report that males enrolled in their projects face risks in more categories than

their female counterparts. Further research may be important in order to learn more about the

nature, intensity, duration, and age of onset of those risks.

Exhibit 3:5 Frequency of Reported Risk Factors

RISK DOMAIN FEMALES MALES

School Problems 64.5% 76.4%

 School Behavior 26.7% 40.4%

 Poor Grades/Failure 50.7% 60.2%

 Truancy 10.1% 11.1%

Social/Family Problems 57.7% 54.0%

Delinquency: 10.3% 18.9%

 Fighting 8.1% 14.2%

 Property Crimes 0.8% 3.7%

 Gang Activity 1.2% 3.8%

 Weapons 0.7% 1.2%

Alcohol Use 2.0% 4.5%

Drug Use 2.6% 5.1%

Tobacco Use 2.2% 3.1%

Pregnancy 2.4% 0.2%
Profile of Youth Being Served 27

The primary risks identified are related to problems in school. Because research has

demonstrated that difficulties in school both constitute an immediate risk factor and serve as an

indicator of potential future, more serious problems, the prevalence of school problems supports

the need for early interventions such as those provided by mentoring. In addition, there are some

youth who identified problems with gang, weapon, substance use, and pregnancy risk factors,

indicating a subset of mentees who appear to be in a very high risk group. Projects operating in

urban settings report more gang problems and truancy, while suburban projects report

social/family problems and increased alcohol, drug, and smoking risks. Rural projects identify

school failure and poor grades more often than the other locations.

JUMP projects serve youth across the country representing a variety of ethnicities, ages,

geographic regions, and family structures. These young people also face a variety of risk factors

identified as increasing their chances for school failure, gang membership, family problems,

delinquency, ATOD use, and early parenthood. While not a substitute for appropriate family

involvement and intervention, the JUMP program seeks to reduce the impact of these risk factors

by providing positive relationships with adult role models for at-risk youth. The next chapter

describes the mentor figure in these relationships and highlights characteristics of the adult

volunteers on whom the JUMP projects are dependent for success.
Characteristics of JUMP Mentors 29

Ben

Fifteen year old Ben recently was matched with a

mentor to help him improve his academic

performance and low self-esteem. Due to his

parent’s drug history, he now lives with an aunt and

uncle. Ben also has learning disabilities thought to

result from his mother’s drug and alcohol use during

pregnancy. These circumstances present a challenge

to Ben’s mentor, who has used Ben’s problems as

positive learning experiences for them both. Ben’s

mentor has demonstrated patience and

understanding, giving Ben the positive reinforcement

that he needs. This is a relationship with its ups and

downs, but through it all, the mentor has never

shown any inclination to quit. Despite being given

the opportunity to terminate the relationship, he is

sticking with Ben.

- Valley Wide Youth Center

4. CHARACTERISTICS OF JUMP MENTORS

At the heart of the JUMP program are the volunteers who give their time and talent to

spend time with youth who have multiple risk factors and are at high risk for future problems. 

Without the dedication of these men and women who believe in the importance of a significant,

positive adult in the life of every youth, the JUMP program would not be possible. In this

chapter, we provide a description of these adults who are making a difference by serving as

mentors.

As with the youth, this information

was obtained from the grantee progress

reports and represents primarily those

mentors that were fully approved (91.6%) and

actively engaged with a youth in a mentoring

relationship during the period from October 1,

1997 through December 31, 1997. Additional

mentors were in the process of being screened

and approved and, depending on the project

model, were participating in limited ways,

such as attending group activities or special

project events. Data reported here are not a

cumulative record of the entire funded period,

but instead a snapshot of the activities in

progress.

These data are based on reports

regarding 1,510 mentors from 26 Cohort I

grantees, and 1,148 mentors from 38 Cohort

II grantees. Cohort I grantees reported an

average of 58 active mentors (ranging from 4 to 221); Cohort II grantees reported an average of

30 active mentors (ranging from 0 to 127). It is important to recall that the Cohort II grantees

were in the first year start-up phase of project implementation and many were just beginning to

recruit and screen mentors when these data were gathered.

Mentors Represent a Wide Range of Demographic Characteristics

In general, grantees attempt to diversify their mentor pool. Still, about 52% of mentors

are white. This differs substantially from the youths’ ethnicity, which is primarily African
Characteristics of JUMP Mentors 30

American and is indicative of the difficulty agencies have recruiting mentors from minority

populations. Especially among the Cohort I grantees, white mentors are over-represented when

compared to youth ethnicity. All but ten mentor ethnicities were identified using a single ethnic

category (Exhibits 4:1 and 4:2). There is a difference in the mentor ethnicity reported by BB/BS

affiliates from that reported by non-affiliate agencies. In the BB/BS projects, 73.4% of the

mentors are white, while only 44.5% of mentors in non-affiliate programs are white. Project

location (urban, suburban, rural) did not fully account for this difference. 

Grantees reported ages of mentors at the time of their enrollment in the JUMP project. 

Mentor ages varied considerably within a wide range. The median mentor age is 35 years

(Exhibit 4:3).

Mentor Education and Work

History Varies

JUMP project mentors for the

most part are highly educated with

about 90% having at least some

college experience, and over half

(56%) having college or graduate

degrees. Since mentors are sought to

provide positive role models for the

youth, especially with regard to

educational achievement, the

scholastic success of the mentors is

an important characteristic. (Exhibit

4:4)
Characteristics of JUMP Mentors 31

While 13.7% of the JUMP mentors were reported to be full-time students, most of the

mentors either are in the work force (79.4%), or have retired from it (4.4%). Of the 83.8% of

those that work or are retired, the majority are (or were) in managerial (41.2%) or technical/sales

(22.9%) positions. A small fraction of the mentors are from law enforcement or justice agencies

(4.9%), or are associated with the military (2.5%). Because mentors serve as an important role

model for a positive and productive self-sufficient adulthood, their experiences in the work force

can be important factors in their relationship with youth.

In addition to work experience, many

mentors are reported as having prior mentorlike experience either in a formal mentoring

program, or an informal situation. Grantees

report that almost one third (31.6%) have 

mentoring experience. In addition, many

mentors are parents (40.7%) and thus

presumably gained skills, knowledge, and

understanding of youth through their

experience raising their own children.

Mentors Receive Structured Training

As described in Chapter 2, JUMP projects

offer training and require that mentors participate in some orientation and training prior to being

matched with a youth. At the time of this report, about 88% of the mentors had been offered

some type of training. To make best use of valuable resources, some projects provide training

only when there is a group of enrolled and approved mentors available to participate in the

training. Because of this model, some mentors may be reported as enrolled without training

having yet been provided.

Because they were in their early phases of project implementation, Cohort II agencies

were more likely to be in the process of training their mentors than were Cohort I agencies. 

Although statistically significant, the difference was not large -- 68.7% of the Cohort II mentors

completed their training, and 77.5% of the Cohort I mentors completed their training. For many

grantees, training is an ongoing activity, and these figures primarily represent the initial training

that is required to ensure that the mentors are able to fulfill their mentoring role in accordance

with their own agency guidelines.

A mentor’s relationship with a youth can be intense, complex, and challenging. The

training and support provided by the JUMP project staff are essential for maximizing the success

of the mentoring relationship. In the following chapter we discuss some characteristics of JUMP

mentoring relationships.
The Mentoring Relationship 33

Frank

Frank was severely burned in a house fire when he

was a young child, leaving him badly scarred and

disfigured. Now entering the 11th grade, Frank has

suffered through his parents divorce (primarily the

result of his father’s heroin addiction) and the

disparaging remarks his grandparents often make

about his disfigurement. All of these factors resulted

in Frank being socially withdrawn and having low

self esteem. Always close to her son, Frank’s mother

enrolled him in Big Brothers, with the hope that an

adult mentor would encourage him to participate in

more social activities and improve his self esteem. 

For two years, Frank has had a big brother who

motivated him to excel in school and participate in

more activities. He is now involved in several sports

teams, is participating in a school internship

program, and completed a summer job tutoring

younger children.

- A Midwestern JUMP Mentoring Project

5. THE MENTORING RELATIONSHIP

One key to the effectiveness of mentoring as an intervention is the nature of the

relationship established between a youth and his/her mentor. Each JUMP project is structured to

support a relationship that will address its own uniquely defined project goals. A project that

emphasizes improvement in school performance may look for the mentoring relationship to be

based on formal tutoring sessions during the school day. Other projects that seek to provide

more general support, encouragement, and enrichment for youth at risk may focus on social and

cultural activities that the mentor and youth choose for themselves and carry out independently of

any formal structure. In this chapter we present some of the project considerations when making

matches, and some characteristics of the matches that are reported. 

This information, gathered at the same

time that the information about youth and

mentors was being compiled, represents

primarily those matches that were active

during the period between October 1, 1997

and December 31, 1997. It includes only

matches for which corresponding information

also was available for both the youth and the

mentors involved.

Cohort I agencies reported 1,666

matches, and Cohort II reported 986 matches

for the period in question. The fact that there

are more matches reported for Cohort I than

there are mentors reflects the practice of 

some agencies to match multiple youth to a

single mentor who is willing and able to work

with more than one youth. 

Waiting Time for a Match is Relatively

Brief

There is an average of 2.7 months from the time of enrollment to the date a match is

reported to be made. This value may be somewhat distorted by the fact that about 42% of the

matches appeared to have a zero wait time. Because of the way the information is recorded, it is

unclear at this point whether these youth actually were matched upon their entry into the project,
The Mentoring Relationship 34

or if they, in fact, waited some period to be matched. Regardless, there are some interesting

patterns that emerge from the data that grantees provided. Boys wait, on average, about three

weeks longer than girls to be paired with a mentor. Non-white youth wait about 3.5 weeks

longer than white youth. There was no significant difference between cohorts, and no difference

between JUMP projects affiliated with BB/BS and non-affiliated projects. The longer wait times

for boys and non-whites likely reflects the preponderance of white-female mentors and grantee

desire to match on race and gender.

Most Projects Use Gender as a Matching Criteria

When making a match, gender is a strong determining factor. For those matches in which

the gender of both the youth and the mentor was reported, male mentors were matched with boys

96.8% of the time, and female mentors were matched with girls 86.4% of the time. Only 2.3% of

the girls are matched with a male mentor, however, 18.0% of the boys are matched with a female

mentor. This may reflect the preponderance of women in the mentor pool. Whether same or

cross-gender matches are better is not clear. Since girls are just as likely to be raised in a family

without an adult male figure, it is reasonable to hypothesize that girls may benefit from a positive

mentoring relationship with a man. However, the relative scarcity of male mentors, and the

desire to match on gender means that, in practice, girls are rarely matched with male mentors. 

The mentor/mentee gender relationship is summarized in Exhibit 5:1.

Exhibit 5:1 Same Gender vs. Different Gender Matches

MENTORS

Male Female

Matched with Boys 96.8% 13.6%

Matched with Girls 3.2% 86.4%

YOUTH

Boys Girls

Matched with Male

Mentors

82.0% 2.3%

Matched with Female

Mentors

18.0% 97.7%
The Mentoring Relationship 35

Race and Ethnicity Are Match Considerations 

Although most of the agencies report that they do not use race as a match criteria, there

appears to be a strong relationship between mentor and mentee race and ethnicity. About 60% of

all youth are paired with a mentor of the same race/ethnicity. Since white mentors outnumber

white youth by more than 2 to 1, it is understandable that many white mentors are paired with

non-white youth. In those instances where youth and mentors are of different race/ethnicity, it is

almost always a non-white youth paired with a white mentor (81.7% of the time). Asian mentors

also outnumber Asian youth, so they also frequently are paired with youth of differing ethnicity. 

The opposite is true for African American, Hispanic, and American Indian mentors. For these

groups, the youth outnumber the mentors so most of the mentors in these groups are paired with

youth of their same ethnicity. For instance, 93% of African American mentors are paired with

African American youth, and 71% of the Hispanic mentors are paired with Hispanic youth. 

From the youth perspective, 92% of white youth are paired with a white mentor, while

only 57.4% of African American youth, and 32.8% of Hispanic youth are paired with a mentor of

the same race/ethnicity. It appears that a same-race match is made whenever possible. However,

when minority mentors are not available, minority youth most often are paired with white

mentors. 

As discussed in Chapter 2, some agencies have developed more successful approaches for 

recruiting minority mentors and further research will be important to learn about effective

recruitment practices that are sustained over a longer period of time. To date, there is little or no

research that would support an assessment of whether same-race/ethnicity mentor matches are

more effective or successful than cross-race matches. Either way, a successful mentoring

relationship almost certainly depends on both the needs of the youth and the skills and sensitivity

of the mentor. 

Match Longevity Reflects Project Models

The data available at the time information was gathered for this report are interim data

and reflect ongoing mentor-youth matches. Because of this, accurate measures of match

longevity are not currently available. Only 9.6% of the recorded matches had end dates, which

indicated that the match was terminated at the time of reporting. The median length for

terminated matches was approximately 6.5 months, with the termination dates often

corresponding to the end of the school year. Many school-based projects routinely end matches

in June and re-initiate them again in the fall at the beginning of the following school year. In

January, when data for this report was gathered, the median length of continuing matches was 3.9

months. Note that this also fits the general pattern of school-year matching, and closely

corresponds to a project model that initiates new matches each September when classes resume

after the summer break. In future research, we will investigate more thoroughly the factors that

relate to match longevity as we obtain information that is recorded for a longer period of time.
The Mentoring Relationship 36

JUMP project staff continue to refine their models, strengthen their mentor recruitment,

and learn more about the factors that impact the longevity and ultimate long term success of the

mentoring intervention in preventing school failure, dropping out, and involvement in delinquent

and gang activities. While assessment of long term outcomes requires follow up studies, there

are hopeful indications that mentoring does make a positive difference. The following chapter

presents a discussion of the mentoring promise.
The Mentoring Promise 37

6. THE MENTORING PROMISE

It makes sense that mentoring should help youth develop into caring, self-sufficient

adults. Intuitively, we believe that mentoring works. There is substantial anecdotal evidence that

mentoring has an impact on positive youth development. Research supports the notion that 

children may develop resiliency, at least in part, because of the personal connections they are

able to make with significant adults in their lives. Logically, if mentoring can support positive

youth development, then it also should support the goals of the JUMP program, namely reduction

in delinquency and gang involvement, improvement in academic performance, and reduction in

school drop-out rates. The reality, however, is that historically there has been limited empirical

research to verify the effectiveness of mentoring. 

The recently completed BB/BS study has begun to fill this need for empirical information

and has generated considerable excitement about the evidence that mentoring holds promise as

an effective intervention for youth at risk for future difficulties. In this chapter we discuss

aspects of the JUMP projects that currently can be assessed, including youth and mentor feelings

of satisfaction with the mentoring relationship, and whether or not each perceives any benefit

to the youth as a result of participating in the JUMP project. JUMP grantees obtained feedback

from youth and mentors using a standardized format to ensure consistency in reporting across

sites. The following discussion is based on responses from 962 youth and 792 mentors. These

responses form a substantial subset of the total number of youth and mentors represented in this

report and can provide important information about the effectiveness of mentoring on which to

further build the ongoing national evaluation. One cautionary note is important. As with all

client feedback, this information was obtained from youth and mentors who voluntarily

responded. There is no assurance that the respondents are representative of youth or mentors

who did not choose to respond.

Youth and Mentors View their Mentoring Experience as Positive

While both youth and mentors were extremely positive when rating various aspects of

their mentoring experiences (Exhibit 6:1), mentor and youth perceptions of their relationships did

not completely correspond. The fact that youth responses generally are more positive than the

mentor responses may reflect actual perceptions, or may be an indication of a self-presentation

response bias frequently found in research involving young people. Participation in an evaluation

process may skew a child’s responses positively, especially when the child is being asked to rate

his or her relationship with an adult. 
The Mentoring Promise 38

Exhibit 6:1 Youth and Mentor Report of Satisfaction

ITEM YOUTH RESPONSES (%)

Not Very Much A Little Pretty Much A Lot

How much do you like your mentor? 2% 5% 23% 70%

How well do you get along with your mentor? 1% 5% 26% 68%

How well do you feel your mentor understood

you?

3% 9% 37% 51%

How helpful do you feel your mentor was to you? 3% 7% 26% 64%

ITEM MENTOR RESPONSES (%)

Not Very Much A Little Pretty Much A Lot

How much do you like your mentee? 1% 1% 22% 76%

How well do you get along with your mentee? 1% 2% 35% 62%

How well do you feel you understood your

mentee?

1% 12% 51% 36%

How helpful do you feel you were to your mentee? 3% 22% 43% 31%

 In spite of this apparent mentor/mentee disparity, when the youth responses were

compared with their corresponding mentor responses, weak but positive correlations were

present between youth and mentor ratings on items specifying how much they liked each other,

how well they got along, and how helpful the mentor was to the youth.

Youth and Mentors Believe that Mentoring Helped

Youth and mentor perception of benefits also correlated with one another, indicating that

both may have perceived similar improvements within the youth. The following table

summarizes the percentage of youth and mentors that report seeing improvement in specified risk

areas (Exhibit 6:2). Each was asked to indicate whether they believed having a mentor helped a

little, a lot, or not at all with each risk behavior.
The Mentoring Promise 39

Exhibit 6:2 Perceptions of Benefits Received

Youth Perception of

Benefit 

Mentor Perception of

Benefit

A Little Bit A Lot A Little Bit A Lot

Getting better grades 42.0% 49.1% 56.0% 30.1%

Attending all classes 23.3% 64.3% 45.2% 36.5%

Staying away from alcohol 13.2% 69.9% 40.1% 41.3%

Staying away from drugs 12.2% 71.0% 39.2% 42.7%

Avoiding fights 27.3% 57.4% 43.3% 41.5%

Staying away from gangs 15.6% 67.6% 37.5% 44.0%

Not using knives or guns 11.1% 68.0% 31.9% 47.1%

Avoiding friends starting trouble 27.5% 51.0% 47.8% 34.4%

Getting along with family 24.4% 61.6% 48.3% 40.2%

Match Characteristics Affect Perceived Benefits

There were 463 (265 female and 198 male) instances where, using assigned identification

numbers, information received from mentors and youth regarding perceived benefits could be

combined with corresponding demographic and match characteristics. From these cases, an

indication of the perceived satisfaction and benefits could be analyzed with relation to some

youth and mentor descriptive characteristics.

It is interesting to note that the boys in the sample who were paired with female mentors

reported both liking their mentor and feeling understood by their mentors equally with those

paired with male mentors. However, those boys matched with a male mentor report greater

benefits in some areas than those matched with female mentors. Specifically they report

receiving greater benefit with respect to avoiding drugs and gangs. There also are marginally

significant differences in reports that mentoring helped youth avoid alcohol and weapons. These

preliminary results must be confirmed with more objective data, as the reports of perceived

benefits by the youth cannot be taken as an undisputable measure of program effectiveness. 

However, it does suggest that there are differences between those boys matched with female as

opposed to male mentors. There were only two cases of girls matched with male mentors within

this smaller subset of data, so no similar analysis can be conducted for the girls. 
The Mentoring Promise 40

As discussed before, about 40% of the youth are matched with a mentor of a different

race. Given the paucity of scientific research on the mentoring relationship, it is not possible to

predict whether race has any consistent bearing on the effect of the match or the possibilities for

benefits. In the pilot data set, 170 youth had a mentor of a different race or ethnic identification,

while 270 were of the same race or ethnicity. Again, youth assigned to multiple mentors were

not included in this subset. On the self-reported description of the mentoring relationship, and

the perceived benefits, there was only one item that showed any relationship with race-matching. 

Youth matched with a mentor of a different race reported liking their mentor more than those

matched with a mentor of the same race.

While there was little difference among youth who were matched with same-gender or

same-ethnicity mentors and the extent they reported liking their mentor or reported perceived

benefits from the relationship, the same did not hold true for feedback from the mentors. Women

paired with male mentees reported that they observed significantly less improvement in a number

of areas than men paired with male mentees. The behaviors in which the greatest differences

occurred between male and female mentors included:

C staying away from alcohol,

C staying away from drugs,

C avoiding fights,

C staying away from gangs,

C not using knives or guns, and

C avoiding friends starting trouble. 

Female mentors also perceived less improvement in the youth’s relationship with his/her family

members.

When youth and mentors were of different race or ethnicity, the mentors also reported

perceiving significantly less improvement in these same areas, and also in class attendance. 

Mentors paired with a youth of the same race or ethnicity reported that they believed they

understood their mentee better than those involved in cross-race matches.

There are a number of complicating issues that must be considered when interpreting the

race-match results presented above. The most important consideration should be the race of the

youth. Recall that almost all white youth are paired with a white mentor. Thus, when splitting

the cases into those with same versus cross-race matches, all but seven of the white youth are

placed in the same-race category. Conversely, in this data set 52.2% of the non-white youth are

in cross-race matches. Therefore, the differences observed may be the result of the stark

demographic differences between those youth in same versus cross-race matches. It is therefore

reasonable to repeat the race-match analyses presented above, excluding white youth. Such an

analysis was conducted with results mirroring the results already presented. It would seem that

our preliminary data indicate that cross-gender, and cross-race matches are perceived by the

mentor as less beneficial to the youth. However, youth reports did not differ significantly
The Mentoring Promise 41

Preliminary reports from

youth and mentors leave us

with great optimism for the

promise of mentoring.

regardless of gender and racial matching. Clearly, this will be an area for future research. It will

be important to verify the self-reports of improvement with more objective measures. Further,

more sophisticated research designs and analyses will be needed to control for potentially

confounding variables. 

The preliminary reports from youth and

mentors leave us with great optimism for the

promise of mentoring. The challenge for OJJDP

is to continue supporting the JUMP grant

projects and the national evaluation of those

projects long enough to learn which features of

the projects and matching models are statistically

related to successful outcomes. Our goal is to

identify and share effective practices that can be replicated by community-based organizations

across the country. Ultimately, through the addition of the protective factor of mentoring to

support healthy youth development, we will be moving closer to reaching the JUMP program

goals.
Next Steps 43

Literature in the fields of

prevention and resilience

indicate that a mentoringtype relationship can and

does have a positive impact

on the healthy development

of youth at risk.

7. NEXT STEPS

The Juvenile Mentoring Program (JUMP), supported by OJJDP, is a key component of

OJJDP’s Comprehensive Strategy and the Juvenile Justice Action Plan. Mentoring has the

potential to reduce risk factors that make children vulnerable to delinquency, school failure, and

dropping out. At the same time, a mentoring relationship has the potential to serve as a

protective factor which buffers youth from the many risks they must navigate as they grow to

adulthood. Mentoring can be introduced into a child’s life early as a primary prevention

intervention, or later as a mitigating or remediating intervention. Mentoring can operate in

support of a wide variety of goals such as improved school performance and attendance,

abstinence from drug and alcohol use, reduction in gang involvement, and avoidance of

delinquent activities. The JUMP program, first authorized by Congress in FY 1992, and first

funded with combined FY 1994 and FY 1995 funds, has, through grants to local education

agencies (LEA’s) and community-based organizations, provided interventions to thousands of

youth since its inception. At the time this report was being prepared, over 3,000 youth, from

Cohorts I and II, were enrolled and actively involved in a JUMP mentoring project.

There is considerable literature in the

fields of prevention and resilience to indicate

that a mentoring-type relationship can and does

have a positive impact on the healthy

development of youth at risk. The JUMP

program grants allow local organizations to

establish mentoring activities designed to meet

their own local needs and serve youth at greatest

risk in their communities. With OJJDP’s

leadership, lessons learned from the operating

JUMP projects and from the national evaluations

can provide a greater understanding of what it is

that makes mentoring work, key factors that are critical to the success of a mentoring

relationship, project models that show promise, and effective approaches to community

collaborations. 

In the current fiscal year, OJJDP supported a one year continuation of the original 41

JUMP grant projects. This was done in order to enhance the evaluation of these projects. Each

Cohort I project received supplemental funds in an amount which, when combined with its

unexpended fund balance at the end of year three, would allow the project to complete a fourth 
Next Steps 44

Youth

 Environment Risk/Assets Youth Presenting

Issues

Project

Model/Activities

Selection

Mentor

Recruitment/

Training

Match

Success

Youth

Outcome

Persistence

Intervention

Effect

Support

Skills

Exhibit 7:1 JUMP Outcome Model

year of project activity. Together with the second group of 52 continuing Cohort II grantees,

OJJDP currently is funding 93 JUMP projects. It is anticipated that 23 to 26 new projects will be

funded this year. 

The two national evaluation efforts -- SafeFutures and JUMP -- will continue. The

SafeFutures evaluation will continue to address the program implementation process and to

measure performance outcomes across the sites. The evaluation activities are based on a logic

model that links project activities and outputs to desired intermediate and long-term outcomes. 

Utilization, duration, and intensity of mentoring services are among the variables being tracked

by the SafeFutures evaluation. On-site monitoring and interviews with key stakeholders, service

providers, and youth will help OJJDP determine whether a comprehensive strategy involving

community and program resources to provide a continuum of care has succeeded in preventing

and reducing juvenile violence and delinquency. 

The initial JUMP evaluation activities focused on documenting JUMP project

implementation and on gathering descriptive information about youth, mentors, matches, and

mentoring project models. This information, much of which has been presented in this report,

provides the foundation for the next phase of evaluation activities.

The second phase of the JUMP evaluation will measure changes in youth behavior and

attitudes that may be attributable to their participation in a mentoring relationship. The

evaluation will examine the relationship between those changes and a variety of factors including

youth risk factors, project model and activities, and mentor recruitment and training strategies. It

is expected that these factors will impact the duration and success of each mentoring relationship,

and ultimately youth outcomes (Exhibit 7:1). The outcome model takes into account the extent

and severity of risk with which each youth enters a JUMP project, making it possible to more

accurately assess the effectiveness of mentoring in influencing positive behavior changes. 

The JUMP evaluation 

utilizes an approach that tracks

each youth’s progress in such

areas as school performance and

attendance, avoidance of

delinquent behavior, abstinence

from alcohol and drugs, and

avoidance of gang affiliation. 

Baseline measures will be taken

at the time of the youth’s

enrollment into the JUMP

project. Measures of progress

will be obtained annually, with

outcomes obtained at the time of

the youth’s exit from the project. 
Next Steps 45

Analysis of youth progress and outcomes in relation to project models of service delivery

will allow us to identify specific project characteristics that are most closely linked with positive

outcomes. Because the JUMP program allows each grantee to design and implement, within the

JUMP guidelines, a unique service delivery model to best meet the needs of youth in each

community, the evaluation will be able to examine a wide range of project approaches. It is

anticipated that there will be a link between approaches to project implementation, successful

mentoring relationships, and positive change in youth behaviors. Exhibit 7:2 summarizes youth,

project, match, and outcome variables the JUMP evaluation will examine.

Exhibit 7:2 JUMP Evaluation Variables

YOUTH

ENVIRONMENT

PROJECT MODEL YOUTH ISSUES MATCH

SUCCESS

DESIRED YOUTH

OUTCOMES

Family

Economic

Peer

Community

Project Goals

Agency Organization

Collaborating Partners

Target Youth Population

Activities

Schedule

Staff

Resources 

3

Mentor Management:

Target Population

Recruitment Model

Requirements

Training

Supervision

Delinquency

 ATOD Use

Truancy

School Failure

Negative Peers

Gang Affiliation

High Risk

Behaviors

Consistency

Duration

Perceived Benefits

No New Arrests

No ATOD Use

Regular School

Attendance

Positive Peer Group

Gang Avoidance

Improved:

Grades

Family Relationships

Social Skills

Leisure/Recreational

Skills

Physical Health

OJJDP intends that the JUMP evaluation will accomplish three main objectives:

1) documentation of the overall effectiveness of the JUMP program in modifying youth

behaviors that reasonably can be expected to impact achievement of the long-term goals

of reducing juvenile delinquency and gang participation, improving academic

performance, and reducing the dropout rate;

2) provision of specific feedback and assistance to the JUMP projects regarding their own

effectiveness; and

3) identification of specific programmatic practices that show greatest promise for

successfully reaching positive youth and community outcomes.
Next Steps 46

Martin

By fifth grade, Martin was well on his way to

becoming another statistic in Wicomico County. 

This rural Maryland county has a high rate of

juvenile justice intake cases involving assault, theft

and runaways. Martin never knew his father and his

mother died, leaving him in the care of his

grandmother and uncle. Upon entering his new

school, Martin presented himself as the stereotypical

angry young man: belligerent, defiant, uncaring,

unkempt, and a bully. Then he was matched with a

mentor. In the two years following that match,

Martin has begun to wash his own clothes and care

about his personal appearance. He takes

responsibility for his actions and no longer gets into

fights. He has made new friends. At a recent

Parent/Student/Mentor Team Meeting, Martin drew

a poster about "What Having a Mentor Means to

Me." This picture of a huge red heart, with

welcoming arms, sturdy legs, and a big open smile so

perfectly captured the essence of our program that

the advisory board has selected it as our official

logo.

- Wicomico Mentoring Program

To maximize the opportunity for success of the JUMP grantees, OJJDP also is supporting

training and technical assistance (T&TA) for JUMP project staff. This T&TA will occur in a

variety of ways including phone and on-site individualized assistance, provision of documents to

guide project operations, distribution of a JUMP Self-Evaluation Manual, an on-line network to

support information exchanges among peer grantees, and attendance at national conferences and

symposiums. 

In keeping with OJJDP’s desire to

address special needs of specific populations,

several JUMP mentoring projects will

continue to be funded in order to focus efforts

on female juvenile offenders and at-risk girls,

American Indian and Alaskan Native

communities, and minorities who

historically have been disproportionately

represented in the juvenile justice system.

In FY 1998 Congress appropriated one

million dollars to support Big Brothers/Big

Sisters (BB/BS) capacity building activities. 

Based on a history of leadership in the

mentoring field, BB/BS will use these funds

to increase the knowledge and capability of

community-based organizations to implement

and operate mentoring projects. BB/BS has

made a commitment to develop new

approaches to recruitment and management of

volunteers, foster new programmatic

initiatives, and generate community support to

expand the capacity of BB/BS affiliates. 

OJJDP will share the findings and lessons

learned by BB/BS with other bureaus within the Office of Justice Programs (OJP), the Mentoring

Alliance, the Mentoring Policy Council, other Federal agencies, and the mentoring field.

 OJJDP coordination of efforts between Federal departments and agencies allows easy

exchange of information and lessons learned across program areas. The Department of Justice

(DOJ) works closely, for example, with the Departments of Health and Human Services,

Education, Housing and Urban Development, Labor, and other Coordinating Council members,

to coordinate community-based efforts that share the common goal of delinquency, gang, or

violence prevention. In addition, DOJ staff participate on the Interagency Council on Mentoring

which is working to identify existing mentoring projects, investigate research issues, and explore

opportunities for further collaboration. All information that is gathered through each of the
Next Steps 47

By Martin - Wicomico County

mentoring or other related projects will be

disseminated widely through a variety of media and

resources including the OJJDP Juvenile Justice

Clearinghouse and the National Training and

Technical Assistance Center.

As we learn more about mentoring and

effective mentoring practices that lead to

measurable positive outcomes for youth at risk,

OJJDP will have taken significant steps forward

in the effort to reduce delinquency, juvenile

violence, participation by juveniles in gangs,

school failure, and drop-out rates. Moreover, we

will have provided communities with a proven

tool to be used to sustain that progress in the

years to come.
References 49

REFERENCES

Anthony, E.J., and B.J. Cohler (Eds.) (1987). The invulnerable child. New York: The

Guilford Press.

Austin, G., and Bickel, A. (in press). Beyond prevention curricula: A guide to developing

alternative activities programs. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Beardslee, M.D., and Podorefsky, M.A. (1988). Resilient adolescents whose parents have

serious affective and other psychiatric disorders: Importance of self-understanding and

relationships. American Journal of Psychiatry, 145, 63-69

Bernard, B. (1992). Mentoring programs for urban youth: Handle with care. Portland,

OR: Western Regional Center for Drug-Free Schools and Communities, Far West Laboratories.

Bilchik, S. (1998, May). A juvenile justice system for the 21st century. Juvenile Justice

Bulletin. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S.

Department of Justice.

Bolig, R., and Weddle, K.D. (1988). Resiliency and hospitalization of children.

Children’s Health Care, 16, 255-260.

Brook, J.S., Whiteman, M., Gordon, A.S., Nomura, C., and Brook, D.W. (1986). Onset

of adolescent drinking: A longitudinal study of intrapersonal and interpersonal antecedents.

Advances in Alcohol and Substance Abuse, 5, 91-110.

Brown, R.S., (1996). Challenges and potential of mentoring at-risk students: A literature

review. ERS Spectrum, Spring 1996, 17-28.

Buckhalt, J.A., Halpin, G., Noel, R., and Meadows, M.E. (1992). Relationship of drug

use to involvement in school, home and community activities: Results of a large survey of

adolescents. Psychological Reports, 70, 139-146.

Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development (1992). A matter of time: Risk and

opportunity in the non-school hours. New York: Carnegie Corporation.

Catalano, R.F., and Hawkins, J.D. (1995). Risk focused preventions, using the social

development strategy. Seattle, WA: Developmental Research and Programs, Inc.
References 50

Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (1996, May).

Combating violence and delinquency: The national juvenile justice action plan. Washington,

DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice.

Crockett, L., and Smink, J. (1991). A mentoring guidebook: A practical manual for

designing and managing a mentoring program. Clemson, SC: National Dropout Prevention

Center.

DHHS, SAMHSA (In Press). Adult involvement in the lives of youth. DHHS Publication

No. SMA 98-XXX.

Dornbusch, S.M., Carlsmith, J.M., Bushwall, S.J., Ritter, P.L., Leiderman, H., Hastorf,

H.S., and Gross, R.T. (1985). Single parents, extended households, and the control of

adolescents. Child Development, 56, 326-341.

Dugan, T., and R. Coles (Eds.), (1989). The child in our times: Studies in the

development of resiliency. New York: Bruner/Mazel.

Freedman, Marc (1993). The kindness of strangers: Adult mentors, urban youth, and the

new voluntarism. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Garmezy, N. (1981). Children under stress: Perspectives on anecdotes and correlates of

vulnerability and resistance to psychopathology. In A.I. Rabin, A.M. Barclay, and R.A Zucker

(eds.). Further Explorations in Personality, (pp.196-270). New York: Wilely.

Garmezy, N. (1985). Stress-resistant children: The search for protective factors. In J.E.

Stevenson (Ed.), Recent research in developmental psychopathology: Journal of Child

Psychology and Psychiatry Book Supplement 4 (pp.213-233). Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Grossman, F.K., Beinashowitz, J., Anderson, L., Sakurai, M., Finnin, L., and Flaherty, M.

(1992). Risk and resilience in young adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescents, 21, 529-

550.

Grossman, J.B., and Garry, E.M. (1997, April). Mentoring -- A proven delinquency

prevention strategy. Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice.

Hauser, S.T., Vieyra, M.A., Jacobson, A.M. and Wertreib D. (1985). Vulnerability and

resilience in adolescence: Views from the family. Journal of Early Adolescence, 5, 81-100.

Hawkins, J. D., and Catalano, R.F. (1992). Communities that care: Risk-focused

prevention using the social developmental model. Seattle, WA: Developmental Research and

Programs, Inc.
References 51

Hawkins, J.D., Catalano, R.F. and Miller, J.Y. (1992). Risk and protective factors for

alcohol and other drug problems in adolescence and early adulthood. Psychological Bulletin,

112, 64-105.

Howell, J. C. (Ed.) (1995). Guide for implementing the comprehensive strategy for

serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offenders. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention, U..S. Department of Justice.

Kelly, B.T., Loeber, R., Keenan, K. and DeLamatre, M. (1997, December). 

Developmental pathways in boys’ disruptive and delinquent behavior. Juvenile Justice Bulletin.

Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of

Justice.

Kids count data book: State profiles of child well-being (1998). Baltimore, MD: Annie

E. Casey Foundation.

Masten, A., and Coatsworth, J.D. (1998). The development of competence in favorable

and unfavorable environments. American Psychologist, 53, 205-220.

Rak, C.F., and Patterson, L.E. (1996). Promoting resilience in at-risk children. Journal

of Counseling and Development, 74, 368-373.

Resnick, M. et.al. (1997, September). Protecting adolescents from harm: Findings from

the national longitudinal study on adolescent health. JAMA ® Journal of the American Medical

Association, 278, 823-832.

Richardson, J.L., Dwyer, K., McGuigan, K., Hansen, W.B., Dent, C., Johnson, C.A., 

Sussman, S.Y., Brannon, B. and Flay, B. (1989). Substance use among eighth grade students that

take care of themselves after school. Pediatrics, 84, 556-566.

Rhodes, J.E., Gingiss, P.L. and Smith, P.B. (1994). Risk and protective factors for

alcohol use among pregnant african-american, hispanic, and white adolescents: The influence of

peers, sexual partners, family members, and mentors. Addictive Behaviors, 8, 555-564.

Rutter, M. (1979). Protective factors in children’s responses to stress and disadvantage. 

In M.W. Kent and J.E. Rolf (Eds.). Primary prevention of psychopathology: Vol. 3. Social

competence in children (pp.49-74). Hanover, NH: University Press of New England.

Saito, R.N., and Blyth, D.A. (1994). Understanding mentoring relationships.

Minneapolis, MN: Search Institute.

Sedlack, A.J. (1997). National evaluation of runaway and homeless youth: Preliminary

findings. Presented to ACYF/DHHS, Switzer Building, Washington, D.C. 
References 52

Snyder, H., (1997, November). Juvenile arrests 1996. Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention,.

Stanton, M.D. (1979). Drugs and the family: A review of recent literature. Marriage and

Family Review, 2, 3-10.

Tierney, J.P., Grossman, J.B., and Resch, N. (1995). Making a difference: An impact

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

Turner, S., and Scherman, A. (1996, Winter). Big Brothers: Impact on little brothers’

self-concepts and behaviors. Adolescence, 31, 875-882.

VanNelson, C., Thompson, J.C., Rice, C.M. and Cooley, V.E. (1991). The effect of

participation in activities outside the school and family structure on substance use by middle and

secondary school students. Paper presented at annual meeting of the Midwest Educational

Research Association, Chicago.

Werner, E.E. (1984, November). Resilient children. Young Children, 40, 68-72.

Werner, E.E. (1985). Stress and protective factors in children’s lives. In A.R. Nicol (Ed.),

Longitudinal studies in child psychology and psychiatry. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Ltd.

Werner, E.E., and Smith, R.S. (1992). Overcoming the odds: High risk children from

birth to adulthood. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Wilson, J.J., and Howell, J.C. (1993). A comprehensive strategy for serious, violent, and

chronic juvenile offenders: Program summary. Washington, D.C: U.S. Department of Justice,

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 

Windle, M. (1994). Substance use, risky behaviors, and victimization among a U.S.

national adolescent sample. Addiction, 89, 129-146.
APPENDIX

A. JUMP Grant Awards by State

B. Summary of JUMP Grant Awards

C. JUMP Grantee Locations

D. Additional Resources
APPENDIX A: JUMP GRANT AWARDS BY STATE

STATE CITY GRANTEE AWARD

 Alaska (N=1)

Anchorage Big Brothers/Big Sisters of Anchorage, Inc. $187,283

 Alabama (N=1)

Birmingham Operation Pride West End - UAB Center: Urban Affairs $190,000

 Arizona (N=3)

Phoenix Jumpstart - Valley Big Brothers/Big Sisters $179,996

Phoenix Washington Elementary School District - Royal Palm $189,997

Tucson Tucson Unified School District: Native American Studies $189,589

 California (N=9)

El Cajon Family Support Foundation- Paradise Valley Hospital $179,962

La Puente Rowland Unified School District - Family Resource Cntr. $190,000

Los Angeles LA County DA’s Office - Bureau of Crime Prevention $180,000

Los Angeles Los Angeles Wings of Faith $189,475

Redwood City Friends for Youth, Inc. $190,000

San Bernardino City of San Bernardino Mentoring Program $190,000

San Jacinto Valley Youth Foundation - Valle Vista Community Cntr. $172,315

Santa Barbara Big Brothers/Big Sisters of Santa Barbara $180,000

Visalia Community Services and Employment Training $180,000

 Colorado (N=3)

Colorado Springs DHS - Community Mentor Center $189,955

Denver Big Brothers/Big Sisters of Northern Colorado, Inc. $158,083

Greeley Weld County Youth Alternatives - PARTNERS $166,170

 District of Columbia (N=2)

Washington District of Columbia Courts - WKAY 100 $189,938

Washington Shiloh Family Life Center $180,000
STATE CITY GRANTEE AWARD

 Florida (N=7)

Clearwater Pinellas County Education Foundation $180,000

Fort Meyers Big Brothers/Big Sisters of SW Florida, Inc. $184,433

Fort Pierce Big Brothers/Big Sisters of St. Lucie County $188,259

Miami Communities in Schools of Miami, Inc. - Burger King $180,000

Miami Metropolitan Dade County DHS - JASS $190,000

Pensacola Big Brothers/Big Sisters of NW Florida $179,965

St. Augustine Big Brothers/Big Sisters - Epic Community Services, Inc. $111,242

 Georgia (N=1)

Marietta Big Brothers/Big Sisters of Metro Atlanta - Cobb Prog. $190,000

 Idaho (N=1)

Boise Big Brothers/Big Sisters of SW Idaho $170,567

 Illinois (N=4)

Bloomington Project OZ, Inc. $187,662

Cahokia Cahokia School District #187 $189,500

Chicago Chicago Cities in Schools, Inc. $175,076

Chicago Chicago Commons Association - New Futures $190,000

 Indiana (N=1)

Bloomington Big Brothers/Big Sisters of Monroe County $169,680

 Kansas (N=1)

Wichita Big Brothers/Big Sisters of Sedgwick - JUMPSTART $190,000

 Kentucky (N=1)

Middlesboro Middlesboro Independent Schools - YSC $150,830

 Louisiana (N=3)

Baton Rouge Young Leaders’ Academy $189,999

Metairie Gulf Coast Communities Foundation $163,350

Shreveport Volunteers of America of North LA $189,999
STATE CITY GRANTEE AWARD

 Massachusetts (N=5)

Boston Greater Boston One-To-One, Inc. $180,000

Brockton MA Youth Unemployment Reduction Network $189,999

Haverhill Community Action, Inc. $178,609

Lawrence Greater Lawrence Community Action Council $182,344

Springfield Corporation for Public Management $180,000

 Maryland (N=4)

Baltimore Baltimore Mentoring Partnership $180,000

Baltimore One-To-One: Big Brothers/Big Sisters of Central MD $189,998

Columbia St. John Baptist Church Mentoring Program $190,000

Salisbury Wicomico County Board of Education $119,800

 Michigan (N=1)

Grand Rapids Grand Rapids Public Schools-Weed and Seed $187,080

 Minnesota (N=2)

Minneapolis Big Brothers/Big Sisters of Greater Minneapolis $179,953

Minneapolis Resource, Inc. - First Opportunity $190,000

 Missouri (N=2)

Kansas City YMCA of Greater Kansas City $190,000

St. Louis Barnes-Jewish Hospital $180,000

 Mississippi (N=2)

Greenwood Greenwood Leflore Cities in Schools, Inc. $155,000

Marks Quitman County School District - YOU $190,000

 Nebraska (N=1)

Lincoln Lincoln Action Program $180,000

 New Jersey (N=2)

New Brunswick Early Start Mentoring Program $180,000

Trenton Big Brothers/Big Sisters of Mercer & Ocean Counties $178,538
STATE CITY GRANTEE AWARD

 New York (N=8)

Bronx Pius XII Youth & Family Services - UW $189,420

Buffalo Be-A-Friend Program, Inc. $190,000

Long Beach Long Beach City Schools $180,000

New York Liberty Partnerships - Bank Street College of Education $180,000

New York Children’s Aid Society $180,000

New York Grand Street Settlement, Inc. $190,000

Syracuse Center for Community Althernatives $179,511

ValHalla St. Christophers -Jennie Clarkson Child Care Service $190,000

 Ohio (N=4)

Cincinnati Cincinnati Youth Collaborative $180,000

Cleveland Case Western Reserve - Student Community Service $110,991

Cleveland East Cleveland Youth Opportunities Unlimited $188,278

Columbus Village to Child - OH Dominican College $135,750

 Oregon (N=1)

Eugene Committed Partners for Youth $190,000

 Pennsylvania (N=4)

Easton Valley Youth House Committee, Inc. $190,000

Philadelphia Big Sisters of Philadelphia Services for Latino Girls $180,000

Reading Berks Community Action Program, Inc. - YES $190,000

Wilkes Barre Catholic Social Services $179,430

 Rhode Island (N=2)

Providence Family Service, Inc. $176,706

Providence Providence Housing Authority - BBBS $170,250

 South Carolina (N=1)

McCormick McCormick School District - Project SUCCESS $160,310
STATE CITY GRANTEE AWARD

 South Dakota (N=1)

Rapid City Rural America Initiatives - Ateyapi Mentoring $186,488

 Tennessee (N=1)

Nashville Buddies of Nashville, Inc. $180,000

 Texas (N=6)

Austin Big Brothers/Big Sisters of Austin, Inc. $180,000

Houston I Have A Dream $174,543

Mission Dismas Charities, Inc. $190,000

Pasadena Neighborhood Centers, Inc. $189,800

San Antonio Ella Austin Community Center $190,000

San Antonio George Gervin Youth Center $180,000

 Virginia (N=3)

Richmond North Richmond YMCA Black Achievers Program $165,091

Richmond VA Department of Correctional Education $180,000

Virginia Beach Big Brothers/Big Sisters of South Hampton Roads $190,000

 Washington (N=3)

Federal Way World Vision Relief & Development, Inc - KidREACH $190,000

Renton Communities in Schools of Renton $190,000

Seattle Center for Career Alternatives $180,000

 Wisconsin (N=2)

Madison City of Madison - Office of Community Service $190,000

Milwaukee Boys and Girls Club of Milwaukee $180,000
APPENDIX B: SUMMARY OF JUMP GRANT AWARDS

STATE # GRANTS

AWARDED

FY 1994-1995

AMOUNT

FY 1996-1997

AMOUNT

TOTAL

AWARD

ALASKA 1 0 $187,283 $187,283

ALABAMA 1 0 $190,000 $190,000

ARIZONA 3 $179,996 $379,586 $559,582

CALIFORNIA 9 $712,277 $939,475 $1,651,752

COLORADO 3 $324,253 $189,955 $514,208

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 2 $180,000 $189,938 $369,938

FLORIDA 7 $651,207 $562,692 $1,213,899

GEORGIA 1 0 $190,000 $190,000

IDAHO 1 $170,567 0 $170,567

ILLINOIS 4 $175,076 $567,162 $742,238

INDIANA 1 $169,680 0 $169,680

KANSAS 1 0 $190,000 $190,000

KENTUCKY 1 0 $150,830 $150,830

LOUISIANA 3 $163,350 $379,998 $543,348

MASSACHUSETTS 5 $538,609 $372,343 $910,952

MARYLAND 4 $299,800 $379,998 $679,798

MICHIGAN 1 0 $187,080 $187,080

MINNESOTA 2 $179,953 $190,000 $369,953

MISSOURI 2 $180,000 $190,000 $370,000

MISSISSIPPI 2 $155,000 $190,000 $345,000

NEBRASKA 1 $180,000 0 $180,000

NEW JERSEY 2 $180,000 $178,538 $358,538

NEW YORK 8 $719,511 $759,420 $1,478,931

OHIO 4 $426,741 $188,278 $615,019
STATE # GRANTS

AWARDED

FY 1994-1995

AMOUNT

FY 1996-1997

AMOUNT

TOTAL

AWARD

OREGON 1 0 $190,000 $190,000

PENNSYLVANIA 4 $180,000 $559,430 $739,430

RHODE ISLAND 2 $176,706 $170,250 $346,956

SOUTH CAROLINA 1 0 $160,310 $160,310

SOUTH DAKOTA 1 0 $186,488 $186,488

TENNESSEE 1 $180,000 0 $180,000

TEXAS 6 $360,000 $744,343 $1,104,343

VIRGINIA 3 $180,000 $355,091 $535,091

WASHINGTON 3 $180,000 $380,000 $560,000

WISCONSIN 2 $180,000 $190,000 $370,000

TOTAL 93 $7,022,726 $9,688,488 $16,711,214

Additional Resources

APPENDIX D: ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

Blum, R.W. and Rinehart, P.M. (1997). Reducing the risk: Connections that make a

difference in the lives of youth. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota.

Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development (1995). Great transitions: Preparing

adolescents for a new century., New York: Carnegie Corporation.

Cohen, M.A. (1994). The monetary value of saving a high risk youth. Washington, DC: 

The Urban Institute.

Elliott, D.S., Ageton, S.S., and Huizinga, D. (1985). Explaining delinquency and drug

use. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Elliott, D.S., Huizinga, D., and Menard, S. (1989). Multiple problem youth: 

Delinquency, substance abuse, and mental health problems. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Ebensen, F., and Huizinga, D. (1993). Gangs, drugs, and delinquency in a survey of

urban youth. Criminology, 31, 565-589.

Huizinga, D., Loeber, R., and Thornberry, T.P. (1994). Urban delinquency and

substance abuse. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice.

Sickmund, M., Snyder, H., and Poe-Yamagata, E. (1997, August). Juvenile offenders and

victims: 1997 update on violence. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice.

Snyder, H., Sickmund, M., and Poe-Yamagata, E. (1996, February). Juvenile offenders

and victims: 1996 update on violence. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice.

Werner, E.E., and Smith, R.S. (1982). Vulnerable but not invincible: A longitudinal

study of resilient children and youth. New York: McGraw Hill.
U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Washington, DC 20531

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

PRESORTED STANDARD

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

DOJ/OJJDP

PERMIT NO. G–91

NCJ 173424