Mentoring Youth in the Juvenile Justice System

1998 Report to Congress – Juvenile Mentoring Program (JUMP). (1998). Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/952872.pdf
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). 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 benefited 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.

Aftercare for Indiana Through Mentoring. (2006). Mentoring Program Manual. Indianapolis, IN.
http://aim.spea.iupui.edu
This manual provides a description of the mentoring program operated as a part of Aftercare for Indiana through Mentoring (AIM), a juvenile reentry program that has operated since 1996 in the state of Indiana. The mission of AIM is to support Indiana’s incarcerated youth in making the transition from corrections to community through healthy relationships with adult mentors. AIM is a diverse team of dedicated AmeriCorps members and adult volunteers. AIM provides reentry support to incarcerated youths returning to communities throughout Indiana. AIM provides effective role models that target unique needs of these youths, inspiring purpose, motivation and direction. With a focus on life skills, AIM steers the youths toward success by engaging community resources and service providers.

Anderson, M. L. C. (1994). The high juvenile crime rate: A look at mentoring as a preventive strategy. Criminal Law Bulletin, 30, 54-75.
This article examines mentoring as a delinquency-preventive measure. Anderson cites several articles on the efficacy of mentoring programs. She applies social learning theory to the delinquent population - peer pressure, delinquent affiliations, and social opportunities as influencing or inducing delinquency. Therefore, the current practice of isolating juvenile offenders with others of similar bent reinforces all the wrong social factors; mentoring is seen as a way both to weaken the links to delinquent behavior and to reinforce socially desired behaviors. Another point she makes is that children need positive attachment to at least one stable, affirmative adult. Studies are cited showing the role of family in the development (or prevention) of delinquent behavior; a mentor can substitute for family. Also noted is the link between positive self-esteem (and feelings of self-worth) and prevention of delinquency; mentors can provide this stability and foster positive self-esteem and reliance. All in all, mentoring is seen as a buffer between the child and adverse environmental influences. Anderson suggests that intervention programs: 1) foster bonding of children with an adult mentor, 2) teach prosaic means for problem solving, and 3) promote effective adaptation of children to positive forces within their environment via mentors. She also describes the support these program should provide to the mentor. This is a theoretical paper; it does not give information about any particular program. It does describe factors thought to underlay the development of delinquent behavior and proposes that mentoring addresses and remedies those factors.

Baldwin Grossman, J. & Garry, E. M. (1997). Mentoring—A proven delinquency prevention strategy, OJJDP Juvenile Justice Bulletin, 1-7.
In the past decade, mentoring programs for disadvantaged children and adolescents have received serious attention as a promising approach to enriching children’s lives, addressing their need for positive adults contact, and providing one-on-one support and advocacy for those who need it. A study of the Big Brothers/Big Sisters program by Public/Private Ventures found that mentored youth were less likely to engage in drug or alcohol use, resort to violence, or skip school and were more likely to improve their grades and relationships with family an friends. OJJDP will implement some of the BB/BS strategies in order to streamline it’s own Juvenile Mentoring Program (JUMP). JUMP is a one-on-one mentoring program between an adult and a juvenile, and is designed to reduce juvenile delinquency and gang participation, improve academic performance, and reduce school dropout rates. Some programs emphasize tutoring and academic assistance, while others stress vocational counseling and training. The P/PV evaluation, plus its two years of experience with JUMP, led OJJDP to modify the project design guidelines in its 1996 JUMP solicitation to reflect the latest knowledge about what works in mentoring. Based upon the study, OJJDP expanded the guideline on mentor support and training, emphasizing that the program coordinator should have frequent contact with parents or guardians, volunteers, and youth and should provide assistance when requested or as problems arise. OJJDP inserted a guideline on the role of the mentor, added a caution about time limitations that may interfere with the effectiveness of college undergraduate or graduate students as mentors, suggested that parents should have a say in the selection of mentors, called for screening mechanisms to weed out noncommittal volunteers, and established minimum expectations for the time mentors should spend with youth.

Brannen, S. Thresholds mentoring: Juvenile Justice Ministry in the Archdiocese of Santa Fe. http://www.eifm.info/ThesisPapers/Brannen/Brannen_thesis.doc
This paper will present a model for ministry with juvenile delinquents that assists them in the transition to their local and faith communities, and that challenges parishes to be more aware of the needs of all ex-prisoners, especially youth. This paper will also propose a faith-based reintegration mentoring as a model for ministry with incarcerated youth. This model will be designed to meet the various and specific challenges of the situation of juvenile delinquents, and of the Catholic tradition. Structures and tools for the planning and implementation of this ministry will also be outlined. Included in the appendix will be specific information about the pilot implementation of this model in the Archdiocese of Santa Fe.

Bridge the Gap Mentoring Program. (2001). Texas Juvenile Probation Committee.
Experts claim that a lack of parental supervision is the underlying cause of many youths’ brushes with delinquency, gang involvement and educational failure. Mentoring can be both a preventive solution, as well as an effective intervention for youth. Mentoring targets the holistic development of the mentee, which is fostered through constant contact, support and guidance. This model is available for use by all secure, post-adjudication juvenile facilities in the State of Texas. The following suggested practices are based upon solid research and practitioner experience gathered from across the state and the nation. Certain elements of the program may be adapted to accommodate varying regional needs and capabilities.

Connelly, M. (1995). Mentors and tutors: An overview of two volunteer programs in Oklahoma corrections. Journal of the Oklahoma Criminal Justice Research Consortium, 2.
http://www.doc.state.ok.us/offenders/ocjrc/95/950725B.HTM
This study profiles and analyzes the strengths and weaknesses of two Oklahoma volunteer corrections programs, one involving tutors in a literacy program and one involving mentors helping to reintegrate offenders. The findings indicate that, while support existed for each program from volunteers, offenders, and correctional personnel, both programs had problems of communication and implementation that future similar programs must consider in order to be effective.

Corporation for National and Community Service (2004). Mentoring Incarcerated Youth to Reduce Recidivism.
http://nationalserviceresources.org/epicenter/practices/index.php?ep_action=view&ep_id=1009
In Imperial County, California, Foster Grandparents who mentor and tutor youth in juvenile hall provide social and emotional support, as well as literacy skills, and can be a decisive factor in helping youth turn their lives around. Youth in juvenile hall often come from families with histories of incarceration, abuse and neglect, often lack positive relationships with adults, have strong affiliations with gangs, and frequently perform below grade-level in academics. Youth with a parent in prison are seven times more likely to be involved in the criminal court system and spend time in jail or prison themselves. The introduction of a reliable mentor during adolescence can greatly reduce the likelihood that such conditions will lead to further criminal activity and incarceration as an adult. Outcomes of the program include: (1) participants in the program are less likely to commit serious crimes; (2) improvement has been seen in reading skills among the youth as a result of the book club; and (3) some of the youth continue to maintain contact with the Foster Grandparents after leaving juvenile hall.

Ells, S. (2003). The Girls’ Assets Program: Providing therapeutic mentoring. Corrections Today, 20-22.
The Girls’ Assets Program offers therapeutic mentoring to adolescent females who are on probation who have been at risk for out-of-home placement. The Jefferson County Probation Department in Denver selected the program after it was presented by the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, with support from the National Institute of Justice and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. The Department initiated the program in 2001 and partnered with the Beacon Center to provide services. Mentors are female master-level therapists who use the Search Institute’s 40 developmental assets model. This strength-based approach views the teen as a resource, and focus on what she, her family and the community have to offer. It helps teens develop self-esteem, character, skills and values. The program stresses cooperation and collaboration as it recognizes the power of relationships, focusing on long-term goals and views youths as the solution rather than the problem. Assets are grouped into two types: external and internal. External assets are positive resources teens need in their lives, such as support, empowerment, and boundaries, and internal assets are positive attributes teens need internally, such as a commitment to learning, positive values, and a positive identity. Each asset is linked to activities that involve relationship building with various people in the teen’s life.

Freado, M. D. & Long S. (2005). I Know I Can Do it. Reclaiming Children and Youth, 13(4), 208-212.
This article is an account written by a gang youth and his mentor of the youth’s path to success. The articles disuses the obstacles that the pair worked together to overcome and provides recommendations for future mentors working with at-risk or system involved youth.

Garringer, M. (Ed). Looking back at JUMP: A Pioneering Effort Leaves a Llegacy of Investment and Innovation. National Mentoring Center Bulletin, 2(5).
From 1995 to 2005 the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) funded the Juvenile Mentoring Program (JUMP) in an effort to expand youth mentoring across the country and help prevent juvenile crime, substance abuse, and delinquency. OJJDP was committed to providing these substantial funds to those mentoring programs working in America’s toughest communities and with our nation’s toughest kids. They wanted to bring the power of mentoring to those communities most in need, to neglected urban cores, to the far-to-often overlooked rural and tribal areas, to communities that were struggling with violence, drugs, and poverty. The demand was great: many funding cycles topped 1,000 applications for a program that could award only 100 or so grants per year. But those sites that were funded left a legacy. In all, 261 programs, representing multiple agencies every state and two territories, received over $50 million through JUMP. This issue highlights some successful JUMP projects.

Gur, M., & Miller, L. (2004). Mentoring improves acceptance of a community intervention for court-referred male persons in need of supervision (PINS). Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 21(6) 573-591.
Despite excellent community-based interventions for court-referred adolescent boys, low rates of retention in the initial phase of treatment often lower overall effectiveness. This study assessed the contribution of mentoring towards improving compliance with a community-based intervention for court-referred adolescent male Persons in Need of Supervision (PINS). Charts on 79 court-referred adolescent boys (average age 14) admitted to a community based intervention in a large metropolitan area were systematically reviewed for patterns of service utilization (mentoring and group treatment, familial history, and substance use and psychopathology. Male adolescent PINS who utilized mentoring were ten times more likely to remain in the community-based intervention during the initial 6 months. Following the initial 6 months period, utilization of group treatment, but not mentoring was associated with retention in the community-based intervention and positive outcomes. Community-based intervention for court-referred adolescents might include mentoring during the initial 6 months of treatment to improve compliance.

Heard, C. A. (1990). The preliminary development of the Probation Mentor Home Program: A community-based model (Allen Superior Court Family Relations Division, Fort Wayne, Indiana). Federal Probation, 54(4), 51-56. 
Institutional violence, high rates of recidivism and strained resources have sparked interest in community-based programs for juvenile offenders. One such program is the Probation Mentor Home Program in Allen County, Indiana, which provides short-term foster care for juveniles with delinquent or acting out behaviors. This report explains how the juvenile probation department planned and organized a program designed as an alternative to incarceration which would meet the needs of juvenile offenders in a time of budget constraint.

Holsinger, K., & Ayers, P. (2004). Mentoring Girls in Juvenile Facilities: Connecting College Students with Incarcerated Girls. Journal of Criminal Justice Education. 15(2), 351-372.
This paper describes a course given in the summers of 2000-2001 in the Sociology/Criminal Justice and Criminology Department at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, which brought together college students with system-involved girls for an eight week mentoring program. The development and a description of the course are presented, along with the rationale for providing this type of relationally-oriented program to girls. The goal of the course was to provide enriching educational experiences for the students and to provide beneficial and often unavailable services to girls involved in the juvenile justice system. The course was largely successful in achieving its goals.

Houchins, D. (2002). Self-determination knowledge and incarcerated students. Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, 7, 132-151.
“If students are to transition effectively back into the community and be better able to cope with life, teaching them how to be more self-determined appears to be a desirable and important educational goal” (p. 147). In this study, detention center youth were provided with training sessions over a 5-wk. period (17 1-hr. sessions) in self-determination knowledge (determining priorities, setting goals, dealing with conflict, etc.). Participants were also paired with a mentor, a detention center employee, for individual follow-up discussions. About 44% of the participants had disabilities. Compared to a control group, there was no significant gain in self-determination knowledge from the training for the 45 participants. Reasons may be that (a) the training was too brief, (b) opportunities to practice decision-making and choose from a wide range of potential mentors were lacking in the facility, and (c) participants responded poorly due to a history of failure with traditional classroom instruction.

Jarjoura, G. R. Aftercare for Indiana through Mentoring (AIM): An Effective Strategy and a Good Investment.
The mission of the Indiana Department of Correction (DOC) includes providing programs to assist in the reentry of offenders, to provide programs that are evidence-based best practices, and to provide programs that are collaborations with non-governmental agencies. Aftercare for Indiana through Mentoring is an intervention that is consistent with these organizational goals. Our mission is to support Indiana’s incarcerated youth in making the transition from corrections to community through healthy relationships with mentors. We inspire youths to pursue successful and productive futures where they reach their potential, though self-development and the utilization of community resources. This report discusses how mentoring is an effective strategy and a good investment for working with system involved youth.

Jones-Brown, D. D., Henriques, Z. W. (1997). Promises and pitfalls of mentoring as a juvenile justice strategy. Social Justice, 24(4), 212.
Mentor programs that use a holistic, community approach, are effective in helping young people imbibe moral values, and, eventually, in reducing their risk of their involvement in crime and violence. Mentoring is deemed more feasible than more punitive boot camps or adult courts. Mentoring programs such as Big Brothers/Big Sisters, and the federal Juvenile Mentoring Program (JUMP) have shown that caring relationships between adults and youth result in a wide range of tangible benefits and promising results in delinquency prevention and reduction.

Juvenile Mentoring Program. (2002). Early Evaluation Results Suggest Promise of Benefits for Youth.
This report discusses the 1997 JUMP program evaluation and to analyze and quantify outcomes associated with program participation. Through supplemental telephone interviews and on-site visits the study examines why some JUMP projects can provide valuable mentoring services to youth, while others have difficulty even implementing and operating their projects.

Juvenile Mentoring Program. (2000). Evaluating Your Program: A Beginners Self-evaluation Workbook for Mentoring Programs.
This workbook is designed to guide beginners through the process of evaluating mentoring programs in new ways. Evaluation can improve help to improve funding prospects, increase numbers of volunteers, and improve client services, as well as help to ensure the future of programs shown to be effective.

Lemmon, A. (2005) Mentoring I: Whitelion Individualised Mentoring and Employment Program. Youth Studies Australia, 24(4), 40-44.
The Australian Whitelion mentoring program works with at-risk young people by linking them to positive and supportive adult mentors and helping them find employment. Many youth in the program have been involved in the juvenile justice system and/or a history of substance abuse. The program creates openings in the workplace that would ordinarily be inaccessible to young people with criminal records, backgrounds of substance abuse and limited educational qualifications. The workplaces take on the young people with full knowledge of their unconventional histories. This program was originally focused on young women, but has now been expanded to include males. Initial follow-up research has shown that the program is producing positive results. This is attributed to the development of a highly individualized “what works” approach, and the creation of a mentoring environment that suggests a family or membership relationship rather than an institutional one.

Mecartney, C. A., Styles, M. B., & Morrow, K. V. (1994). Mentoring in the Juvenile Justice System: Findings from Two Pilot Programs. Public/Private Ventures, 46-50.
In high-risk communities, youth may not have access to positive, consistent relationships with adults to support their development. This has been identified as a factor contributing to young people’s difficulties in pursuing a constructive life path. Public/Private ventures are interested in addressing the public policy-related questions that arise from current interest in mentoring: can supportive adult relationships be made on a regular basis to the large number of youth that receive public funds? P/PV chose to pilot a mentoring model designed to bridge a youth’s incarceration in a juvenile justice institution and his/her discharge to the community. The Pilot program ran from 1991 to 1993 in juvenile justice facilities in Atlanta and St. Louis. While the programs met with some difficulties due to time and budget constraints and mentor retention rates, recommendations for these programs were written so that more successful programs can be implemented in the future.

Mentoring. OJJDP Model Programs Guide.
http://www.dsgonline.com/mpg2.5/mentoring_prevention.htm
Although the exact nature of the mentoring relationship varies from program to program and over time, it is generally defined as follows: A relationship over a prolonged period of time between two or more people where an older, caring, more experienced individual provides help to the younger person as he/she goes through life. (Center for Substance Abuse Prevention, 2000) Youth today are faced with a host of risk factors that increase their chances of problem behaviors. This “risk-focused prevention” strategy identifies risk factors and introduces protective factors at the earliest possible time to reduce and counter risks. (Hawkins and Catalano, 1992)

The Mentoring Toolkit: Resources for Developing Programs for Incarcerated Youth (Abridged Version) (2006). National Evaluation and Technical Assistance Center for the Education of Children and Youth who are Neglected, Delinquent, and At-Risk.
http://www.neglected-delinquent.org/nd/resources/spotlight/spotlight200609c.asp
The Mentoring Toolkit: Resources for Developing Programs for Incarcerated Youth provides information, program descriptions, and links to important resources that can assist juvenile detention facilities and other organizations to design effective mentoring programs for neglected and delinquent youth, particularly those who are incarcerated.

Novotney, L. C., Mertinko, J. L., Lange, J., & Baker, T. K. (2000). Juvenile Mentoring Program: A Progress Review. OJJDP Juvenile Justice Bulletin.
http://www.ncjrs.gov/html/ojjdp/2000_9_1/contents.html
Many valuable lessons have been learned since the implementation of OJJDP’s Juvenile Mentoring Program (JUMP) in 1996. This Bulletin lists the parameters under which the current 164 JUMP projects operate and describes the scope and methodology of JUMP’s ongoing national evaluation. Preliminary findings from the national evaluation are also provided, including the degree to which youth and mentors were satisfied with the mentoring relationship and whether each perceived any benefit to the youth as a result of participation in JUMP. Both youth and mentors were quite positive when rating their mentoring experiences, which were assessed in such terms as school achievement, abstention from drugs and alcohol, and avoidance of violence.

OJJDP Model Programs Guide. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. http://www.dsgonline.com/mpg2.5/mpg_index.htm
This document summarizes the different programs and interventions that are considered to be OJJDP model programs. They include Across Ages, Big Brothers/Big Sisters, Career Beginnings, and CASASTART.

Significant Achievement Awards. (2002). Psychiatric Services, 53(10), 1314.
The Nathanial Project is an alternative-to-incarceration program for people with serious mental illness who are charged with felony offenses in New York City. It is a program of the Center for Alternative Sentencing and Employment Services (CASES), New York City’s oldest and largest alternative-to-incarceration agency. The Nathanial Project aims to stabilize offenders with serious mental illness in the community by providing treatment through the health care system rather than punishment through the criminal justice system. It offers intensive case management and courts advocacy, links participants to mental health treatment and housing, and monitors participants’ engagement with community-based treatment and rehabilitative services providers. To supplement the efforts of the staff, it is envisioned that participants who complete the program will serve as mentors to clients who are new to the program. Thus consumers are directly involved in their own care, and the development of the program incorporates their experience.

Preliminary Findings for the Juvenile Rehabilitation Administration’s Mentoring Program. (2002). Washington State Institute for Public Policy.
http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/rptfiles/JRA_mentor.pdf
In June 1995, the city of Seattle obtained funding from the federal Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention for an initiative titled Safe Futures: Partnerships to Reduce Youth Violence and Delinquency. The initiative is designed to develop "a comprehensive community-wide partnership to prevent and reduce youth violence and delinquency." In 1996, the Seattle office of the Juvenile Rehabilitation Administration (JRA), within the Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, implemented a mentoring program as part of the Safe Futures initiative. JRA contracted with Judith McConnell, of the Seattle Community for Youth At Risk organization, to implement mentoring in JRA. The Washington State Institute for Public Policy (Institute) was asked to evaluate the mentoring program as part of our legislatively directed role to consult with JRA on ways to implement research-proven programs.

Stephens, R. D., & Arnette, J. L. (2000). The Mentor’s Role. OJJDP Juvenile Justice Bulletin – From the Courthouse to the Schoolhouse: Making Successful Transitions.
Mentoring is often touted as one of the most cost-effective solutions to juvenile delinquency and recidivism. One of the documented protective factors that contributes to resiliency is the presence of a source of support outside the family. Mentors can be that source of support. OJJDP’s Juvenile Mentoring Program (JUMP), established in 1992 through an amendment to the Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974, awards grants to local governments or nonprofit organizations that partner with local educational agencies to pilot programs in which adults mentor high-risk and court-involved youth. OJJDP currently sponsors 179 JUMP sites in 42 states. The varied mentoring programs share three goals: improving academic performance, reducing school dropout rates, and preventing delinquent behavior. All sites are required to coordinate their activities with local schools. Key to the success of the match between a mentor and a young person is providing mentors with appropriate training and support. Detroit’s Partners Against Crime (PAC) mentoring program offers one approach to the problem of repeat juvenile crime through training volunteers in five characteristics PAC has determined to be pillars for successful mentoring: friendship, regular contact, listening, tapping resources, and reporting. Findings from an evaluation of the program indicate that recidivism was 38 percent lower for PAC clients compared with a control group and 50 percent lower for PAC clients compared with probationers who declined to participate in PAC.

Teresita, B. (1999). Service Strategies and Programs to Help Incarcerated Youth. Guaynabo, Puerto Rico.
This document assesses the joint effort of AmeriCorps and the Foster Grandparents in developing effective Juvenile Programs in Puerto Rico. The author’s positive findings give way to best practices, two exemplary prevention programs, and conclusions. This report also serves as a training guide to prospective volunteers.

White, C., Mertinko, E., & Van Orden, D. (2002). Mentoring—An important Strategy for Diversion and Reentry Programs.
http://www.itiincorporated.com/_includes/pdf/ReentryBulletin.pdf
Each year thousands of youth have contact with the juvenile justice system. A variety of programs and sanctions await these youth, including diversion programs and probation. In 1996, 44 percent of cases that were disposed by juvenile courts were handled informally, with youth voluntarily agreeing to participate in programs or probation. Often these less serious offenders are viewed as good candidates for interventions such as mentoring, with a goal of preventing further and perhaps more serious delinquent activity.