1998 REPORT TO CONGRESS: JUVENILE MENTORING PROGRAM -- December 1998

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:

a community need,
a Local Educational Agency (LEA) with whom they will partner if they are not such an organization themselves,
a plan for recruiting, screening, training, supervising, and retaining volunteer mentors,
the defined at-risk youth population they are planning to serve,
procedures for ensuring appropriate matches between youth and mentors,
clear guidelines for the frequency, duration, and nature of the mentor/youth meetings,
a plan for project implementation, and
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:

Exhibit 2:1: Pie chart showing locations of JUMP projects: urban (76.0%), suburban (16.0%), and rural (8.0%).

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 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.

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

Exhibit 2:2: Figure showing types of support provided by schools: access to grades (n=66), attendance reports (n=63), other information (n=54), facilities/equipment (n=52), staff support (n=48), and administrative support (n=43).

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.

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.

Exhibit 2:3: Pie chart showing sources of supplemental funding: general agency (32%), foundation grants (22%), individual contributions (16%), other (including public ATOD funds, other federal grants, and monies raised by community fundraising events) (11%), public education (10%), and other public sources (6%).

*Other funding includes public ATOD funds, other Federal grants, and monies raised by community fundraising events.

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%).

Exhibit 2:4: Figure showing JUMP Project schedules: year round (40%), school with minimal summer (37%), and school year only (23%).

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 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

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

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 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.

Exhibit 2:6: Pie chart showing frequency of mentor supervision: once per month (43%), four times per month (24%), twice per month (14%), and other (7%).

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 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.
*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.
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.

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.

Previous Contents Next

1998 Report to Congress: Juvenile Mentoring Program OJJDP Report
December 1998