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 differences from non-affiliates. This report identifies those areas in which there appear to be differences between BB/BS projects and non-BB/BS projects.

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

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

Exhibit 3:1: Figure showing age of youth at time of report from 5 to 18. Age 14 is the most common, and age 5 is the least.

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.

Exhibit 3:2: Figure showing grade level of youth for both males and females from kindergarten through twelfth grade. Seventh grade is the most common for males, eighth for females. Kindergarten is the least common for both males and females.

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.

Exhibit 3:3: Pie chart showing youth race (cohort I): African American (55.7%), White (23.3%), Hispanic (18.4%), Asian/Pacific (1.8%), other (0.6%), and American Indian (0.2%).
Exhibit 3:4: Pie chart showing youth race (cohort II): African American (57.7%), White (20.3%), Hispanic (14.1%), American Indian (6.1%), Other (1%), and Asian/Pacific (0.7%).

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.

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:

  • school;
  • social/family;
  • delinquency;
  • alcohol, tobacco, and other drug use; and
  • 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%

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.



Previous Contents Next
1998 Report to Congress: Juvenile Mentoring ProgramOJJDP Report
December 1998