Juvenile Mentoring Populations PPT

http://www.ojjdp.gov/

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on

Just from $13/Page

Order Essay

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/193410

https://www.nap.edu/read/2113/chapter/12#199

Community Reintegration: Change though Continued Care

Jackson, Y. (2002). Mentoring for delinquent children: An outcome study with young adolescent children. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 31(2), 115-122.
Mathur, S. R., & Clark, H. G. (2014). Community engagement for reentry success of youth from juvenile justice: Challenges and opportunities. Education & Treatment of Children, 37(4), 713-734.

Search

juvenile offenders AND (aftercare programs OR mentoring)
juvenile offenders AND community reintegration

Multimedia

Cambridge Educational (2008). Reentry Into Society from Prison (04:54) [Video segment] in From the Inside: Personal Challenges for Teens Reentering Society, Films on Demand.

Assignment Content

Research the effects of mentoring on a juvenile population by visiting the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention website.
Create a 12 to 15-slide Microsoft® PowerPoint® presentation with speaker notes in each slide that addresses the following:

Provide a description of the mentoring program you researched. EXAMPLES include:
Provide a list of alternatives to mentoring.
Why is mentoring effective at fostering good behavior?
Describe target juvenile audiences for mentoring programs.
Describe the resources available in this program and identify the mentor-to-juvenile ratio.
Identify any grants or financial support received.
Format any citations in your presentation consistent with APA guidelines.

Community Reintegration: Change though Continued Care
Jackson, Y. (2002). Mentoring for delinquent children: An outcome study with young adolescent children. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 31(2), 115-122.
Mathur, S. R., & Clark, H. G. (2014). Community engagement for reentry success of youth from juvenile justice: Challenges and opportunities. Education & Treatment of Children, 37(4), 713-734.
Search
juvenile offenders AND (aftercare programs OR mentoring)
juvenile offenders AND community reintegration
Multimedia
Cambridge Educational (2008). Reentry Into Society from Prison (04:54) [Video segment] in From the Inside: Personal Challenges for Teens Reentering Society, Films on Demand.

Question 1:

Based on what you have read and watched in this week’s video, what do you believe are the components of a successful reentry program designed to reduce recidivism? What would be some of the arguments against creating a program like this for juveniles released from detention or incarceration? Comments anyone?

Question 2: Based on what you have read in Chapter 17 for what types of programs would you advocate to end the cycle of violence and sever the link between abuse and delinquency? Why? What barriers would need to be overcome for program implementation? Comments anyone?

Question 3: Knowing what you do now about juvenile justice, recidivism, and the importance of supports for these children and their families what recommendations would you make for effective community-based programs? What resources would you use to evaluate program effectiveness? Why? Comments anyone?

Community Reintegration: Change though Continued Care

Jackson, Y. (2002). Mentoring for delinquent children: An outcome study with young adolescent children.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 31
(2), 115-122.

Mathur, S. R., & Clark, H. G. (2014). Community engagement for reentry success of youth from juvenile justice: Challenges and opportunities.
Education & Treatment of Children, 37
(4), 713-734.

juvenile offenders AND (aftercare programs OR mentoring)

juvenile offenders AND community reintegration

Multimedia

Cambridge Educational (2008). Reentry Into Society from Prison (04:54) [Video segment] in From the Inside: Personal Challenges for Teens Reentering Society,
Films on Demand
.

https://www.jstor.org/action/doBasicSearch?Query=juvenile+offenders+AND+%28aftercare+programs+OR+mentoring%29+&acc=on&wc=on&fc=off&group=none

Treatment Programs for Special Populations

Chalyne Arvie

Diana Wheatley

CPSS418

16MAR2020

Trends

The rise of women’s prison population has long been obscured by discussions on the total population.

Since 1978, there was a mass incarceration for women alongside male counterparts.

The total number of people in prisons have reduced but most of the decrease has been because of men.

There is a disparity between genders even in the prison system.
The discussion has focused on men mostly and little regard is given to females.
Females were also incarcerated in huge numbers alongside male counterparts but reforms do not seem to reflect a recued number.
The registered decrease has been because of reduction in number of men and not much reduction in terms of women(Miller et al., 2016).
2

There are 35 states where the women’s population numbers have fared worse compared to men.
The populations of women have grown enough to counteract the reduction seen in male population.
Majority of these states undermine their commitment through ignoring the incarceration of women.

There are 35 states which have continued to ignore the plight of women in the prison system (Miller et al., 2016).
In some of these, the population of women has increased balancing out the reduction in the number of men.
At the same time, there are some majority of these states that will undermine their commitment to the justice system through ignorance of the issue of women incarceration.
3

Woman in the period between 1978 and 2015 were the fasted growing segment of those in prison.
The case is alarming but few understand the happenings in their state.
It is important to understand these trends and see how state level choices are dictating the future of incarceration.

As other segments see a relative decline, the number of women in prisons have continued to grow mainly because of lack of awareness of state policies.
It is alarming for policies to be there to reduce the state prison populations but little being done to address the plight of women in the system( Kruttschnitt et al., 2019).
4

There are other forms of punishment for the female population.
One of them is use of fines. There are fines for some offenses that do not warrant jail time.
Community service is also common for the minor offenses.

There are other forms of punishment that are there for the female population.
One of these is the use of fines which give the offender the chance to provide monetary compensation for their mistakes.
Community service hours are also given to women who are found in the wrong side of the law( Kruttschnitt et al., 2019).
5

Targeted Treatment Programs
There are various programs that are present for the female population.
Each of the programs has a different effect expending on how it is applied.
One of the programmed that is there is Moving On.
This is a program which helps the at-risk women to move away from crime and rebuild their lives during incarceration and after.

There are various programs that have been established to help females in the criminal justice system.
Each of them is designed specifically to get the best results for the argot population.
Moving On is one program which has helped the population to move on with their life after they are jailed.
It gives them coping skills to get into meaningful employment.
6

Another kind of program that has been found to be effective is Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT).
This form of forensic treatment has been found to be effective among the population.
The physiological methods have also been ineffective in some cases because they are based mainly on behaviors of male offenders.

Physiological methods have been used over the years on the female offenders,.
Method such as cognitive behavioral therapy have been effective among the population but there are some which have failed.
The failure comes mainly from the fact that the method are based on the behavior of the male offenders.
This is where looking at individual characteristics is important.
7

There are other programs which train women on their parenting skills.
Such a program is one which trains female prisoners on how to meet the developmental needs of their children.
This program has been successful for the female prisoners as well as better outcomes for their children.

Other programs which look at the incarcerated females is those on parenting skills.
These seek to train the female prisoners on how they can meet those developmental needs which their children have.
Such a program has been a success for better outcomes for the prisoners and their children( Kruttschnitt et al., 2019).
8

Unique Attributes
There are several unique attributes which have to be considered in the development of treatment programs.
One of the attributes that has to be there is that majority of women are mothers.
It is important to note they are mothers and consideration must be made when designing these programs.

Women have several unique attributes that need to be considered when coming up with these programs.
One consideration is that some of the women in the institutions are mothers.
It is important for programs to understand that there are women who are mothers and when incarcerated this becomes a challenge to them.
Coping programs need to be clearly understand this role that they play (Rowell-Cunsolo et al., 2016).
9

The other consideration that must be made in these programs is that women experience a lot of physical and sexual abuse.
Programs need to have a way of helping women cope with these two conditions.
It is important for programs to assist in emotional healing from depression and past experiences.

There are women who are dealing with several issues such as PTSD and anger from past experiences.
Women are more vulnerable to these acts today more than men and they need to be assisted on how to heal and cope.
Programs must consider the healing part to break cycles of violence (Rowell-Cunsolo et al., 2016).
10

The other unique attribute is that female offenders are mostly economically and socially disadvantaged.
Female offenders are likely to be jobless and lack a proper way of meeting their needs.
A program needs to be based on how to help the majority of offenders to make a decent living for themselves.

It is important to note that most offenders are socially and economically disadvantaged(Miller et al., 2016).
Before anything else, a program needs to help the female offenders to meet their basic needs.
They need a way to make a decent living without humiliation else they may fall back into crime.
11

References
Miller, H. V., Miller, J. M., & Barnes, J. C. (2016). Reentry programming for opioid and opiate involved female offenders: Findings from a mixed methods evaluation. Journal of Criminal Justice, 46, 129-136.
Kruttschnitt, C., Joosen, K., & Bijleveld, C. (2019). Research note: Re-examining the gender responsive approach to female offending and its basis in the pathways literature. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 58(6), 485-499.
Rowell-Cunsolo, T. L., Szeto, B., Sampong, S. A., & Larson, E. L. (2016). Predictors of sexual behavior among men and women in New York City area prisons. Culture, health & sexuality, 18(12), 1393-1406.

CHAPTER FOURTEEN: Juvenile Corrections:

Probation

, Community Treatment, and Institutionalization

CHAPTER OUTLINE

JUVENILE PROBATION

Historical Development

Expanding Community Treatment

Contemporary Juvenile Probation

Duties of Juvenile Probation Officers

PROBATION INNOVATIONS

Intensive

Supervision

Electronic Monitoring

Restorative Justice

Balanced Probation

Restitution

Residential Community Treatment

SECURE CORRECTIONS

History of Juvenile Institutions

What Does This Mean to Me?

JUVENILE INSTITUTIONS TODAY: PUBLIC AND PRIVATE

Population Trends

Physical Conditions

THE INSTITUTIONALIZED JUVENILE

Male Inmates

FOCUS ON DELINQUENCY: Mental Health Needs of Juvenile Inmates on the Rise

Female Inmates

CORRECTIONAL TREATMENT FOR JUVENILES

Individual Treatment Techniques: Past and Present

Group Treatment Techniques

Educational, Vocational, and Recreational Programs

Wilderness Programs

Professional Spotlight: Kristi Swanson

Juvenile Boot Camps

THE LEGAL RIGHT TO TREATMENT

The Struggle for Basic Civil Rights

JUVENILE AFTERCARE AND REENTRY

Supervision

JUVENILE DELINQUENCY: Treatment: Using the

Intensive Aftercare Program (IAP)

Model

Aftercare Revocation Procedures

FUTURE OF JUVENILE CORRECTIONS

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

After reading this chapter you should:

· 1. Be familiar with juvenile

probation

· 2. Know about new approaches for providing probation services to juvenile offenders.

· 3. Understand past and current trends in the use of juvenile institutions and key issues facing the institutionalized juvenile offender.

· 4. Be able to identify current juvenile correctional treatment approaches and comment on their effectiveness in reducing recidivism.

· 5. Know about

aftercare

and

reentry

for juvenile offenders.

REAL CASES/REAL PEOPLE: Karen’s Story

Karen Gilligan, age 16, was the oldest of four children living with their parents in a small rural community. Her mother worked two jobs, her father was unemployed, and both parents drank heavily. Karen’s high school attendance was sporadic. She started to experiment with alcohol and vandalized local businesses. After being arrested in a stolen car on several occasions, Karen was referred to juvenile court and was put on community supervision and probation. An initial assessment was provided by her probation officer, and formal dispositional recommendations were made to the court. She would remain at home on

house arrest

for

days, attend school regularly and maintain at least a C average, follow an alcohol and drug assessment program, and participate in weekly family therapy with her parents. Karen was also ordered to cooperate with the juvenile restitution program, pay her restitution in full within six months, and participate in the Community Adolescent Intensive Supervision Program, as arranged by her probation officer.

Not used to being accountable to anyone, Karen struggled initially with all the new rules and expectations. She missed some of her initial appointments and skipped some classes at school. Karen’s probation officer began making unannounced visits to her at school, trying to help her understand the consequences of her behavior. It was clear to the probation officer that Karen possessed many strengths and positive attributes. She enjoyed dancing and singing, and even liked school at times. The team of professionals encouraged her to focus on these qualities.

In addition to Karen’s

individual counseling

, her family participated in weekly family therapy to talk about their issues and to address how to best support the children. Initially, the sessions were very challenging and stressful for the entire family. They blamed each other for their difficulties, and Karen seemed to be the target of much of the anger expressed by her parents.

During the many months of intensive supervision, treatment, and family therapy, Karen was able to stop her delinquent behavior, pay her restitution, attend school regularly, and improve her communication with her parents. Through therapy, Karen’s mother also acknowledged that she needed some assistance with her drinking and entered treatment. Karen’s probation officer provided the court with regular monthly progress reports showing significant improvement in Karen’s behavior and lifestyle choices. Karen has proven her success and remains living with her parents and siblings. She plans to attend a local college after graduation to prepare for a career in the medical field.

There are many choices of correctional treatments available for juveniles, all of which can be subdivided into two major categories:

community treatment

and institutional treatment.

Community treatment

refers to efforts to provide care, protection, and treatment for juveniles in need. These efforts include probation, treatment services (such as individual and group counseling), restitution, and other programs. The term community treatment also refers to the use of privately maintained residences, such as foster homes, small-

group homes

, and boarding schools, which are located in the community. Non

residential programs

, where youths remain in their own homes, but are required to receive counseling, vocational training, and other services, also fall under the rubric of community treatment.

community treatment

Using nonsecure and noninstitutional residences, counseling services, victim restitution programs, and other community services to treat juveniles in their own communities.

Institutional treatment facilities are correctional centers operated by federal, state, and county governments; these facilities restrict the movement of residents through staff monitoring, locked exits, and interior fence controls. There are several types of institutional facilities in juvenile corrections, including reception centers that screen juveniles and assign them to an appropriate facility; specialized facilities that provide specific types of care, such as drug treatment; training schools or reformatories for youths needing a long-term secure setting; ranch or forestry camps that provide long-term residential care; and

boot camps

, which seek to rehabilitate youths through the application of rigorous physical training.

Choosing the proper mode of juvenile corrections can be difficult. Some experts believe that any hope for rehabilitating juvenile offenders and resolving the problems of juvenile crime lies in community treatment programs.

Such programs are smaller than secure facilities for juveniles, operate in a community setting, and offer creative approaches to treating the offender. In contrast, institutionalizing young offenders may do more harm than good. It exposes them to prison-like conditions and to more experienced delinquents without giving them the benefit of constructive treatment programs.

Mark Ryan (left), the principal of Community Prep in Manhattan,

New York

City’s first public high school for students who have been recently released from juvenile prisons and jails, speaks with Joshua Brignoni about wearing his hat in class.

Those who favor secure treatment are concerned about the threat that violent young offenders present to the community and believe that a stay in a juvenile institution may have a long-term deterrent effect. They point to the findings of Charles Murray and Louis B. Cox, who uncovered what they call a

suppression effect

, a reduction in the number of arrests per year following release from a secure facility, which is not achieved when juveniles are placed in less punitive programs.

Murray and Cox concluded that the justice system must choose the outcome it wants to achieve: prevention of delinquency, or the care and protection of needy youths. If the former is a proper goal, institutionalization or the threat of institutionalization is desirable. Not surprisingly, secure treatment is still being used extensively, and the populations of these facilities continue to grow as state legislators pass more stringent and punitive sentencing packages aimed at repeat juvenile offenders.

suppression effect

A reduction of the number of arrests per year for youths who have been incarcerated or otherwise punished.

JUVENILE PROBATION

Probation

and other forms of community treatment generally refer to nonpunitive legal dispositions for delinquent youths, emphasizing treatment without incarceration. Probation is the primary form of community treatment used by the juvenile justice system. A juvenile who is on probation is maintained in the community under the supervision of an officer of the court. Probation also encompasses a set of rules and conditions that must be met for the offender to remain in the community. Juveniles on probation may be placed in a wide variety of community-based treatment programs that provide services ranging from group counseling to drug treatment.

probation

Nonpunitive, legal disposition of juveniles emphasizing community treatment in which the juvenile is closely supervised by an officer of the court and must adhere to a strict set of rules to avoid incarceration.

Community treatment is based on the idea that the juvenile offender is not a danger to the community and has a better chance of being rehabilitated in the community. It provides offenders with the opportunity to be supervised by trained personnel who can help them reestablish forms of acceptable behavior in a community setting. When applied correctly, community treatment maximizes the liberty of the individual and at the same time vindicates the authority of the law and protects the public; promotes rehabilitation by maintaining normal community contacts; avoids the negative effects of confinement, which often severely complicate the reintegration of the offender into the community; and greatly reduces the financial cost to the public.

Historical Development

Although the major developments in community treatment have occurred in the twentieth century, its roots go back much further. In England, specialized procedures for dealing with youthful offenders were recorded as early as 1820, when the magistrates of the Warwickshire quarter sessions (periodic court hearings held in a county, or shire, of England) adopted the practice of sentencing youthful criminals to prison terms of one day, then releasing them conditionally under the supervision of their parents or masters.

In the United States, juvenile probation developed as part of the wave of social reform characterizing the latter half of the nineteenth century.

Massachusetts

took the first step. Under an act passed in 1869, an agent of the state board of charities was authorized to appear in criminal trials involving juveniles, to find them suitable homes, and to visit them periodically. These services were soon broadened, so that by 1

0, probation had become a mandatory part of the court structure.

Probation was a cornerstone in the development of the juvenile court system. In fact, in some states, supporters of the juvenile court movement viewed probation as the first step toward achieving the benefits that the new court was intended to provide. The rapid spread of juvenile courts during the first decades of the twentieth century encouraged the further development of probation. The two were closely related, and to a large degree, both sprang from the conviction that the young could be rehabilitated and that the public was responsible for protecting them.

Expanding Community Treatment

By the mid-19

s, juvenile probation had become a complex institution that touched the lives of an enormous number of children. To many experts, institutionalization of even the most serious delinquent youths was a mistake. Reformers believed that confinement in a high-security institution could not solve the problems that brought a youth into a delinquent way of life, and that the experience could actually help amplify delinquency once the youth returned to the community.

Surveys indicating that 30 to 40 percent of adult prison inmates had prior experience with the juvenile court, and that many had been institutionalized as youths, gave little support to the argument that an institutional experience could be beneficial or reduce recidivism.

Contemporary Juvenile Probation

Traditional probation is still the backbone of community-based corrections. As

Figure 14.1

shows, 322,

0 juveniles were placed on formal probation in 2008 (latest data available), which amounts to more than half (57 percent) of all juvenile dispositions. The use of probation has increased significantly since 1993, when 224,500 adjudicated youths were placed on probation, but in recent years has remained relatively stable.

These figures show that, regardless of public sentiment, probation continues to be a popular dispositional alternative for judges. Here are the arguments in favor of probation:

· • For youths who can be supervised in the community, probation represents an appropriate disposition.

· • Probation allows the court to tailor a program to each juvenile offender, including those involved in interpersonal offenses. Research, however, raises questions about the adequacy of the present system to attend to the specific needs of female youths on probation.

· • The justice system continues to have confidence in rehabilitation while accommodating demands for legal controls and public protection, even when caseloads may include many more serious offenders than in the past.

· • Probation is often the disposition of choice, particularly for status offenders.

FIGURE 14.1: Probation and Correctional Population Trends

Note: Between 1999 and 2008, the number of cases adjudicated delinquent that resulted in probation decreased by approximately 10 percent, but the proportion of cases remained relatively unchanged.

Source: Charles Puzzanchera, Benjamin Adams, and Melissa Sickmund, Juvenile Court Statistics 2008 (Pittsburgh: National Center for Juvenile Justice, 2011), pp. 50,

, 55.

The Nature of Probation.

In most jurisdictions, probation is a direct judicial order that allows a youth who is found to be a delinquent or status offender to remain in the community under court-ordered supervision. A probation sentence implies a contract between the court and the juvenile. The court promises to hold a period of institutionalization in abeyance; the juvenile promises to adhere to a set of rules mandated by the court. The rules of probation vary, but they typically involve conditions such as attending school or work, keeping regular hours, remaining in the jurisdiction, and staying out of trouble.

In the juvenile court, probation is often ordered for an indefinite period. Depending on the statutes of the jurisdiction, the seriousness of the offense, and the juvenile’s adjustment on probation, youths can remain under supervision until the court no longer has jurisdiction over them (that is, when they reach the age of majority). State statutes determine if a judge can specify how long a juvenile may be placed under an order of probation. In most jurisdictions, the status of probation is reviewed regularly to ensure that a juvenile is not kept on probation needlessly. Generally, discretion lies with the probation officer to discharge youths who are adjusting to the treatment plan.

Conditions of Probation.

Conditions of probation

are rules mandating that a juvenile on probation behave in a particular way. They can include restitution or reparation, intensive supervision, intensive counseling, participation in a therapeutic program, or participation in an educational or vocational training program. In addition to these specific conditions, state statutes generally allow courts to insist that probationers lead law-abiding lives, maintain a residence in a family setting, refrain from associating with certain types of people, and remain in a particular area unless they have permission to leave.

conditions of probation

Rules and regulations mandating that a juvenile on probation behave in a particular way.

Although probation conditions vary, they are never supposed to be capricious, cruel, or beyond the capacity of the juvenile to satisfy. Furthermore, conditions of probation should relate to the crime that was committed and to the conduct of the child.

Courts have invalidated probation conditions that were harmful or that violated the juvenile’s due process rights. Restricting a child’s movement, insisting on a mandatory program of treatment, ordering indefinite terms of probation, and demanding financial reparation where this is impossible are all grounds for appellate court review. For example, it would not be appropriate for a probation order to bar a youth from visiting his girlfriend (unless he had threatened or harmed her) merely because her parents objected to the relationship.

However, courts have ruled that it is permissible to bar juveniles from such sources of danger as a “known gang area” in order to protect them from harm.

If a youth violates the conditions of probation—and especially if the juvenile commits another offense—the court can revoke probation. In this case, the contract is terminated and the original commitment order may be enforced. The juvenile court ordinarily handles a decision to revoke probation upon recommendation of the probation officer. Today, as a result of Supreme Court decisions dealing with the rights of adult probationers, a juvenile is normally entitled to legal representation and a hearing when a violation of probation occurs.

Looking Back to Karen’s Story

Probation was an important component in Karen’s case.

CRITICAL THINKING

Discuss the pros and cons of the probation officer’s recommendations to the court. Also identify some additional programs/services that would have been helpful in Karen’s situation.

Duties of Juvenile Probation Officers

The

juvenile probation officer

plays an important role in the justice process, beginning with intake and continuing throughout the period in which a juvenile is under court supervision. Their role is so important and influence so great that it has generated much research over the years on how juvenile probation officers perform their duties, including their approach to treatment and punishment.

Probation officers are involved at four stages of the court process. At intake, they screen complaints by deciding to adjust the matter, refer the child to an agency for service, or refer the case to the court for judicial action. During the predisposition stage, they participate in release or detention decisions. At the postadjudication stage, they assist the court in reaching its dispositional decision. During postdisposition, they supervise juveniles placed on probation.

juvenile probation officer

Officer of the court involved in all four stages of the court process — intake, predisposition, postadjudication, and postdisposition—who assists the court and supervises juveniles placed on probation.

Looking Back to Karen’s Story

Initially, Karen struggled with rules and expectations. Her probation officer worked with her to help her accomplish the goals.

CRITICAL THINKING Discuss ways that a probation officer can try to motivate a teen in trouble with the law.

At intake, the probation staff has preliminary discussions with the child and the family to determine whether court intervention is necessary or whether the matter can be better resolved by some form of social service. If the child is placed in a detention facility, the probation officer helps the court decide whether the child should continue to be held or be released pending the adjudication and disposition of the case.

The probation officer exercises tremendous influence over the child and the family by developing a

social investigation or predisposition report

and submitting it to the court. This report is a clinical diagnosis of the child’s problems and the need for court assistance based on an evaluation of social functioning, personality, and environmental issues. The report includes an analysis of the child’s feelings about the violations and the child’s capacity for change. It also examines the influence of family members, peers, and other environmental influences in producing and possibly resolving the problems. All of this information is brought together in a complex but meaningful picture of the offender’s personality, problems, and environment.

social investigation report (also known as predisposition report).

Developed by the juvenile probation officer, this report includes clinical diagnosis of the juvenile and the need for court assistance, relevant environmental and personality factors, and other information to assist the court in developing a treatment plan.

Juvenile probation officers also provide the child with supervision and treatment in the community. Treatment plans vary in approach and structure. Some juveniles simply report to the probation officer and follow the conditions of probation. In other cases, the probation officer may need to provide extensive counseling to the child and family, or more often, refer them to other social service agencies, such as a drug treatment center. Performance of such a broad range of functions requires good training. Today, juvenile probation officers have legal or social work backgrounds or special counseling skills.

CHECKPOINTS

· LO1 Be familiar with juvenile probation.

· Probation is the primary form of community treatment used by the juvenile justice system.

· First developed in Massachusetts, probation had become a cornerstone of the court structure by

189

· Probation is a direct judicial order that allows a youth to remain in the community under court-ordered supervision.

· Probation conditions are rules mandating that a juvenile on probation behave in a particular way.

· The juvenile probation officer plays an important role in the justice process, beginning with intake and continuing throughout the period in which a juvenile is under court supervision.

PROBATION INNOVATIONS

Community corrections have traditionally emphasized offender rehabilitation. The probation officer has been viewed as a caseworker or counselor whose primary job is to help the offender adjust to society. Offender surveillance and control have seemed more appropriate for law enforcement, jails, and prisons than for community corrections.

Since 1980, a more conservative justice system has reoriented toward social control. Although the rehabilitative ideals of probation have not been abandoned, new programs have been developed that add a control dimension to community corrections. In some cases this has involved the use of police officers, working in collaboration with probation officers, to enhance the supervision of juvenile probationers.

These programs can be viewed as “probation plus,” because they add restrictive penalties and conditions to community-service orders. More punitive than probation, this kind of intermediate sanction can be politically attractive to conservatives while still appealing to liberals as alternatives to incarceration. What are some of these new alternative sanctions? (See

Concept Summary 14.1

CONCEPT

SUMMARY

14.1: Community-Based Corrections

Although correctional treatment in the community generally refers to nonpunitive legal dispositions, in most cases there are still restrictions designed to protect the public and hold juvenile offenders accountable for their actions.

Type

Main Restrictions

Probation

Regular supervision by a probation officer; youths must adhere to conditions such as attend school or work, stay out of trouble.

Intensive supervision

Almost daily supervision by a probation officer; adhere to similar conditions as regular probation.

House arrest

Remain at home during specified periods; often there is monitoring through random phone calls, visits, or electronic devices.

Restorative justice

Restrictions may be prescribed by community members to help repair harm done to victim.

Balanced probation

Restrictions tailored to the risk the juvenile offender presents to the community.

Restitution

None.

Residential programs

Placement in a residential, nonsecure facility, such as group home or foster home; adhere to conditions; close monitoring.

Intensive Supervision

Juvenile intensive probation supervision (JIPS)

involves treating offenders who would normally have been sent to a secure treatment facility as part of a very small probation caseload that receives almost daily scrutiny.

The primary goal of JIPS is decarceration; without intensive supervision, youngsters would normally be sent to secure juvenile facilities that are already overcrowded. The second goal is control; high-risk juvenile offenders can be maintained in the community under much closer security than traditional probation efforts can provide. A third goal is maintaining community ties and reintegration; offenders can remain in the community and complete their education while avoiding the pains of imprisonment.

juvenile intensive probation supervision (JIPS)

A true alternative to incarceration that involves almost daily supervision of the juvenile by the probation officer assigned to the case.

Intensive probation programs get mixed reviews. Some jurisdictions find that they are more successful than traditional probation supervision and come at a much cheaper cost than incarceration.

However, some studies indicate that the failure rate is high and that younger offenders who commit petty crimes are the most likely to fail when placed in intensive supervision programs.

It is not surprising that intensive probation clients fail more often, because, after all, they are more serious offenders who might otherwise have been incarcerated and are now being watched and supervised more closely than probationers. In one experimental study of intensive probation supervision plus a coordinated team approach for high-risk juveniles, known as the Los Angeles County Repeat Offender Prevention Program (ROPP), mixed results were found for those who received the program compared to a similar group of youths who received regular probation only: recidivism was reduced in the short term, but not over the long term, school performance was increased, and there was no difference in probation technical violations.

In another recent

California

experiment of juvenile intensive probation supervision, no significant differences were observed in recidivism rates among those youths who received intensive probation compared to a similar group of youths who received regular probation.

Further analyses of this program revealed no effects on key family and peer relationship measures.

An innovative experiment in three

Mississippi

counties examined the differential effects on juvenile justice costs for intensive supervision and monitoring, regular probation, and cognitive behavioral treatment, which involved sessions on problem solving, social skills, negotiation skills, the management of emotion, and values enhancement, to improve the thinking and reasoning ability of juvenile offenders. After one year of the program, the intensive supervision treatment was found to be less cost-effective than the other two treatments, with the cognitive behavioral treatment imposing the fewest costs on the juvenile justice system.

Electronic Monitoring

Another program, which has been used with adult offenders and is finding its way into the juvenile justice system, is

house arrest

, which is often coupled with

electronic monitoring

. This program allows offenders sentenced to probation to remain in the community on condition that they stay at home during specific periods (for example, after school or work, on weekends, and in the evenings). Offenders may be monitored through random phone calls, visits, or in some jurisdictions, electronic devices.

house arrest

Offender is required to stay home during specific periods of time; monitoring is done by random phone calls and visits or by electronic devices.

electronic monitoring

Active monitoring systems consist of a radio transmitter worn by the offender that sends a continuous signal to the probation department computer; passive systems employ computer-generated random phone calls that must be answered in a certain period of time from a particular phone.

Most systems employ radio transmitters that receive a signal from a device worn by the offender and relay it back to the computer via telephone lines. Probationers are fitted with an irremovable monitoring device that alerts the probation department’s computers if they leave their place of confinement.

Currently, there is widespread belief that electronic monitoring can be effective, with some evaluations showing that recidivism rates are no higher than in traditional programs, costs are lower, and institutional overcrowding is reduced. Some studies also reveal that electronic monitoring seems to work better with some individuals than others: serious felony offenders, substance abusers, repeat offenders, and people serving the longest sentences are the most likely to fail.

However, in a review on the effects of electronic monitoring on recidivism, criminologists Marc Renzema and Evan Mayo-Wilson found that the results do not support the claim that it works at the present time. This conclusion was largely based on there being too few high-quality studies available and a difficulty in isolating the independent effects of programs that combine electronic monitoring with other interventions. Importantly, the researchers did not call for an end to the use of electronic monitoring, but rather for new and better experiments.

Looking Back to Karen’s Story

While electronic monitoring was not used in Karen’s case, she was placed on house arrest in her parent’s home.

CRITICAL THINKING Discuss the pros and cons of placing Karen on house arrest. As part of this, give some thought to what crimes would justify an automatic removal from the home as well as what would need to be accomplished for the youth to return.

Restorative Justice

Restorative justice is a nonpunitive strategy for delinquency control that attempts to address the issues that produce conflict between two parties (offender and victim) and, hence, reconcile the parties. Restoration rather than retribution or punishment is at the heart of the restorative justice approach. Seven core values characterize restorative justice:

· • Crime is an offense against human relationships.

· • Victims and the community are central to justice processes.

· • The first priority of justice processes is to assist victims.

· • The second priority of justice processes is to restore the community, to the degree possible.

· • The offender has a personal responsibility to victims and to the community for crimes committed.

· • The offender will develop improved competency and understanding as a result of the restorative justice experience.

· • Stakeholders share responsibilities for restorative justice through partnerships for action.

Criminologists Heather Strang and Lawrence Sherman carried out a systematic review and

meta-analysis

of the effects of restorative justice on juvenile reoffending and victim satisfaction. The review involved two studies from Australia and one from the United States that evaluated the restorative justice practice of face-to-face conferences. (The main reason for the small number of studies is that the authors used only those studies that employed randomized controlled designs to assess program effects.) The conferences proceeded as follows:

· Any victims (or their representatives) present have the opportunity to describe the full extent of the harm a crime has caused, offenders are required to listen to the victims and to understand the consequences of their own actions, and all participants are invited to deliberate about what actions the offender could take to repair them. The precondition of such a conference is that the offender does not dispute the fact that he is responsible for the harm caused, and the conference cannot and will not become a trial to determine what happened.

The review found evidence that this form of restorative justice can be an effective strategy in reducing repeat offending by juveniles who have committed violent crimes. The type of violence includes minor offenses of battery to middle-level offenses of assault and aggravated assault. The review also found that face-to-face conferences can be effective in preventing victims from committing crimes of retaliation against their perpetrators. Perhaps not surprisingly, across all studies, victim satisfaction levels strongly favored restorative justice compared to traditional juvenile justice proceedings.

Successful results have also been demonstrated in other restorative justice programs for juvenile offenders.

Balanced Probation

Some jurisdictions have also turned to a

balanced probation

approach in an effort to enhance the success of probation.

Balanced probation systems integrate community protection, the accountability of the juvenile offender, and individualized attention to the offender. These programs are based on the view that juveniles are responsible for their actions and have an obligation to society whenever they commit an offense. The probation officer establishes a program tailored to the offender while helping the offender accept responsibility for his or her actions. The balanced approach is promising, because it specifies a distinctive role for the juvenile probation system.

balanced probation

A program that integrates community protection, accountability of the juvenile offender, competency, and individualized attention to the juvenile offender, based on the principle that juvenile offenders must accept responsibility for their behavior.

One innovative program that adheres to a balanced probation approach is the California 8% Solution, which is run by the Orange County Probation Department. The “8 percent” refers to the percentage of juvenile offenders who are responsible for the majority of crime: in the case of Orange County, 8 percent of first-time offenders were responsible for 55 percent of repeat cases over a three-year period. This 8 percent problem has become the 8 percent solution thanks to the probation department initiating a comprehensive, multiagency program targeting this group of offenders.

Once the probation officer identifies an offender for the program—the 8% Early Intervention Program—the youth is referred to the Youth and Family Resource Center. Here the youth’s needs are assessed and an appropriate treatment plan is developed. Some of the services provided to youths include these:

· • An outside school for students in junior and senior high school

· • Transportation to and from home

· • Counseling for drug and alcohol abuse

· • Employment preparation and job placement services

· • At-home, intensive family counseling for families

Restitution

Victim restitution is another widely used method of community treatment. In most jurisdictions, restitution is part of a probationary sentence and is administered by the county probation staff. In many jurisdictions, independent restitution programs have been set up by local governments; in others, restitution is administered by a private nonprofit organization.

Restitution can take several forms. A juvenile can reimburse the victim of the crime or donate money to a charity or public cause; this is referred to as

monetary restitution

. In other instances, a juvenile may be required to provide some service directly to the victim (

victim service restitution

) or to assist a community organization (

community service restitution

monetary restitution

Offenders compensate crime victims for out-of-pocket losses caused by the crime, including property damage, lost wages, and medical expenses.

victim service restitution

Offenders provide some service directly to the crime victim.

community service restitution

Offenders assist some worthwhile community organization for a period of time.

Requiring youths to reimburse the victims of their crimes is the most widely used method of restitution in the United States. Less widely used, but more common in Europe, is restitution to a charity. In the past few years, numerous programs have been set up to enable juvenile offenders to provide a service to the victim or participate in community programs—for example, working in schools for mentally challenged children. In some cases, juveniles are required to contribute both money and community service. Other programs emphasize employment.

Restitution programs can be employed at various stages of the juvenile justice process. They can be part of a diversion program prior to conviction, a method of informal adjustment at intake, or a condition of probation. Restitution has a number of advantages: it provides alternative sentencing options; it offers monetary compensation or service to crime victims; it allows the juvenile the opportunity to compensate the victim and take a step toward becoming a productive member of society; it helps relieve overcrowded juvenile courts, probation caseloads, and detention facilities. Finally, like other alternatives to incarceration, restitution has the potential for allowing vast savings in the operation of the juvenile justice system. Monetary restitution programs in particular may improve the public’s attitude toward juvenile justice by offering equity to the victims of crime and ensuring that offenders take responsibility for their actions.

The use of restitution is increasing. In 19

, there were fewer than 15 formal restitution programs around the United States. By 19

, formal programs existed in 400 jurisdictions, and 35 states had statutory provisions that gave courts the authority to order juvenile restitution.

Today, all 50 states, as well as the

District of Columbia

, have statutory restitution programs.

Does Restitution Work?

How successful is restitution as a treatment alternative? Most evaluations have shown that it is reasonably effective and should be expanded.

In an analysis of restitution programs across the country, Peter Schneider and Matthew Finkelstein found that about 74 percent of youths who received restitution as a condition of probation successfully completed their orders. The researchers also found that juvenile restitution programs that reported a reduction in recidivism rates were the ones that had high successful completion rates.

Anne Schneider conducted a thorough analysis of restitution programs in four states and found that participants had lower recidivism rates than youths in control groups (regular probation caseloads).

Although Schneider’s data indicate that restitution may reduce recidivism, the number of youths who had subsequent involvement in the justice system still seemed high. In short, there is evidence that most restitution orders are successfully completed and that youths who make restitution are less likely to become recidivists; however, the number of repeat offenses committed by juveniles who made restitution suggests that, by itself, restitution is not the answer to the delinquency problem.

Another criticism of restitution programs is that they foster involuntary servitude. Indigent clients may be unfairly punished when they are unable to make restitution payments or face probation violations. To avoid such bias, probation officers should first determine why payment has stopped and then suggest appropriate action, rather than simply treating nonpayment as a matter of law enforcement.

Residential Community Treatment

Many experts believe that institutionalization of even the most serious delinquent youth is a mistake. Confinement in a high-security institution usually cannot solve the problems that brought a youth into a delinquent way of life, and the experience may actually amplify delinquency once the youth returns to the community. Many agree that warehousing juveniles without attention to their treatment needs does little to prevent their return to criminal behavior. Research has shown that the most effective secure-corrections programs provide individualized services for a small number of participants. Large training schools have not proved to be effective.

This realization has produced a wide variety of residential community-treatment programs to service youths who need a more secure environment than can be provided by probation services, but who do not require a placement in a state-run juvenile correctional facility.

How are community corrections implemented? In some cases, youths are placed under probation supervision, and the probation department maintains a residential treatment facility. Placement can also be made to the department of social services or juvenile corrections with the direction that the youth be placed in a residential facility.

Residential programs

are generally divided into four major categories: group homes, including boarding schools and apartment-type settings; foster homes;

family group homes

; and

rural programs

residential programs

Residential nonsecure facilities, such as a group home, foster home, family group home, or rural home, where the juvenile can be closely monitored and develop close relationships with staff members.

Group homes

are nonsecure residences that provide counseling, education, job training, and family living. They are staffed by a small number of qualified persons, and generally house 12 to 15 youngsters. The institutional quality of the environment is minimized, and the kids are given the opportunity to build a close relationship with the staff. They reside in the home, attend public schools, and participate in community activities.

group homes

Nonsecured structured residences that provide counseling, education, job training, and family living.

Foster care programs

involve one or two juveniles who live with a family—usually a husband and wife who serve as surrogate parents. The juveniles enter into a close relationship with the foster parents and receive the attention and care they did not receive in their own homes. The quality of the foster home experience depends on the foster parents. Foster care for adjudicated juvenile offenders has not been extensive in the United States. Welfare departments generally handle foster placements, and funding of this treatment option has been a problem for the juvenile justice system. However, foster home services have expanded as a community treatment approach.

foster care programs

Placement of juveniles with families who provide attention, guidance, and care.

One example of a successful foster care program is the multidimensional treatment foster care (MTFC) program, developed by social scientists at the

Oregon

Social Learning Center. Designed for the most serious and chronic young offenders, this program combines individual therapy, such as skill building in problem solving for the youths, and family therapy for the biological or adoptive parents. The foster care families receive training by program staff so they can provide the young people with close supervision, fair and consistent limits and consequences, and a supportive relationship with an adult.

Foster care families also receive close supervision and are consulted regularly on the progress of the youth by program staff. An experiment of MTFC found that one year after the completion of the program, participating male youths were significantly less likely to be arrested than a control group.

Another test of MTFC that involved only serious and chronic female juvenile offenders found that it was more effective than group care, as measured by days in locked settings, number of criminal referrals, and self-reported delinquency.

Family group homes

combine elements of foster care and group home placements. Juveniles are placed in a group home that is run by a family rather than by a professional staff. Troubled youths have an opportunity to learn to get along in a family-like situation, and at the same time the state avoids the startup costs and neighborhood opposition often associated with establishing a public institution.

family group homes

A combination of foster care and group home; they are run by a single family rather than by professional staff.

Rural programs

include forestry camps, ranches, and farms that provide recreational activities or work for juveniles. Programs usually handle from 30 to 50 youths. Such programs have the disadvantage of isolating juveniles from the community, but reintegration can be achieved if a youth’s stay is short and if family and friends are allowed to visit.

rural programs

Specific recreational and work opportunities provided for juveniles in a rural setting, such as a forestry camp, a farm, or a ranch.

Most residential programs use group counseling as the main treatment tool. Although group facilities have been used less often than institutional placements, there is a trend toward developing community-based residential facilities. As jurisdictions continue to face ever-increasing costs for juvenile justice services, community-based programs will play an important role in providing rehabilitation of juvenile offenders and ensuring public safety. CHECKPOINTS

CHECKPOINTS

· LO2 Know about new approaches for providing probation services to juvenile offenders.

· There are new programs being developed that are “probation plus” because they add restrictive penalties and conditions to community service orders.

· Juvenile intensive probation supervision involves treatment as part of a very small probation caseload that receives almost daily scrutiny.

· Electronic monitoring combined with house arrest is being implemented in juvenile correction policy.

· Balanced probation systems integrate community protection, accountability of the juvenile offender, and individualized attention to the offender.

· Monetary restitution allows a juvenile to reimburse the victim of the crime or donate money to a charity or public cause.

· Community service restitution allows juveniles to engage in public works as part of their disposition.

· Residential community programs are usually divided into four major categories: group homes, foster homes, family group homes, and rural programs.

SECURE CORRECTIONS

When the court determines that community treatment can’t meet the special needs of a delinquent youth, a judge may refer the juvenile to a secure treatment program. Today, correctional institutions operated by federal, state, and county governments are generally classified as secure or open facilities. Secure facilities restrict the movement of residents through staff monitoring, locked exits, and interior fence controls. Open institutions generally do not restrict the movement of the residents and allow much greater freedom of access to the facility.

History of Juvenile Institutions

Until the early 1800s, juvenile offenders, as well as neglected and dependent children, were confined in adult prisons. The inhumane conditions in these institutions were among the factors that led social reformers to create a separate children’s court system in 1899.

Early juvenile institutions were industrial schools modeled after adult prisons, but designed to protect children from the evil influences in adult facilities. The first was the New York House of Refuge, established in 1825. Not long after, states began to establish

reform schools

for juveniles. Massachusetts was the first, opening the Lyman School for Boys in Westborough in 1

6. New York opened the State Agricultural and Industrial School in 1849, and

Maine

opened the Maine Boys’ Training School in 1853. By 1900, 36 states had reform schools.

Although it is difficult to determine the exact population of these institutions, by 1880 there were approximately 11,000 youths in correctional facilities, a number that more than quadrupled by 1980.

Early reform schools were generally punitive in nature and were based on the concept of rehabilitation (or reform) through hard work and discipline.

reform schools

Institutions in which educational and psychological services are used in an effort to improve the conduct of juveniles who are forcibly detained.

In the second half of the nineteenth century, emphasis shifted to the

cottage system

. Juvenile offenders were housed in compounds of cottages, each of which could accommodate 20 to 40 children. A set of “parents” ran each cottage, creating a homelike atmosphere. This setup was believed to be more conducive to rehabilitation.

cottage system

Housing in a compound of small cottages, each of which can accommodate 20 to 40 children.

The first cottage system was established in Massachusetts in 1855, the second in

Ohio

in 18

The system was held to be a great improvement over reform schools. The belief was that, by moving away from punishment and toward rehabilitation, not only could offenders be rehabilitated but also crime among unruly children could be prevented.

Twentieth-Century Developments.

The early twentieth century witnessed important changes in juvenile corrections. Because of the influence of World War I, reform schools began to adopt a militaristic style. Living units became barracks, cottage groups became companies, house fathers became captains, and superintendents became majors or colonels. Military-style uniforms were standard wear.

In addition, the establishment of the first juvenile court in 1899 reflected the expanded use of confinement for delinquent children. As the number of juvenile offenders increased, the forms of juvenile institutions varied to include forestry camps, ranches, and vocational schools. Beginning in the 1930s, camps modeled after the camps run by the Civilian Conservation Corps became a part of the juvenile correctional system. These camps centered on conservation activities and work as a means of rehabilitation.

Los Angeles County was the first to use camps during this period.

Southern California was experiencing problems with transient youths who came to California with no money and then got into trouble with the law. Rather than filling up the jails, the county placed these offenders in conservation camps, paid them low wages, and released them when they had earned enough money to return home. The camps proved more rehabilitative than training schools, and by 1935, California had established a network of forestry camps for delinquent boys. The idea soon spread to other states.

Also during the 1930s, the U.S. Children’s Bureau sought to reform juvenile corrections. The bureau conducted studies to determine the effectiveness of the training school concept. Little was learned from these programs because of limited funding and bureaucratic ineptitude, and the Children’s Bureau failed to achieve any significant change. But such efforts recognized the important role of positive institutional care.

Another innovation came in the 1940s with passage of the American Law Institute’s Model Youth Correction Authority Act. This act emphasized reception/ classification centers. California was the first to try out this idea, opening the Northern Reception Center and Clinic in Sacramento in 1947. Today, there are many such centers scattered around the United States.

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN TO ME? Community Treatment for Juvenile Offenders: Not in My Backyard

How would you react to the announcement that a community treatment center for juvenile offenders is to open in your neighborhood? You are aware of studies that show that juvenile offenders can be treated in the community as effectively as in an institution. Yet the public sometimes has a negative impression of community treatment, especially when it is offered to juvenile offenders who pose a threat to society, and it is not uncommon for neighborhood groups to oppose the location of corrections programs in their community.

· 1. Is this concern warranted? Explain.

· 2. What arguments might you make to allay the public’s concerns and win support for community-based programs?

Since the 1970s, a major change in institutionalization has been the effort to remove status offenders from institutions housing juvenile delinquents. This includes removing status offenders from detention centers and removing all juveniles from contact with adults in jails. This decarceration policy mandates that courts use the

least restrictive alternative

in providing services for status offenders. A noncriminal youth should not be put in a secure facility if a community-based program is available. In addition, the federal government prohibits states from placing status offenders in separate facilities that are similar in form and function to those used for delinquent offenders. This is to prevent states from merely shifting their institutionalized population around so that one training school houses all delinquents, and another houses all status offenders, but actual conditions remain the same.

least restrictive alternative

A program with the least restrictive or secure setting that will benefit the child.

Throughout the 1980s and into the 1990s, admissions to juvenile correctional facilities grew substantially.

Capacities of juvenile facilities also increased, but not enough to avoid overcrowding. Training schools became seriously overcrowded in some states, causing private facilities to play an increased role in juvenile corrections. Reliance on incarceration became costly to states: inflation-controlled juvenile corrections expenditures for public facilities grew to more than $2 billion in 1995, an increase of 20 percent from 1982.

A 1994 report issued by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) said that crowding, inadequate health care, lack of security, and poor control of suicidal behavior was widespread in juvenile corrections facilities. Despite new construction, crowding persisted in more than half the states.

JUVENILE INSTITUTIONS TODAY: PUBLIC AND PRIVATE

Most juveniles are housed in public institutions that are administered by state agencies: child and youth services, health and social services, corrections, or child welfare.

In some states these institutions fall under a centralized system that covers adults as well as juveniles. Recently, a number of states have removed juvenile corrections from an existing adult corrections department or mental health agency. However, the majority of states still place responsibility for the administration of juvenile corrections within social service departments.

Supplementing publicly funded institutions are private facilities that are maintained and operated by private agencies funded or chartered by state authorities. Most of today’s private institutions are relatively small facilities holding fewer than 30 youths. Many have a specific mission or focus (for example, treating females who display serious emotional problems). Although about 80 percent of public institutions can be characterized as secure, only 20 percent of private institutions are high-security facilities.

Population Trends

Whereas most delinquents are held in public facilities, most status offenders are held in private facilities. At last count (2010), there were 70,792 juvenile offenders being held in public (

percent) and private (31 percent) facilities in the United States. Between 1991 and 1999, the number of juveniles held in custody increased 41 percent, followed by a 34 percent drop from 1999 to 2010.

The juvenile custody rate varies widely among states:

South Dakota

makes the greatest use of custodial treatment, incarcerating 575 delinquents in juvenile facilities per 100,000 juveniles in the population, whereas

Vermont

and

Hawaii

have the lowest juvenile custody rates (53 and 90, respectively). South Dakota’s juvenile custody rate is more than twice the national average.

Some states rely heavily on privately run facilities, whereas others place many youths in out-of-state facilities.

This wide variation in state-level juvenile custody rates has been the subject of much speculation but little empirical research. In an important study, criminologist Daniel Mears found that there are three main explanations for why some states incarcerate juveniles at a much higher rate than others: (1) they have high rates of juvenile property crime and adult violent crime; (2) they have higher adult custody rates; and (3) there is a “cultural acceptance of punitive policies” in some parts of the country. Interestingly, Mears found that western and midwestern states were more likely to have higher juvenile incarceration rates than southern states, thus calling into question the widely held view that the South is disproportionately punitive.

Although the number of institutionalized youths appears to have stabilized in the last few years, the data may reveal only the tip of the iceberg. The data do not include many minors who are incarcerated after they are waived to adult courts or who have been tried as adults because of exclusion statutes. Most states place underage juveniles convicted of adult charges in youth centers until they reach the age of majority, whereupon they are transferred to an adult facility. In addition, there may be a hidden, or subterranean, correctional system that places wayward youths in private mental hospitals and substance-abuse clinics for behaviors that might otherwise have brought them a stay in a correctional facility or community-based program.

These data suggest that the number of institutionalized children may be far greater than reported in the official statistics.

Studies also show that large numbers of youths are improperly incarcerated because of a lack of appropriate facilities. A nationwide survey carried out by congressional investigators as part of the House Committee on Government Reform found that 15,000 children with psychiatric disorders who were awaiting mental health services were improperly incarcerated in secure juvenile detention facilities.

New Jersey

, investigations into the state’s child welfare system found that large numbers of teenage foster children were being held in secure juvenile detention facilities. Other states resort to similar practices, citing a lack of appropriate noncorrectional facilities.

Physical Conditions

The physical plans of juvenile institutions vary in size and quality. Many of the older training schools still place all offenders in a single building, regardless of the offense. More acceptable structures include a reception unit with an infirmary, a security unit, and dormitory units or cottages. Planners have concluded that the most effective design for training schools is to have facilities located around a community square. The facilities generally include a dining hall and kitchen area, a storage warehouse, academic and vocational training rooms, a library, an auditorium, a gymnasium, an administration building, and other basic facilities.

The individual living areas also vary, depending on the type of facility and the progressiveness of its administration. Most traditional training school conditions were appalling. Today, however, most institutions provide toilet and bath facilities, beds, desks, lamps, and tables. New facilities usually try to provide a single room for each individual. However, the Juvenile Residential Facility Census, which collects information about the facilities in which juvenile offenders are held, found that one-quarter (25 percent) of the 2,860 facilities that reported information were either at capacity or overcrowded, with the latter defined as having more residents than available standard beds.

The physical conditions of secure facilities for juveniles have come a long way from the training schools of the turn of the twentieth century. However, many administrators realize that more modernization is necessary to comply with national standards for juvenile institutions.

Although some improvements have been made, there are still enormous problems to overcome.

THE INSTITUTIONALIZED JUVENILE

The typical resident of a juvenile facility is a 17-year-old European American male incarcerated for an average stay of three and a half months in a public facility or four months in a private facility. Private facilities tend to house younger youths, whereas public institutions provide custodial care for older ones, including a small percentage between 18 and 21 years of age. Most incarcerated youths are person, property, or drug offenders.

If you want to learn more about improving the conditions of children in custody, visit the Criminal Justice CourseMate at

CengageBrain.com

, then access the Web Links for this chapter.

Minority youths are incarcerated at a rate two to four times that of European American youths. The difference is greatest for African American youths, with a custody rate of 605 per 100,000 juveniles; for European American youths the rate is 127.

In a number of states, such as California, New Jersey, New York, and

Pennsylvania

, the difference in custody rates between African American and European American youths is considerably greater (

Table 14.1

). Research has found that this overrepresentation is not a result of differentials in arrest rates, but often stems from disparity at early stages of case processing.

Of equal importance, minorities are more likely to be confined in secure public facilities rather than in open, private facilities that might provide more costly and effective treatment,

and among minority groups African American youths are more likely to receive more punitive treatment—throughout the juvenile justice system—compared with others.

TABLE 14.1: State Comparison of Custody Rates between European American and African American Juvenile Offenders, 2010

State of Offense

White

Black

United States

127

605

Alabama

131

392

Alaska

228

649

Arizona

114

334

Arkansas

142

534

California

115

984

Colorado

204

202

Connecticut

360

Delaware

703

District of Columbia

172

501

Florida

202

650

Georgia

461

Hawaii 48 84

Idaho

240

257

Illinois

106

476

Indiana

207

717

Iowa

165

864

Kansas

172

1,040

Kentucky

135

577

Louisiana

472

Maine 131

446

Maryland

321

Massachusetts

403

Michigan

105

625

Minnesota

673

Mississippi 38 189

Missouri

140

586

Montana

131

581

Nebraska

217

1,716

Nevada

155

723

New Hampshire

389

New Jersey 26

538

New Mexico

159

652

New York 77

538

North Carolina

249

North Dakota

178

452

Ohio

128

712

Oklahoma

576

Oregon

274

1,214

Pennsylvania

111

1,316

Rhode Island

123

961

South Carolina

128

450

South Dakota

317

109

Tennessee

293

Texas

123

529

Utah

154

666

Vermont 31 0

Virginia

112

583

Washington

137

625

West Virginia

254

1,173

Wisconsin

109

1,062

Wyoming

402

1,103

Note: The rate is the number of juvenile offenders in residential placement in 2010 per 100,000 juveniles in the population.

Source: Melissa Sickmund, T J. Sladky, Wei Kang, and Charles Puzzanchera, “Easy Access to the Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement,” 2011,
www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezacjrp/
(accessed August 30, 2012).

Minority youths accused of delinquent acts are less likely than European American youths to be diverted from the court system into informal sanctions and are more likely to receive sentences involving incarceration.

Today, more than 7 in 10 juveniles in custody belong to racial or ethnic minorities.

Racial disparity in juvenile disposition is an ongoing problem that demands immediate public scrutiny.
77
In response, many jurisdictions have initiated studies of racial disproportion in their juvenile justice systems, along with federal requirements to reduce disproportionate minority confinement (DMC), as contained in the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 2002.

A report on state compliance to reduce DMC demonstrates that some progress has been made but that many challenges remain, including the basic need to identify factors that contribute to DMC (at least 18 states have yet to initiate this process), incomplete and inconsistent data systems, and the need for ongoing evaluation of focused interventions and system-wide efforts to reduce DMC.

Some promising practices in reducing DMC, such as cultural competency training and increasing community-based detention alternatives, are beginning to emerge.

Across all races and ethnicities, mental health needs are particularly acute among institutionalized juveniles.

Because of the importance of this topic, it is featured in the accompanying

Focus on Delinquency

box.

For more than two decades, shocking exposés, sometimes resulting from investigations by the U.S. Department of Justice’s civil rights division, have focused public attention on the problems of juvenile corrections.

Today, more so than in years past, some critics believe public scrutiny has improved conditions in training schools. There is greater professionalism among the staff, and staff brutality seems to have diminished. Status offenders and delinquents are, for the most part, held in separate facilities. Confinement length is shorter, and rehabilitative programming has increased. However, there are significant differences in the experiences of male and female delinquents in institutions.

To learn more about Columbia University’s Center for the Promotion of Mental Health in Juvenile Justice, visit the Criminal Justice CourseMate at
CengageBrain.com
, then access the Web Links for this chapter.

Male Inmates

Males make up the great bulk of institutionalized youth, accounting for seven out of every eight juvenile offenders in residential placement,

and most programs are directed toward their needs. In many ways their experiences mirror those of adult offenders. In an important paper, Clemens Bartollas and his associates identified an inmate value system that they believed was common in juvenile institutions:

· “Exploit whomever you can.”

“Don’t play up to staff.”

“Don’t rat on your peers.”

“Don’t give in to others.”
84

Focus on Delinquency: MENTAL HEALTH NEEDS OF JUVENILE INMATES ON THE RISE

Research suggests that as many as two out of every three (65 percent) juvenile offenders in juvenile correctional facilities suffer from mental health problems, and a large proportion of these youths enter the system without previously having been diagnosed or receiving treatment. Incarcerated youths suffering from mental health problems may find it harder to adjust to their new environment, which may in turn lead to acting-out behaviors, disciplinary problems, and trouble participating in treatment programs. All of these problems increase the risk of recidivism upon release to the community.

These findings are cause for concern on their own, but have become more pressing as many states, in an effort to trim their budgets, are cutting back on funding for community- and school-based mental health programs. In a survey of state mental health offices, at least 32 states reported funding cuts — by an average of 5 percent — to these programs in fiscal year 2009. These same states are planning to double these reductions in funding in the years to come. According to Joseph Penn, a child psychologist at the Texas Youth Commission, “We’re seeing more and more mentally ill kids who couldn’t find community programs that were intensive enough to treat them. Jails and juvenile justice facilities are the new asylums.”

Even with a diagnosis, treatment services can be scarce in juvenile correctional facilities; culturally competent programs are even rarer. One study found that only one out of four (23 percent) juvenile offenders diagnosed with a mental disorder received any treatment. Contributing to the problem is that there is little information on what treatment works best for these juveniles. Columbia University’s Center for the Promotion of Mental Health in Juvenile Justice and the National Center for Mental Health and Juvenile Justice are leading a national effort to improve this state of affairs, as well as the need for improved mental health assessments beginning as early as intake.

CRITICAL THINKING

· 1. Is mental health treatment in the community a realistic option? Explain.

· 2. What should states be doing to plan for the long-term needs of this population?

Writing Assignment Many experts are calling for immediate attention to the mental health needs of incarcerated juveniles. Write an essay that outlines the short-term measures that can be taken to help this population. Also discuss the potential benefits associated with these measures.

Mental health needs are particularly acute among institutionalized juveniles. As much as 65 percent of youths in the juvenile justice system suffer from mental health problems. Shown here is an inmate at the Scioto Juvenile Correctional Facility in Delaware, Ohio. The facility recently added therapy programs to address inmates’ self-mutilation.

Sources: Lisa Rapp-Paglicci, Chris Stewart, William Rowe, and J. Mitchell Miller, “Addressing the Hispanic Delinquency and Mental Health Relationship Through Cultural Arts Programming: A Research Note from the Prodigy Evaluation,” Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 27:110–121 (2011); Solomon Moore, “Mentally Ill Offenders Strain Juvenile System,” New York Times, August 10, 2009; Thomas Grisso, “Adolescent Offenders with Mental Disorders,” The Future of Children 18(2):143–164 (2008); Kathleen R. Skowyra and Joseph J. Cocozza, Blueprint for Change: A Comprehensive Model for the Identification and Treatment of Youth with Mental Health Needs in Contact with the Juvenile Justice System (Delmar, NY: National Center for Mental Health and Juvenile Justice, 2007); Deborah Shelton, “Patterns of Treatment Services and Costs for Young Offenders with Mental Disorders,” Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing 18:103–112 (2005).

In addition to these general rules, the researchers found that there were separate norms for African American inmates (“exploit whites,” “no forcing sex on blacks,” “defend your brother”) and for European Americans (“don’t trust anyone,” “everybody for himself”).

Other research efforts confirm the notion that residents do in fact form cohesive groups and adhere to an informal inmate culture.
85
The more serious the youth’s record and the more secure the institution, the greater the adherence to the inmate social code. Male delinquents are more likely to form allegiances with members of their own racial group and attempt to exploit those outside the group. They also scheme to manipulate staff and take advantage of weaker peers. However, in institutions that are treatment-oriented, and where staff-inmate relationships are more intimate, residents are less likely to adhere to a negativistic inmate code.

Female Inmates

The growing involvement of female youths in criminal behavior and the influence of the feminist movement have drawn more attention to the female juvenile offender. This attention has revealed a double standard of justice. For example, girls are more likely than boys to be incarcerated for status offenses. Institutions for girls are generally more restrictive than those for boys, and they have fewer educational and vocational programs and fewer services. Institutions for girls also do a less-than-adequate job of rehabilitation. It has been suggested that this double standard operates because of a male-dominated justice system that seeks to “protect” young girls from their own sexuality.

Over the years, the number of females held in public institutions has declined, albeit less so in the past few years. This represents the continuation of a long-term trend to remove girls, many of whom are nonserious offenders, from closed institutions and place them in private or community-based facilities. It is estimated that 33 percent of all female youths in residential placement are held in private facilities; for male youths it is 30 percent.

The same double standard that brings a girl into an institution continues to exist once she is in custody. Institutional programs for girls tend to be oriented toward reinforcing traditional roles for women. Most of these programs also fail to take account of the different needs of African American and European American females, as in the case of coping with past abuse.

How well these programs rehabilitate girls is questionable. The one exception to this double standard is that female youths are incarcerated for similar terms as male youths.
89

The girls’ unit at a class in the San Jose, California, Juvenile Hall.

Many of the characteristics of juvenile female offenders are similar to those of their male counterparts, including poor social skills and low self-esteem. Other problems are more specific to the female juvenile offender (sexual abuse issues, victimization histories, lack of placement options).
90
Female juvenile offenders also have higher rates of mental health problems than their male counterparts.

In addition, there have been numerous allegations of emotional and sexual abuse by correctional workers, who either exploit vulnerable young women or callously disregard their emotional needs. An interview survey conducted by the National Council on Crime and Delinquency uncovered numerous incidents of abuse, and bitter resentment by the young women over the brutality of their custodial treatment.

Although there are more coed institutions for juveniles than in the past, most girls remain incarcerated in single-sex institutions that are isolated in rural areas and rarely offer adequate rehabilitative services. Several factors account for the different treatment of girls. One is sexual stereotyping by administrators, who believe that teaching girls “appropriate” sex roles will help them function effectively in society. These beliefs are often held by the staff as well, many of whom have highly sexist ideas of what is appropriate behavior for adolescent girls. Another factor that accounts for the different treatment of girls is that staff members often are not adequately trained to understand and address the unique needs of this population.

Girls’ institutions tend to be smaller than boys’ institutions and lack the money to offer as many programs and services as the larger male institutions.

It appears that although society is more concerned about protecting girls who act out, it is less concerned about rehabilitating them because the crimes they commit are not serious. These attitudes translate into fewer staff, older facilities, and poorer educational and recreational programs than those found in boys’ institutions.

To help address these and other problems facing female juveniles in institutions, the American Bar Association and the National Bar Association recommend a number of important changes, including these:

· • Identify, promote, and support effective gender-specific, developmentally sound, culturally sensitive practices with girls

· • Promote an integrated system of care for at-risk and delinquent girls and their families based on their competencies and needs

· • Assess the adequacy of services to meet the needs of at-risk or delinquent girls and address gaps in service

· • Collect and review state and local practices to assess the gender impact of decision making and system structure

Some of these recommendations are starting to garner serious attention, notably with the emergence of a growing body of evidence of effective programs for female juveniles in institutions and at other stages in the juvenile justice system.

CHECKPOINTS

· LO3 Understand past and current trends in the use of juvenile institutions and key issues facing the institutionalized juvenile offender.

· Since the 1970s, a major change in institutionalization has been the effort to remove status offenders from institutions housing juvenile delinquents.

· Throughout the 1980s and into the 1990s, admissions to juvenile correctional facilities grew substantially.

· Today, there are slightly less than 71,000 juveniles being held in public and private facilities.

· There may be a hidden juvenile correctional system that places wayward youths in private mental hospitals and substance abuse clinics.

· Minority youths are incarcerated at a rate two to four times that of European Americans.

· Males make up the bulk of institutionalized youth, and most programs are directed toward their needs.

· Female inmates are believed to be the target of sexual abuse and are denied the same treatment options as males.

CORRECTIONAL TREATMENT FOR JUVENILES

Nearly all juvenile institutions implement some form of treatment program: counseling, vocational and educational training, recreational programs, and religious counseling. In addition, most institutions provide medical programs as well as occasional legal service programs. Generally, the larger the institution, the greater the number of programs and services offered.

The purpose of these programs is to rehabilitate youths to become well-adjusted individuals and send them back into the community to be productive citizens. Despite good intentions, however, the goal of rehabilitation is sometimes not attained, due in large part to poor implementation of the programs.

A significant number of juvenile offenders commit more crimes after release,

and some experts believe that correctional treatment has little effect on recidivism.

100

However, a large scale empirical review of institutional treatment programs found that serious juvenile offenders who receive treatment have recidivism rates about 10 percent lower than similar untreated juveniles, and that the best programs reduced recidivism by as much as 40 percent.

101

The most successful of these institutional treatment programs provide training to improve interpersonal skills and family-style teaching to improve behavioral skills. Also important is the need to foster healthy, supportive relationships between incarcerated youth and juvenile care workers.

102

What are the drawbacks to correctional rehabilitation? One of the most common problems is the lack of well-trained staff members. Budgetary limitations are a primary concern. It costs a substantial amount of money per year to keep a child in an institution, which explains why institutions generally do not employ large professional staffs.

However, some correctional programs are highly cost-efficient, producing monetary benefits that outweigh the costs of running the program.

103

In a recent study with the provocative title, “Are Violent Delinquents Worth Treating?” researchers Michael Caldwell, Michael Vitacco, and Gregory Van Rybroek found that an institutional treatment program for violent juvenile offenders that was effective in reducing recidivism rates produced cost savings to taxpayers that were seven times greater than what it cost to run the program. These findings can be particularly influential on policy makers and government funding agencies.

104

The most glaring problem with treatment programs is that they are not administered as intended. Although the official goals of many may be treatment and rehabilitation, the actual programs may center around security and punishment. The next sections describe some treatment approaches that aim to rehabilitate offenders.

Individual Treatment Techniques: Past and Present

In general, effective individual treatment programs are built around combinations of

psychotherapy

reality therapy

, and

behavior modification

Individual counseling

is one of the most common treatment approaches, and virtually all juvenile institutions use it to some extent. This is not surprising because psychological problems such as depression are prevalent in juvenile institutions.

105

Individual counseling does not attempt to change a youth’s personality. Rather, it attempts to help individuals understand and solve their current adjustment problems. Some institutions employ counselors who are not professionally qualified, which subjects offenders to a superficial form of counseling.

individual counseling

Counselors help juveniles understand and solve their current adjustment problems.

Professional counseling may be based on

psychotherapy

. Psychotherapy requires extensive analysis of the individual’s childhood experiences. A skilled therapist attempts to help the individual make a more positive adjustment to society by altering negative behavior patterns learned in childhood. Another frequently used treatment is

reality therapy

106

This approach, developed by William Glasser during the 1970s, emphasizes current, rather than past, behavior by stressing that offenders are completely responsible for their own actions. The object of reality therapy is to make individuals more responsible people. This is accomplished by giving them confidence through developing their ability to follow a set of expectations as closely as possible. The success of reality therapy depends greatly on the warmth and concern of the counselor.

psychotherapy

Highly structured counseling in which a therapist helps a juvenile solve conflicts and make a more positive adjustment to society.

reality therapy

A form of counseling that emphasizes current behavior and requires the individual to accept responsibility for all of his or her actions.

To learn more about
reality therapy
, visit the Criminal Justice CourseMate at
CengageBrain.com
, then access the Web Links for this chapter.

Behavior modification

is used in many institutions.

107

It is based on the theory that all behavior is learned and that current behavior can be shaped through rewards and punishments. This type of program is easily used in an institutional setting that offers privileges as rewards for behaviors, such as work, study, or the development of skills. It is reasonably effective, especially when a contract is formed with the youth to modify certain behaviors. When youths are aware of what is expected of them, they plan their actions to meet these expectations and then experience the anticipated consequences. In this way, youths can be motivated to change.

behavior modification

A technique for shaping desired behaviors through a system of rewards and punishments.

Group Treatment Techniques

Group therapy

is more economical than individual therapy, because one therapist can counsel more than one individual at a time. Also, the support of the group is often valuable to individuals in the group, and individuals derive hope from other members of the group who have survived similar experiences. Another advantage of

group therapy

is that a group can often solve a problem more effectively than an individual.

group therapy

Counseling several individuals together in a group session.

One disadvantage of group therapy is that it provides little individual attention. Everyone is different, and some group members may need more individualized treatment. Also, there is the concern that by providing therapy in a group format, those who are more chronically involved in delinquency may negatively affect those who are marginally involved.

108

Guided group interaction (GGI)

is a fairly common method of group treatment. It is based on the theory that, through group interactions, a delinquent can acknowledge and solve personal problems. A leader facilitates interaction, and a group culture develops. Individual members can be mutually supportive and reinforce acceptable behavior. In the 1980s, a version of GGI called

positive peer culture (PPC)

became popular. These programs use groups in which peer leaders encourage other youths to conform to conventional behaviors. The rationale is that if negative peer influence can encourage youths to engage in delinquent behavior, then positive peer influence can help them conform.
109
Though research results are inconclusive, there is evidence that PPC may facilitate communication ability for incarcerated youth.

110

guided group interaction (GGI)

Through group interactions, a delinquent can acknowledge and solve personal problems with support from other group members.

positive peer culture (PPC)

Counseling program in which peer leaders encourage other group members to modify their behavior and peers help reinforce acceptable behaviors.

Another common group treatment approach,

milieu therapy

, seeks to make all aspects of the inmates’ environment part of their treatment and to minimize differences between custodial staff and treatment personnel. Milieu therapy, based on psychoanalytic theory, was developed during the late 1940s and early 1950s by Bruno Bettelheim.

111

This therapy attempted to create a conscience, or superego, in delinquent youths by getting them to depend on their therapists to a great extent and then threatening them with loss of the caring relationship if they failed to control their behavior. Today, milieu therapy more often makes use of peer interactions and attempts to create an environment that encourages meaningful change, growth, and satisfactory adjustment. This is often accomplished through peer pressure to conform to group norms.

milieu therapy

All aspects of the environment are part of the treatment, and meaningful change, increased growth, and satisfactory adjustment are encouraged.

Youth specialist Robert Kofahl, second from left, leads a group session at the Rosa Parks Center, a detention home for female juvenile offenders in Fulton, Missouri. The center stresses group therapy and personal development over isolation and punishment.

Educational, Vocational, and Recreational Programs

Because educational programs are an important part of social development and have therapeutic as well as instructional value, they are an essential part of most treatment programs. What takes place through education is related to all other aspects of the institutional program—work activities, cottage life, recreation, and clinical services.

Educational programs are probably the best-staffed programs in training schools, but even at their best, most of them are inadequate. Educational programs contend with myriad problems. Many of the youths coming into these institutions are mentally challenged, have learning disabilities, and are far behind their grade levels in basic academics. Most have become frustrated with the educational experience, dislike school, and become bored with any type of educational program. Their sense of frustration often leads to disciplinary problems.

Ideally, institutions should allow the inmates to attend a school in the community or offer programs that lead to a high school diploma or GED certificate. In recent years, a growing number of residential facilities have begun offering these types of programs. Almost 9 out of every 10 (87 percent) juvenile residential facility provide high school–level education, 8 of every 10 (81 percent) residential facility provide middle school–level education, and 70 percent provide GED preparation.

112

Secure institutions, because of their large size, are more likely than group homes or day treatment centers to offer programs such as remedial reading, physical education, and tutoring. Some offer computer-based learning and programmed learning modules. The Professional Spotlight discusses the career of one teacher who works in a juvenile correctional facility.

Vocational training has long been used as a treatment technique for juveniles. Early institutions were even referred to as “industrial schools.” Today, vocational programs in institutions include auto repair, printing, woodworking, computer training, food service, cosmetology, secretarial training, and data processing. A common drawback of vocational training programs is sex-typing. The recent trend has been to allow equal access to all programs offered in institutions that house both girls and boys. Sex-typing is more difficult to avoid in single-sex institutions, because funds aren’t usually available for all types of training.

To see how positive peer culture can be used effectively, visit the Criminal Justice CourseMate at
CengageBrain.com
, then access the Web Links for this chapter.

Wilderness Programs

Wilderness probation

programs involve troubled youths in outdoor activities as a mechanism to improve their social skills, self-concept, and self-control. Typically, wilderness programs maintain exposure to a wholesome environment; where the concepts of education and the work ethic are taught and embodied in adult role models, troubled youths can regain a measure of self-worth.

wilderness probation Programs involving outdoor expeditions that provide opportunities for juveniles to confront the difficulties of their lives while achieving positive personal satisfaction.

PROFESSIONAL SPOTLIGHT: Kristi Swanson

Teacher, Idaho Prison Juvenile Unit

Kristi Swanson is a teacher in the juvenile unit of an Idaho prison that is run by the Ada County Juvenile Court Services. The program she works for specializes in helping juvenile offenders obtain their high school education. The program serves juveniles who are neither good candidates for traditional school nor any longer allowed in traditional school because of suspension, expulsion, or safety issues.

Swanson started her career in an educational program for adolescents in the neuro-psych unit of a hospital. Although she enjoyed the position, she has always been drawn to working with young people in trouble with the law and in a nontraditional school environment. Her philosophy regarding kids who have broken the law has always been that kids are not bad. They make choices, and some of those choices are not always productive.

Swanson prepared for being a teacher by obtaining a bachelor’s degree in English and education. Working at a hospital for a year proved to be an extremely beneficial experience. Mental health issues play a large part when considering the proper course of action to take regarding students in a juvenile correctional facility.

What does Kristi Swanson feel is the most rewarding part of her job? It is found in the stories where a student was able to turn his or her life around and be successful. These kids often have any number of barriers to their education, including substance abuse, parental substance abuse, physical and/or mental abuse, incarcerated parents, coming from disadvantaged homes, and pregnancy. Many times they are referred to Swanson and her colleagues with very little expectation that they will be able to help them where others have failed. That challenge, combined with the capability of each of the young people, keeps the job very interesting.

As a teacher, Swanson’s greatest challenge involves dealing with students who continually make poor choices despite the best efforts of staff. Eventually, the time comes when one has to decide how much more energy should be directed toward those students, sometimes to the detriment of others.

The school day at the juvenile unit is divided into three blocks, one hour and 45 minutes apiece. Swanson spends time helping the teens with math, science, English, history, government, economics, and other subjects. Her daily routine also involves responding to inquiries from probation officers, writing letters that accompany students to court, and grading assignments. Notes are needed on each student every day. The notes are sent to the probation department at the end of each week. There are also numerous meetings with parents and probation officers regarding school progress. Swanson is also trained to intervene to deescalate problems and help keep the school a safe place for the students. Sometimes that means providing a listening ear, a shoulder to cry on, or a trip to the social worker’s office.

A number of wilderness programs for juvenile offenders have been evaluated for their effects on recidivism. In a detailed review of the effects of wilderness programs—those emphasizing physical activity over more therapeutic goals—on recidivism, Doris MacKenzie concludes that these programs do not work.

113

Although some of the programs show success, such as the Spectrum Wilderness Program in Illinois,

114

others had negative effects; that is, the group that received the program had higher arrest rates than the comparison group that did not. Taken together, the programs suffered from poor implementation, weak evaluation designs or problems with too few subjects or large dropout rates, and failure to adhere to principles of successful rehabilitation, such as targeting high-risk youths and lasting for a moderate period of time.

115

However, wilderness programs that include a therapeutic component have been shown to be effective in reducing juvenile offending. Sandra Wilson and Mark Lipsey found that, on average, these programs produced a 20 percent reduction in recidivism rates, with the most successful ones offering more intensive physical activity or therapeutic services.

116

Juvenile Boot Camps

Correctional

boot camps

were designed with the idea of combining the get-tough elements of adult programs with education, substance abuse treatment, and social skills training. In theory, a successful boot camp program should rehabilitate juvenile offenders, reduce the number of beds needed in secure institutional programs, and thus reduce the overall cost of care. The Alabama boot camp program for youthful offenders estimated savings of $1 million annually when compared with traditional institutional sentences.

117

However, no one seems convinced that participants in these programs have lower recidivism rates than those who serve normal sentences. Ronald Corbett and Joan Petersilia do note that boot camp participants seem to be less antisocial upon returning to society.

118

boot camps

Programs that combine get-tough elements with education, substance abuse treatment, and social skills training.

The bottom line for juvenile boot camps, like other correctional sanctions, is whether or not they reduce recidivism. A

meta-analysis

of the effects of juvenile boot camps on recidivism found this to be an ineffective correctional approach to reducing it; from the 17 different program samples, the control groups had, on average, lower recidivism rates than the treatment groups (boot camps).

119

Interestingly, when compared with the effects of 26 program samples of boot camps for adults, the juvenile boot camps had a higher average recidivism rate, although the difference was not significant.

120

To read more about
boot camps
, visit the Criminal Justice CourseMate at
CengageBrain.com
, then access the Web Links for this chapter.

meta-analysis

An analysis technique that synthesizes results across many programs over time.

Why do boot camps for juveniles fail to reduce future offending? The main reason is that they provide little in the way of therapy or treatment to correct offending behavior.

121

Also, few are linked to services to help juvenile offenders transition back to the community. One juvenile boot camp program in Quehanna, Pennsylvania, which included a mandatory residential aftercare component, showed a reduction in recidivism rates two years post-release.

122

Experts have also suggested that part of the reason for not finding differences in recidivism between boot camps and other correctional alternatives (the control groups) may be due to juveniles in the control groups receiving enhanced treatment, whereas juveniles in the boot camps are spending more time on physical activities.
123

The general ineffectiveness of boot camps to reduce reoffending in the community by juvenile offenders (and adult offenders) appears to have resulted in this approach falling into disfavor with some correctional administrators. At the height of its popularity in the mid-1990s, more than 75 state-run boot camps were in operation in more than 30 states across the country.

124

Despite this, boot camps appear to still have a place among the array of sentencing options, if for no other reason than to appease the public with the promise of tougher sentences and lower costs.

125

If boot camps are to become a viable alternative for juvenile corrections, they must be seen not as a panacea that provides an easy solution to the problems of delinquency, but merely part of a comprehensive approach to juvenile care that is appropriate to a select group of adolescents.

126

CHECKPOINTS

· LO4 Be able to identify current juvenile correctional treatment approaches and comment on their effectiveness in reducing recidivism.

· Nearly all juvenile institutions implement some form of treatment program.

· Reality therapy, a commonly used individual approach, emphasizes current, rather than past, behavior by stressing that offenders are completely responsible for their own actions.

· Group therapy is more commonly used with kids than individual therapy.

· Guided group interaction and positive peer culture are popular group treatment techniques.

· Many but not all institutions either allow juveniles to attend a school in the community or offer programs that lead to a high school diploma or GED certificate.

· Wilderness programs involve troubled youths using outdoor activities as a mechanism to improve their social skills, self-concepts, and self-control.

· Correctional boot camps emphasize the get-tough elements of adult programs.

THE LEGAL RIGHT TO TREATMENT

The primary goal of placing juveniles in institutions is to help them reenter the community successfully. Therefore, lawyers claim that children in state-run institutions have a legal

right to treatment

The concept of a

right to treatment

was introduced to the mental health field in 1960 by Morton Birnbaum, who argued that individuals who are deprived of their liberty because of a mental illness are entitled to treatment to correct that condition.
127
The right to treatment has expanded to include the juvenile justice system, an expansion bolstered by court rulings that mandate that rehabilitation and not punishment or retribution be the basis of juvenile court dispositions.
128
It stands to reason then that, if incarcerated, juveniles are entitled to the appropriate social services that will promote their rehabilitation.

right to treatment

Philosophy espoused by many courts that juvenile offenders have a statutory right to treatment while under the jurisdiction of the courts.

One of the first cases to highlight this issue was Inmates of the Boys’ Training School v. Affleck in 1972.

129

In its decision, a federal court argued that rehabilitation is the true purpose of the juvenile court and that, without this goal, due process guarantees are violated. It condemned such devices as solitary confinement, strip cells, and lack of educational opportunities, and held that juveniles have a statutory right to treatment. The court also established the following minimum standards for all juveniles confined in training schools:

· • A room equipped with lighting sufficient for an inmate to read until 10:00 P.M.

· • Sufficient clothing to meet seasonal needs

· • Bedding, including blankets, sheets, pillows, and pillowcases, to be changed once a week

· • Personal hygiene supplies, including soap, toothpaste, towels, toilet paper, and toothbrush

· • A change of undergarments and socks every day

· • Minimum writing materials: pen, pencil, paper, and envelopes

· • Prescription eyeglasses, if needed

· • Equal access to all books, periodicals, and other reading materials located in the training school

· • Daily showers

· • Daily access to medical facilities, including provision of a 24-hour nursing service

· • General correspondence privileges

130

To learn more about the right to treatment, read “Meeting the Needs of the Mentally Ill—A Case Study of the ‘Right to Treatment’ as Legal Rights Discourse in the USA,” by Michael McCubbin and David N. Weisstub. You can find it by visiting the Criminal Justice CourseMate at
CengageBrain.com
, then accessing the Web Links for this chapter.

In 1974, in the case of Nelson v. Heyne, the First Federal Appellate Court affirmed that juveniles have a right to treatment and condemned the use of corporal punishment in juvenile institutions.
131
In Morales v. Turman, the court held that all juveniles confined in training schools in Texas have a right to treatment, including development of education skills, delivery of vocational education, medical and psychiatric treatment, and adequate living conditions.

132

In another case, Pena v. New York State Division for Youth, the court held that the use of isolation, hand restraints, and tranquilizing drugs at Goshen Annex Center violated the Fourteenth Amendment right to due process and the Eighth Amendment right to protection against cruel and unusual punishment.

133

The right to treatment has also been limited. For example, in Ralston v. Robinson, the Supreme Court rejected a youth’s claim that he should continue to be given treatment after he was sentenced to a consecutive term in an adult prison for crimes committed while in a juvenile institution.

134

In the Ralston case, the offender’s proven dangerousness outweighed the possible effects of rehabilitation. Similarly, in Santana v. Callazo, the U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a suit brought by residents at the Maricao Juvenile Camp in Puerto Rico on the grounds that the administration had failed to provide them with an individualized rehabilitation plan or adequate treatment. The circuit court concluded that it was a legitimate exercise of state authority to incarcerate juveniles solely to protect society if they are dangerous.

The Struggle for Basic Civil Rights

Several court cases have led federal, state, and private groups—for example, the American Bar Association, the American Correctional Association, and the National Council on Crime and Delinquency—to develop standards for the juvenile justice system. These standards provide guidelines for conditions and practices in juvenile institutions and call on administrators to maintain a safe and healthy environment for incarcerated youths.

For the most part, state-sponsored brutality has been outlawed, although the use of restraints, solitary confinement, and even medication for unruly residents has not been eliminated. The courts have ruled that corporal punishment in any form violates standards of decency and human dignity.

There are a number of mechanisms for enforcing these standards. For example, the federal government’s Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA) gives the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) the power to bring actions against state or local governments for violating the civil rights of persons institutionalized in publicly operated facilities.

135

CRIPA does not create any new substantive rights; it simply confers power on the U.S. attorney general to bring action to enforce previously established constitutional or statutory rights of institutionalized persons; about 25 percent of cases involve juvenile detention and correctional facilities.

What provisions does the juvenile justice system make to help institutionalized offenders return to society? The remainder of this chapter is devoted to this topic.

JUVENILE AFTERCARE AND REENTRY

Aftercare

in the juvenile justice system is the equivalent of parole in the adult criminal justice system. When juveniles are released from an institution, they may be placed in an aftercare program of some kind, so that those who have been institutionalized are not simply returned to the community without some transitional assistance. Whether individuals who are in aftercare as part of an indeterminate sentence remain in the community or return to the institution for further rehabilitation depends on their actions during the aftercare period. Aftercare is an extremely important stage in the juvenile justice process, because few juveniles age out of custody.

136

aftercare

Transitional assistance to juveniles equivalent to adult parole to help youths adjust to community life.

Reentry

involves aftercare services but includes preparation for release from confinement, also called prerelease planning.

137

Reentry is further distinguished from aftercare in that reentry is seen as the whole process and experience of the transition of juveniles from “juvenile and adult correctional settings back into schools, families, communities, and society at large.”

138

The concept of reentry, which is also the term given to it in the adult criminal justice system, is by no means new.

139

Recently, however, it has come to characterize the larger numbers of juvenile and adult offenders returning to communities each year and the increased needs these offenders exhibit with respect to employment, education, and mental health and substance abuse problems.

140

For juvenile offenders, reentry goes beyond the all-too-common practice of juveniles being placed in aftercare programs that are the same as adult parole programs, which “fail to take account of their unique needs and the challenges they face.”

141

Through the Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative (SVORI), the federal government has invested $150 million on reentry programs for adult and juvenile offenders in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands.

142

Promising results are beginning to emerge from this initiative as well as other juvenile reentry programs across the country.

143

reentry

The process and experience of returning to society upon release from a custody facility post-adjudication.

For more information on SVORI programs for juvenile offenders, visit the Criminal Justice CourseMate at
CengageBrain.com
, then access the Web Links for this chapter.

Supervision

One purpose of aftercare and reentry is to provide support during the readjustment period following release. First, individuals whose activities have been regimented for some time may not find it easy to make independent decisions. Second, offenders may perceive themselves as scapegoats, cast out by society. Finally, the community may view the returning minor with a good deal of prejudice; adjustment problems may reinforce a preexisting need to engage in deviant behavior.

Juveniles in aftercare programs are supervised by parole caseworkers or counselors whose job is to maintain contact with the juvenile, make sure that a corrections plan is followed, and show interest and caring. The counselor also keeps the youth informed of services that may assist in reintegration, and counsels the youth and his or her family. Unfortunately, aftercare caseworkers, like probation officers, often carry such large caseloads that their jobs are next to impossible to do adequately.

Aftercare—the equivalent of parole in the adult criminal justice system—includes a range of services designed to help juveniles adjust to community life upon release from an institution. Here, Tristan Cassidy, 17 (top) and Scott Epperley, 15, work on a project for their geography class at the Northwest Regional Learning Center (NRLC) in Everett, Washington. The NRLC is a detention school for juveniles on probation or in aftercare that serves as a last chance for some to earn their high school diploma if their former schools will not accept them back.

The Intensive Aftercare Program (IAP) Model.

Models of aftercare have been aimed at the chronic or violent offender. The

Intensive Aftercare Program (IAP)

model developed by David Altschuler and Troy Armstrong offers a continuum of intervention for serious juvenile offenders returning to the community following placement.

144

The IAP model begins by drawing attention to five basic principles, which collectively establish a set of fundamental operational goals:

· • Preparing youths for progressively increased responsibility and freedom in the community

· • Facilitating youth–community interaction and involvement

· • Working with both the offender and targeted community support systems (families, peers, schools, employers) on qualities needed for constructive interaction and the youths’ successful community adjustment

· • Developing new resources and supports where needed

· • Monitoring and testing the youths and the community on their ability to deal with each other productively

Intensive Aftercare Program (IAP)

A balanced, highly structured, comprehensive continuum of intervention for serious and violent juvenile offenders returning to the community.

These basic goals are then translated into practice, which incorporates individual case planning with a family and community perspective. The program stresses a mix of intensive surveillance and services and a balance of incentives and graduated consequences coupled with the imposition of realistic, enforceable conditions. There is also “service brokerage,” in which community resources are used and linkage with social networks established.

145

The IAP initiative was designed to help correctional agencies implement effective aftercare programs for chronic and serious juvenile offenders. After more than 12 years of testing, the program is now being aimed at determining how juveniles are prepared for reentry into their communities, how the transition is handled, and how the aftercare in the community is provided.

146

The Prevention/Intervention/Treatment feature “

Using the Intensive Aftercare Program (IAP) Model

” illustrates how it is being used in three state jurisdictions and reports on the latest evaluation results.

JUVENILE DELINQUENCY: Using the Intensive Aftercare Program (IAP) Model

How has the IAP model been used around the nation, and has it proven effective?

Colorado

Although adolescents are still institutionalized, community-based providers begin weekly services (including multi-family counseling and life-skills services) that continue during aftercare. Sixty days prior to release, IAP youths begin a series of step-down measures, including supervised trips to the community, and 30 days before release, there are overnight or weekend home passes. Upon release to parole, most program youths go through several months of day treatment that, in addition to services, provides a high level of structure during the day. As a youth’s progress warrants, the frequency of supervision decreases.

Nevada

Once the parole plan is finalized, all IAP youths begin a 30-day prerelease phase, during which IAP staff provide a series of services that continue through the early months of parole. These consist primarily of two structured curricula on life skills and substance abuse. The initial 30 days of release are considered an institutional furlough (that is, the kids are still on the institutional rolls) that involves intensive supervision and service. During furlough, they are involved in day programming and are subject to frequent drug testing and evening and weekend surveillance. Upon successful completion of the furlough, the IAP transition continues through the use of phased levels of supervision. During the first three months, three contacts per week with the case manager or field agent are required. This level of supervision is reduced to two contacts per week for the next two months, and then to once a week during the last month of parole.

Virginia

Virginia’s transition differs from the other two states in that its central feature is the use of group home placements as a bridge between the institution and the community. Immediately after release from the institution, youths enter one of two group homes for a 30- to 60-day period. The programs and services in which they will be involved in the community are initiated shortly after placement in the home. Virginia uses a formal step-down system to gradually ease the intensity of parole supervision. In the two months following the youth’s release from the group home, staff are required to contact him or her five to seven times per week. This is reduced to three to five times per week during the next two months, and again to three times per week during the final 30 days.

Does the IAP Model Work?

In each state, one site was chosen to assess the effectiveness of the IAP model: Denver, Colorado; Las Vegas, Nevada; and Norfolk, Virginia. An experimental evaluation that randomly assigned juveniles to the program or a control group was used to assess the model’s effectiveness on recidivism. As shown in

Table 14A

, the program produced some benefits in Norfolk, but in Denver, program youths were more likely than their control counterparts to recidivate and to be sentenced to a period of incarceration. The researchers call for caution in interpreting these results. In the case of Denver, control group youths received services similar to those in the IAP. They also note that this was the first test of a “very complex intervention.” Suggestions for improvement to the IAP include maximizing parental involvement, emphasizing education and employment skills, and strengthening community support networks.

Critical Thinking

· 1. What is the importance of reducing the number of supervision contacts with the juvenile offender toward the end of the aftercare program?

· 2. Should juvenile offenders who have committed less serious offenses also have to go through intensive aftercare programs? Discuss.

TABLE 14A: The IAP Model’s Effects on Recidivism

IAP

Control

IAP

Control

		Denver	Las Vegas	Norfolk
		IAP			Control
Arrested (%)	65	67
Convicted (%)	42	33		59	44
Incarcerated (%)		41	45	56

Sources: David M. Altschuler, “Juvenile Reentry and Aftercare,” Georgetown Journal on Poverty Law and Policy 16:655–667 (2009); Richard G. Wiebush, Dennis Wagner, Betsie McNulty, Yanqing Wang, and Thao N. Le, Implementation and Outcome Evaluation of the Intensive Aftercare Program (Washington, DC: OJJDP, 2005); Steve V. Gies, Aftercare Services (Washington, DC: OJJDP Juvenile Justice Bulletin, 2003).

Aftercare Revocation Procedures

Juvenile parolees are required to meet set standards of behavior, which generally include but are not limited to the following:

· • Adhere to a reasonable curfew set by youth worker or parent

· • Refrain from associating with persons whose influence would be detrimental

· • Attend school in accordance with the law

· • Abstain from drugs and alcohol

· • Report to the youth worker when required

· • Refrain from acts that would be crimes if committed by an adult

· • Refrain from operating an automobile without permission of the youth worker or parent

· • Refrain from being habitually disobedient and beyond the lawful control of parent or other legal authority

· • Refrain from running away from the lawful custody of parent or other lawful authority

If these rules are violated, the juvenile may have his parole revoked and be returned to the institution. Most states have extended the same legal rights enjoyed by adults at parole revocation hearings to juveniles who are in danger of losing their aftercare privileges, as follows:

· • Juveniles must be informed of the conditions of parole and receive notice of any obligations.

· • Juveniles have the right to legal counsel at state expense if necessary.

· • They maintain the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses against them.

· • They have the right to introduce documentary evidence and witnesses.

· • They have the right to a hearing before an officer who shall be an attorney but not an employee of the revoking agency.

147

CHECKPOINTS

· LO5 Know about aftercare and reentry for juvenile offenders.

· Aftercare in the juvenile justice system is the equivalent of parole in the adult criminal justice system.

· Reentry involves aftercare services but includes preparation for release from confinement.

· Supervision is a major component of aftercare services for juvenile offenders.

· The Intensive Aftercare Program (IAP) model works with chronic and violent juvenile offenders, and has been evaluated in a number of sites across the country.

FUTURE OF JUVENILE CORRECTIONS

There exists much debate about the effectiveness of community versus institutional treatment. Considerable research shows that warehousing juveniles without proper treatment does little to prevent future delinquent activities.

148

The most effective secure corrections programs are those that provide individual services for a small number of participants.

149

Evaluations of community treatment provide evidence of a number of successful ways to prevent delinquency without jeopardizing the safety of community residents, and members of the public continue to express their support for more treatment over punishment.

150

There is also a long-standing debate about the effectiveness of correctional treatments compared with other delinquency prevention measures. In their assessment of the full range of interventions to prevent serious and violent juvenile offending, Rolf Loeber and David Farrington found that it is never too early and never too late to make a difference.

151

Though some critics believe that juveniles are being coddled, in the future it is likely that innovative treatment methods will be applied continually within the juvenile justice system.

On another front, deinstitutionalization has become an important goal of the juvenile justice system. The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention provided funds to encourage this process. In the early 1980s, the deinstitutionalization movement seemed to be partially successful. Admissions to public juvenile correctional facilities declined in the late 1970s and early 1980s. In addition, the number of status offenders being held within the juvenile justice system was reduced. Following a substantial increase in the number of institutionalized children in the 1990s and the early 2000s, numbers have decreased of late. During these years, the majority of states achieved compliance with the DSO mandate (Deinstitutionalizing Status Offenders). Because juvenile crime is a high priority, the challenge to the states will be to retain a focus on prevention despite political, not necessarily public,

152

assertions of the need for more punitive approaches. If that can be achieved, deinstitutionalization will remain a central theme in the juvenile justice system.

A more pressing problem is that a disproportionate number of minority youths continue to be incarcerated in youth facilities. The difference is greatest for African American youths, with the incarceration rate being four times greater than that for Caucasian youths. Of equal importance, minorities are more likely to be placed in secure public facilities rather than in open private facilities that might provide more costly and effective treatment. The OJJDP is committed to ensuring that the nation address situations where there is disproportionate confinement of minority offenders in the juvenile justice system. In the future, it is expected that this initiative will result in a more fair and balanced juvenile justice system.

Aftercare and reentry services represent crucial elements of a juvenile offender’s successful transition back to the community. Correctional authorities recognize that juvenile offenders who are released from confinement are at heightened risk for returning to a life of crime without assistance in overcoming barriers with employment, education, and housing, and dealing with mental health, substance abuse, and other problems.

153

Many jurisdictions are experiencing success with halfway houses and reintegration centers and other reentry programs, and the federal government’s substantial investment in reentry programs through the Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative is promising.

SUMMARY

Community treatment encompasses efforts to keep offenders in the community and spare them the stigma of incarceration. The primary purpose is to provide a nonrestrictive or home setting, employing educational, vocational, counseling, and employment services. Institutional treatment encompasses provision of these services but in more restrictive and sometimes secure facilities.

Probation is the most widely used method of community treatment. Youths on probation must obey rules given to them by the court and participate in some form of treatment program. If rules are violated, youths may have their probation revoked. Behavior is monitored by probation officers. Formal probation accounts for more than half (57 percent) of all juvenile dispositions.

It is now common to enhance probation with more restrictive forms of treatment, such as intensive supervision and house arrest with electronic monitoring. Residential community treatment programs allow youths to live at home while receiving treatment in a nonpunitive, community-based center. Some of these probation innovations, like intensive supervision, get mixed reviews on their effectiveness in reducing recidivism, while others such as restitution and restorative justice show success.

The secure juvenile institution was developed in the mid-nineteenth century as an alternative to placing youths in adult prisons. Youth institutions evolved from large, closed institutions to cottage-based education- and rehabilitation-oriented institutions. The concept of least restrictive alternative is applicable in decisions on placing juvenile offenders in institutions to ensure that the setting benefits the juvenile’s treatment needs.

The juvenile institutional population has decreased in recent years. A large number of youths continue to be “hidden” in private medical centers and drug treatment clinics. There are wide variations in juvenile custody rates across states, and a disproportionate number of minorities are incarcerated in more secure, state-run youth facilities. Compared to males, female juvenile inmates are faced with many hardships.

Most juvenile institutions maintain intensive treatment programs featuring individual or group therapy. Little evidence has been found that any single method is effective in reducing recidivism. Rehabilitation remains an important goal of juvenile practitioners.

The right to treatment is an important issue in juvenile justice. Legal decisions have mandated that a juvenile cannot simply be warehoused in a correctional center but must receive proper care and treatment to aid rehabilitation. What constitutes proper care is still being debated, however.

Juveniles released from institutions are often placed on parole or in aftercare. Many jurisdictions are experiencing success with halfway houses and reintegration centers and other reentry programs.

KEY TERMS

community treatment,

p. 382

suppression effect,

p. 383

probation,
p. 383

conditions of probation,

p. 386

juvenile probation officer,
p. 386

social investigation report, predisposition report,
p. 386

juvenile intensive probation supervision (JIPS),

p. 388

house arrest,
p. 388

electronic monitoring,
p. 388

balanced probation,

p. 390

monetary restitution,
p. 390

victim service restitution,
p. 390

community service restitution,
p. 390

residential programs,

p. 391

group homes,
p. 391

foster care programs,

392

family group homes,
p. 392

rural programs,
p. 392

reform schools,

p. 393

cottage system,
p. 393

least restrictive alternative,

p. 394

individual counseling,

p. 401

psychotherapy,

p. 402

reality therapy,
p. 402

behavior modification,
p. 402

group therapy,
p. 402

guided group interaction (GGI),
p. 402

positive peer culture (PPC),
p. 402

milieu therapy,
p. 402

wilderness probation,

p. 403

boot camps,

p. 405

meta-analysis,
p. 405

right to treatment,
p. 405

aftercare,

p. 407

reentry,
p. 407

Intensive Aftercare Program (IAP),

p. 408

QUESTIONS FOR REVIEW

· 1. How does community treatment differ from institutional treatment?

· 2. What were some of the key events that led to probation becoming a mandatory part of the court structure in 1890?

· 3. How has the use of juvenile probation changed in recent years?

· 4. Aside from probation, what are the main community-based alternatives to incarceration?

· 5. What are the key explanations for the wide variation in state-level juvenile custody rates?

· 6. Why do African American juvenile offenders have such high custody rates?

· 7. What are some of the key barriers to providing correctional treatment services for female juvenile offenders?

· 8. What is the purpose of reentry services for juvenile offenders?

QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION

· 1. Would you want a community treatment program in your neighborhood? Why or why not?

· 2. Is widening the net a real danger, or are treatment-oriented programs simply a method of helping troubled youths?

· 3. If youths violate the rules of probation, should they be placed in a secure institution?

· 4. Is juvenile restitution fair? Should a poor child have to pay back a wealthy victim?

· 5. What are the most important advantages to community treatment for juvenile offenders?

· 6. What is the purpose of juvenile probation? Identify some conditions of probation and discuss the responsibilities of the juvenile probation officer.

· 7. Has community treatment generally proven successful?

· 8. Why have juvenile boot camps not been effective in reducing recidivism?

APRLYINS WHAT YOU HAVE LEARNED

As a local juvenile court judge, you have been assigned the case of Jim Butler, a 13-year-old so short he can barely see over the bench. On trial for armed robbery, the boy has been accused of threatening a woman with a knife and stealing her purse. Barely a teenager, he has already had a long history of involvement with the law. At age 11, he was arrested for drug possession and placed on probation; soon after, he stole a car. At age 12, he was arrested for shoplifting. Jim is accompanied by his legal guardian, his maternal grandmother. His parents are unavailable because his father abandoned the family years ago and his mother is currently undergoing inpatient treatment at a local drug clinic. After talking with his attorney, Jim decides to admit to the armed robbery. At a dispositional hearing, his court-appointed attorney tells you of the tough life Jim has been forced to endure. His grandmother states that, although she loves the boy, her advanced age makes it impossible for her to provide the care he needs to stay out of trouble. She says that Jim is a good boy who has developed a set of bad companions; his current scrape was precipitated by his friends. A representative of the school system testifies that Jim has above-average intelligence and is actually respectful of teachers. He has potential, but his life circumstances have short-circuited his academic success. Jim himself shows remorse and appears to be a sensitive youngster who is easily led astray by older youths.

You must now make a decision. You can place Jim on probation and allow him to live with his grandmother while being monitored by county probation staff. You can place him in a secure incarceration facility for up to three years. You can also put him into an intermediate program such as a community-based facility, which would allow him to attend school during the day while residing in a halfway house and receiving group treatment in the evenings.

Writing Assignment: Jim’s crime was serious and involved the use of a weapon. If he remains in the community, he may offend again; if he is sent to a correctional facility, he will interact with older, tougher kids. Write an essay on the best course of action for this case, weighing the costs and benefits of correctional treatment in these different settings.

GROUPWORK

There are a wide range of community-based correctional treatment options for juvenile offenders, including probation, restorative justice, and residential programs. Divide the class into as many as seven groups. Assign each group a different community-based treatment and have the groups come up with a 10-point plan to expand their respective treatment option (i.e., to aid different groups of juvenile offenders) and improve its effectiveness in reducing juvenile recidivism.

EDUCATION AND TREATMENT OF CHILDREN Vol. 37, No. 4, 2014

Pages 713–734

Community Engagement for Reentry Success
of Youth from Juvenile Justice: Challenges and

Opportunities

Sarup R. Mathur

Heather Griller Clark

Arizona State University

Abstract

Based on our research over the past ten years, we have identified six evidence-
based transition practices that are critical for promoting youth success after
release from secure care. Success, however, also relies heavily on the engage-
ment of community partners and stakeholders who receive these youth after
release. To further understand the construct of community engagement, we
conducted a reintegration survey and held focus groups with stakeholders
representing several agencies that provided services to youth from the juve-
nile justice system. We also interviewed youth to identify barriers in the tran-
sition process. The findings suggest that juvenile justice personnel need to
consistently work in collaboration with community partners to generate and
sustain the resources and awareness necessary to improve reentry outcomes
for youth. Definitions of community engagement are offered and specific bar-
riers and challenges that interfere with effective reentry are identified. Sug-
gestions to improve reentry are included.

Keywords: transition, reentry, recidivism, juvenile justice, disabilities, com-
munity engagement

Whose job is it to get youth from the juvenile justice system posi-tively reengaged in the community after release? The parole or
probation officer? The juvenile justice transition specialist? The social
worker? The case manager? Or the community partner? All of these
people are involved in the process, so it should be accepted as a mutu-
al responsibility. Juvenile justice (JJ) facilities and communities must
collaborate and support each other in the reentry process.

A truly collaborative system is one in which all agencies take it
upon themselves, both individually and communally, to ensure that

This study was made possible by a grant funded by the U. S. Department of Education,
Office of Special Education Programs (H326M 120004). Opinions expressed herein do
not necessarily reflect the policy of the Department of Education, and no official en-
dorsement by the Department should be inferred.

Address correspondence to Sarup R. Mathur, Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College, Ari-
zona State University, PO Box 875411, Tempe, AZ 85287-5411; e-mail: sarup.mathur@
asu.edu

714 MATHUR et al.

youth under their care succeed (Gonsoulin & Read, 2011). Tradition-
ally, JJ facilities have felt this responsibility heavily and are constantly
under pressure to measure their success in terms of post incarceration
outcomes for youth. Usually, this is in the form of juvenile arrests and
recidivism rates. Although the recent reports on juvenile arrest rates for
violent crimes show declining trends (Puzzanchera, 2013; Sickmund,
Sladky, Kang, & Puzzanchera, 2011), post-release rates of success for
youth and their engagement within communities is still unclear.

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention indi-
cates that the average recidivism rate for juvenile offenders is nearly
55% at 12 months post-release (Snyder & Sickmund, 2006). Although
engagement is viewed as an important indicator of successful transi-
tion and is considered at the center of programming for transition, it
is not commonly understood. According to Bullis and Yavanoff, when
a youth is engaged he/she is considered “employed, or enrolled in a
school program, or working and going to school, and not arrested or
placed back into the youth or adult criminal justice systems” (2002,
p.70). Youth engagement is a multidimensional construct that consists
of observable measures related to academic performance (e.g., high
school completion, GED, number of earned credits) and prosocial
and desirable behavior (e.g., keeping regular attendance at school,
getting along at work) as well as internal factors related to cognitive
processes (e.g., appropriate decision and choice making) and feelings
(e.g., enthusiastic and positive attitude; Sinclair, Christenson, Lehr, &
Anderson, 2003). It is associated with desirable outcomes. Youth dis-
engagement is associated with negative outcomes such as delinquen-
cy, dropout, relationship issues, and mental health issues (Shochet,
Dadds, Ham, & Montague, 2006).

However, community engagement is different than youth en-
gagement. Community engagement is a planned process with a spe-
cific purpose where identified groups of people representing various
agencies work together to address issues affecting their community
(Kretzmann & McKnight, 1993). We know that youth within the JJ sys-
tem are frequently served by multiple agencies including foster care,
child welfare, vocational rehabilitation, and mental health (Leone &
Weinberg, 2010). We also know that collaboration, community en-
gagement, and shared responsibility among these various child-serv-
ing agencies can improve educational success and youth engagement
(Gonsoulin & Read, 2011).

At a national level, the discussion around increased community
engagement has commenced with a focus on increased family engage-
ment. In 2011, the Center for Juvenile Justice Reform called for child
welfare, JJ, mental and behavioral health, schools, and other involved

715COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

systems to work together to improve safety, fairness, and stability for
youth by engaging them and their families in decision making and
planning (Pennell, Shapiro, & Spigner, 2011). They recognized that
this charge is complex as a result of the involvement of multiple agen-
cies and multiple mandates addressing both youth protection and
youth offending. Therefore, they advocate hat it is necessary to create
a shared vision of community engagement and youth success, in part
by identifying the strengths and weaknesses of service systems and
by developing greater levels of cooperation (Pennell et al., 2011). They
postulated that community engagement is about having meaningful
influence in the design, delivery, and evaluation of services. Engage-
ment is nurtured by emphasizing the strengths of the youth, families,
and community members and the resources they bring rather than
exclusively on the problems (Pennell et al., 2011).

Also in 2011, the VERA Institute of Justice convened a group
of national experts from corrections, JJ, child welfare, education pol-
icy, and social work to engage communities and work on Setting an
Agenda for Family-Focused Justice Reform (diZerega & Verdone, 2011).
The conversation resulted in several recommendations for improving
training, technical assistance, and research to help community-based
organizations and JJ agencies adapt their case management styles to
be strength based and family focused (diZerega & Verdone, 2011). It
is evident at the national level that juvenile justice, other child serving
agencies, and stakeholders must work together to analyze and articu-
late the needs of their youth and families to develop effective strate-
gies to meet those needs.

The receptiveness and engagement of the community is even
more crucial for youth with disabilities. These youth are significantly
over-represented in the JJ system and are less likely to be engaged
after release than their nondisabled peers (Griller Clark, Mathur, &
Helding, 2011). Estimates indicate 30 to 60% of incarcerated youth
have disabilities and require special education services, compared to
a prevalence rate of 10 to 12% in public schools (Rutherford, Quinn,
Leone, Garfinkle, & Nelson, 2002). These youth generally had their
first encounter with the JJ system at an earlier age compared to those
without disabilities, and they are at a much higher risk for second
and third referrals (Zhang, Barrett, Katsiyannis, & Yoon, 2011). An of-
fender with a disability is likely to be referred again in 2.75 years as
compared to 7 years for those without disabilities (Zhang et al., 2011).

It is well known that youth with disabilities need additional
support to help them make the transition from secure care to school,
work, and community and to prevent them from moving on to long-
term incarceration (Bullis, Yavanoff, & Havel, 2004; Griller Clark,

716 MATHUR et al.

Rutherford, & Quinn, 2004; Zhang et al., 2011). When youth have an
emotional or behavioral disorder (EBD) their needs are even further
exacerbated and families generally require a considerable range of
services and supports (Garfinkel, 2010). These youth are served by
multiple systems and we have a shared responsibility to work togeth-
er to help them. It may be difficult for parents or guardians to navigate
these systems and make the connections the youth need (Garfinkel,
2010). Hence, effective programs and practices that foster interagency
communication and collaboration are necessary to develop the sys-
tems, policies, and procedures needed to address the comprehensive
reentry requirements of youth with EBD and other disabilities in JJ
(Gonsoulin & Read, 2011).

In a study by Unruh, Gau, and Waintrup (2009), a statewide re-
entry intervention program entitled Project SUPPORT targeted youth
with either a mental health disorder or special education diagnosis for
transition services. In implementation of reentry services, the authors
of this study found employment and education helpful in increas-
ing post incarceration engagement; however, more importantly they
found that reentry services must be customized and individualized
for the unique combination of risks, needs (e.g., mental health, special
education), and interests of the youth and not solely depend upon the
existing employment and educational opportunities.

In the areas of secure care, special education, and transition, the
few studies that have examined the initial adjustment of incarcerat-
ed youth with disabilities upon returning to the community (Bullis,
Yovanoff, Mueller, & Havel, 2002; Griller Clark et al., 2011; Mathur
& Griller Clark, 2013) found that special education status was signifi-
cantly associated with re-incarceration. For example, after six months
of release, Bullis and his colleagues (2002) found that youth with dis-
abilities were 2.8 times more likely to return to JJ than nondisabled
youth. In addition, in terms of engagement, youth with disabilities
who were engaged at 6 months were 2.38 times less likely to be re-
incarcerated at 12 months. Clearly, youth with disabilities need tar-
geted supports for successful post-release engagement (Griller Clark
& Unruh, 2010).

The Juvenile Justice Youth Reentry Task Force identified a set
of guiding principles and practices for effective juvenile justice reen-
try programs. These practices should continue at least one year past
release from secure care and must minimally include: (a) pre-release
planning in facilities; (b) individualized services that address devel-
opmental deficits; (c) housing support in the community; (d) family
connections; (e) access to mental health and substance abuse treat-
ment; (f) structured workforce preparation, employment, and school

717COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

attendance; and (g) better use of youth’s leisure time (Nellis & Hooks
Wayman, 2009). To adequately address these principles, more atten-
tion needs to be paid to the additional challenges youth with disabili-
ties face beyond the typical barriers and supports needed to navigate
the transition process.

Our research on reentry has suggested specific transition com-
ponents (e.g., individualized transition plans, transition portfolios,
transfer of records, interagency collaboration, and a tracking sys-
tem) that are needed for successful reentry of youth with disabilities
(Mathur & Griller Clark, 2013). We also argued for personalized sup-
ports by a designated transition specialist for youth with disabilities.
In our previous research, we found that pre-release programming
increased the number of youth who returned to school or became
employed at 30 days post-release by almost 12% (Griller Clark et al.,
2011). However, the findings also identified a significant need to build
collaborative partnerships, community supports, and systems around
these components to enhance successful reentry (Nelson, Jolivette,
Leone, & Mathur, 2010).

To continue this line of inquiry and promote positive outcomes
for youth with disabilities, Project RISE (Reentry Intervention and Sup-
port for Engagement) established collaborative processes among the
state department of juvenile corrections, local schools, community
colleges, and other service providers. The conceptual framework for
this model was guided by our previous research, the literature on risk
and protective factors, and the overarching goal of building resilience
in youth with disabilities (Griller Clark & Mathur, 2010; Griller Clark
et al., 2011; Mathur, & Griller Clark, 2013). Case management focused
on providing individualized supports from custody to community,
and collaboration was sought from various agencies to create compre-
hensive transition plans. Project RISE committed to providing com-
prehensive transition services to all youth with disabilities until they
turn 18.5 years old or transferred to another jurisdiction.

The first step in this process was to assign a transition specialist
to work specifically with youth with disabilities. Next, two types
of goals were established, individualized goals and systemic goals.
Individualized goals were those goals that pertained to youth with
disabilities and systemic goals were those that pertained to the
overall juvenile justice and education system. These goals were
interdependent. For example, one of the individualized goals was to
develop a portfolio for youth with disabilities so they could organize
their transcripts, certificates, and work products in a meaningful way
to inform education and employment agencies of their skills and
strengths after release. This goal required that community agencies

718 MATHUR et al.

work with the JJ system and generate a shared list of qualifications and
options to prepare youth for success after release. Accomplishment
in both types of goals relied on better collaboration, interaction, and
involvement of professionals serving youth with disabilities within
and outside the facility. The two types of goals are described as
follows.

Individualized Goals

Provide intensive educational and vocational programming that follows
Individualized Education Plan (IEP) and Individualized Transition Plan
(ITP) goals. To accomplish this goal, the transition specialist worked in
collaboration with other special education teachers and staff to obtain
and implement or modify the IEP and ITP for each youth with a dis-
ability. The transition specialist worked with the administrative team
to ensure that youth with disabilities received instruction in core aca-
demic subjects through several different modalities. She continued to
collect academic assessment and progress information for youth with
disabilities throughout their stay in secure care.

Develop a transition portfolio for youth with disabilities. The tran-
sition specialist for youth with disabilities started working with the
teachers in JJ to assist students in creating a Transition Portfolio to
facilitate their transition to school, community, employment, or other
residential treatment providers after release.

Provide individualized aftercare and community supports for youth
with disabilities. The project coordinator worked closely with the tran-
sition specialist to provide pre-release programming and after care
supports. The transition specialist began this process by conducting
a transition interview with each youth to determine strengths, prefer-
ences, and needs. Four principles of programmatic action that under-
lie the Project RISE model included: 1) preparing youth for increased
responsibility and freedom in the community, 2) facilitating youth-
community interaction and involvement within targeted community
support systems, 3) developing new resources and supports where
needed, and 4) monitoring and tracking the youth and the community
agencies’ interaction with each other.

Systemic Goals

Establish a seamless transfer of educational records and services. The
Project RISE transition specialist and project coordinator worked with
public and alternative school personnel to expand these efforts and
develop common assessment and portfolio information that was rel-
evant across all education programs in which students with disabili-
ties were placed. The goal was to ensure that youth with disabilities

719COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

in secure care and their education records move seamlessly as they
transition from one setting to the next.

Increase interagency linkages and communication. In order to ac-
complish the first three individualized goals of Project RISE, the proj-
ect coordinator and transition specialist developed and maintained
interagency linkages and communication with public and alternative
schools, community agencies, and employment services, as well as
with other secure care/corrections entities. In order to accomplish this
goal, a website was established, a brochure was created, and 12 mem-
bers were recruited to the Project RISE Advisory Board.

Establish youth tracking system. The state secure care facility part-
nered with Project RISE to establish an online tracking system and
created a dashboard that captured information such as the number of
days a youth is in the project and his/her status (i.e., active, pending
adult court, pending approval, discharged successfully, discharged
unsuccessfully). This dashboard retained youth information for the
duration of the project.

These goals begin to move us from results strictly focused on
youth outcomes to those that also focus on the development of col-
laborative relationships, shared decision making, and mutual respon-
sibility. For too long we have focused on whether or not the youth is
engaged—in school, employment, or in court ordered services. We
now need to broaden our area of intervention and focus on whether
or not the community is engaged with the youth and what their per-
ception of engagement is. The Harvard Family Research Project (2010)
conceptualized family and community engagement as containing
three central concepts (a) a shared responsibility, (b) continuous and
ongoing, and (c) reinforces youth success and learning in multiple set-
tings (Harris & Wilkes, 2013). Creating meaningful linkages and col-
laborations across stakeholders who are also partners and share a role
in youth reentry are crucial for providing them with comprehensive
supports. The extent to which stakeholders share their knowledge
about reentry supports that facilitate youth engagement, is an impor-
tant question to address. When stakeholders show collective aware-
ness and knowledge about reintegration supports, they can lead to
full adoption of research-based practices for promoting integrated,
systemic, and sustained community engagement.

Purpose of the Study

Based on the significant need for reentry services for students
in secure care, Project RISE was conceptualized as a collaboration
between a large public university and a secure care facility. It was
deemed important to solicit input from stakeholders on how to best

720 MATHUR et al.

address issues of reentry for youth with disabilities and to scale up
and implement research-based strategies that improved the likeli-
hood of their success. Therefore, while providing transition services
to youth with disabilities, Project RISE found it necessary to engage in
further study related to increasing interagency communication and
providing individualized community supports. The purpose of the
current study was twofold: (a) to construct the meaning of community
engagement with a group of stakeholders who served youth in secure
care in some capacity and to examine the extent to which they knew
the practices involved in reentry; and (b) to identify barriers, chal-
lenges, and factors that promote community engagement and reentry
for youth and for the transition specialist as they attempted to navi-
gate the processes with the youth they served. Finally, observations
for improvement of services were also included.

Method

Setting

The project took place at a juvenile justice facility located in the
southwest United States. On average, the facility housed 310 youth.
Of the 310 youth, approximately 33% were identified as youth with
disabilities (either an active or expired IEP). The facility has a fully ac-
credited school. The school operates a minimum of 180 days per year
and has seven hours of instruction each school day. Instructional de-
livery is multi-modal including traditional classroom settings, online
learning, and technology-enhanced learning.

Participants

The study participants consisted of three groups: (a) members
of the Project RISE Advisory Board/stakeholders (n=12), (b) transition
staff (n=2), and (c) youth (n=17). Group 1, the Project RISE Advisory
Board, was comprised of agency, school district, and community ser-
vice members. The Project RISE Advisory Board met quarterly to pro-
vide advice and guidance to the project leadership and management
team. The members represented county transition program manage-
ment, alternative education administration, youth development pro-
gram administration, community colleges, child protective services,
secure care education administration, transition staff, and parole. The
ages of the Advisory Board members ranged from 35 to 55 with an
average age of 40. The Advisory Board consisted of seven males and
five females; nine Caucasians, two Mexican Americans, and one Af-
rican American. Group 2, transition staff, included the Project RISE
transition specialist and the project coordinator. Group 3, youth, con-
sisted of 17 youth with disabilities who participated in Project RISE.

721COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

In order to be eligible for enrollment in Project RISE the youth must
be (a) newly committed (at the facility less than 30 days), (b) returning
to the county in which the facility is located, and (c) must have either
an active or an expired IEP. Potential participants were identified by
the state juvenile correction school’s special education department.
Then youth assent and parental/guardian consent were obtained. In
the first year of Project RISE, 17 youth between the ages of 16 and 18
were identified as meeting criteria for enrollment and 100% of these
youth voluntarily agreed to participate. Of the 17 youth, 23% (n=4)
were identified as having specific learning disabilities (SLD) and 77%
(n=13) were identified with emotional and behavior disorders (EBD).

Measures

Three different measurement tools were used to triangulate
data from the participants. The Reintegration Self-Assessment Survey
(McEathron, Fields, & Schafer, 2006) was used for the Project RISE Ad-
visory Board and focus groups were used for the Project RISE Advisory
Board and the transition staff. Within the implementation framework
of Project RISE, Structured Transition Interviews were conducted be-
tween the transition specialist and the participating youth. The intent
of the Structured Transition Interview was to identify the youth’s in-
dividualized strengths, needs, and barriers to successful reentry. The
Structured Transition Interviews for 17 youth were analyzed for this
study.

Reintegration Self-Assessment Survey. The purpose of the Re-
integration Self-Assessment Survey was to identify stakeholder’s
knowledge of juvenile justice policies, practices, and operations for
transitioning youth. We needed to have clear picture of the advisory
board’s current level of understanding to facilitate communication
and sharing within and among interagency partners and other com-
munity stakeholders, based upon a common understanding of what
constituted best practice in transition and reintegration for students
released from the state juvenile correction facility into community
education and employment programs.

The Reintegration Self-Assessment Survey is comprised of five
domains: Interagency Collaboration, Team Planning, Education, Sup-
porting Life Skills, and Continuity of Supports During and Post Tran-
sition (see table 1). It was developed by the Institute on Community
Integration (ICI) at the University of Minnesota and the Minnesota
Department of Education in 2006 (McEathron et al., 2006). The Rein-
tegration Self-Assessment Survey is part of a larger Toolkit that was
tested and evaluated within seven juvenile justice and drug treatment
programs. The evaluation results indicated that the information from

722 MATHUR et al.

the Toolkit was beneficial in developing cohesive teams, identifying
critical issues and methods for prioritizing students for services and
supports, and creating an overall structure that significantly assisted
in developing action plans for program improvement (McEathron et
al., 2006).

The Reintegration Self-Assessment Survey was distributed at a
Project RISE Advisory Board meeting in January 2014. Each partici-
pant completed the survey individually and anonymously.

Focus Groups. Focus group discussions were conducted with two
groups of six to eight adult stakeholders, including members of the
Project RISE Advisory Board and Project RISE transition staff. The pur-
pose was to: (a) obtain meaning of community engagement; (b) identi-
fy current transition practices and systemic issues that both adversely
affect and enhance the transition process for youth with disabilities
from secure care back to schools, employment, and community pro-
grams; and (c) document recommendations for improving reentry
efforts. The separation of the two groups allowed us to create an en-
vironment that was more conducive to honest comments and con-
versation. Two facilitators were identified and were assigned to the
two groups. Each focus group was asked an identical list of questions
by their facilitator (see table 2). The focus groups proceeded through
three stages: preparation, discussion, and conclusion. In the prepara-
tion stage, the facilitator greeted the participants in the room where
the discussion occurred. Then participants were given a comprehen-
sive overview of the focus group process. During the discussion, the

Table 1
Reintegration Self-assessment Survey Responses

Domain
Number of
indicators

Number
of possible
responses

Evident
n (%)

Not
Evident
n (%)

Didn’t
Know
n (%)

Interagency
Collaboration

10 120 89 (74%) 2 (2%) 29 (24%)

Team Planning
5 60 43 (72%) 1 (1%) 16 (27%)

Education 10 120 57 (48%) 11 (9%) 52 (43%)

Supporting Life Skills 6 72 44 (61%) 7 (10%) 21 (29%)

Continuity During
and Post Transition

8 96 30 (31%) 10 (10%) 56 (58%)

723COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

facilitator drew the group’s attention to each of the questions in the
order they were listed. The facilitator occasionally prompted group
members to elaborate or expand on points for clarification. At the
end, the facilitator summarized the main ideas that were captured in
each group. Each focus group session lasted approximately one hour.
The Project RISE staff documented the discussions with written notes;
however, sessions were also recorded to ensure that all responses
were captured. Participation was voluntary, all participants were pro-
vided informed consent, and consent documents were signed prior to
beginning the groups.

Structured Transition Interviews. Structured Transition Interviews
were conducted between the transition specialist and the 17 partici-
pating youth within the first 30 days that the youth was enrolled in
Project RISE. This initial Structured Transition Interview followed a
similar format for each youth. After consent was obtained, the transi-
tion specialist met with the youth in an office within the juvenile jus-
tice facility. The transition specialist began the interview by describ-
ing the project and the services available to the youth. Then she asked
the youth about his/her academic strengths and weaknesses, current
performance, and IEP accommodations. They also discussed fam-
ily situation, employment history, social expectations, behavior, and
treatment status. She listened, offered guidance, and began building
a rapport. Next, the transition specialist and the youth discussed bar-
riers to successful reentry and identified transition goals. Subsequent
transition meetings took place at least every 30 days while the youth
were in the facility. These monthly meetings guided the individual-
ized transition planning for each Project RISE youth.

Data Analysis

This study took an inductive/abductive approach to data collec-
tion and analysis. In this process, surveys and transcripts were read
multiple times and preliminary themes were generated. Then we en-
gaged in warranting for each theme by looking for confirming evi-
dence. This involved looking at the data to find support or opposition
for each theme. The goal was to gain an understanding of the meaning
of community engagement, to ascertain the current level of awareness
of local transition policies and practices, and to identify barriers to
successful transition from the participant’s point of view.

Reintegration Self-Assessment Survey. Responses were analyzed
for each of the five domains: Interagency Collaboration, Team Plan-
ning, Education, Supporting Life Skills, and Continuity of Supports
During and Post Transition. There were a combined total of 39 indica-
tors for all five domains. The number of indicators ranged from five

724 MATHUR et al.

to ten per domain (see table 1). Each indicator represented a specific
reentry practice within that domain. For example, interagency collab-
oration had 10 indicators. Two examples of indicators in this domain
include: (a) procedures and interagency agreements are established
with appropriate agencies; (b) timely transfer of all appropriate youth
records occurs between releasing and receiving programs. If these
practices were evident to stakeholders, they selected “Evident,” if the
indicator was not apparent to them they selected “Not Evident,” and
if they had no knowledge about the practice or they did not know
if that specific practice existed they checked “Did Not Know.” The
total number of responses for each domain was calculated. These re-
sponses reflect stakeholders’ perceptions as to whether or not there
was evidence of the practices.

Focus Groups. As previously mentioned, two Focus Group dis-
cussions were held. These focus groups were recorded, and the re-
cordings were transcribed by one of the facilitators. They were read
multiple times and codes were generated. The codes were related
to categories derived from the research questions. The first research
question pertained to defining community engagement and collabo-
ration, the second, third, and fourth research questions were to iden-
tify barriers and promoters of successful community collaboration,
and the fifth was to identify recommendations for improving transi-
tion services (see table 2). Based on these research questions, the first
facilitator identified themes and subthemes. Subthemes occurred less
frequently than the themes. After the first facilitator conducted the
initial analysis the other facilitator read the data and independently
coded. Inter-coder reliability was calculated using pairwise compari-
son. The overall inter-coder reliability was 90%. Data for which codes

Table 2
Focus Group Questions

Number Question

1 What is your definition of “community engagement” in regards to
the juvenile transition process?

2 What are the barriers that hinder the juvenile transition process?

3 What is the single biggest challenge in regards to successfully tran-
sitioning youth?

4 Identify the programs or processes that you consider to be ‘”high
quality” in regards to transitioning youth.

5 Identify specific goals and objectives that you would like to see
Project RISE address in the upcoming year.

725COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

were not aligned were discussed among facilitators and a common
code was chosen.

Structured Transition Interviews. During the initial Structure
Transition Interviews the transition specialist and the youth discussed
barriers to successful reentry. These barriers were categorized based
on a list developed by Unruh, Povenmire-Kirk, and Yamamoto (2009).
The original list contained 23 barriers. A few of these barriers were
found to represent the same concept so they were combined and the
list used in this study included 20 barriers (See table 4). The top three
barriers for each youth were identified and coded.

Results

It is commonly thought that using multiple methods of analysis
when studying youth in context will give richer levels of understand-
ing of a phenomenon (Graue & Walsh, 1998). In addition, the use of
various qualitative methods yields greater opportunities for confir-
mation and corroboration of data through triangulation. Therefore,
three different measurement tools were used in this study: the Reinte-
gration Self-Assessment Survey, focus groups, and Structured Transi-
tion Interviews. These tools were used to: (a) determine the meaning
of community engagement, including the participant’s awareness of
current policies and practices involved in reentry; (b) identify barri-
ers associated with reentry; and (c) document recommendations for
improving reentry.

Reintegration Self-Assessment Survey

The Reintegration Self-Assessment Survey tool measured per-
ceptions of stakeholders’ awareness in five domains of reentry (see
table 1). For the domain of Interagency Linkages, 9 of the 12 stake-
holders perceived that regular communication was evident between
agencies. Overall, 74% of the responses from stakeholders indicated
evidence of existing practices in this domain. In the domain of Team
Planning, 10 of the 12 stakeholders reported that a well-rounded plan-
ning team was established for each youth and thought that the youth
played a significant part in the planning process. Overall, 72% of the
responses indicated supportive evidence for the indicators of team
planning; however 16% “Did Not Know” about having a designated
person in the planning team who could serve as the youth’s key con-
tact for the entire reintegration process. In the domain of Education,
9 of the 12 participants felt that the students have an appropriate IEP
and transition plan; however, 8 of the 12 stakeholders reported they
“Did Not Know” if the receiving schools were notified or were in-
volved in the reintegration process. Additionally, 43% of responses

726 MATHUR et al.

in the domain of Education were “Did Not Know,” signifying a sig-
nificant lack of stakeholder awareness about the education process in
JJ. In the domain of Supporting Life Skills, 61% of responses revealed
that these indicators were evident, more specifically 8 of 12 stakehold-
ers noted evidence of substance abuse and mental health counseling,
whereas only 3 of 12 reported that resources and support services for
postsecondary education, life skills, vocational training, and jobs were
evident. Almost one third of the responses (29%) revealed a lack of
awareness about these services. In the domain of Continuity of Sup-
ports During and Post Transition, only 31% of responses revealed the
perception that these practices were evident. Approximately 58% of
stakeholder responses were listed under “Did Not Know” category,
showing an enormous lack of awareness about these practices. Three
domains (Team Planning, Education, and Continuity of Supports)
show “Did Not Know” responses in one or more indicators with the
highest number in Continuity of Supports. Table 3 illustrates the in-
dicators in which 50% or more of the responses were categorized as
“Did Not Know.”

Focus Groups

Pattern analysis of focus group data revealed that two main
themes related to defining community engagement emerged. The first
was that community engagement involves an ongoing or permanent
relationship. Descriptors like “ongoing dialogue” and “regular con-
nections” were used. The second was that it involves planning and ac-
tivities to achieve a common or collective goal. Descriptors that were
commonly used included “shared vision,” “common goal,” and “col-
lective impact.” Therefore, for this group, the definition of community
engagement was “an ongoing relationship that involves planning and
collaboration to achieve a shared goal.”

There was one main theme and five subthemes that emerged
as barriers to successful reentry. The main theme was that youth do
not see themselves as able to be successful. One of the focus group
participants said that “they are institutionalized.” Another said, “the
jailhouse mentality is the biggest barrier. It’s such a part of who they
are that they don’t think they will be able to live a crime free life.” The
subthemes that emerged as barriers to success were: politics, a lack
of funding, lack of parental involvement, lack of transportation, lack
of sufficient life skills programming, problems with records transfer,
and the lag time between release and the onset of other services.

Items that were viewed as “high quality”—those that were cur-
rently in use and promoted successful transition—by focus group
participants included: social skills instruction, vocational instruction,

727COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

Table 3
Total Number and Percentages of “Did Not Know” Responses*

Domain Indicators
Stake-

holders
n = 12

Team Planning
2.3 A decision-making protocol
for the team is established in the pre-transition phase.

8 (67%)

Education

3.6 Aftercare conditions are communicated to receiving
school and agreements are made regarding monitoring
prior to reintegration.

6 (50%)

3.7 Paperwork arrives at the new site ahead of youth or
follows them in a timely fashion

7 (58%)

3.8 A pre-release visit and admissions interview is
scheduled with receiving school and youth shares
his/her transition/reintegration plan with admissions
interviewer.

6 (50%)

3.9 Student, parents, and receiving school staff sign a
behavior contract or reintegration plan.

9 (75%)

3.10 Receiving school supports reintegration by match-
ing curriculum and teacher assignment to meet youth’s
needs (as outlined in student’s IEP).

7 (58%)

Continuity of
Supports
During or Post
Transition

5.1 Youth meets with receiving school counselor within
first two weeks of placement

9 (75%)

5.2 Youth meets with receiving school counselor on a
regular basis.

11(92%)

5.4 Staff to staff (case manager to school counselor,
teacher to teacher, etc.) contacts are continued between
receiving school and sending school staff for six
months after reintegration.

6 (50%)

5.6 Youth, parents, and service providers receive infor-
mation about continuum of services and care.

7 (58%)

5.7 Follow-up occurs at the program level to verify
that agreed upon transition processes occurred for the
student.

7 (58%)

5.8 Systems are in place for periodic evaluation of
transition and reintegration processes.

7 (58%)

Note: Not all indicators are listed. Only those are listed that showed 50% or more
stakeholders’ “Did Not Know” responses.

728 MATHUR et al.

cognitive restructuring, parent groups, and programs that highlight-
ed individuals who have successfully transitioned. Recommendations
for improving transition or reentry were focused on: (a) improving
awareness and preparation of providers, parents, and the community
as to how to successfully engage youth; and (b) soliciting participa-
tion and advice from successful youth.

Structured Transition Interviews

The top three barriers to successful reentry were identified for
each of the 17 youth in the Structured Transition Interviews. This
resulted in a total of 51 identified barriers. These 51 barriers were
concentrated in five areas. The barrier that was identified most fre-
quently (n=13) was a history of poor school attendance/high absentee-
ism/dropping out. Significant low academic performance, previous

Table 4
Frequency of Identified Youth Barriers to Successful Reentry

n Barrier

13 History of poor school attendance/high absenteeism/dropping out

6 Significantly low academic performance

6 Previous placement in foster care or with a child welfare agency

6 Lack of anger management skills

5 Previous or current substance abuse

3 Multiple living arrangements

3 Gang affiliation

3 Other (legal status, sex offender)

2 Lack of social skills

1 No paid work experience

1 History of running away

1 History of abuse/neglect

1 Lack of transportation

0 Unable to maintain job

0 Homelessness

0 Previous/current pregnancy

0 Parenting responsibilities

0 History of suicide risk

0 Lack of independent living skills

0 Family with a felony conviction

729COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

placement in foster care or with a child welfare agency, and a lack of
anger management skills were identified as barriers six times each.
Previous or current substance abuse was cited as a barrier five times.
All identified barriers, and their frequencies, are listed in table 4.

Discussion

The purpose of this study was twofold: (a) to construct the mean-
ing of community engagement with a group of stakeholders who
served youth in secure care in some capacity and to examine the extent
to which they knew the practices involved in reentry; and (b) to iden-
tify barriers, challenges, and factors that promote community engage-
ment and reentry for youth and for the transition specialist as they at-
tempted to navigate the processes with the youth they served. First, we
surveyed community stakeholders to determine their perceptions and
awareness of existing transition practices for youth. It is interesting to
note that stakeholders perceived relatively strong evidence for prac-
tices related to Interagency Collaboration but exhibited a considerable
lack of awareness of practices or indicators in Continuity of Supports
During and Post Release. This leads us to conclude that if stakehold-
ers increase their own understanding about existing reentry practices,
they will be more likely to enhance meaningful outcomes for youth.
Professional development opportunities can be organized to increase
staff and stakeholders’ awareness about education and reintegration
practices and implementation. As stakeholders find themselves shar-
ing understanding about reentry goals with each other, they may be-
come more willing to work with one another, and their levels of com-
munication, cooperation, and coordination may increase.

Based on the findings of the focus groups, community engage-
ment was defined as “an ongoing relationship that involves planning
and collaboration to achieve a shared goal.” This definition illustrates
the three essential elements of family and community engagement
highlighted in the Harvard Family Research Project (2010): (a) a shared
responsibility, (b) a continuous process, and (c) an ongoing relation-
ship that involves partnerships (Harris & Wilkes, 2013). To enhance
the likelihood of success for Project RISE as well as other reentry ef-
forts, continuous assessment of stakeholders’ awareness of programs
and supports is essential. One focus group participant stated it clearly:
“in order to collaborate you need two things, you need a shared vision
and you need awareness of what the resources are.” Based on focus
group’s findings, the barriers to achieving reentry goals included: lack
of parental involvement, lack of transportation, lack of sufficient life
skills programming, problems with records transfer, and the lag time
between release and the onset of other services.

730 MATHUR et al.

In the Structured Transition Interviews with youth, the most
common barrier cited was a history of poor school attendance/high
absenteeism/dropping out. A recent report from America’s Promise
Alliance (2014) revealed that youth drop out of school not for a single
reason, but for a combination of reasons like absent parents, the im-
pact of violence close to home, negative peer influences, and a sense
of responsibility for others. Perhaps if we could help alleviate some
of these factors through shared responsibility and a coordinated, en-
gaged community effort, our youth would be more likely to stay in
school. Regular school attendance is likely the best way to address
the second most prevalent barrier identified by youth, low academic
performance. Our collective challenge is to identify settings and pro-
grams that are willing and able to successfully reintegrate youth with
disabilities, encourage continued attendance, and promote collabora-
tive involvement of stakeholders. To the extent that school truancy
represents an early risk factor for a life of cumulative disadvantage,
communities need to be aware of their shared responsibility to turn
the lives of these youth around.

It is vitally important that JJ youth are prepared for incremen-
tal success post-release, because they already have experienced barri-
ers related to school attendance and performance. These findings have
implications for the field as well as for further refinement of Project
RISE practices to produce the desired outcome—youth who are en-
gaged and not recidivating. To produce this outcome, the community
needs to be engaged with youth. All stakeholders need to come to
an agreement about what it means to be engaged within the commu-
nity (Sinclair et al., 2003). Youth, their parents, transition specialist,
parole, schools, and providers with a stake in the community need
to share their perception about what it looks like to be engaged with
the youth—what conditions are likely to keep the youth engaged and
how we all need to go about creating those conditions (Leone & Wein-
berg, 2010). After developing communication, stakeholders represent-
ing various agencies are more likely to share fiscal, personnel, and
other resources and expertise that may then increase system efficiency
and effectiveness. Gradually they will become more integrated and
strengthen their collaborative relationships to plan for and deliver tar-
geted services that meet the unique needs of each youth (Gonsoulin &
Read, 2011).

The approach of using stakeholder views and youth responses
for structured interviews has provided context-specific information
regarding the definition of community engagement. The richness of
the experiences illustrated by this qualitative investigation provided
information on how stakeholders define community engagement and

731COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

what types of barriers and supports they envision. The findings have
also provided recommendations for adapting aspects of Project RISE
and reentry programming that include inviting other stakeholders
and having more focused discussions about reentry.

Limitations

A number of limitations warrant attention. First, the study is ex-
ploratory and information was collected from one project in one state
and, therefore, is limited to specifics of the local demographics. Next,
the nature of this descriptive study limits discussion of contributing
youth barriers and supports unique to environmental and contextu-
al conditions. Future research could broaden the analysis to include
more youth voice and insights for further refinement of reentry pro-
grams as suggested by focus group participants.

What effects recommended reentry supports might have on
youth engagement remains unknown because such rates have not
been observed in light of community involvement. Most research has
focused on youth engagement at a certain length of time—30 days, 60
days, 90 days, and so on (Bullis et al., 2004; Mathur & Griller Clark,
2013). This study attempted to highlight the fact that community en-
gagement needs to be at the forefront of planning for youth reentry.
More studies are needed to measure the capacity of the community to
accommodate the needs of JJ youth with disabilities. Data from this
study provides meaningful information for further refinement and
improvement of transition programs and needs to be disseminated at
the local, state, and national levels. Stakeholders need to be continu-
ally reminded of common goals and their commitment to the reen-
try process. Based on these findings, Project RISE has committed to
continually promoting positive community engagement with stake-
holders through joint efforts to increase awareness, more frequent ex-
changes of information, identification of shared agendas, engagement
in shared professional development activities, and exploration of par-
ticipation in a community resource event.

Conclusion

Over the years we have shifted the blame for recidivism and a
lack of engagement from the youth to the JJ system itself. Now we
know that the responsibility for the success of this population is ours,
as a community. Through this study, we also learned that real com-
munity engagement is only possible when stakeholders have common
goals, shared understanding of outcomes, resources, and supports
within the local community. Their lack of awareness about reentry
practices is only an impediment that limits the transition success of

732 MATHUR et al.

returning youth with disabilities. We all share the responsibility to
increase awareness and embrace our youth; our systems can’t work
until the awareness exists.

References

America’s Promise Alliance (2014). Don’t call them dropouts:
Understanding the experience of young people who leave high
school before graduation. Washington, DC: Center for Promise
at Tufts University.

Bullis, M., Yovanoff, P., & Havel, E. (2004). The importance of getting
started right: Further examination of the facility-to-communi-
ty transition of formerly incarcerated youth. Journal of Special
Education, 38, 80–94.

Bullis, M., Yovanoff, P., Mueller, G., & Havel, E. (2002). Life on the
“outs”: Examination of the facility-to-community transition
of incarcerated adolescents. Exceptional Children, 69, 7–22.

diZerega, M., & Verdone, J. (2011). Setting an agenda for family-focused
justice reform. New York, NY: Vera Institute of Justice.

Garfinkel, L. (2010) Improving family involvement for juvenile of-
fenders with emotional/behavioral disorders and related dis-
abilities. Behavioral Disorders, 36, 52–60.

Gonsoulin, S., & Read, N. W. (2011). Improving educational outcomes
for youth in the juvenile justice and child welfare systems through
interagency communication and collaboration. Washington, DC:
National Evaluation and Technical Assistance Center for Chil-
dren and Youth Who Are Neglected, Delinquent, or At-Risk
(NDTAC).

Graue, M. E., & Walsh, D. J. (1998). Studying children in context: Theories,
methods, and ethics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Griller Clark, H., & Mathur, S. R. (2010). Practices in transition for
youth in the juvenile justice system. In D. Cheney (Ed.).
Transition of secondary students with emotional or behavioral
disabilities: Current approaches for positive outcomes (pp. 375–
395). Arlington, VA: Council for Children with Behavioral
Disorders/Division of Career Development and Transition.

Griller Clark, H., Mathur, S. R., & Helding, B. (2011). Transition
services for juvenile detainees with disabilities: Findings
on recidivism. Education and Treatment of Children, 34,
511–529.

Griller Clark, H., Rutherford, R. B., & Quinn, M. M. (2004). Practices
in transition for youth in the juvenile justice system. In D.

733COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

Cheney (Ed.). Transition of secondary students with emotional
or behavioral disabilities: Current approaches for positive outcomes
(pp. 247–262). Arlington, VA: Council for Children with
Behavioral Disorders/Division of Career Development and
Transition.

Griller Clark, H., & Unruh, D. (2010). Transition practices for adju-
dicated youth with E/BDs and related disabilities. Behavioral
Disorders, 36, 43–51.

Harris, E., & Wilkes, S., (2013). Partnerships for learning: Community
support for youth success. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Family
Research Project (www.hfrp.org).

Kretzmann, J. P., & McKnight (1993). Building communities from in-
side out: A path toward finding and mobilizing a communi-
ty’s assets. Evanston, IL: Center for Urban Affairs and Policy
Research, Northwestern University.

Leone, P., & Weinberg, L. (2010). Addressing the unmet educational
needs of children and youth in the juvenile justice and child wel-
fare systems. Washington, DC: Center for Juvenile Justice
Reform. Retrieved from http://cjjr.georgetown.edu/pdfs/ed/
edpaper

McEathron, M. A., Fields, J., & Shafer, M. B. (2006). Reintegration
Strategic Planning Toolkit. Minneapolis, MN: Institute on
Community Integration.

Mathur, S. R., & Griller Clark, H. (2013). Prerelease planning and
practices for youth with disabilities in juvenile detention.
Journal of Special Education Leadership, 26, 82–92.

Nellis, A., & Hooks Wayman, R. (2009). Back on track: Supporting
youth reentry from out-of-home placement to the community.
Washington, DC: Youth Reentry Task Force of the Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention Coalition.

Nelson, M., Jolivette, K., Leone, P., & Mathur, S. R. (2010). Meeting
the needs of adjudicated youth with behavioral challenges:
The promise of juvenile justice. Behavioral Disorders, 36,
70–80.

Pennell, J., Shapiro, C., & Spigner, C. (2011). Safety, fairness, stability:
Repositioning juvenile justice and child welfare to engage families
and communities. Washington, DC: Center for Juvenile Justice
Reform.

Puzzanchera, C. (2013). Juvenile arrests 2011. Washington, DC: Office
of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Rutherford, R. B., Quinn, M. M., Leone, P. E., Garfinkle, L., &

734 MATHUR et al.

Nelson, C. M. (2002). Education, disability, and juvenile justice:
Recommended practices. Arlington, VA: Council for Children
with Behavioral Disorders.

Shochet, I. M., Dadds, M. R., Ham, D, & Montague, R. (2006). School
connectedness is an underemphasized parameter in adoles-
cent mental health: results of a community prediction study.
Journal of Clinical Child Adolescent Psychology, 35, 170–179.

Sickmund, M., Sladky, T. J., Kang, W., & Puzzanchera, C. (2011). Easy
Access to the census of juveniles in residential placement. Retrieved
from: www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezacjrp

Sinclair, M. F., Christenson, S. L., Lehr, C. A., & Anderson, A. R.
(2003). Facilitating student engagement: Lessons learned
from Check & Connect longitudinal studies. The California
School Psychologist, 8, 29–41.

Snyder, H. N., & M. Sickmund. (2006). Juvenile offenders and victims:
2006 National report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention.

Unruh, D., Gau, J., & Waintrup, M. (2009). An exploration of factors
reducing recidivism rates of formerly incarcerated youth with
disabilities participating in a reentry intervention. Journal of
Child & Family Studies, 18, 284–293.

Unruh, D., Povenmire-Kirk, T., & Yamamoto, S. (2009). Perceived
barriers and protective factors of juvenile offenders on their
developmental pathway to adulthood. Journal of Correctional
Education, 60, 201–224.

Zhang, D., Barrett, D. E., Katsiyannis, A., & Yoon, M. (2011). Juvenile
offenders with and without disabilities: Risks and patterns of
recidivism. Learning and Individual Differences, 21, 12–18.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.

Mentoring Juvenile Populations

Chalyne Arvie

CPSS418

Diana Wheatley

24Mar2020

Provide a description of the mentoring program you researched.

Provide a list of alternatives to mentoring.

Why is mentoring effective at fostering good behavior?

Describe target juvenile audiences for mentoring programs.

Describe the resources available in this program and identify the mentor-to-juvenile ratio.

Identify any grants or financial support received.

References:

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Mentoring for delinquent children: An outcome study with young adolescent children
Jackson, Yo
Journal of Youth and Adolescence; Apr 2002; 31, 2; ProQuest Central
pg. 115

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Treatment Programs for Special Populations

What are the current probation trends for the population?

What other forms of punishment and/or rehabilitation are common?

What kind of targeted treatment programs are available for this population?

How effective have they been?

What kind of targeted treatment programs are available for this population?

How have the unique attributes of your selected population influenced the development of treatment programs for them?

REFERENCES

OMB No. 1121-0329

Approval Expires 12/31/2020

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

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), Office of Justice Programs (OJP), Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) is seeking applications for funding under the fiscal
year (FY) 2019 Mentoring Opportunities for Youth Initiative. This program furthers the
Department’s mission by supporting mentoring programs to reduce juvenile delinquency, drug
abuse (especially opioid abuse), victimization, and problem and high-risk behaviors such as
truancy.

OJJDP FY 2019 Mentoring Opportunities for
Youth Initiative

Applications Due: April 22, 2019

Eligibility

Category 1—National Mentoring Programs. Eligible applicants are limited to national
organizations, defined as organizations that have active chapters or subawardees in at least 45
states. Applicants must include a list of active chapters or subawardees and the states where
they are located as an attachment to their application. For the purposes of this solicitation, 2 or
more independent organizations that form a collaborative to meet the 45-state requirement do
not satisfy OJJDP’s definition of a national organization. The organization’s national
headquarters must submit the application. OJJDP encourages applicants to minimize their
administrative costs in an effort to subaward at least 90 percent of this award to active chapters
or subrecipients, located in at least 38 states, while at the same time allowing for effective
subrecipient oversight.

Category 2—Multistate Mentoring Programs. Eligible applicants are limited to multistate
organizations, defined as organizations that have operated an established mentoring program
for at least 3 years and have active chapters or subawardees in at least 5 states but fewer than
45 states. Applicants must include a list of active chapters or subawardees and the states where
they are located as an attachment to their application. For the purposes of this solicitation, two
or more independent organizations that form a collaborative to meet the five-state requirement
do not satisfy OJJDP’s definition of a multistate organization. The organization’s headquarters
must submit the application.

Category 3—Mentoring Programs for Youth Involved in the Juvenile Justice System.1

1 For the purposes of this solicitation, “youth involved in the juvenile justice system” refers to those youth who have
been arrested or referred for intake to a public agency (state, tribal, city, or county) legally responsible for handling
juvenile crime, delinquency, and youth in need of guidance, treatment, or rehabilitation due to problematic behavior
(truancy, running away, ungovernable, etc.).

https://www.usdoj.gov/

https://ojp.gov/

https://www.ojjdp.gov/

OJJDP2019-15004

Eligible applicants are limited to private organizations (nonprofit organizations2 and for-profit
organizations, including tribal nonprofit and for-profit organizations, and faith-based
organizations). Joint applications from two or more eligible applicants are welcome; however,
one applicant must be clearly indicated as the primary applicant (for correspondence, award,
and management purposes) and the others indicated as coapplicants.

To be eligible in Category 3, applicants must at the time of application:

• Have operated an established mentoring program for at least 1 year.

• Have a demonstrated partnership (via a memorandum of understanding) with a public
agency legally responsible for handling juvenile crime and delinquency in a state, tribe,
city, or county (hereafter referred to as juvenile justice agency).

Category 4—Mentoring Strategies for Youth Impacted by Opioids (Project Sites). Eligible
applicants are limited to private organizations (nonprofit organizations and for-profit
organizations, including tribal nonprofit and for-profit organizations, and faith-based
organizations). Joint applications from two or more eligible applicants are welcome; however,
one applicant must be clearly indicated as the primary applicant (for correspondence, award,
and management purposes) and the others indicated as coapplicants.

To be eligible in Category 4, applicants must at the time of application:

• Have operated an established mentoring program for at least 1 year.

• Have a demonstrated partnership (via a memorandum of understanding) with a public or
private substance abuse treatment agency.

Category 5—Statewide and Regional Mentoring Initiative for Youth Impacted by Opioids.
Eligible applicants are limited to national organizations (as defined in Category 1), states
(including territories), and federally recognized tribal governments as determined by the
Secretary of the Interior. Eligible applicants must provide mentoring services to youth who are
17 years old or younger at the time of admission to the program.

An organization that applies for funding in Category 1 may also be eligible to apply for Category
5, but is ineligible to apply for funds in Categories 2, 3, and 4. An organization that applies for
funding in Category 2 may also apply to receive funds in Categories 3 and 4. Note the following:

OJJDP FY 2019 Mentoring Opportunities for Youth Initiative

Category 1 National Mentoring Programs Funding limited to national
organizations*

Category 2 Multistate Mentoring Programs Funding limited to multistate
organizations*

Category 3 Mentoring Programs for Youth Involved
in the Juvenile Justice System

Funding limited to multistate and
private organizations

Category 4 Mentoring Strategies for Youth Impacted
by Opioids (Project Sites)

Funding limited to multistate and
private organizations

2 See https://ojp.gov/funding/Explore/SolicitationRequirements/OrganizationalRequirements.htm for additional
information on demonstrating nonprofit status.

https://ojp.gov/funding/Explore/SolicitationRequirements/OrganizationalRequirements.htm

OJJDP2019-15004
3

Category 5 Statewide and Regional Mentoring
Initiative for Youth Impacted by Opioids

Funding limited to national
organizations, states, and federally
recognized tribes

*See above for full eligibility criteria.

All recipients and subrecipients (including any for-profit organization) must forgo any profit or
management fee.

OJJDP may elect to fund applications submitted under this FY 2019 solicitation in future fiscal
years, dependent on, among others considerations, the merit of the applications and the
availability of appropriations.

Deadline

Applicants must register with Grants.gov at https://www.grants.gov/web/grants/register.html
prior to submitting an application. All applications are due by 11:59 p.m. eastern time (ET) on
April 22, 2019.

To be considered timely, an application must be submitted by the application deadline using
Grants.gov, and the applicant must have received a validation message from Grants.gov that
indicates successful and timely submission. OJP urges applicants to submit applications at least
72 hours prior to the application due date to allow time for the applicant to receive validation
messages or rejection notifications from Grants.gov, and to correct in a timely fashion any
problems that may have caused a rejection notification.

OJP encourages all applicants to read this Important Notice: Applying for Grants in Grants.gov.

For additional information, see How to Apply in Section D. Application and Submission
Information.

Contact Information

For technical assistance with submitting an application, contact the Grants.gov Customer
Support Hotline at 800–518–4726 or 606–545–5035, at
https://www.grants.gov/web/grants/support.html, or at support@grants.gov. The Grants.gov
Support Hotline operates 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, except on federal holidays.

An applicant that experiences unforeseen Grants.gov technical issues beyond its control that
prevent it from submitting its application by the deadline must email the National Criminal
Justice Reference Service Response Center (Response Center) at grants@ncjrs.gov within 24
hours after the application deadline to request approval to submit its application after the
deadline. Additional information on reporting technical issues appears under “Experiencing
Unforeseen Grants.gov Technical Issues” in the How To Apply section.

For assistance with any other requirements of this solicitation, contact the Response Center by
telephone at 800–851–3420 or TTY: 301–240–6310 (hearing impaired only) or by email at
grants@ncjrs.gov. Response Center hours of operation are 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. ET, Monday
through Friday, and 10 a.m. to 8 p.m. ET on the solicitation close date. General information on
applying for OJJDP awards can be found at https://www.ojjdp.gov/funding/funding.html.

https://ojp.gov/funding/Apply/Grants-govInfo.htm

https://www.grants.gov/web/grants/support.html

mailto:support@grants.gov

mailto:grants@ncjrs.gov

https://www.ojjdp.gov/funding/funding.html

OJJDP2019-15004
4

Answers to frequently asked questions that may assist applicants are posted at
https://www.ojjdp.gov/grants/solicitations/FY2019/FAQ/MentOpps .

A preapplication webinar will be held on Wednesday, March 27, 2019 at 1:00 p.m. EST. This
webinar will provide a detailed overview of the solicitation and allow an opportunity for interested
applicants to ask questions. Preregistration is required for all participants. Registration
information can be found here. OJJDP encourages potential applicants to review the solicitation
and submit any questions they may have in advance of the webinar. Submit your questions to
grants@ncjrs.gov with the subject as “Questions for OJJDP FY 2019 Mentoring Opportunities
for Youth Initiative Webinar.” Questions should be submitted no later than Monday, March 18,
2019.

Grants.gov number assigned to this solicitation: OJJDP-2019-15004

Release date: February 20, 2019
Updated: February 25, 2019

https://www.ojjdp.gov/grants/solicitations/FY2019/FAQ/MentOpps

https://events-na8.adobeconnect.com/content/connect/c1/1110525827/en/events/event/shared/default_template_simple/event_registration.html?connect-session=na8breezyqiayf6wzqqvt7u4&sco-id=2483582056&_charset_=utf-8

mailto:grants@ncjrs.gov

OJJDP2019-15004

………………………………………………………………………………………………..
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

…………………………………………………………………………………….
…………………………………………………………………………..

……………………………………………………………………..
……………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………….

………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
………………………………………………..

………………………………………………………………………………………………….
………………………………………………………………………….

………………………………………………….
…………………………

……………….
…………………………………………..

……………………………………………………………………………………………….
…………………………………………………………………….

…………………………………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………….
……………………………………………………………………………………………………..

………………………………………………………………….
…………………………………………………………………………………………….

……………………………………..
………………………..

………………………………………………………………………..
……………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………..
………………………………………………………………………………………..

…………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………..

Contents

A. Program Description

Overview 6
Program-Specific Information 6
Goals, Objectives, and Deliverables 11
Evidence-Based Programs or Practices 13
Information Regarding Potential Evaluation of Programs and Activities 13
Encouraging Program Investments in Economically Distressed Communities (Qualified
Opportunity Zones) 13

B. Federal Award Information

14
Type of Award 15
Financial Management and System of Internal Controls 15
Budget Information 16
Cost Sharing or Match Requirement 16
Preagreement Costs (also known as Preaward Costs) 16
Limitation on Use of Award Funds for Employee Compensation; Waiver 16
Prior Approval, Planning, and Reporting of Conference/Meeting/Training Costs 17
Costs Associated With Language Assistance (if applicable) 17

C. Eligibility Information

D. Application and Submission Information

What an Application Should Include 17
How To Apply 32

E. Application Review Information

36
Review Criteria 36
Review Process 37

F. Federal Award Administration Information

38
Federal Award Notices 38
Administrative, National Policy, and Other Legal Requirements 38
General Information About Post-Federal Award Reporting Requirements 39

G. Federal Awarding Agency Contact(s)

H. Other Information

Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552 and 5 U.S.C. 552a) 40
Provide Feedback to OJP 41
Appendix A: Performance Measures Table 42
Appendix B: Application Checklist 48

OJJDP2019-15004
6

OJJDP FY 2019 Mentoring Opportunities for
Youth Initiative

CFDA #16.726
A. Program Description

Overview

This solicitation supports applicant organizations as they strengthen and/or expand their existing
mentoring activities with active chapters or subawardees and/or other mentoring organizations.
Mentoring activities include direct one-on-one, group, peer, or a combination of these types of
mentoring services for at-risk and juvenile justice system-involved youth populations. Successful
mentoring programs include matches between a mentor and one or more youth. Mentoring can
take place in multiple and informal settings and in a school or program context.

Mentoring promotes positive behaviors, attitudes, and outcomes for youth and reduces risk
factors associated with delinquency, victimization, self-harm, and juvenile justice system
involvement, such as poor school attendance, school failure, and alcohol and drug abuse. It has
been shown to improve academic performance and/or social or job skills, support behavioral or
other personal development, and reduce consumption of alcohol and other drugs.3 However,
one survey estimates that more than one in three young people never had an adult mentor of
any kind while they were growing up.4 OJJDP supports the expansion of high-quality mentoring
services for targeted youth across the country to help close this gap.

Statutory Authority: Any awards under this solicitation would be made under a statutory
authority provided by an act appropriating funds for the Department of Justice for FY 2019.

Program-Specific Information

This program supports the implementation and delivery of one-on-one, group, peer, or a
combination of these types of mentoring services to youth populations that are at risk for
juvenile delinquency, victimization, and juvenile justice system involvement through applicant
mentoring organizations and their active chapters or subawardees. This program also supports
enhancements to both improve access to and the impact of mentoring services. For the
purposes of this solicitation, mentoring programs should support a structured relationship
between an adult or trained peer and one or more youth. Successful applicants should
implement programs that recognize and address the factors that can lead to or serve as a
catalyst for delinquency or other problem behaviors in targeted youth, with a special emphasis
on youth impacted by opioids. Enhancement of mentoring activities should create new
opportunities for mentees’ achievement.

3 Office of Justice Programs. Mentoring Practice Profile. Available at CrimeSolutions.gov,
https://www.crimesolutions.gov/PracticeDetails.aspx?ID=15.
4 Bruce, M., and Bridgeland, J. 2014. The Mentoring Effect: Young People’s Perspectives on the Outcomes and
Availability of Mentoring. Washington, DC: Civic Enterprises with Hart Research Associates for MENTOR: The
National Mentoring Partnership. Available at http://www.mentoring.org/mentoringeffect.

https://www.crimesolutions.gov/PracticeDetails.aspx?ID=15

http://www.mentoring.org/mentoringeffect

OJJDP2019-15004
7

This solicitation offers five program categories and applicants must designate the category for
which they are applying. An organization that applies for funding in Category 1 may also be
eligible to apply for Category 5, but is ineligible to apply for funds in Categories 2, 3, and 4. An
organization that applies for funding in Category 2 may also apply to receive funds in Categories
3 and 4. For-profit organizations must agree to forgo any profit or management fee. Applicants
in all categories must initiate mentoring services to youth who are 17 years old or younger at the
time of admission to the program.

Category 1—National Mentoring Programs. This category supports organizations with the
widest reach and capacity to provide youth mentoring services across the country. Only national
organizations are eligible to apply in this category. (For the definition of a national mentoring
program, see the eligibility information above.) OJJDP encourages applicants to minimize their
administrative costs in an effort to subaward at least 90 percent of this award to active chapters
or subrecipients, located in at least 38 states, while at the same time allowing for effective
subrecipient oversight.

Priority considerations for Category 1 include the following (applicants must describe how they
will respond to these considerations in their application):

• Target population. The target population should include those youth who are identified
as being at risk for delinquency or victimization and/or are involved in the juvenile justice
system. OJJDP requires applicants to develop and implement a plan to serve American
Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) youth, both on and off reservations, with these grant
funds. OJJDP strongly encourages applicants to target mentoring services that
incorporate opportunities for youth and law enforcement engagement.

OJJDP also encourages applicants to consider how best to serve children of parents on
active military duty, children of incarcerated parents, youth with disabilities, youth with
opioid/substance abuse problems, and youth in rural5 communities. Mentoring programs
serving these populations should highlight how the anticipated services would best
support the unique needs of these populations, such as with key partnerships or
specialized curricula.

• At-risk youth. For the purposes of this solicitation, OJJDP defines at-risk youth as those
youth who are most likely to engage in delinquent behavior, be victimized, and/or have a
risk for involvement in the juvenile justice system because they possess certain
predictive/correlative characteristics and/or reside in environments that have high rates
of parental incarceration, community violence, drug markets, gang concentration, and
failing schools. Risk factors for juvenile delinquency are multidimensional across
individual, family, community, peer, and school factors. (For additional background on
risk factors for juvenile delinquency, see the OJJDP Model Programs Guide Literature
Review on Risk Factors.) Applicants should fully address how the behaviors,
characteristics, factors, etc. identified for at-risk youth relate to involvement in the
juvenile justice system.

Category 2—Multistate Mentoring Programs. This category supports youth mentoring
services provided by organizations in at least 5 states but fewer than 45 states. Only multistate

5 Refer to https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-06-28/pdf/2010-15605 . “Rural” encompasses all population,
housing, and territory not included within an urban area.

https://www.ojjdp.gov/mpg/litreviews/Risk%20Factors

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-06-28/pdf/2010-15605

OJJDP2019-15004
8

organizations are eligible to apply in this category. For a definition of a multistate mentoring
organization, see the eligibility information above.

Priority considerations for Category 2 include the following (applicants must describe how they
will respond to these considerations in their application):

• Broadest reach. Applicants should address how the proposed mentoring approach will
reach a diverse and broad population of youth. OJJDP will consider the following factors
in this determination: number of states where the applicant organization can show a
history of providing mentoring services through subawards, number of states where the
applicant organization proposes to use the awarded grant funds to provide mentoring
services, number of program sites where the applicant organization can demonstrate a
history of providing mentoring services through subawards, number of program sites
where the applicant organization proposes to use the awarded grant funds to provide
mentoring services, number of youth served, number of mentors recruited, and diversity
in the youth being served.

• Target population. The target population should include those youth who are identified
as being at risk for delinquency or victimization and/or are involved in the juvenile justice
system (see above for definition of at-risk youth). In addition, OJJDP strongly
encourages applicants to target mentoring services that incorporate opportunities for
youth and law enforcement engagement.

OJJDP also encourages applicants to consider how best to serve children of parents on
active military duty, children of incarcerated parents, youth with disabilities, youth with
opioid/substance abuse problems, and youth in rural6 communities. Mentoring programs
serving these populations should highlight how the anticipated services would best
support the unique needs of these populations, such as with key partnerships or
specialized curricula.

Category 3—Mentoring Programs for Youth Involved in the Juvenile Justice System. This
category seeks to support youth mentoring organizations that have a demonstrated partnership
(via a memorandum of understanding) with a juvenile justice agency. See the eligibility section
above for more information. The focus of this category is to provide mentoring services to those
system-involved youth screened as being low risk to public safety by a juvenile justice agency
as part of an overall diversion approach, with a goal of rehabilitation and accountability. The
program is intended to be a resource for juvenile justice agency staff (i.e., probation officers) to
make available to those youth on their caseload who are in need of and most appropriate for
community-based supervision and/or diversion services.

Priority considerations for Category 3 include the following (applicants must describe how they
will respond to these considerations in their application):

• Target population. The priority target population includes those youth who are
screened as being low risk to public safety by a juvenile justice agency. Services may
also be provided to youth post-adjudication as part of an alternative-to-detention
approach authorized by the court and supportive services while on probation or
community supervision. Youth returning from residential placement who are under court

6 Refer to https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-06-28/pdf/2010-15605 . “Rural” encompasses all population,
housing, and territory not included within an urban area.

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-06-28/pdf/2010-15605

OJJDP2019-15004
9

supervision and deemed low risk to public safety are eligible for these services. OJJDP
also encourages applicants to consider youth with opioid/substance abuse problems and
youth in rural7 communities as a part of the target population.

• Demonstrated partnership. Applicant mentoring organizations must have established a
formal relationship with a juvenile justice agency to be eligible for Category 3. Evidence
of this formal relationship must be a fully executed memorandum of understanding
between the agencies, and can be established specifically in response to this funding
opportunity. However, agencies demonstrating existing relationships with a juvenile
justice agency will receive priority consideration.

• Youth and law enforcement engagement. OJJDP encourages applicant organizations
to provide opportunities for youth and law enforcement engagement as part of their
program model or approach. This can include using law enforcement personnel as
mentors or creating activities where targeted youth have positive interactions with law
enforcement personnel.

Applicants will develop and implement mentoring programs and strategies designed for youth
referred to a juvenile justice agency. Applicants are expected to incorporate best practices in
mentoring derived from research and related literature. Applicants are encouraged to consider a
variety of mentoring approaches, such as one-on-one, group, student/peer, team, educational,
and sports mentoring; professional development coaching; and other approaches best suited to
meet the needs of the target population.

Category 4—Mentoring Strategies for Youth Impacted by Opioids (Project Sites). This
category supports youth mentoring organizations that have a demonstrated partnership (via a
memorandum of understanding) with a public or private substance abuse treatment agency.
See the eligibility section above for more information. The focus of this category is to provide
mentoring services as part of a prevention, treatment, and supportive approach for those youth
impacted by opioids. It is expected that mentoring organizations will develop and implement
innovative mentoring approaches for this target population of youth. This may include a variety
of practices, including but not limited to those informed by research on cognitive behavioral,
contingency management, or any 12-step facilitation interventions and techniques. In addition,
while funding may be used to support activities as part of the proposed mentoring model (i.e.,
recreational activities, skill-building activities for the youth focused on relapse prevention, drug
prevention education, transportation, incidental costs for the mentor), it may not be used to fund

direct service delivery as part of the model (i.e., mental health/substance abuse counselor,
residential placement services).

According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, the estimated relapse rate for drug abuse
treatment programs is between 40 and 60 percent. The increased stress of leaving treatment
and returning to a home or community with multiple risk factors without adequate supports can
contribute to relapse and additional criminal behavior.8 This category will use the impact of high-
quality mentoring services to help prevent relapse and will provide training to mentors to
understand the signs and symptoms of opioid abuse for those at risk of using opioids.

7 Refer to https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-06-28/pdf/2010-15605 . “Rural” encompasses all population,
housing, and territory not included within an urban area.
8 Refer to https://www.drugabuse.gov/news-events/nida-notes/2018/02/stressful-experiences-affect-likelihood-
remission-drug-dependence-continued-drug-use-relapse.

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-06-28/pdf/2010-15605

https://www.drugabuse.gov/news-events/nida-notes/2018/02/stressful-experiences-affect-likelihood-remission-drug-dependence-continued-drug-use-relapse

OJJDP2019-15004
10

Priority considerations for Category 4 include the following (applicants must describe how they
will respond to these considerations in their application):

• Target population. The priority target population must include those youth impacted by
opioids. This includes youth who are currently using or have used opioids, youth at high
risk for using opioids (i.e., presence of individual, family, and community risk factors for
substance abuse), and youth with family members who are currently using or have used
opioids. The goal of the mentoring and supportive services is to help prevent the youth
from using opioids in the first place, ensure that youth who have used opioids are
successful in their recovery efforts, and provide support and guidance to youth with
family members who are currently using or have used opioids. To demonstrate how they
are serving communities with highest need and targeting not only youth who are using or
at high risk for using opioids but also those youth who are seriously impacted by parents
or family members who are addicted to opioids, applicants could discuss how they will
target those communities that have high per capita levels of primary treatment
admissions for opioids.

• Demonstrated partnership. Applicant mentoring organizations must have established a
formal relationship with a public or private substance abuse treatment agency. Evidence
of this formal relationship must be a fully executed memorandum of understanding
between the agencies, and can be established specifically in response to this funding
opportunity. However, agencies demonstrating existing relationships with a substance
abuse treatment agency will receive priority consideration.

• Rural communities. OJJDP is interested in expanding the presence of mentoring
services in rural communities. For this category, priority will be given to those applicants
that target services to youth in rural communities across the country as defined by the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on the basis of the “Standards for Delineating
Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas.”9

Category 5—Statewide and Regional Mentoring Initiative for Youth Impacted by Opioids.
This category will support a more broad-based approach to building mentoring program capacity
in targeted regions throughout the country to help youth impacted by opioids. Only states,
federally recognized tribes, and national organizations (as defined in Category 1) are eligible to
apply for this category. Through this category, OJJDP is interested in supporting statewide or
regional approaches to expanding mentoring services for these targeted youth. This may
include states providing subgrants to mentoring organizations in particular regions (especially
rural communities), tribes supporting various mentoring programs operating throughout a
reservation, and national organizations funding active chapters or subrecipients in specific
regions across the country (especially rural communities) with demonstrated high levels of
opioid abuse. It is expected that mentoring organizations will develop and implement innovative
mentoring approaches for this target population of youth. This may include a variety of
practices, including but not limited to those informed by research on cognitive behavioral,
contingency management, or any 12-step facilitation interventions and techniques. In addition,
while funding may be used to support activities as part of the proposed mentoring model (i.e.,
recreational activities, skill-building activities for the youth focused on relapse prevention, drug
prevention education, transportation, incidental costs for the mentor), it may not be used to fund

9 Refer to https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-06-28/pdf/2010-15605 . “Rural” encompasses all population,
housing, and territory not included within an urban area.

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-06-28/pdf/2010-15605

OJJDP2019-15004
11

direct service delivery as part of the model (i.e., mental health/substance abuse counselor,
residential placement services).

Priority considerations for Category 5 include the following (applicants must describe how they
will respond to these considerations in their application):

• Rural communities. OJJDP is interested in expanding the presence of mentoring
services in rural communities. For this category, priority will be given to those applicants
that target services to youth in rural communities across the country as defined by OMB
on the basis of the “Standards for Delineating Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical
Areas.”10

Goals, Objectives, and Deliverables

The program’s goal is to improve outcomes (such as improved academic performance and
reduced school dropout rates) for at-risk and system-involved youth, and reduce negative
outcomes (including juvenile delinquency, substance use, and gang participation) through
mentoring. To achieve this goal, objectives focus on supporting eligible programs to (1) provide
quality mentoring services tailored to the needs of the identified youth target population and (2)
align grantees’ mentoring programs with research and evidence on effective mentoring
practices.

OJJDP has identified the following program objectives:

1. Provide mentoring services tailored to the needs of the identified at-risk and system-
involved youth populations. Applicants under all categories should describe the proposed
target population(s) and identify in what way(s) they are at risk or system involved.
Successful applicants should implement programs that recognize and address the factors
that can lead to or serve as a catalyst for delinquency, victimization, or involvement in the
juvenile justice system (e.g., lack of education or employment opportunities, high-crime
neighborhoods, lack of parental supervision).

Applicants should:

a. Clearly define the target population(s).

10 Refer to https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-06-28/pdf/2010-15605 . “Rural” encompasses all population,
housing, and territory not included within an urban area.

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-06-28/pdf/2010-15605

OJJDP2019-15004
12

b. Identify the risk factors and service needs associated with the target population(s).

c. Explain how the proposed mentoring approach will appropriately respond to the unique
needs of the target population(s) in a way that is likely to promote positive outcomes.

2. Develop and implement program design enhancements that further align with
research and evidence on effective mentoring approaches. Applicants should be
responsive to the following areas:

a. Address each of the six areas of core practice standards listed in Elements of Effective
Practice for Mentoring,11 as highlighted on OJJDP’s National Mentoring Resource
Center website, to explain the current mentoring approach being used by the mentoring
organizations. These six practice

areas are:

• Recruitment.
• Screening.
• Training.
• Matching and initiation.
• Monitoring and support.
• Closure.

b. Identify and implement program design enhancements in one or more of the six core
practice areas to integrate additional evidence-based practices. This may include
implementing changes to better align with the benchmarks identified in Elements of
Effective Practice for Mentoring; integrating findings from the programs, practices, and
resources highlighted on the “What Works in Mentoring” section of the OJJDP National
Mentoring Resource Center; or applying other similar types of research. Applicants
should clearly identify the source of the research evidence they are using as the basis
for the enhancement.

c. Address how the applicant will further promote family engagement as part of the
program design or approach. Research indicates that mechanisms that support and
involve parents in mentoring programs increase the chances for positive outcomes in the
mentoring relationship.12 This includes but is not limited to discussing how families will
be engaged in an orientation process, receiving program information, understanding
expectations, assisting with any substance abuse treatment recommendations, and
participating in specific activities that the mentoring organization hosts or that provide
additional outreach to parents. Parents include both official and unofficial caretakers.

The Goals, Objectives, and Deliverables are directly related to the performance measures that
demonstrate the results of the work completed, as discussed in Section D. Application and
Submission Information, under Program Narrative.

11 Mentor. Elements of Effective Practice for Mentoring, 4th edition. Available at
http://www.mentoring.org/images/uploads/Final_Elements_Publication_Fourth .
12 Dubois, D.L., Holloway, B.E., Valentine, J.C., and Cooper, H. 2002. Effectiveness of Mentoring Programs for
Youth: A Meta-Analytic Review. American Journal of Community Psychology 30(2):157–197.

http://www.nationalmentoringresourcecenter.org/index.php/what-works-in-mentoring/elements-of-effective-practice-for-mentoring.html

http://www.mentoring.org/images/uploads/Final_Elements_Publication_Fourth

OJJDP2019-15004
13

Evidence-Based Programs or Practices

OJP strongly emphasizes the use of data and evidence in policymaking and program
development in criminal justice, juvenile justice, and crime victim services. OJP is committed to:

• Improving the quantity and quality of evidence OJP generates.
• Integrating evidence into program, practice, and policy decisions within OJP and the

field.
• Improving the translation of evidence into practice.

OJP considers programs and practices to be evidence-based when their effectiveness has been
demonstrated by causal evidence, generally obtained through one or more outcome
evaluations. Causal evidence documents a relationship between an activity or intervention
(including technology) and its intended outcome, including measuring the direction and size of a
change, and the extent to which a change may be attributed to the activity or intervention.
Causal evidence depends on the use of scientific methods to rule out, to the extent possible,
alternative explanations for the documented change. The strength of causal evidence, based on
the factors described above, will influence the degree to which OJP considers a program or
practice to be evidence-based.

The OJP CrimeSolutions.gov website at https://www.crimesolutions.gov and the OJJDP Model
Programs Guide website are two resources that applicants may use to find information about
evidence-based programs in criminal justice, juvenile justice, and crime victim services.

Information Regarding Potential Evaluation of Programs and Activities

The Department of Justice has prioritized the use of evidence-based programming and deems it
critical to continue to build and expand the evidence informing criminal and juvenile justice
programs to reach the highest level of rigor possible. Therefore, applicants should note that OJP
may conduct or support an evaluation of the programs and activities funded under this
solicitation. Recipients and subrecipients will be expected to cooperate with program-related
assessments or evaluation efforts, including through the collection and provision of information
or data requested by OJP (or its designee) for the assessment or evaluation of any activities
and/or outcomes of those activities funded under this solicitation. The information or data
requested may be in addition to any other financial or performance data already required under
this program.

Encouraging Program Investments in Economically Distressed Communities (Qualified
Opportunity Zones)

Under this program for Categories 3 and 4, OJP will, as appropriate, give priority consideration
in award decisions to applications that propose projects that directly benefit federally designated
Qualified Opportunity Zones (QOZs).13 In order to assist OJP in considering this factor,
applicants for Categories 3 and 4 should include information in the application that specifies
how the project will enhance public safety in the specified QOZs. For resources on QOZs, and
for a current list of designated QOZs, see the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s resource
webpage at https://www.cdfifund.gov/pages/opportunity-zones.aspx.

13 See Public Law 115–97, Title I, Subtitle C, Part IX, Subpart B, Sec. 13823.

https://www.crimesolutions.gov/

http://www.ojjdp.gov/mpg

https://www.cdfifund.gov/pages/opportunity-zones.aspx

OJJDP2019-15004
14

B. Federal Award Information

Under Category 1, an application may be for a period of performance of as long as 3 years. The
requested award amount should cover the entire proposed period of performance and be based
on the allowable costs associated with the program, including but not limited to the costs of
planning and implementing the proposed program. OJJDP encourages applicants to minimize
their administrative costs in an effort to subaward at least 90 percent of this award to active
chapters or subrecipients, located in at least 38 states, while at the same time allowing for
effective subrecipient oversight. Based on the availability of funding, OJJDP may request that
an applicant selected for funding reduce their proposed budget. OJJDP plans to make up to five
awards in this category.

Under Category 2, an application may be for a period of performance of as long as 3 years.
Applicants that meet the minimum requirement of having active chapters or subawardees in at
least five states may request as much as $2 million, and those applicants that demonstrate the
broadest reach (as detailed above) may request as much as $4 million. See the priority
considerations for Category 2 listed on pages 7–8. The requested award amount should cover
the entire proposed period of performance and be based on the cost of implementing the
proposed program. Based on the availability of funding, OJJDP may request that an applicant
selected for funding reduce their proposed budget. OJJDP plans to make up to twelve awards in
this category.

Under Category 3, an applicant may request as much as $500,000 for a period of performance
of as long as 3 years. The requested award amount should cover the entire proposed period of
performance and be based on the cost of implementing the proposed program. Based on the
availability of funding, OJJDP may request that an applicant selected for funding reduce their
proposed budget. OJJDP plans to make up to nine awards in this category.

Under Category 4, an applicant may request as much as $500,000 for a period of performance
of as long as 3 years. The requested award amount should cover the entire proposed period of
performance and be based on the cost of implementing the proposed program. Based on the
availability of funding, OJJDP may request that an applicant selected for funding reduce their
proposed budget. OJJDP plans to make up to nine awards in this category.

Under Category 5, an applicant may request as much as $1,250,000 for a period of
performance of as long as 3 years. The requested award amount should cover the entire
proposed period of performance and be based on the cost of implementing the proposed
program. Based on the availability of funding, OJJDP may request that an applicant selected for
funding reduce their proposed budget. OJJDP plans to make up to six awards in this category.

When making final award decisions, OJJDP will consider geographic coverage; the provision of
services to specific populations, including rural and tribal communities; and the peer review
results. OJJDP expects to award grant funds under this solicitation no later than September 30,
2019.

All awards are subject to the availability of appropriated funds and to any modifications or
additional requirements that may be imposed by law.

OJJDP2019-15004
15

Type of Award

OJJDP expects to make any award under this solicitation in the form of a grant. See
Administrative, National Policy, and Other Legal Requirements, under Section F. Federal Award
Administration Information, for a brief discussion of important statutes, regulations, and award
conditions that apply to many (or in some cases, all) OJP grants.

Financial Management and System of Internal Controls

Award recipients and subrecipients (including recipients or subrecipients that are pass-through
entities14) must, as described in the Part 200 Uniform Requirements15 as set out at 2 C.F.R.
200.303:

(a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that
provides reasonable assurance that [the recipient (and any subrecipient)] is
managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations,
and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls
should be in compliance with guidance in “Standards for Internal Control in the
Federal Government” issued by the Comptroller General of the United States and
the “Internal Control Integrated Framework”, issued by the Committee of
Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO).

(b) Comply with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
Federal awards.

(c) Evaluate and monitor [the recipient’s (and any subrecipient’s)] compliance with
statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of Federal awards.

(d) Take prompt action when instances of noncompliance are identified including
noncompliance identified in audit findings.

(e) Take reasonable measures to safeguard protected personally identifiable
information and other information the Federal awarding agency or pass-through
entity designates as sensitive or [the recipient (or any subrecipient)] considers
sensitive consistent with applicable Federal, state, local, and tribal laws regarding
privacy and obligations of confidentiality.

To help ensure that applicants understand the applicable administrative requirements and cost
principles, OJP encourages prospective applicants to enroll, at no charge, in the DOJ Grants
Financial Management Online Training, available at https://onlinegfmt.training.ojp.gov. (This
training is required for all OJP award recipients.)

Also, applicants should be aware that OJP collects information from applicants on their financial
management and systems of internal controls (among other information), which is used to make

14 For purposes of this solicitation, the phrase “pass-through entity” includes any recipient or subrecipient that
provides a subaward (“subgrant”) to a subrecipient (subgrantee) to carry out part of the funded award or program.
Additional information on proposed subawards is listed under What an Application Should Include, Section D of this
solicitation.
15 The “Part 200 Uniform Requirements” means the DOJ regulation at 2 C.F.R. Part 2800, which adopts (with certain
modifications) the provisions of 2 C.F.R. Part 200.

https://onlinegfmt.training.ojp.gov/

OJJDP2019-15004
16

award decisions. Under Section D. Application and Submission Information, applicants may
access and review a questionnaire – the OJP Financial Management and System of Internal
Controls Questionnaire – that OJP requires all applicants (other than an individual applying in
his/her personal capacity) to download, complete, and submit as part of the application.

Budget Information

Cost Sharing or Match Requirement
This solicitation does not require a match. However, if a successful application proposes a
voluntary match amount, and OJP approves the budget, the total match amount incorporated
into the approved budget becomes mandatory and subject to audit.

For additional information on cost sharing and match requirements, see the DOJ Grants
Financial Guide at https://ojp.gov/financialguide/DOJ/PostawardRequirements/chapter3.3b.htm.

Preagreement Costs (also known as Preaward Costs)
Preagreement costs are costs incurred by the applicant prior to the start date of the period of
performance of the federal award.

OJP does not typically approve preagreement costs; an applicant must request and obtain the
prior written approval of OJP for all such costs. All such costs incurred prior to award and prior
to approval of the costs are incurred at the sole risk of the applicant. (Generally, no applicant
should incur project costs before submitting an application requesting federal funding for those
costs.) Should there be extenuating circumstances that make it appropriate for OJP to consider
approving preagreement costs, the applicant may contact the point of contact listed on the title
page of this solicitation for the requirements concerning written requests for approval. If
approved in advance by OJP, award funds may be used for preagreement costs, consistent with
the recipient’s approved budget and applicable cost principles. See the section on Costs
Requiring Prior Approval in the DOJ Grants Financial Guide at
https://ojp.gov/financialguide/DOJ/index.htm for more information.

Limitation on Use of Award Funds for Employee Compensation; Waiver
With respect to any award of more than $250,000 made under this solicitation, a recipient may
not use federal funds to pay total cash compensation (salary plus cash bonuses) to any
employee of the recipient at a rate that exceeds 110 percent of the maximum annual salary
payable to a member of the federal government’s Senior Executive Service (SES) at an agency
with a Certified SES Performance Appraisal System for that year.16 The 2019 salary table for
SES employees is available on the Office of Personnel Management website at
https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/salary-
tables/19Tables/exec/html/ES.aspx. Note: A recipient may compensate an employee at a
greater rate, provided the amount in excess of this compensation limitation is paid with
nonfederal funds. (Nonfederal funds used for any such additional compensation will not be
considered matching funds, where match requirements apply.) If only a portion of an
employee’s time is charged to an OJP award, the maximum allowable compensation is equal to
the percentage of time worked times the maximum salary limitation.

The Assistant Attorney General for OJP may exercise discretion to waive, on an individual
basis, this limitation on compensation rates allowable under an award. An applicant that

16 OJP does not apply this limitation on the use of award funds to the nonprofit organizations listed in Appendix VIII to
2 C.F.R. Part 200.

https://ojp.gov/funding/Apply/Resources/FinancialCapability

https://ojp.gov/financialguide/DOJ/PostawardRequirements/chapter3.3b.htm

https://ojp.gov/financialguide/DOJ/index.htm

https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/salary-tables/19Tables/exec/html/ES.aspx

OJJDP2019-15004
17

requests a waiver should include a detailed justification in the budget narrative of its application.
An applicant that does not submit a waiver request and justification with its application should
anticipate that OJP will require the applicant to adjust and resubmit the budget.

The justification should address—in the context of the work the individual would do under the
award—the particular qualifications and expertise of the individual, the uniqueness of a service
the individual will provide, the individual’s specific knowledge of the proposed program or
project, and a statement that explains whether and how the individual’s salary under the award
would be commensurate with the regular and customary rate for an individual with his/her
qualifications and expertise, and for the work he/she would do under the award.

Prior Approval, Planning, and Reporting of Conference/Meeting/Training Costs
OJP strongly encourages every applicant that proposes to use award funds for any conference-,
meeting-, or training-related activity (or similar event) to review carefully—before submitting an
application—the OJP and DOJ policy and guidance on approval, planning, and reporting of such
events, available at
https://www.ojp.gov/financialguide/DOJ/PostawardRequirements/chapter3.10a.htm. OJP policy
and guidance (1) encourage minimization of conference, meeting, and training costs; (2) require
prior written approval (which may affect project timelines) of most conference, meeting, and
training costs for cooperative agreement recipients, as well as some conference, meeting, and
training costs for grant recipients; and (3) set cost limits, which include a general prohibition of
all food and beverage costs.

Costs Associated With Language Assistance (if applicable)
If an applicant proposes a program or activity that would deliver services or benefits to
individuals, the costs of taking reasonable steps to provide meaningful access to those services
or benefits for individuals with limited English proficiency may be allowable. Reasonable steps
to provide meaningful access to services or benefits may include interpretation or translation
services, where appropriate.

For additional information, see the “Civil Rights Compliance” section under “Overview of Legal
Requirements Generally Applicable to OJP Grants and Cooperative Agreements – FY 2018
Awards” in the OJP Funding Resource Center at https://ojp.gov/funding/index.htm.

C. Eligibility Information

For eligibility information, see the title page.

For information on cost sharing or match requirements, see Section B. Federal Award
Information.

D. Application and Submission Information

What an Application Should Include

This section describes in detail what an application should include. An applicant should
anticipate that if it fails to submit an application that contains all of the specified elements, it may
negatively affect the review of its application; and, should a decision be made to make an
award, it may result in the inclusion of award conditions that preclude the recipient from

https://www.ojp.gov/financialguide/DOJ/PostawardRequirements/chapter3.10a.htm

https://ojp.gov/funding/Explore/LegalOverview/index.htm

https://ojp.gov/funding/index.htm

OJJDP2019-15004
18

accessing or using award funds until the recipient satisfies the conditions and OJP makes the
funds available.

Moreover, an applicant should anticipate that an application that OJP determines is
nonresponsive to the scope of the solicitation, including the funding limit, or that OJP
determines does not include the application elements that OJJDP has designated to be critical,
will neither proceed to peer review nor receive further consideration. For this solicitation, OJJDP
has designated the following application elements as critical: Program Narrative, Budget Detail
Worksheet and Budget Narrative, a memorandum of understanding (or analogous documents)
demonstrating a formal partnership for Categories 3 or 4, and the Executive Summary chart
(see required format below in Additional Attachments section).

NOTE: OJP has combined the Budget Detail Worksheet and Budget Narrative in a single
document collectively referred to as the Budget Detail Worksheet. See “Budget Information and
Associated Documentation” below for more information about the Budget Detail Worksheet and
where it can be accessed.

OJP strongly recommends that applicants use appropriately descriptive file names (e.g.,
“Program Narrative,” “Budget Detail Worksheet,” “Timelines,” “Memoranda of Understanding,”
“Résumés”) for all attachments. Also, OJP recommends that applicants include résumés in a
single file.

Please review the “Note on File Names and File Types” under How To Apply to be sure
applications are submitted in permitted formats.

1. Information To Complete the Application for Federal Assistance (SF-424)

The SF-424 is a required standard form used as a cover sheet for submission of
preapplications, applications, and related information. Grants.gov and the OJP Grants
Management System (GMS) take information from the applicant’s profile to populate the
fields on this form. When selecting “type of applicant,” if the applicant is a for-profit entity,
select “For-Profit Organization” or “Small Business” (as applicable).

To avoid processing delays, an applicant must include an accurate legal name on its SF-
424. On the SF-424, current OJP award recipients, when completing the field for “Legal
Name” (box 8a), should use the same legal name that appears on the prior year award
document (which is also the legal name stored in OJP’s financial system). Also, current
recipients should enter the Employer Identification Number (EIN) in box 8b exactly as it
appears on the prior year award document. An applicant with a current, active award(s)
must ensure that its GMS profile is current. If the profile is not current, the applicant should
submit a Grant Adjustment Notice (GAN) updating the information on its GMS profile prior to
applying under this solicitation.

A new applicant entity should enter its official legal name in box 8a, its address in box 8d, its
EIN in box 8b, and its Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number in box 8c of the
SF-424. A new applicant entity should attach official legal documents to its application (e.g.,
articles of incorporation, 501(c)(3) status documentation, organizational letterhead) to
confirm the legal name, address, and EIN entered into the SF-424. OJP will use the System
for Award Management (SAM) to confirm the legal name and DUNS number entered in the
SF-424; therefore, an applicant should ensure that the information entered in the SF-424

OJJDP2019-15004
19

matches its current registration in SAM. See the How to Apply section for more information
on SAM and DUNS numbers.

Intergovernmental Review: This solicitation (“funding opportunity”) is subject to Executive
Order 12372. An applicant may find the names and addresses of State Single Points of
Contact (SPOCs) at the following website: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-
content/uploads/2017/11/Intergovernmental -Review-_SPOC_01_2018_OFFM . If the _
state appears on the SPOC list, the applicant must contact the state SPOC to find out about,
and comply with, the state’s process under E.O. 12372. In completing the SF-424, an
applicant whose state appears on the SPOC list is to make the appropriate selection in
response to question 19 once the applicant has complied with its state E.O. 12372 process.
(An applicant whose state does not appear on the SPOC list should answer question 19 by
selecting the response that the: “Program is subject to E.O. 12372 but has not been
selected by the state for review.”)

2. Project Abstract

Applications should include a high-quality project abstract that summarizes the proposed
project in 400 words or less. Project abstracts should be—

• Written for a general public audience.
• Submitted as a separate attachment with “Project Abstract” as part of its file name.
• Single-spaced, using a standard 12-point font (such as Times New Roman) with 1-inch

margins.

The abstract should briefly describe the project’s purpose, the population to be served, and
the activities that the applicant will implement to achieve the project’s goals and objectives.
The abstract should describe how the applicant will measure progress toward these goals.
The abstract should indicate whether the applicant will use any portion of the project budget
to conduct research, as described in Note on Project Evaluations on page 21. All project
abstracts should follow the detailed template available at
ojp.gov/funding/Apply/Resources/ProjectAbstractTemplate .

As a separate attachment, the project abstract will not count against the page limit for the
program narrative.

Category 1 applicants must detail in their abstract how they will include AI/AN youth.

3. Program Narrative

Applicants must submit a program narrative that presents a detailed description of the
purpose, goals, objectives, strategies, design, and management of the proposed program.
The program narrative should be double-spaced with 1-inch margins, not exceeding 30
pages of 8½ by 11 inches, and use a standard 12-point font, preferably Times New Roman.
Pages should be numbered “1 of 30,” etc. The tables, charts, pictures, etc., including all
captions, legends, keys, subtext, etc., may be single-spaced and will count in the 30-page
limit. Material required under the Budget and Budget Narrative and Additional Attachments
sections will not count toward the program narrative page count. Applicants may provide
bibliographical references as a separate attachment that will not count toward the 30-page
program narrative limit. If the program narrative fails to comply with these length-related

https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/12372.html

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Intergovernmental_-Review-_SPOC_01_2018_OFFM

https://ojp.gov/funding/Apply/Resources/ProjectAbstractTemplate

OJJDP2019-15004
20

restrictions, OJJDP may consider such noncompliance in peer review and in final award
decisions.

The program narrative should address the following selection criteria: (1) statement of the
problem; (2) goals, objectives, and performance measures; (3) program design and
implementation; and (4) capabilities/competencies. The applicant should clearly delineate
the connections between and among each of these sections. For example, the applicant
should derive the goals and objectives directly from the problems to be addressed. Similarly,
the project design section should clearly explain how the program’s structure and activities
will accomplish the goals and objectives identified in the previous section.

The following sections should be included as part of the program narrative:17

a. Statement of the Problem. Applicants should briefly describe the nature and scope of
the problem that the program will address (e.g., gang activity, underage drinking, drug
abuse, truancy, youth employment, school performance, etc.). The applicant should use
data to provide evidence that the problem exists, demonstrate the size and scope of the
problem, and document the effects of the problem on the target population and the
larger community. Any data or research referenced in the narrative should include
information about the source of the data and/or a citation. Applicants should describe the
target population and any previous or current attempts to address the problem.

For Categories 4 and 5, applicants must provide data that document the extent of the opioid
problem present in the state, region, or tribal community that will be served by the grant
funds.

Applicants should describe any research or evaluation studies that relate to the problem and
contribute to their understanding of its causes and potential solutions. While OJJDP expects
applicants to review the research literature for relevant studies, they should also explore
whether unpublished local sources of research or evaluation data are available.

b. Goals, Objectives, and Performance Measures. Applicants should describe the goals
of the proposed program and identify its objectives. When formulating the program’s
goals and objectives, applicants should be cognizant of the performance measures that
OJJDP will require successful applicants to provide.

Goals. Applicants should describe the program’s intent to change, reduce, or eliminate
the problem noted in the previous section and outline the project’s goals.

Program Objectives. Applicants should explain how the program will accomplish its
goals. Objectives are specific, quantifiable statements of the project’s desired results.
They should be clearly linked to the problem identified in the preceding section and
measurable. (Examples of measurable objectives include the following: to provide
training on substance abuse to 40 mentors, to increase the percentage of youth who
successfully complete their current academic grade, or to expand family-based activities
to cover an additional 50 at-risk youth).

17 For information on subawards (including the details on proposed subawards that should be included in the
application), see “Budget and Associated Documentation” under Section D. Application and Submission Information.

OJJDP2019-15004
21

Performance Measures. OJP will require each successful applicant to submit regular
performance data that demonstrate the results of the work carried out under the award
(see “General Information About Post-Federal Award Reporting Requirements” in
Section F. Federal Award Administration Information). The performance data directly
relate to the goals, objectives, and deliverables identified under “Goals, Objectives, and
Deliverables” in Section A. Program Description.

Applicants should visit OJP’s performance measurement page at
www.ojp.gov/performance for an overview of performance measurement activities at
OJP.

Performance measures for this solicitation are listed in Appendix A: Performance
Measures Table.

The application should demonstrate the applicant’s understanding of the performance
data reporting requirements for this grant program and detail how the applicant will
gather the required data should it receive funding.

Please note that applicants are not required to submit performance data with the
application. Performance measures information is included as an alert that successful
applicants will be required to submit performance data as part of the reporting
requirements under an award.

OJJDP will require award recipients to submit semiannual performance metrics of
relevant data through the Data Reporting Tool.

Note on Project Evaluations
An applicant that proposes to use award funds through this solicitation to conduct project
evaluations should be aware that certain project evaluations (such as systematic
investigations designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge) may
constitute “research” for purposes of applicable DOJ human subjects protection
regulations. However, project evaluations that are intended only to generate internal
improvements to a program or service, or are conducted only to meet OJP’s
performance measure data reporting requirements, likely do not constitute “research.”
Each applicant should provide sufficient information for OJP to determine whether the
particular project it proposes would either intentionally or unintentionally collect and/or
use information in such a way that it meets the DOJ definition of research that appears
at 28 C.F.R. Part 46 (“Protection of Human Subjects”).

“Research,” for purposes of human subjects protection for OJP-funded programs, is
defined as “a systematic investigation, including research development, testing and
evaluation, designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge.” 28 C.F.R.
46.102(d).

For additional information on determining whether a proposed activity would constitute
research for purposes of human subjects protection, applicants should consult the
decision tree in the “Research and the protection of human subjects” section of the
“Requirements related to Research” webpage of the “Overview of Legal Requirements
Generally Applicable to OJP Grants and Cooperative Agreements – FY 2018 Awards”,
available through the OJP Funding Resource Center at
https://ojp.gov/funding/index.htm.

https://www.ojp.gov/performance

https://www.ojjdp-dctat.org/

https://ojp.gov/funding/Explore/LegalOverview/ResearchRelatedRequirements.htm

https://ojp.gov/funding/Explore/LegalOverview/index.htm

https://ojp.gov/funding/index.htm

OJJDP2019-15004
22

Every prospective applicant whose application may propose a research or statistical
component also should review the “Data Privacy and Confidentiality Requirements”
section on that webpage.

c. Project Design and Implementation. Applicants should detail how the project will
operate throughout the funding period and describe the strategies that they will use to
achieve the goals and objectives identified in the previous section. Applicants should
describe how they will complete the deliverables stated in the Goals, Objectives, and
Deliverables section on page 11. OJJDP encourages applicants to select evidence-
based practices for their programs.

1. Provide mentoring services that are tailored to the needs of the identified
youth target population(s).

Applicants should:

a. Clearly define the target population(s).
b. Identify the risk factors and service needs associated with the target

population(s).
c. Explain how the proposed mentoring approach will appropriately respond to the

unique needs of the target population(s) in a way that is likely to promote positive
outcomes.

2. Develop and implement program design enhancements that further align with
research and evidence on effective mentoring approaches.

Applicants should:

a. Address each of the six core practice areas listed in Elements of Effective
Practice for Mentoring, as highlighted on OJJDP’s National Mentoring Resource

areas are:

• Recruitment.
• Screening.
• Training.
• Matching and initiation.
• Monitoring and support.
• Closure.

b. Identify and implement program design enhancements in one or more of the six
practice areas to integrate additional evidence-based practices.

c. Address how family engagement will be further promoted as part of the program
design or approach.

Center website,18 to explain the current mentoring approach. These practice

18 Mentor. Elements of Effective Practice for Mentoring, 4th edition. Available at
http://www.mentoring.org/images/uploads/Final_Elements_Publication_Fourth .

http://www.nationalmentoringresourcecenter.org/index.php/what-works-in-mentoring/elements-of-effective-practice-for-mentoring.html

http://www.mentoring.org/images/uploads/Final_Elements_Publication_Fourth

OJJDP2019-15004
23

d. For Category 1, applicants should include in this section their detailed plan to
serve AI/AN youth, both on and off reservations, with these grant funds.

This section should also include details regarding any leveraged resources (cash or in-
kind) from local sources to support the project and discuss plans for sustainability
beyond the grant period.

Logic Model. Applicants should include a logic model that graphically illustrates how the
performance measures are related to the project’s problems, goals, objectives, and
design. See sample logic models here. Applicants should submit the logic model as a
separate attachment, as stipulated in Additional Attachments, page 30.

Timeline. Applicants should submit a realistic timeline or milestone chart that indicates
major tasks associated with the goals and objectives of the project, assigns
responsibility for each, and plots completion of each task by month or quarter for the
duration of the award, using “Year 1,” “Month 1,” “Quarter 1,” etc., not calendar dates
(see “Sample Project Timelines” here).

Applicants should submit the timeline as a separate attachment, as stipulated in
Additional Attachments, page 30. On receipt of an award, the recipient may revise the
timeline, based on training and technical assistance that OJJDP will provide.

d. Capabilities and Competencies. This section should describe the experience and
capability of the applicant organization and any contractors or subgrantees that the
applicant will use to implement and manage this effort and its associated federal funding,
highlighting any previous experience implementing projects of similar design or
magnitude. Applicants should highlight their experience/capability/capacity to manage
subawards, including details on their system for fiscal accountability. Management and
staffing patterns should be clearly connected to the project design described in the
previous section. Applicants should describe the roles and responsibilities of project staff
and explain the program’s organizational structure and operations. Applicants should
include a copy of an organizational chart showing how the organization operates,
including who manages the finances; how the organization manages subawards, if there
are any; and the management of the project proposed for funding.

Applicants should describe:

• How they meet each of the qualifications outlined under the Eligibility section on
pages 1–2 for the category under which they are applying.

• Their experience providing mentoring practices (informed by the research) of a
similar scope and scale.

• Their ability to implement the stated program and enhancements.

• Category 1 applicants should include a detailed description of their experience in
serving AI/AN youth through mentoring services.

Memoranda of Understanding and Letters of Support. For Categories 3 and 4, the
lead applicant organization (if submitting a joint application) must include a signed and

https://www.ojjdp.gov/grantees/pm/logic_models.html

https://www.ojjdp.gov/grantees/timelines.html

OJJDP2019-15004
24

dated memorandum of understanding (or analogous document) with a juvenile justice
agency (Category 3) or substance abuse treatment agency (Category 4) that includes
the following:

• Expression of support for the program and a statement of willingness to participate
and collaborate with it.

• Description of the partner’s current role and responsibilities in the planning process
and expected responsibilities when the program is operational.

• Estimate of the percentage of time that the partner will devote to the planning and
operation of the project.

Applicants may choose to include letters of support with their application, but they are
not required and not considered in the peer review process.

4. Budget and Associated Documentation

The Budget Detail Worksheet and the Budget Narrative are now combined in a single
document collectively referred to as the Budget Detail Worksheet. The Budget Detail
Worksheet is a user-friendly, fillable, Microsoft Excel-based document designed to
calculate totals. Additionally, the Excel workbook contains worksheets for multiple
budget years that can be completed as necessary. All applicants should use the
Excel version when completing the proposed budget in an application, except in
cases where the applicant does not have access to Microsoft Excel or experiences
technical difficulties. If an applicant does not have access to Microsoft Excel or
experiences technical difficulties with the Excel version, then the applicant should use
the 508-compliant accessible Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) version.

Both versions of the Budget Detail Worksheet can be accessed at
https://ojp.gov/funding/Apply/Forms/BudgetDetailWorksheet.htm.

Applicants should budget funds to support as many as two staff to travel once each year
of the project to participate in a 2-day national training/meeting, as OJJDP directs. This
includes an in-person new grantee orientation meeting during the first year of the project
period. Applicants should budget approximately $2,000 per person to attend the
meetings and record this as part of the travel line item in the budget. The Office of the
Chief Financial Officer requires cost calculations for all line items in your budget,
including this required travel. The cost breakdown should include airfare, per diem rate,
lodging, number of travelers, number of days, etc. (for example, 2 people x airline ticket
($500) = $1,000, 2 people x 2 days per diem ($76/day) = $304, 2 people x lodging
($251) x 2 nights = $1,004). Use U.S. General Services Administration per diem rates.

a. Budget Detail Worksheet

The Budget Detail Worksheet should provide the detailed computation for each budget
line item, listing the total cost of each and showing how it was calculated by the
applicant. For example, costs for personnel should show the annual salary rate and the
percentage of time devoted to the project for each employee paid with grant funds. The
Budget Detail Worksheet should present a complete itemization of all proposed costs.

https://ojp.gov/funding/Apply/Forms/BudgetDetailWorksheet.htm

OJJDP2019-15004
25

For questions pertaining to budget and examples of allowable and unallowable costs,
see the DOJ Grants Financial Guide at https://ojp.gov/financialguide/DOJ/index.htm.

b. Budget Narrative

The budget narrative should thoroughly and clearly describe every category of expense
listed in the Budget Detail Worksheet. OJP expects proposed budgets to be complete,
cost effective, and allowable (e.g., reasonable, allocable, and necessary for project
activities).

An applicant should demonstrate in its budget narrative how it will maximize cost
effectiveness of award expenditures. Budget narratives should generally describe cost
effectiveness in relation to potential alternatives and the goals of the project. For
example, a budget narrative should detail why planned in-person meetings are
necessary, or how technology and collaboration with outside organizations could be
used to reduce costs, without compromising quality.

The budget narrative should be mathematically sound and correspond clearly with the
information and figures provided in the Budget Detail Worksheet. The narrative should
explain how the applicant estimated and calculated all costs, and how those costs are
necessary to the completion of the proposed project. The narrative may include tables
for clarification purposes, but need not be in a spreadsheet format. As with the Budget
Detail Worksheet, the budget narrative should describe costs by year.

c. Information on Proposed Subawards (if any) and Proposed Procurement
Contracts (if any)

Applicants for OJP awards typically may propose to make subawards. Applicants also
may propose to enter into procurement contracts under the award.

Whether an action—for federal grants administrative purposes—is a subaward or
procurement contract is a critical distinction, as significantly different rules apply to
subawards and procurement contracts. If a recipient enters into an agreement that is a
subaward of an OJP award, specific rules apply—many of which are set by federal
statutes and DOJ regulations; others by award conditions. These rules place particular
responsibilities on an OJP recipient for any subawards the OJP recipient may make. The
rules determine much of what the written subaward agreement itself must require or
provide. The rules also determine much of what an OJP recipient must do both before
and after it makes a subaward. If a recipient enters into an agreement that is a
procurement contract under an OJP award, a substantially different set of federal rules
applies.

OJP has developed the following guidance documents to help clarify the differences
between subawards and procurement contracts under an OJP award and outline the
compliance and reporting requirements for each. This information can be accessed
online at https://ojp.gov/training/training.htm.

• Subawards under OJP Awards and Procurement Contracts under Awards: A
Toolkit for OJP Recipients.

• Checklist to Determine Subrecipient or Contractor Classification.

https://ojp.gov/financialguide/DOJ/index.htm

http://links.govdelivery.com/track?type=click&enid=ZWFzPTEmbXNpZD0mYXVpZD0mbWFpbGluZ2lkPTIwMTcwNzE3Ljc1OTkyNjAxJm1lc3NhZ2VpZD1NREItUFJELUJVTC0yMDE3MDcxNy43NTk5MjYwMSZkYXRhYmFzZWlkPTEwMDEmc2VyaWFsPTE3MDc5NDk3JmVtYWlsaWQ9bHVjeS5tdW5nbGVAb2pwLnVzZG9qLmdvdiZ1c2VyaWQ9bHVjeS5tdW5nbGVAb2pwLnVzZG9qLmdvdiZ0YXJnZXRpZD0mZmw9Jm12aWQ9JmV4dHJhPSYmJg==&&&100&&&https://ojp.gov/training/training.htm

OJJDP2019-15004
26

• Sole Source Justification Fact Sheet and Sole Source Review Checklist.

In general, the central question is the relationship between what the third party will do
under its agreement with the recipient and what the recipient has committed (to OJP) to
do under its award to further a public purpose (e.g., services the recipient will provide,
products it will develop or modify, research or evaluation it will conduct). If a third party
will provide some of the services the recipient has committed (to OJP) to provide, will
develop or modify all or part of a product the recipient has committed (to OJP) to
develop or modify, or will conduct part of the research or evaluation the recipient has
committed (to OJP) to conduct, OJP will consider the agreement with the third party a
subaward for purposes of federal grants administrative requirements.

This will be true even if the recipient, for internal or other nonfederal purposes, labels or
treats its agreement as a procurement, a contract, or a procurement contract. Neither
the title nor the structure of an agreement determines whether the agreement—for
purposes of federal grants administrative requirements—is a subaward or is instead a
procurement contract under an award. The substance of the relationship should be given
greater consideration than the form of agreement between the recipient and the outside
entity.

1. Information on proposed subawards

A recipient of an OJP award may not make subawards (“subgrants”) unless the recipient
has specific federal authorization to do so. Unless an applicable statute or DOJ
regulation specifically authorizes (or requires) subawards, a recipient must have
authorization from OJP before it may make a subaward.

A particular subaward may be authorized by OJP because the recipient included a
sufficiently detailed description and justification of the proposed subaward in the
Program Narrative, Budget Detail Worksheet, and Budget Narrative as approved by
OJP. If, however, a particular subaward is not authorized by federal statute or regulation,
and is not approved by OJP, the recipient will be required, post-award, to request and
obtain written authorization from OJP before it may make the subaward.

If an applicant proposes to make one or more subawards to carry out the federal award
and program, the applicant should (1) identify (if known) the proposed subrecipient(s),
(2) describe in detail what each subrecipient will do to carry out the federal award and
federal program, and (3) provide a justification for the subaward(s), with details on
pertinent matters such as special qualifications and areas of expertise. Pertinent
information on subawards should appear not only in the Program Narrative, but also in
the Budget Detail Worksheet and Budget Narrative.

2. Information on proposed procurement contracts (with specific justification for
proposed noncompetitive contracts over $250,000)

Unlike a recipient contemplating a subaward, a recipient of an OJP award generally
does not need specific prior federal authorization to enter into an agreement that—for
purposes of federal grants administrative requirements—is considered a procurement
contract, provided that (1) the recipient uses its own documented procurement
procedures and (2) those procedures conform to applicable federal law, including the
Procurement Standards of the (DOJ) Part 200 Uniform Requirements (as set out at 2

OJJDP2019-15004
27

C.F.R. 200.317–200.326). The Budget Detail Worksheet and Budget Narrative should
identify proposed procurement contracts. (As discussed above, subawards must be
identified and described separately from procurement contracts.)

The Procurement Standards in the Part 200 Uniform Requirements, however, reflect a
general expectation that agreements that (for purposes of federal grants administrative
requirements) constitute procurement “contracts” under awards will be entered into on
the basis of full and open competition. All noncompetitive (sole source) procurement
contracts must meet the OJP requirements outlined at
https://ojp.gov/training/subawards-procurement.htm. If a proposed procurement contract
would exceed the Simplified Acquisition Threshold—currently, $250,000—a recipient of
an OJP award may not proceed without competition unless and until the recipient
receives specific advance authorization from OJP to use a noncompetitive approach for
the procurement. An applicant that (at the time of its application) intends—without
competition—to enter into a procurement contract that would exceed $250,000 should
include a detailed justification that explains to OJP why, in the particular circumstances,
it is appropriate to proceed without competition.

If the applicant receives an award, sole source procurements that do not exceed the
Simplified Acquisition Threshold (currently, $250,000) must have written justification for
the noncompetitive procurement action maintained in the procurement file. If a
procurement file does not have the documentation that meets the criteria outlined in 2
C.F.R. 200, the procurement expenditures may not be allowable. Sole source
procurement over the $250,000 Simplified Acquisition Threshold must have prior
approval from OJP using a Sole Source GAN. Written documentation justifying the
noncompetitive procurement must be submitted with the GAN and maintained in the
procurement file.

d. Preagreement Costs

For information on preagreement costs, see Section B. Federal Award Information.

5. Indirect Cost Rate Agreement (if applicable)

Indirect costs may be charged to an award only if:

(a) The recipient has a current (unexpired) federally approved indirect cost rate; or
(b) The recipient is eligible to use, and elects to use, the de minimis indirect cost rate

described in the Part 200 Uniform Requirements, as set out at 2 C.F.R. 200.414(f).

An applicant with a current (unexpired) federally approved indirect cost rate is to attach a
copy of the indirect cost rate agreement to the application. An applicant that does not have a
current federally approved rate may request one through its cognizant federal agency, which
will review all documentation and approve a rate for the applicant entity, or, if the applicant’s
accounting system permits, applicants may propose to allocate costs in the direct cost
categories.

For assistance with identifying the appropriate cognizant federal agency for indirect costs,
contact the Office of the Chief Financial Officer Customer Service Center at 800–458–0786
or at ask.ocfo@usdoj.gov. If DOJ is the cognizant federal agency, applicants may obtain

https://ojp.gov/training/subawards-procurement.htm

mailto:ask.ocfo@usdoj.gov

OJJDP2019-15004
28

information needed to submit an indirect cost rate proposal at
https://www.ojp.gov/funding/Apply/Resources/IndirectCosts .

Certain OJP recipients have the option of electing to use the de minimis indirect cost rate.
An applicant that is eligible to use the de minimis rate and that wishes to use the de minimis
rate should attach written documentation to the application that advises OJP of both (1) the
applicant’s eligibility to use the de minimis rate and (2) its election to do so. If an eligible
applicant elects the de minimis rate, costs must be consistently charged as either indirect or
direct costs, but may not be double charged or inconsistently charged as both. The de
minimis rate may no longer be used once an approved federally negotiated indirect cost rate
is in place. (No entity that ever has had a federally approved negotiated indirect cost rate is
eligible to use the de minimis rate.) For the de minimis rate requirements (including
information on eligibility to elect to use the rate), see the Part 200 Uniform Requirements, at
2 C.F.R. 200.414(f).

6. Tribal Authorizing Resolution (if applicable)

A tribe, tribal organization, or third party that proposes to provide direct services or
assistance to residents on tribal lands should include in its application a resolution, letter,
affidavit, or other documentation, as appropriate, that demonstrates (as a legal matter) that
the applicant has the requisite authorization from the tribe(s) to implement the proposed
project on tribal lands. In those instances when an organization or consortium of tribes
applies for an award on behalf of a tribe or multiple specific tribes, the application should
include appropriate legal documentation, as described above, from all tribes that would
receive services or assistance under the award. A consortium of tribes for which existing
consortium bylaws allow action without support from all tribes in the consortium (i.e., without
an authorizing resolution or comparable legal documentation from each tribal governing
body) may submit, instead, a copy of its consortium bylaws with the application.

7. Financial Management and System of Internal Controls Questionnaire (including
applicant disclosure of high-risk status)

Every OJP applicant (other than an individual applying in his or her personal capacity) is
required to download, complete, and submit the OJP Financial Management and System of
Internal Controls Questionnaire (questionnaire) at
https://ojp.gov/funding/Apply/Resources/FinancialCapability as part of its application.
The questionnaire helps OJP assess the financial management and internal control
systems, and the associated potential risks of an applicant as part of the preaward risk
assessment process.

The questionnaire should only be completed by financial staff most familiar with the
applicant’s systems, policies, and procedures in order to ensure that the correct responses
are recorded and submitted to OJP. The responses on the questionnaire directly impact the
preaward risk assessment and should accurately reflect the applicant’s financial
management and internal controls system at the time of the application. The preaward risk
assessment is only one of multiple factors and criteria used in determining funding.
However, a preaward risk assessment that indicates that an applicant poses a higher risk to
OJP may affect the funding decision and/or result in additional reporting requirements,
monitoring, special conditions, withholding of award funds, or other additional award
requirements.

https://www.ojp.gov/funding/Apply/Resources/IndirectCosts

https://ojp.gov/funding/Apply/Resources/FinancialCapability

OJJDP2019-15004
29

Among other things, the form requires each applicant to disclose whether it currently is
designated “high risk” by a federal grant-making agency outside of DOJ. For purposes of
this disclosure, high risk includes any status under which a federal awarding agency
provides additional oversight due to the applicant’s past performance, or other programmatic
or financial concerns with the applicant. If an applicant is designated high risk by another
federal awarding agency, the applicant must provide the following information:

• The federal awarding agency that currently designates the applicant high risk.
• The date the applicant was designated high risk.
• The high-risk point of contact at that federal awarding agency (name, phone number,

and email address).
• The reasons for the high-risk status, as set out by the federal awarding agency.

OJP seeks this information to help ensure appropriate federal oversight of OJP awards. An
applicant that is considered “high risk” by another federal awarding agency is not
automatically disqualified from receiving an OJP award. OJP may, however, consider the
information in award decisions, and may impose additional OJP oversight of any award
under this solicitation (including through the conditions that accompany the award
document).

8. Disclosure of Lobbying Activities

Each applicant must complete and submit this information. An applicant that expends any
funds for lobbying activities is to provide all of the information requested on the form
Disclosure of Lobbying Activities (SF-LLL) at
https://ojp.gov/funding/Apply/Resources/Disclosure . An applicant that does not expend
any funds for lobbying activities is to enter “N/A” in the text boxes for item 10 (“a. Name and
Address of Lobbying Registrant” and “b. Individuals Performing Services”).

9. Documentation of Anticipated Benefit to Qualified Opportunity Zones (if applicable)

As mentioned above, OJP will, as appropriate, give priority consideration in award decisions
to applications that propose projects that will likely enhance public safety in federally
designated Qualified Opportunity Zones (QOZs). Each applicant proposing a project it
anticipates will likely enhance public safety in one or more QOZs should provide a sufficient
narrative explanation in order for OJP to identify clearly the public safety benefit the
applicant anticipates that its project will have on a specified QOZ(s). The attachment(s)
should be clearly labeled as addressing QOZs. The applicant may also include tables,
charts, graphs, or other relevant illustrations that may be useful in explaining the manner in
which the proposed project is anticipated to benefit a QOZ(s).

10. Applicant Disclosure of Pending Applications

Each applicant is to disclose whether it has (or is proposed as a subrecipient under) any
pending applications for federally funded grants or cooperative agreements that (1) include
requests for funding to support the same project being proposed in the application under this
solicitation and (2) would cover any identical cost items outlined in the budget submitted to
OJP as part of the application under this solicitation. The applicant is to disclose applications

https://ojp.gov/funding/Apply/Resources/Disclosure

OJJDP2019-15004
30

SAMPLE

made directly to federal awarding agencies, and also applications for subawards of federal
funds (e.g., applications to state agencies that will subaward (“subgrant”) federal funds).

OJP seeks this information to help avoid inappropriate duplication of funding. Leveraging
multiple funding sources in a complementary manner to implement comprehensive
programs or projects is encouraged and is not seen as inappropriate duplication.

Each applicant that has one or more pending applications as described above is to provide
the following information about pending applications submitted within the last 12 months:

• The federal or state funding agency.
• The solicitation name/project name.
• The point of contact information at the applicable federal or state funding agency.

Each applicant should include the table as a separate attachment to its application. The file
should be named “Disclosure of Pending Applications.” The applicant’s legal name on the
application must match the entity named on the disclosure of pending applications
statement.

Any applicant that does not have any pending applications as described above is to submit,
as a separate attachment, a statement to this effect: “[Applicant Name on SF-424] does not
have (and is not proposed as a subrecipient under) any pending applications submitted
within the last 12 months for federally funded grants or cooperative agreements (or for
subawards under federal grants or cooperative agreements) that request funding to support
the same project being proposed in this application to OJP and that would cover any
identical cost items outlined in the budget submitted as part of this application.”

11. Disclosure and Justification – DOJ High-Risk Grantees19 (if applicable)

An applicant that is designated as a DOJ High-Risk Grantee is to submit as a separate
attachment to its application, information that OJP will use, among other pertinent
information, to determine whether it will consider or select the application for an award under
this solicitation. The file should be named “DOJ High-Risk Grantee Applicant Disclosure and
Justification.” (See also “Review Process” below, under Section E. Application Review

19 A “DOJ High-Risk Grantee” is a recipient that has received a DOJ High-Risk designation based on a
documented history of unsatisfactory performance, financial instability, management system or other
internal control deficiencies, or noncompliance with award terms and conditions on prior awards, or that is
otherwise not responsible.

Federal or State Funding
Agency

Solicitation
Name/Project Name

Name/Phone/Email for Point
of Contact at Federal or State
Funding Agency

DOJ/Office of Community
Oriented Policing Services
(COPS Office)

COPS Hiring Program Jane Doe, 202/000-0000;
jane.doe@usdoj.gov

Health and Human
Services/Substance Abuse
and Mental Health
Services Administration

Drug-Free Communities
Mentoring Program/
North County Youth
Mentoring Program

John Doe, 202/000-0000;
john.doe@hhs.gov

mailto:jane.doe@usdoj.gov

mailto:john.doe@hhs.gov

OJJDP2019-15004
31

Information, for a brief discussion of how such information may considered in the application
review process.)

OJP constantly seeks to optimize its investments in criminal- and juvenile justice-focused
programs and activities, increase program effectiveness, and maximize the return – and
program impact – from limited programmatic resources. Therefore, OJP may remove from
consideration or not select for award a “DOJ High Risk Grantee” applicant that is determined
to pose a substantial risk of program implementation failure. In making such determinations,
OJP will consider one or more of the following factors: the applicant’s lack of sufficient
progress in addressing required corrective actions necessary for removal of the DOJ High
Risk Grantee designation; the nature and severity of the issues leading to or accompanying
the applicant’s DOJ High Risk Grantee designation; or the applicant’s expected ability to
manage grant funds and achieve grant goals and objectives.

In this attachment, the applicant is to provide any additional information or justification –
especially with regard to corrective actions yet to be implemented (as of the application
date) – that may help demonstrate how the applicant has addressed or otherwise mitigated
such uncorrected matters, such that any negative impact on the proposed program and its
implementation would be immaterial or would be significantly reduced or eliminated. (To the
extent that the applicant believes that any of the information provided pursuant to this
disclosure may be confidential in nature, the applicant should specifically identify it.)

12. Additional Attachments

Applicants should submit the following information, as stipulated in the cited pages, as
attachments to their applications. While the materials listed below are not assigned specific
point values, peer reviewers will, as appropriate, consider these items when rating applications.
For example, reviewers will consider résumés and/or letters of support/ memoranda of
understanding when assessing “capabilities/competencies.” Peer reviewers will not consider
any additional information that the applicant submits other than that specified below.

a. Executive Summary Chart

The following chart lists data for each category that are deemed critical application
elements, and that are to be submitted with the application. Applicants are to provide this
information in the form of a chart labelled Executive Summary Chart.

All 5 Categories Categories 1 and 2 only Categories 4 and 5 only

Number of
youth served
(include
number of
AI/AN youth
for Category
1).

Number of
mentors to
be
recruited.

Type of
mentoring
(individual,
group, peer,
or
combination).

Number and
name of states
where the
applicant
currently has
subawardees.

Number and
name of
states where
the
mentoring
services will
take place
under this
grant.

Number of youth served who are
impacted by opioids. This includes
those youth who are currently using
or have used opioids, youth at high
risk for using opioids (i.e., presence
of individual, family, and community
risk factors for substance abuse),
and youth with family members who
are currently using or have used
opioids.

OJJDP2019-15004
32

b. Logic model (see page 23).

c. Timeline or milestone chart (see page 23).

d. Résumés of all key personnel.

e. Job descriptions outlining roles and responsibilities for all key positions.

f. Letters of support/memoranda of understanding from partner organizations (see page 23).

How To Apply
Applicants must register in and submit applications through Grants.gov, a primary source to find
federal funding opportunities and apply for funding. Find complete instructions on how to
register and submit an application at https://www.grants.gov/web/grants/support.html.
Applicants that experience technical difficulties during this process should call the Grants.gov
Customer Support Hotline at 800–518–4726 or 606–545–5035, which operates 24 hours a day,
7 days a week, except on federal holidays.

Registering with Grants.gov is a one-time process; however, processing delays may occur,
and it can take several weeks for first-time registrants to receive confirmation of registration
and a user password. OJP encourages applicants to register several weeks before the
application submission deadline. In addition, OJP urges applicants to submit applications at
least 72 hours prior to the application due date to allow time for the applicant to receive
validation messages or rejection notifications from Grants.gov, and to correct in a timely fashion
any problems that may have caused a rejection notification.

OJP strongly encourages all prospective applicants to sign up for Grants.gov email notifications
regarding this solicitation at https://www.grants.gov/web/grants/manage-subscriptions.html. If
this solicitation is cancelled or modified, individuals who sign up with Grants.gov for updates will
be automatically notified.

Browser Information: Grants.gov was built to be compatible with Internet Explorer. For
technical assistance with Google Chrome or another browser, contact Grants.gov Customer
Support.

Note on Attachments: Grants.gov has two categories of files for attachments: “mandatory” and
“optional.” OJP receives all files attached in both categories. Attachments are also labeled to
describe the file being attached (e.g., Project Narrative, Budget Narrative, Other). Applicants
should ensure that all required documents are attached in the correct Grants.gov category and
are labeled correctly. Do not embed “mandatory” attachments within another file.

An applicant must use the Add Attachment button to attach a file to its application. Do not click
the paperclip icon to attach files. This action will not attach the files to the application. After
adding an attachment, select the View Attachment button to confirm you attached the correct
file. To remove the file, select the Delete Attachment button.

An application can be checked for errors via the Check Application button on the Forms tab of
the Manage Workspace page. The button is active if the set of forms in the workspace matches
those required in the application package. If you receive a Cross-Form Errors message after
clicking the Check Application button, refer to the Cross-Form Errors help article for more

https://www.grants.gov/

https://www.grants.gov/web/grants/support.html

https://www.grants.gov/web/grants/manage-subscriptions.html

OJJDP2019-15004
33

detailed information about this validation error.

Note on File Names and File Types: Grants.gov only permits the use of certain specific
characters in the file names of attachments. Valid file names may include only the characters
shown in the table below. Grants.gov rejects any application that includes an attachment(s) with
a file name that contains any characters not shown in the table below. Grants.gov forwards
successfully submitted applications to the OJP Grants Management System (GMS).

Characters
Upper case (A – Z)

__
Lower case (a – z)
Underscore ( )
Hyphen ( – )

Special Characters

Space

Special Characters

Period (.)

*When using the ampersand (&) in XML, applicants must use the “&” format.

GMS does not accept executable file types as application attachments. These disallowed
file types include, but are not limited to, the following extensions: “.com,” “.bat,” “.exe,” “.vbs,”
“.cfg,” “.dat,” “.db,” “.dbf,” “.dll,” “.ini,” “.log,” “.ora,” “.sys,” and “.zip.” GMS may reject applications
with files that use these extensions. It is important to allow time to change the type of file(s) if
the application is rejected.

All applicants are required to complete the following steps:

Unique Entity Identifier (DUNS Number) and System for Award Management
Every applicant entity must comply with all applicable SAM and unique entity identifier
(currently, a DUNS number) requirements. SAM is the repository for certain standard
information about federal financial assistance applicants, recipients, and subrecipients. A DUNS
number is a unique nine-digit identification number provided by the commercial company Dun
and Bradstreet. More detailed information about SAM and the DUNS number is in the numbered
sections below.

If an applicant entity has not fully complied with the applicable SAM and unique identifier
requirements by the time OJP makes award decisions, OJP may determine that the applicant is
not qualified to receive an award and may use that determination as a basis for making the
award to a different applicant.

Registration and Submission Steps

1. Acquire a unique entity identifier (currently, a DUNS number). The Office of
Management and Budget requires every applicant for a federal award (other than an
individual) to include a “unique entity identifier” in each application, including an application
for a supplemental award. Currently, a DUNS number is the required unique entity identifier.

This unique entity identifier is used for tracking purposes, and to validate address and point
of contact information for applicants, recipients, and subrecipients. It will be used throughout
the life cycle of an OJP award. Obtaining a DUNS number is a free, one-time activity. Call

Special Characters
Parenthesis ( ) Curly braces { } Square brackets [ ]
Ampersand (&)* Tilde (~) Exclamation point (!)
Comma ( , ) Semicolon ( ; ) Apostrophe ( ‘ )
At sign (@) Number sign (#) Dollar sign ($)
Percent sign (%) Plus sign (+) Equal sign (=)

OJJDP2019-15004
34

Dun and Bradstreet at 866–705–5711 to obtain a DUNS number or apply online at
https://www.dnb.com/. A DUNS number is usually received within 2 business days.

2. Acquire or maintain registration with SAM. Any applicant for an OJP award creating a
new entity registration (or updating or renewing a registration) in SAM.gov must submit an
original, signed notarized letter appointing the authorized Entity Administrator within thirty
(30) days of the registration activation. Notarized letters must be submitted via U.S.
Postal Service Mail. Read the Alert at sam.gov/SAM/ to learn more about what is required
in the notarized letter, and read the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) at
www.gsa.gov/samupdate to learn more about this process change. All applicants for OJP
awards (other than individuals) must maintain current registrations in the SAM database.
Applicants will need the authorizing official of the organization and an Employer
Identification Number (EIN). Information about SAM registration procedures can be
accessed at sam.gov/SAM/.

An application cannot be successfully submitted in Grants.gov until Grants.gov receives the
SAM registration information. Once the SAM registration/renewal is complete, the
information transfer from SAM to Grants.gov can take as long as 48 hours. OJP
recommends that the applicant register or renew registration with SAM as early as possible.

3. Acquire an Authorized Organization Representative (AOR) and a Grants.gov
username and password. Complete the AOR profile on Grants.gov and create a username
and password. An applicant entity’s “unique entity identifier” (DUNS number) must be used
to complete this step. For more information about the registration process for organizations
and other entities, go to https://www.grants.gov/web/grants/applicants/organization-
registration.html.

4. Acquire confirmation for the AOR from the E-Business Point of Contact (E-Biz POC).
The E-Biz POC at the applicant organization must log into Grants.gov to confirm the
applicant organization’s AOR. The E-Biz POC will need the Marketing Partner Identification
Number (MPIN) password obtained when registering with SAM to complete this step. Note
that an organization can have more than one AOR.

5. Search for the funding opportunity on Grants.gov. Use the following identifying
information when searching for the funding opportunity on Grants.gov. The Catalog of
Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number for this solicitation is 16.726, titled “Juvenile
Mentoring Program,” and the funding opportunity number is OJJDP-2019-15004.

6. Select the correct Competition ID. Some OJP solicitations posted to Grants.gov contain
multiple purpose areas, denoted by the individual Competition ID. If applying to this
solicitation, select the appropriate Competition ID for the intended purpose area of the
application:

Category 1—National Mentoring Programs. Competition ID: OJJDP-2019-15005. An
organization that has active chapters or subawardees in 45 or more states.

Category 2—Multistate Mentoring Programs. Competition ID: OJJDP-2019-15006. An
organization that has active chapters or subawardees in at least 5 but fewer than 45 states.

https://www.dnb.com/

https://sam.gov/SAM/

https://www.gsa.gov/samupdate

https://sam.gov/SAM/

https://www.grants.gov/web/grants/applicants/organization-registration.html

OJJDP2019-15004
35

Category 3—Mentoring Programs for Youth Involved in the Juvenile Justice System.
Competition ID: OJJDP-2019-15007. A private organization that has a formal partnership
with a juvenile justice agency.

Category 4—Mentoring Strategies for Youth Impacted by Opioids (Project Sites).
Competition ID: OJJDP-2019-15008. A private organization that has a formal partnership
with a substance abuse treatment agency.

Category 5—Statewide and Regional Mentoring Initiative for Youth Impacted by
Opioids. Competition ID: OJJDP-2019-14994. An organization that has active chapters or
subawardees in 45 or more states (including territories), and federally recognized tribal
governments as determined by the Secretary of the Interior.

7. Access funding opportunity and application package from Grants.gov. Select “Apply
for Grants” under the “Applicants” column. Enter your email address to be notified of any
changes to the opportunity package before the closing date. Click the Workspace icon to
use Grants.gov Workspace.

8. Submit a valid application consistent with this solicitation by following the directions
in Grants.gov. To preview the application prior to (or after) submitting, go to the View
Application tab in Workspace. For additional information, review the View Application Tab
help article and Attachments Tab help article. Within 48 hours after submitting the electronic
application, the applicant should receive two notifications from Grants.gov. The first will
confirm the receipt of the application. The second will state whether the application has
been validated and successfully submitted, or whether it has been rejected due to errors,
with an explanation. It is possible to first receive a message indicating that the application is
received, and then receive a rejection notice a few minutes or hours later. Submitting an
application well ahead of the deadline provides time to correct the problem(s) that caused
the rejection. Important: OJP urges each applicant to submit its application at least 72
hours prior to the application due date, to allow time to receive validation messages or
rejection notifications from Grants.gov, and to correct in a timely fashion any problems that
may have caused a rejection notification. Applications must be successfully submitted
through Grants.gov by 11:59 p.m. ET on April 22, 2019.

Go to https://www.grants.gov/web/grants/applicants/organization-registration.html for further
details on DUNS numbers, SAM, and Grants.gov registration steps and timeframes.

Note: Application Versions
If an applicant submits multiple versions of the same application, OJP will review only the most
recent system-validated version submitted.

Experiencing Unforeseen Grants.gov Technical Issues

An applicant that experiences unforeseen Grants.gov technical issues beyond its control that
prevent it from submitting its application by the deadline must contact the Grants.gov Customer
Support Hotline at https://www.grants.gov/web/grants/support.html or the SAM Help Desk
(Federal Service Desk) at https://www.fsd.gov/fsd-gov/home.do to report the technical issue and
receive a tracking number. The applicant must email the Response Center at grants@ncjrs.gov
within 24 hours after the application deadline to request approval to submit its application
after the deadline. The applicant’s email must describe the technical difficulties and must

https://www.grants.gov/help/html/help/ManageWorkspaces/ViewApplicationTab.htm

https://www.grants.gov/help/html/help/ManageWorkspaces/AttachmentsTab.htm

https://www.grants.gov/web/grants/applicants/organization-registration.html

https://www.grants.gov/web/grants/support.html

https://www.fsd.gov/fsd-gov/home.do

mailto:grants@ncjrs.gov

OJJDP2019-15004
36

include a timeline of the applicant’s submission efforts, the complete grant application, the
applicant’s DUNS number, and any Grants.gov Help Desk or SAM tracking number(s).

Note: OJP does not automatically approve requests to submit a late application. After
OJP reviews the applicant’s request, and contacts the Grants.gov or SAM Help Desk to verify
the reported technical issues, OJP will inform the applicant whether the request to submit a late
application has been approved or denied. If OJP determines that the untimely application
submission was due to the applicant’s failure to follow all required procedures, OJP will deny the
applicant’s request to submit its application.

The following conditions generally are insufficient to justify late submissions:

• Failure to register in SAM or Grants.gov in sufficient time. (SAM registration and renewal
can take as long as 10 business days to complete. The information transfer from SAM to
Grants.gov can take up to 48 hours.)

• Failure to follow Grants.gov instructions on how to register and apply as posted on its
website.

• Failure to follow each instruction in the OJP solicitation.
• Technical issues with the applicant’s computer or information technology environment,

such as issues with firewalls or browser incompatibility.

Notifications regarding known technical problems with Grants.gov, if any, are posted at
the top of the OJP Funding Resource Center at https://ojp.gov/funding/index.htm.

E. Application Review Information

Review Criteria

Applications that meet basic minimum requirements will be evaluated by peer reviewers using
the following review criteria.

1. Statement of the Problem (15%)
2. Goals, Objectives, and Performance Measures (10%)
3. Project Design and Implementation (35%)
4. Capabilities and Competencies (35%)
5. Budget (5%): complete, cost effective, and allowable (e.g., reasonable, allocable, and

necessary for project activities). Budget narratives should demonstrate generally how
applicants will maximize cost effectiveness of grant expenditures. Budget narratives
should demonstrate cost effectiveness in relation to potential alternatives and the goals
of the project.20

See What an Application Should Include, page 17, for the criteria that the peer reviewers will
use to evaluate applications.

20 Generally speaking, a reasonable cost is a cost that, in its nature or amount, does not exceed that which would be
incurred by a prudent person under the circumstances prevailing at the time the decision was made to incur the
costs.

https://ojp.gov/funding/index.htm

OJJDP2019-15004
37

Review Process

OJP is committed to ensuring a fair and open process for making awards. OJJDP reviews the
application to make sure that the information presented is reasonable, understandable,
measurable, and achievable, as well as consistent with the solicitation.

Peer reviewers will review the applications submitted under this solicitation that meet basic
minimum requirements. For purposes of assessing whether an application meets basic
minimum requirements and should proceed to further consideration, OJP screens applications
for compliance with those requirements. Although specific requirements may vary, the following
are common requirements applicable to all solicitations for funding under OJP programs:

• The application must be submitted by an eligible type of applicant.
• The application must request funding within programmatic funding constraints (if

applicable).
• The application must be responsive to the scope of the solicitation.
• The application must include all items designated as critical elements.

For a list of the critical elements for this solicitation, see “What an Application Should Include”
under Section D. Application and Submission Information.

Peer review panels will evaluate, score, and rate applications that meet basic minimum
requirements. OJJDP may use internal peer reviewers, external peer reviewers, or a
combination, to assess applications on technical merit using the solicitation’s review criteria. An
internal reviewer is a current DOJ employee who is well-versed or has expertise in the subject
matter of this solicitation. An external peer reviewer is an expert in the subject matter of a given
solicitation who is not a current DOJ employee. Peer reviewers’ ratings and any resulting
recommendations are advisory only, although reviewer views are considered carefully.

Other important considerations for OJJDP include geographic diversity, strategic priorities
(specifically including, but not limited to, demonstrable potential enhancement to public safety in
one or more federally designated QOZs for Categories 3 and 4), and available funding, as well
as the extent to which the budget detail worksheet and budget narrative accurately explain
project costs that are reasonable, necessary, and otherwise allowable under federal law and
applicable federal cost principles.

Pursuant to the Part 200 Uniform Requirements, before award decisions are made, OJP also
reviews information related to the degree of risk posed by the applicant. Among other things to
help assess whether an applicant that has one or more prior federal awards has a satisfactory
record with respect to performance, integrity, and business ethics, OJP checks whether the
applicant is listed in SAM as excluded from receiving a federal award.

In addition, if OJP anticipates that an award will exceed $250,000 in federal funds, OJP also
must review and consider any information about the applicant that appears in the nonpublic
segment of the integrity and performance system accessible through SAM (currently, the
Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS)).

Important note on FAPIIS: An applicant, at its option, may review and comment on any
information about itself that currently appears in FAPIIS and was entered by a federal awarding

OJJDP2019-15004
38

agency. OJP will consider any such comments by the applicant, in addition to the other
information in FAPIIS, in its assessment of the risk posed by the applicant.

The evaluation of risks goes beyond information in SAM, however. OJP itself has in place a
framework for evaluating risks posed by applicants for competitive awards. OJP takes into
account information pertinent to matters such as—

1. Applicant financial stability and fiscal integrity.
2. Quality of the applicant’s management systems, and the applicant’s ability to meet

prescribed management standards, including those outlined in the DOJ Grants Financial
Guide.

3. Applicant’s history of performance under OJP and other DOJ awards (including
compliance with reporting requirements and award conditions), as well as awards from
other federal agencies.

4. Reports and findings from audits of the applicant, including audits under the Part 200
Uniform Requirements.

5. Applicant’s ability to comply with statutory and regulatory requirements, and to effectively
implement other award requirements.

Absent explicit statutory authorization or written delegation of authority to the contrary, all final
award decisions will be made by the Assistant Attorney General, who may take into account not
only peer review ratings and OJJDP recommendations, but also other factors as indicated in
this section.

F. Federal Award Administration Information

Federal Award Notices

Award notifications will be made by September 30, 2019. OJP sends award notifications by
email through GMS to the individuals listed in the application as the point of contact and the
authorizing official (E-Biz POC and AOR). The email notification includes detailed instructions
on how to access and view the award documents, and steps to take in GMS to start the award
acceptance process. GMS automatically issues the notifications at 9 p.m. ET on the award date.

For each successful applicant, an individual with the necessary authority to bind the applicant
will be required to log in; execute a set of legal certifications and a set of legal assurances;
designate a financial point of contact; thoroughly review the award, including all award
conditions; and sign and accept the award. The award acceptance process requires a physical
signature on the award document by the authorized representative. The fully executed award
document must then be scanned and submitted to OJP.

Administrative, National Policy, and Other Legal Requirements

If selected for funding, in addition to implementing the funded project consistent with the OJP-
approved application, the recipient must comply with all award conditions, as well as all
applicable requirements of federal statutes and regulations (including applicable requirements
referred to in the assurances and certifications executed in connection with award acceptance).
OJP strongly encourages prospective applicants to review information on post-award legal
requirements and common OJP award conditions prior to submitting an application.

OJJDP2019-15004
39

Applicants should consult the “Overview of Legal Requirements Generally Applicable to OJP
Grants and Cooperative Agreements – FY 2018 Awards,” available in the OJP Funding
Resource Center at https://ojp.gov/funding/index.htm. In addition, applicants should examine the
following two legal documents, as each successful applicant must execute both documents
before it may receive any award funds. (An applicant is not required to submit these documents
as part of an application.)

• Certifications Regarding Lobbying; Debarment, Suspension and Other Responsibility
Matters; and Drug-Free Workplace Requirements

• Certified Standard Assurances

The webpages accessible through the “Overview of Legal Requirements Generally Applicable to
OJP Grants and Cooperative Agreements – FY 2018 Awards” are intended to give applicants for
OJP awards a general overview of important statutes, regulations, and award conditions that
apply to many (or in some cases, all) OJP grants and cooperative agreements awarded in FY
2019. Individual OJP awards typically also will include additional award conditions. Those
additional conditions may relate to the particular statute, program, or solicitation under which the
award is made; to the substance of the funded application; to the recipient’s performance under
other federal awards; to the recipient’s legal status (e.g., as a for-profit entity); or to other
pertinent considerations.

Awards under this solicitation will include a condition (the specific terms of which will govern the
award) related to verification of employment eligibility. The condition will, generally speaking,
require the recipient (and any subrecipient) that accepts the award to verify the employment
eligibility of any individual hired under the award, consonant with 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(1).

Awards under this solicitation will include a condition (the specific terms of which will govern the
award) related to competition requirements set forth at 2 C.F.R. § 200.319. The condition will,
generally speaking, prohibit recipients (and any subrecipients) from procuring goods and
services with award funds by means of any competition that disadvantages or excludes vendors
on the basis of their having (or their having had) a prior or existing contractual relationship with
the federal government.

General Information About Post-Federal Award Reporting Requirements

In addition to the deliverables described in Section A. Program Description, any recipient of an
award under this solicitation will be required to submit the following reports and data.

Required reports. Recipients typically must submit quarterly financial reports, semi-annual
progress reports, final financial and progress reports, and, if applicable, an annual audit report in
accordance with the Part 200 Uniform Requirements or specific award conditions. Future
awards and fund drawdowns may be withheld if reports are delinquent. (In appropriate cases,
OJP may require additional reports.)

Awards that exceed $500,000 will include an additional condition that, under specific
circumstances, will require the recipient to report (to FAPIIS) information on civil, criminal, and
administrative proceedings connected with (or connected to the performance of) either the OJP
award or any other grant, cooperative agreement, or procurement contract from the federal

https://ojp.gov/funding/Explore/LegalOverview/index.htm

https://ojp.gov/funding/index.htm

https://ojp.gov/funding/Apply/Resources/Certifications

https://ojp.gov/funding/Apply/Resources/StandardAssurances

https://ojp.gov/funding/Explore/LegalOverview/index.htm

OJJDP2019-15004
40

government. Additional information on this reporting requirement appears in the text of the
award condition posted on the OJP webpage at https://ojp.gov/funding/FAPIIS.htm.

Data on performance measures. In addition to required reports, each award recipient also must
provide data that measure the results of the work done under the award. To demonstrate
program progress and success, as well as to assist DOJ in fulfilling its responsibilities under the
Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA), Public Law 103–62, and the GPRA
Modernization Act of 2010, Public Law 111–352, OJP will require any award recipient, post
award, to provide performance data as part of regular progress reporting. Successful applicants
will be required to access OJP’s performance measurement page at www.ojp.gov/performance
for an overview of performance measurement activities at OJP. Performance measures are also
listed in Appendix A.

G. Federal Awarding Agency Contact(s)

For OJP contact(s), see the title page.

For contact information for Grants.gov, see the title page.

H. Other Information

Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552 and 5 U.S.C. 552a)

All applications submitted to OJP (including all attachments to applications) are subject to the
federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and to the Privacy Act. By law, DOJ may withhold
information that is responsive to a request pursuant to FOIA if DOJ determines that the
responsive information either is protected under the Privacy Act or falls within the scope of one
of nine statutory exemptions under FOIA. DOJ cannot agree in advance of a request pursuant
to FOIA not to release some or all portions of an application.

In its review of records that are responsive to a FOIA request, OJP will withhold information in
those records that plainly falls within the scope of the Privacy Act or one of the statutory
exemptions under FOIA. (Some examples include certain types of information in budgets, and
names and contact information for project staff other than certain key personnel.) In appropriate
circumstances, OJP will request the views of the applicant/recipient that submitted a responsive
document.

For example, if OJP receives a request pursuant to FOIA for an application submitted by a
nonprofit or for-profit organization or an institution of higher education, or for an application that
involves research, OJP typically will contact the applicant/recipient that submitted the
application and ask it to identify—quite precisely—any particular information in the application
that the applicant/recipient believes falls under a FOIA exemption, the specific exemption it
believes applies, and why. After considering the submission by the applicant/recipient, OJP
makes an independent assessment regarding withholding information. OJP generally follows a
similar process for requests pursuant to FOIA for applications that may contain law-
enforcement-sensitive information.

https://ojp.gov/funding/FAPIIS.htm

http://ojp.gov/performance

OJJDP2019-15004
41

Provide Feedback to OJP

To assist OJP in improving its application and award processes, OJP encourages applicants to
provide feedback on this solicitation, the application submission process, and/or the application
review process. Provide feedback to OJPSolicitationFeedback@usdoj.gov.

IMPORTANT: This email is for feedback and suggestions only. OJP does not reply from this
mailbox to messages it receives in this mailbox. Any prospective applicant that has specific
questions on any program or technical aspect of the solicitation must use the appropriate
telephone number or email listed on the front of this document to obtain information. These
contacts are provided to help ensure that prospective applicants can directly reach an individual
who can address specific questions in a timely manner.

If you are interested in being a reviewer for other OJP grant applications, email your résumé to
ojpprsupport@usdoj.gov. (Do not send your résumé to the OJP Solicitation Feedback email
account.) Note: Neither you nor anyone else from your organization or entity can be a peer
reviewer in a competition in which you or your organization/entity has submitted an application.

mailto:OJPSolicitationFeedback@usdoj.gov

mailto:ojpprsupport@usdoj.gov

OJJDP2019-15004
42

Appendix A: Performance Measures Table

Objective Performance
Measure(s)

Description Data Recipient Provides

To provide direct
one-on-one,
group, or peer
mentoring
services to at-risk
and system-
involved youth
populations.

Percent
increase in
youth enrolled
since the
beginning of
the grant
program.

Increase in the number of youth
enrolled (being mentored) since
the beginning of the grant
program.

A. Number of youth enrolled at the
beginning of the reporting period.

B. Number of new youth added
during the reporting period.

Percent of
program youth
matched with
a mentor
during the
reporting
period.

Number and percent of program
youth who were matched with a
mentor during the reporting period.
The number of youth enrolled
includes the number of youth
carried over from the previous
reporting period, plus new
admissions who were matched
with a mentor during the reporting
period.

Program records are the preferred
data source.

A. Number of program youth
matched with a mentor during the
reporting period.

B. Total number of youth enrolled in
the program during the reporting
period.

C. Percent of program youth
matched with a mentor during the
reporting period (A/B).

Percent of
program youth
in matches
meeting
mentoring
program
requirements.

Number of youth in matches with
mentors who meet the program
requirements during the reporting
period. Enter the intended
minimum length of the match and
the intended minimum hours per
month for mentee/mentor
meetings according to program
requirements.

Program records are the preferred
data source.

A. Intended minimum length of the
match in months.

B. Number of youth whose match
met the intended minimum match
length during the reporting period.

C. Number of youth whose match
exceeded the intended minimum
match length during the reporting
period.

D. Number of youth who had
matches that closed early during the
reporting period.

E. Intended minimum hours per
month that mentors and mentees
were expected to meet (match
meetings).

F. Number of youth whose
mentor/mentee match meetings met
for the minimum number of hours
during the reporting period.

G. Number of youth whose
mentor/mentee match meetings

OJJDP2019-15004
43

exceeded the minimum number of
hours during the reporting period.

H. Number of youth whose
mentor/mentee match meetings did
not meet the minimum number of
hours during the reporting period.

Percent
increase in the
number of
program
mentors
recruited.

Number of new mentors recruited
during the reporting period.
“Recruited” mentors are those who
have completed requirements to
be ready for training.

Program records are the preferred
data source.

The increase in number of program
mentors recruited (ready for
training) during the reporting period.

Percent of
program
mentors
successfully
completing
training.

Number and percent of program
mentors successfully completing
training during the reporting
period.

Program records are the preferred
data source.

A. Number of program mentors who
successfully completed training
during the reporting period.

B. Total number of program mentors
who began a training program
during the reporting period.

C. Percent (A/B).

Percent of
trained
program
mentors with
increased
knowledge of
the program
area.

Number of trained program
mentors demonstrating increased
knowledge of the program during
the reporting period.

Program records are the preferred
data source.

A. Number of trained program
mentors demonstrating increased
knowledge of the program during
the reporting period.

B. Number of trained program
mentors.

C. Percent (A/B).

Mentor
retention.

Number of program mentors
retained by the program within the
reporting period.

Program records are the preferred
data source.

A. Number of mentors who have left
the program during the reporting
period.

B. Total number of mentors in the
program during the reporting period.

C. (B – A)/B = mentor retention rate.
Percent of
mentoring
programs with
active
partners.

Percent of mentoring programs
with active partners representing
the following types of groups:
nonprofit service organizations
and/or faith-based organizations,
private industry, secondary
education provider, postsecondary
education provider or vocational
training provider, or other active
partners.

A. Number of mentoring programs
with active partners.

B. Number of mentoring programs.

C. Percent (A/B).

OJJDP2019-15004
44

Percent of
youth with
whom an
evidence-
based
program or
practice was
used.

Number and percent of youth with
whom an evidence-based program
or practice was used. Evidence-
based practice models include
program models that have been
shown, through rigorous
evaluation and replication, to be
effective at preventing or reducing
juvenile delinquency or related risk
factors, such as substance abuse.
Model programs can come from
many valid sources (e.g.,
Blueprints, OJJDP’s Model
Programs Guide, SAMHSA’s
Model Programs, state model
program resources, etc.).

A. Number of youth served using an
evidence-based model or program.

B. Number of youth served during
the reporting period.

C. Percent (A/B).

Percent of
program youth
completing
program
requirements.

Number and percent of program
youth who have successfully
fulfilled all program obligations and
requirements. This does not
include youth who are still in
ongoing programs. Program
obligations will vary by program
but should be a predefined list of
requirements or obligations that
clients must meet before program
completion. The total number of
youth includes those youth who
have exited successfully and
unsuccessfully.

Program records are the preferred
data source.

A. Number of program youth who
exited the program having
completed program requirements.

B. Total number of youth who exited
the program during the reporting
period (both successfully and
unsuccessfully).

C. Percent (A/B).

Percent of
program youth
who offend
(short term).

Number and percent of
participating program youth who
were arrested or seen at a juvenile
court for a delinquent offense
during the reporting period.
Appropriate for any youth-serving
program. Official records (police,
juvenile court) are the preferred
data source.
The number of youth tracked
should reflect the number of
program youth who are followed or
monitored for arrests or offenses.
Ideally this number should be all
youth served by the program
during the reporting period.
A youth may be “committed” to a
juvenile facility anytime that he or
she is held overnight.
Certain jurisdictions refer to
adjudications as “sentences.”

A. Total number of program youth
served.

B. Number of program youth
tracked during the reporting period.

C. Of B, the number of program
youth who had an arrest or
delinquent offense during the
reporting period.

D. Number of program youth who
were committed to a juvenile facility
during the reporting period.

E. Number of program youth who
were sentenced to adult prison
during the reporting period.

OJJDP2019-15004
45

F. Number of program youth who
received another sentence during
the reporting period.

G. Percent offending (B/A).

Percent of
program youth
who offend
(long term).

Number and percent of
participating program youth who
were arrested or seen at a juvenile
court for a delinquent offense
during the reporting period.
Appropriate for any youth-serving
program. Official records (police,
juvenile court) are the preferred
data source.
The number of youth tracked
should reflect the number of
program youth who are followed or
monitored for arrests or offenses
6–12 months after exiting the
program.
A youth may be “committed” to a
juvenile facility anytime that he or
she is held overnight.
Certain jurisdictions refer to
adjudications as “sentences.”

A. Total number of program youth
who exited the program 6–12
months ago that you are tracking.

B. Of A, the number of program
youth who had an arrest or
delinquent offense during the
reporting period.

C. Number of program youth who
were committed to a juvenile facility
during the reporting period.

D. Number of program youth who
were sentenced to adult prison
during the reporting period.

E. Number of program youth who
received another sentence during
the reporting period.

F. Percent offending (B/A).
Percent of
program youth
exhibiting a
desired
change in the
targeted
behavior
(short and
long term).

Number and percent of program
youth who have exhibited a
desired change in the targeted
behavior during the reporting
period or 6–12 months after
exiting the program.

A. Number of program youth served
during the reporting period or who
exited the program 6–12 months
ago with the noted behavioral
change (behavior targeted will
depend on specific program goals
and activities and may include
academic achievement, school
attendance, social competence,
etc.).

B. Total number of program youth
receiving services for the targeted
behavior during the reporting period
or who exited the program 6–12
months ago.

C. Percent (A/B).
Number and
percent of
program youth
who are
victimized
(short term).

Number of youth identified by staff
or self as a victim, by type of
victimization, during the reporting
period. Count youth as served by
the program if they received a
minimum of one service delivery,
as defined by the grant program.

Definitions:

A. Total number of program youth
served during the reporting period.

B. Number of program youth
tracked during the reporting period
for victimization.

OJJDP2019-15004
46

Victimization:
Victimization can be physical or
psychological; it also includes
harm or adverse effects to youth’s
property.

Short-Term Data:
Totals reflect all youth served by
the program who were followed or
monitored for victimization during
the reporting period.

Sex Trafficking:
Sex trafficking in which a
commercial sex act is induced by
force, fraud, or coercion, or in
which the person induced to
perform such act has not attained
18 years of age. Include all youth
tracked during the reporting period
and youth victimized prior to
program participation.

Labor Trafficking:
The recruitment, harboring,
transportation, provision, or
obtaining of a person for labor or
services through the use of force,
fraud, or coercion for the purpose
of subjection to involuntary
servitude, peonage, debt
bondage, or slavery. Include all
youth tracked during the reporting
period and youth victimized prior
to program participation.

C. Of B, the number of program
youth who were victimized during
the reporting period.

D. Percent victimized (C/B).

E. Of tracked youth, the number of
program youth who experienced
violent victimization during the
reporting period.

F. Of tracked youth, the number of
program youth who experienced
nonviolent victimization during the
reporting period.

G. Of tracked youth, the number of
all program youth identified as a sex
trafficking victim during the reporting
period.

H. Of tracked youth, the number of
new program youth identified as a
sex trafficking victim during the
reporting period.

I. Of tracked youth, the number of
all program youth identified as a
labor trafficking victim during the
reporting period.

J. Of tracked youth, the number of
new program youth identified as a
labor trafficking victim during the
reporting period.

K. Of tracked youth, the number of
all program youth identified as both
a sex and labor trafficking victim
during the reporting period.

L. Of tracked youth, the number of
new program youth identified as
both a sex and labor trafficking
victim during the reporting period.

Number and
percent of
program youth
who are
victimized
(long term).

Number of youth who exited the
program 6–12 months ago who
were tracked or monitored by the
program during the reporting
period and identified by staff or
self as a new victim, by type of
victimization. If a youth
experienced multiple types of
victimization, count the youth in
each relevant category.

A. Number of program youth who
exited the program 6–12 months
ago who the program is tracking or
monitoring during the reporting
period.

B. Of A, the number of program
youth who exited the program 6–12
months ago who were victimized
during the reporting period.

OJJDP2019-15004
47

Definitions:

Victimization:
Victimization can be physical or
psychological; it also includes
harm or adverse effects to youth’s
property.

Long-Term Data:
Totals reflect all youth served by
the program who were followed or
monitored for victimization 6–12
months after the reporting period.

Sex Trafficking:
Sex trafficking in which a
commercial sex act is induced by
force, fraud, or coercion, or in
which the person induced to
perform such act has not attained
18 years of age.

C. Percent victimized (B/A).

D. Of tracked youth, the number of
program youth who exited the
program 6–12 months ago who
experienced violent victimization
during the reporting period.

E. Of tracked youth, the number of
program youth who exited the
program 6–12 months ago who
experienced nonviolent victimization
during the reporting period.

F. Of tracked youth, the number of
program youth who exited the
program 6–12 months ago identified
as a sex trafficking victim during the
reporting period.

G. Of tracked youth, the number of
program youth who exited the
program 6–12 months ago identified
as a labor trafficking victim during
the reporting period.

H. Of tracked youth, the number of
program youth who exited the
program 6–12 months ago identified
as both a sex and labor trafficking
victim during the reporting period.

OJJDP2019-15004
48

Appendix B: Application Checklist

OJJDP FY 2019 Mentoring Opportunities for Youth Initiative

This application checklist has been created as an aid in developing an application.

What an Applicant Should Do:

Prior to Registering in Grants.gov:
_____ Acquire a DUNS Number
_____ Acquire or renew registration with SAM
To Register with Grants.gov:
_____ Acquire AOR and Grants.gov username/password
_____ Acquire AOR confirmation from the E-Biz POC
To Find Funding Opportunity:
_____ Search for the Funding Opportunity on Grants.gov

_____ Select the correct Competition ID
_____ Access Funding Opportunity and Application Package

(see page 33)
(see page 34)

(see page 34)
(see page 34)

(see page 34)
(see page 34)
(see page 35)

_____ Sign up for Grants.gov email notifications (optional) (see page 32)
_____ Read Important Notice: Applying for Grants in Grants.gov
_____ Read OJP policy and guidance on conference approval, planning, and reporting

available at ojp.gov/financialguide/DOJ/PostawardRequirements/chapter3.10a.htm
(see page 17)

After Application Submission, Receive Grants.gov Email Notifications That:
_____ (1) Application has been received
_____ (2) Application has either been successfully validated or rejected with errors

(see page 35)
If No Grants.gov Receipt, and Validation or Error Notifications are Received:

_____ C

ontact Grants.gov and/or SAM regarding technical difficulties. Refer to the section:
Experiencing Unforeseen Grants.gov Technical Issues (see page 35)
ontact the Response Center at grants@ncjrs.gov to request to submit the application

after the deadline because of unforeseen technical issues. Refer to the section:
Experiencing Unforeseen Grants.gov Technical Issues (see page 35)

Overview of Post-Award Legal Requirements:

_____ Review the “Overview of Legal Requirements Generally Applicable to OJP Grants and
Cooperative Agreements – FY 2018 Awards” in the OJP Funding Resource Center at
https://ojp.gov/funding/index.htm.

Scope Requirement:
_____ Category 1: None.
_____ Category 2: The federal amount requested is within the allowable limits of $4 million.
_____ Categories 3 and 4: The federal amount requested is within the allowable limits of
$500,000.
_____ Category 5: The federal amount requested is within the allowable limits of $1,250,000.

Eligibility Requirement:

_____Category 1: National organization with active chapters or subawardees in 45 or more
states.

https://www.grants.gov/web/grants/manage-subscriptions.html

https://ojp.gov/funding/Apply/Grants-govInfo.htm

https://ojp.gov/financialguide/DOJ/PostawardRequirements/chapter3.10a.htm

mailto:grants@ncjrs.gov

https://ojp.gov/funding/Explore/LegalOverview/index.htm

https://ojp.gov/funding/index.htm

OJJDP2019-15004

_____

_____Category 2: Multistate organization with active chapters or subawardees in at least 5
states but fewer than 45 states.
_____Category 3: Eligible applicants are limited to private organizations (nonprofit organizations
and for-profit organizations, including tribal nonprofit and for-profit organizations). Joint
applications from two or more eligible applicants are welcome; however, one applicant must be
clearly indicated as the primary applicant (for correspondence, award, and management
purposes) and the others indicated as coapplicants.
_____Category 4: Eligible applicants are limited to private organizations (nonprofit organizations
and for-profit organizations, including tribal nonprofit and for-profit organizations). Joint
applications from two or more eligible applicants are welcome; however, one applicant must be
clearly indicated as the primary applicant (for correspondence, award, and management
purposes) and the others indicated as coapplicants.
____ Category 5: Eligible applicants are limited to national organizations (as defined in
Category 1), states (including territories), and federally recognized tribal governments as
determined by the Secretary of the Interior.

What an Application Should Include:

_____ Application for Federal Assistance (SF-424) (see page 18)
_____ Intergovernmental Review
_____ Project Abstract
_____ Program Narrative

___ Statement of the Problem
___ Goals, Objectives, and Performance Measures
___ Project Design and Implementation
___ Capabilities and Competencies

_____ Budget Detail Worksheet

(see page 19)
(see page 19)
(see page 19)

(see page 24)
_____ Budget Narrative (see page 25)
_____
_____
_____ Fi

Indirect Cost Rate Agreement (if applicable) (see page 27)
Tribal Authorizing Resolution (if applicable) (see page 28)

nancial Management and System of Internal Controls Questionnaire
(see page 28)

Disclosure of Lobbying Activities (SF-LLL)

(see page 29)

_____Documentation of Anticipated Benefit to Qualified Opportunity Zones for Categories 3 or 4
(if applicable)
_____ Applicant Disclosure of Pending Applications
_____ Disclosure and Justification – DOJ High-Risk Grantees (if applicable)

_____ Additional Attachments

_____
(see page 29)

_____ Executive Summary Chart
_____ Logic model
_____ Timeline or milestone chart
_____ Résumés of all key personnel
_____ Job descriptions outlining roles and responsibilities for all key positions
_____ Letters of support/memoranda of understanding from partner organizations

Request and Justification for Employee Compensation; Waiver (if applicable)
(see page 16)

https://ojp.gov/funding/Apply/Resources/Disclosure

1The Sentencing Project • 1705 DeSales Street NW, 8th Floor • Washington, D.C. 20036 •

sentencingproject.org

POLICY BRIEF: JUVENILE LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE

Juvenile Life Without Parole:
An Overview
Twenty-three states and the District of Columbia have banned life sentences without
the possibility of parole for juveniles; in a handful of other states, no one is serving
the sentence.

There were 2,310 people serving life-without-parole
sentences for crimes committed as juveniles (known
as JLWOP) at yearend 2016. In its 2017 ruling in
Montgomery v. Louisiana, the Supreme Court invalidated
all existing JLWOP sentences that had been imposed
by mandatory statute. As a result, youth sentenced to
parole-ineligible life sentences in 29 states and the
federal government are now in the process of having
their original sentences reviewed or have been granted
a new sentence. In a small fraction of cases, individuals
have been released from prison. The post-Montgomery
years have surely included a decline in the juvenile life
without parole population, though there is not exact
count as of yet.1

Following the 2012 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Miller
v. Alabama,2 states and the federal government are
required to consider the unique circumstances of each
juvenile defendant in determining an individualized
sentence. Montgomery v. Louisiana,3 a 2016 decision,
ensures that the decision applies retroactively. For
juveniles, a mandatory life sentence without the
possibility of parole, is unconstitutional.

Research on adolescent brain development confirms
the commonsense understanding that children are
different from adults in ways that are critical to
identifying age appropriate criminal sentences. This
understanding – Justice Kennedy called it what “any
parent knows”4 – was central to four recent Supreme
Court decisions excluding juveniles from the harshest
sentencing practices. The most recent, Montgomery,
emphasized that the use of life without parole
(mandatorily or not) should only be reserved for those
juveniles whose offenses reflected “irreparable

corruption,”5 a ruling that Justice Scalia (in dissent)
wrote may eventually “eliminat[e] life without parole for
juvenile offenders.”6

SUPREME COURT RULINGS
Since 2005, Supreme Court rulings have accepted
adolescent brain science and banned the use of capital
punishment for juveniles, limited life without parole
sentences to homicide offenders, banned the use of
mandatory life without parole, and applied the decision
retroactively. In 2012, the Court ruled that judges must
consider the unique circumstances of each juvenile
offender, banning mandatory sentences of life without
parole for all juveniles; in 2016, this decision was made
retroactive to those sentenced prior to 2012.

ROPER V. SIMMONS, 543 U.S. 551 (2005)
The Supreme Court ruled that juveniles cannot be
sentenced to death, writing that the death penalty is a
disproportionate punishment for the young; immaturity
diminishes their culpability, as does their susceptibility
to outside pressures and influences. Lastly, their
heightened capacity for reform means that they are
entitled to a separate set of punishments. The court
also held that the nation’s “evolving standards of
decency” showed the death penalty for juveniles to be
cruel and unusual; 12 states banned the death penalty
in all circumstances, and 18 more banned it for juvenile
offenders.7 The Roper ruling affected 72 juveniles on
death row in 12 states.8 Between 1976 and the Roper
decision, 22 defendants were executed for crimes
committed as juveniles.9

2The Sentencing Project • 1705 DeSales Street NW, 8th Floor • Washington, D.C. 20036 • sentencingproject.org

POLICY BRIEF: JUVENILE LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE

States that have banned or limited the use of juvenile life without parole sentences, 2020

Source: Data collected by The Sentencing Project

GRAHAM V. FLORIDA, 130 S. CT. 2011 (2010)
Having banned the use of the death penalty for juveniles
in Roper, the Court left the sentence of life without
parole as the harshest sentence available for offenses
committed by people under 18. In Graham v. Florida,
the Court banned the use of life without parole for
juveniles not convicted of homicide. The ruling applied
to at least 123 prisoners – 77 of whom had been
sentenced in Florida, the remainder in 10 other states.10
As in Roper, the Court pointed to the rare imposition
of a particular punishment to prove that the punishment
is unusual.11

Court precedent recognizes that non-homicide offenses
do not warrant the most serious punishment available.12
“The concept of proportionality is central to the Eighth
Amendment,” wrote Justice Kennedy.13 Thus, having
defined the maximum punishment for all juvenile

offenders (life without parole), the Court ruled that the
harshest punishment must be limited to the most
serious category of crimes (i.e., those involving
homicide).

The Court called life without parole “an especially harsh
punishment for a juvenile … A 16-year-old and a 75-year-
old each sentenced to life without parole receive the
same punishment in name only.”14 Limiting the use of
life without parole did not guarantee such individuals
would be released; it guaranteed a “meaningful
opportunity” for release.

MILLER V. ALABAMA AND JACKSON V.
HOBBS, 132 S. CT. 2455 (2012)
Following Roper’s exclusion of the death penalty for
juveniles and Graham’s limitation on the use of life
without parole, approximately 2,500 offenders were

Banned JLWOP

No JLWOP Prisoners

3The Sentencing Project • 1705 DeSales Street NW, 8th Floor • Washington, D.C. 20036 • sentencingproject.org

POLICY BRIEF: JUVENILE LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE

serving sentences of life without parole for crimes
committed as juveniles, all of whom were convicted
of homicide-related offenses.

In 2012, deciding Miller and Jackson jointly, the U.S.
Supreme Court held that, for juveniles, mandatory life
without parole sentences violate the Eighth Amendment.
Writing for the majority, Justice Kagan emphasized
that judges must be able to consider the characteristics
of juvenile defendants in order to issue a fair and
individualized sentence. Adolescence is marked by
“transient rashness, proclivity for risk, and inability to
assess consequences,” all factors that should mitigate
the punishment received by juvenile defendants.1

MONTGOMERY V. LOUISIANA 136 S. CT. 718
(2016)
The Miller ruling affected mandatory sentencing laws
in 28 states and the federal government. States
inconsistently interpreted Miller’s retroactivity. Supreme
Courts in fourteen states16 ruled that Miller applied
retroactively while those of seven other states17 ruled
that Miller was not retroactive. In addition, California,
Delaware, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, and
Wyoming passed juvenile sentencing legislation that
applied retroactivity.18

The question was settled by the U.S. Supreme Court
in the case of 68-year old Henry Montgomery,19 who
has been imprisoned in Louisiana with no chance of
parole since 1963, a “model member of the prison
community.”20 Justice Kennedy, writing for a 6-3 majority,
noted that the Court in Roper, Graham, and Miller found
that “children are constitutionally different from adults
in their level of culpability.”21 Moreover, the severest
punishment must be reserved “for the rarest of juvenile
offenders, those whose crimes reflect permanent
incorrigibility.”22

States can remedy the unconstitutionality of mandatory
juvenile life without parole sentences by permitting

Adolescence is marked by
“rashness, proclivity for risk, and
inability to assess consequences.”

parole hearings rather than resentencing the
approximately 2,100 people whose life sentences were
issued mandatorily.23, 24

LEGISLATIVE RESPONSES TO MILLER
Since 2012, 29 states and the District of Columbia have
changed their laws for juvenile offenders convicted of
homicide (including felony murder). All but four had
previously required life without parole in these
circumstances. These new laws provide mandatory
minimums ranging from a chance of parole after 15
years (as in Nevada and West Virginia) to 40 years (as
in Texas and Nebraska). Twenty-nine states still allow
life without parole as a sentencing option for juveniles.
In most states, the question of virtual life without parole
has yet to be addressed.

PEOPLE SERVING JUVENILE LIFE
WITHOUT PAROLE SENTENCES
Twenty-one states and the District of Columbia do not
have any prisoners serving life without parole for crimes
committed as juveniles, either due to laws prohibiting
the sentence or because there are no individuals serving
the sentence at this time. Thus, while 28 states allow
the sentence, just three – Pennsylvania, Michigan, and
Louisiana – account for about two-thirds of JLWOP
sentences.

CHILDHOOD EXPERIENCES
The life experiences of those sentenced to life as
juveniles varies, but they are often marked by very
difficult upbringings with frequent exposure to violence;
they were often victims of abuse themselves. Justice
Kagan, in the Miller ruling, ruled that Alabama and
Arkansas erred because a mandatory sentencing
structure does not “tak[e] into account the family and
home environment.”25 The petitioners in the cases,
Kuntrell Jackson and Evan Miller, both 14 at the time
of their crimes, grew up in highly unstable homes. Evan
Miller was a troubled child; he attempted suicide four
times, starting at age 6.26 Kuntrell Jackson’s family life
was “immers[ed] in violence: Both his mother and his
grandmother had previously shot other individuals.”27
His mother and a brother were sent to prison. The

4The Sentencing Project • 1705 DeSales Street NW, 8th Floor • Washington, D.C. 20036 • sentencingproject.org

POLICY BRIEF: JUVENILE LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE

defendant in Graham, Terrance Graham, had parents
who were addicted to crack cocaine.28

In 2012, The Sentencing Project released findings from
a survey of people sentenced to life in prison as juveniles
and found the defendants in the above cases were not
atypical.29

• 79% witnessed violence in their homes regularly

• 32% grew up in public housing

• 40% had been enrolled in special education classes

• Fewer than half were attending school at the time of
their offense

• 47% were physically abused

• 80% of girls reported histories of physical abuse and
77% of girls reported histories of sexual abuse

RACIAL DISPARITIES
Racial disparities plague the imposition of JLWOP
sentences.30 While 23.2% of juvenile arrests for murder
involve an African American suspected of killing a white
person, 42.4% of JLWOP sentences are for an African
American convicted of this crime. White juvenile
offenders with African American victims are only about
half as likely (3.6%) to receive a JWLOP sentence as
their proportion of arrests for killing an African American
(6.4%).

COST OF LIFE SENTENCES
Aside from important justice considerations, the
financial cost of JLWOP sentences is significant. A life
sentence issued to a juvenile is designed to last longer
than a life sentence issued to an older defendant.

Housing juveniles for a life sentence requires decades
of public expenditures. Nationally, it costs $34,135 per
year to house an average prisoner. This cost roughly
doubles when that prisoner is over 50.31 Therefore, a
50-year sentence for a 16-year old will cost approximately
$2.25 million.

WHAT MAKES YOUTH DIFFERENT?
In amici briefs written on behalf of the defendants in
Roper, Graham, Miller, and Montgomery organizations
representing health professionals, such as the American
Academy of Child Adolescent Psychiatry and the
American Psychological Association, explained current
research on immature brains. In Miller, Justice Kagan
noted that adolescence is marked by “immaturity,
impetuosity, and failure to appreciate risks and
consequences,” all factors that limit an adolescent’s
ability to make sound judgments. Justice Kagan cited
Graham and J. D. B. v. North Carolina32 in noting that
juvenile defendants are at a substantial disadvantage
in criminal proceedings; they are less able than adults
to assist in their own defenses (working constructively
with counsel) and they are likely to respond poorly to
the high pressures of interrogation. Even before Roper,
states routinely recognized differences between
juveniles and adults in other contexts. Almost every
state prohibits juveniles from voting, buying cigarettes
and alcohol, serving on juries, and getting married
without parental consent. Teenagers’ drivers licenses
are typically restricted through age 18. The Graham
decision emphasized the importance of giving juvenile
offenders a chance to become rehabilitated. These
individuals have a substantial capacity for rehabilitation,
but many states deny this opportunity: approximately
62% of people sentenced to life without parole as
juveniles reported not participating in prison programs33
in large part due to state prison policies that prohibit
their participation or limited program availability. They
typically receive fewer rehabilitative services than other
prisoners.34

MOMENTUM FOR REFORM
Eliminating juvenile life without parole does not suggest
guaranteed release of these offenders. Rather, it would
provide that an opportunity for review be granted after
a reasonable period of incarceration, one that takes
into consideration the unique circumstances of each
defendant. In Montgomery, the Court ruled that “allowing
those offenders to be considered for parole ensures
that juveniles whose crimes reflected only transient
immaturity – and who have since matured – will not
be forced to serve a disproportionate sentence in
violation of the 8th Amendment.”35

5The Sentencing Project • 1705 DeSales Street NW, 8th Floor • Washington, D.C. 20036 • sentencingproject.org

POLICY BRIEF: JUVENILE LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE
5

This briefing paper was written by Josh Rovner, Juvenile Justice
Advocacy Associate at The Sentencing Project.
Updated February 2020.

The Sentencing Project works for a fair and effective U.S. justice
system by promoting reforms in sentencing policy, addressing
unjust racial disparities and practices, and advocating for
alternatives to incarceration.

1705 DeSales Street NW, 8th Floor
Washington, D.C. 20036

sentencingproject.org

In many other countries the period before a mandated
review is 10 to 15 years.36 If adequate rehabilitation has
not occurred during these years in prison, as decided
by experts, the individual may remain in prison and his/
her case be reviewed again in another few years. Nor
is it appropriate to eliminate life sentences in name
only, replacing them with excessively lengthy prison
terms that can reasonably expected to last for an
offender’s entire life. There is mounting support for

such reform in select states. Motivated by the Miller
decision, the state of California (home to one of the
largest populations of JLWOP defendants) now affords
prisoners a meaningful chance at parole after 15 to
25 years if their crime occurred when they were a
juvenile. Reforms are underway in other states as well.
Sentences that close the door on rehabilitation and
second chances are cruel and misguided.

ENDNOTES
1 An estimated 2,100 people serving mandatory juvenile life

without parole sentences became eligible for a sentencing
review after the Montgomery decision.

2 Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012).
3 577 U.S. ___2016 (2016)
4 Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 569 (2005).
5 Roper at 560.
6 Montgomery. Dissent of Justice Scalia (slip op.) at 15.
7 Roper at 560.
8 Death Penalty Information Center. U. S. Supreme Court:

Roper v. Simmons, No. 03-633. http://www.
deathpenaltyinfo.
org/u-s-supreme-court-roper-v-simmons-no-03-633.

9 Death Penalty Information Center. Facts About the Death
Penalty. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/
FactSheet .

10 Graham at 2024.
11 In Graham and Roper, the Court also pointed to the

overwhelming international consensus against the harshest
punishments.

12 Kennedy v. Louisiana, 554 U.S. 407 (2008).
13 Graham at 2021.
14 Graham at 2028.
15 Miller at 2465.
16 Arkansas, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts,

Mississippi, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Ohio,
South Carolina, Texas, and Wyoming.

17 Alabama, Colorado, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota,
Montana, and Pennsylvania.

18 Rovner, J. (2014). Slow To Act: State Responses to 2012
Supreme Court Mandate on Life Without Parole. Washington,
DC: The Sentencing Project.

19 Montgomery v. Louisiana, petition 14-280.
20 Montgomery Slip Op. at 21.
21 Montgomery Slip Op. at 22.
22 Montgomery Slip Op. at 17.
23 Montgomery Slip Op. at 21.
24 Gately, G. (2015, March 23). Supreme Court Agrees to Hear

Miller Retroactivity Issue. Juvenile Justice Information
Exchange.

25 Miller at 2468.
26 Miller at 2462.
27 Miller at 2468.
28 Graham at 2018.
29 Nellis, A. (2012). The lives of juvenile lifers: Findings from a

national survey. Washington, D.C.: The Sentencing Project.
30 Nellis, A. (2012).
31 ACLU (2012, June 13). “At America’s Expense: The Mass

Incarceration of the Elderly.” Available at https://www.aclu.
org/criminal-law-reform/report-americas-expense-mass-
incarceration-elderly

32 131 S.Ct. 2394 (2011)
33 Nellis, A. (2012).
34 Boone, B. (2015). Treating adults like children: Resentencing

adult juvenile lifers after Miller v. Alabama. Minnesota Law
Review, 99(3), 1159-1194.

35 Montgomery Slip Op. at 21.
36 American Law Institute (2010). Model penal code:

Sentencing: Council draft No. 3. Philadelphia, American Law
Institute.

1The Sentencing Project • 1705 DeSales Street NW, 8th Floor • Washington, D.C. 20036 •

sentencingproject.org

POLICY BRIEF: RACIAL DISPARITIES IN YOUTH COMMITMENTS AND ARRESTS

Racial Disparities in Youth
Commitments and Arrests
Between 2003 and 2013 (the most recent data available), the rate of youth
committed to juvenile facilities after an adjudication of delinquency fell by 47
percent.1 Every state witnessed a drop in its commitment rate, including 19 states
where the commitment rates fell by more than half.2 Despite this remarkable
achievement, the racial disparities endemic to the juvenile justice system did not
improve over these same 10 years. Youth of color remain far more likely to be
committed than white youth. Between 2003 and 2013, the racial gap between black
and white youth in secure commitment increased by 15%.

Both white youth and youth of color attained
substantially lower commitment rates over these 10
years. For white juveniles, the rate fell by 51 percent
(140 to 69 per 100,000); for black juveniles, it fell 43
percent (519 to 294 per 100,000). The combined effect
was to increase the commitment disparity over the
decade. The commitment rate for Hispanic juveniles
fell by 52 percent (230 to 111), and the commitment
rate for American Indian juveniles by 28 percent (354
to 254).

As of 2013, black juveniles were more than four times
as likely to be committed as white juveniles, Americans
Indian juveniles were more than three times as likely,
and Hispanic juveniles were 61 percent more likely.

Another measurement of disproportionate minority
confinement is to compare the committed population
to the population of American youth.3 Slightly more
than 16 percent of American youth are African
American. Between 2003 and 2013, the percentage of
committed juveniles who were African American grew
from 38 percent to 40 percent. Roughly 56 percent of
all American youth are white (non-Hispanic). Between
2003 and 2013, the percent of committed juveniles
who were white fell from 39 percent to 32 percent.4

As discussed below, growing disparities in arrests have
driven the commitment disparities. Between 2003 and
2013, white juveniles arrest rates (already half that of

black juveniles) fell by 49 percent while black juveniles
arrest rates fell by 31 percent. While other levers in
the juvenile justice system (such as processing in
juvenile courts) are replete with disparate outcomes,
most of those points of contact are no more disparate
than they were 10 years prior. The growth in commitment
disparities begins with the growth in arrest disparities.

CURRENT RACIAL COMMITMENT
DISPARITIES
AFRICAN AMERICAN COMMITMENT
DISPARITIES, 2013
The black/white racial disparity in commitment is
calculated by comparing the rate of African American
commitments (the frequency of committed African
American juveniles divided by the total number of
African American juveniles) to the rate of white
juveniles commitments.5

Nationwide, African American juveniles were more
than four times as likely to be committed to secure
placements as were white juveniles. In six states (Utah,
New Hampshire, New Jersey, Connecticut, Wisconsin,
and Rhode Island), the black/white disparity was more
than ten-to-one, meaning that African American
juveniles were more than 10 times as likely as white
juveniles to be committed to secure facilities.

2The Sentencing Project • 1705 DeSales Street NW, 8th Floor • Washington, D.C. 20036 • sentencingproject.org

POLICY BRIEF: RACIAL DISPARITIES IN YOUTH COMMITMENTS AND ARRESTS

Racial disparities persist both in states with relatively
large and relatively small populations of youth of color.
However, it is important to note that for states with
low numbers of youth of color, modest shifts in
commitments among youth of color can have a
dramatic impact on ratios.6 Because disparity is a
ratio, even a state with a relatively low rate of African
American commitments (such as Connecticut) can
still have significant disparities if the white commitment
rate is particularly low. Data in this report list
commitment rates for each racial and ethnic group
along with the attendant disparity.

White Black

294

Figure 1. White and Black Commitment Rates
per 100,000 Youth, 2013

0 1 3 5 10+

Figure 2. Black/White Racial Disparity in Commitment Rates per 100,000 Youth, 2013

See full data in Appendix A.

3The Sentencing Project • 1705 DeSales Street NW, 8th Floor • Washington, D.C. 20036 • sentencingproject.org

POLICY BRIEF: RACIAL DISPARITIES IN YOUTH COMMITMENTS AND ARRESTS

HISPANIC COMMITMENT DISPARITIES, 2013
Nationwide, Hispanic youth were 61 percent more
likely than white youth to be in placement.7

In 37 states and the District of Columbia, Hispanic
youth are more likely to be committed than are white
juveniles. In four states (Connecticut, New Hampshire,
Massachusetts and New Jersey), the Hispanic/white
disparity was more than five-to-one, meaning that
Hispanic juveniles were more than five times as likely
as white juveniles to be committed.

Four states – Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, and
Missouri – had no Hispanic/white disparity while nine
others — Alaska, Delaware, Florida, Indiana, Louisiana,
Maine, Mississippi, Vermont, and West Virginia – had
higher rates of white commitments than Hispanic
commitments.

Figure 3. White and Hispanic Commitment
Rates per 100,000 Youth, 2013

White Hispanic

111

0 1 2 5+

Figure 4. Hispanic/White Racial Disparity in Commitment Rates per 100,000 Youth, 2013

See full data in Appendix B.

4The Sentencing Project • 1705 DeSales Street NW, 8th Floor • Washington, D.C. 20036 • sentencingproject.org

POLICY BRIEF: RACIAL DISPARITIES IN YOUTH COMMITMENTS AND ARRESTS

AMERICAN INDIAN COMMITMENT
DISPARITIES, 2013
State-by-state analysis of American Indian youth is
hampered by their small number and attendant small
percentage of the population in many states. Roughly
90 percent of American Indian juveniles live in just 26
states. In 24 states, less than 1 percent of youth are
American Indian.

Nationwide, American Indian youth were nearly four
times as likely as white youth to be committed. In three
states (Minnesota, Illinois and Vermont), the American
Indian/white disparity is more than ten-to-one, meaning
that American Indian youth are more than 10 times as
likely as white juveniles to be committed.

Among the 26 states with a significant proportion
(more than one percent of the total population) of

Figure 5. White and American Indian
Commitment Rates per 100,000 Youth, 2013

White American
Indian

254

0 1 3 5 10+

Figure 6. American Indian/White Racial Disparity in Commitment Rates per 100,000 Youth, 2013

American Indian youth, only New Mexico has no
American Indian/white disparity.

See full data in Appendix C.

5The Sentencing Project • 1705 DeSales Street NW, 8th Floor • Washington, D.C. 20036 • sentencingproject.org

POLICY BRIEF: RACIAL DISPARITIES IN YOUTH COMMITMENTS AND ARRESTS

COMMITMENT DISPARITIES, 2003
VERSUS 2013
Equally distressing to the existence of racial and ethnic
disparities is their persistence. Under the federal
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, since
1988 states have been required to address disparities
in confinement.8 Those disparities persist today, having
remained constant for Hispanic youth while growing
for African American and American Indian youth over
this ten-year period.

RACIAL DISPARITIES GREW
NATIONALLY, BUT NOT IN ALL
STATES
TRENDS IN AFRICAN AMERICAN TO WHITE
COMMITMENT DISPARITIES
In 2003, African American youth were 3.7 times as
likely as white youth to be committed; by 2013, that
ratio had grown to 4.3, a 15 percent increase in the
disparity. Between 2003 and 2013, 33 states and the
District of Columbia had higher black/white commitment
disparities than 10 years before, and 17 states saw
decreases or no changes.

American Indian/White DisparityHispanic/White DisparityBlack/White Disparity

3.7

4.3

1.6 1.6

2.5

3.7

2003 2013 2003 2013 2003 2013

Figure 7. Changes in U.S. Youth Commitment Disparities, 2003-2013

TRENDS IN HISPANIC TO WHITE
COMMITMENT DISPARITIES
In 2003, Hispanic youth were 61 percent more likely
than white youth to be committed; by 2013, that ratio
was unchanged. Four states – Alaska, Maine,
Mississippi, and Vermont — had no Hispanic youth in
commitment as of the day of the one-day census in
2013. In nine other states – Delaware, Florida, Georgia,
Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, and
West Virginia – Hispanic youth were less likely or
equally likely to be committed as were white youth.

Between 2003 and 2013, 26 states and the District of
Columbia saw increases in their Hispanic/white
commitment disparity; 6 states saw no change, and
18 states had a decreased disparity.

TRENDS IN AMERICAN INDIAN TO WHITE
COMMITMENT DISPARITIES
In 2003, American Indian youth were two-and-a-half
times (2.5) as likely as white youth to be committed;
by 2013, that ratio increased by nearly 50 percent to
3.7. Seventeen states had no American Indian youth
in commitment as of the day of the one-day census
in 2013 and thus no disparity. In Texas and New Mexico,
American Indian youth were less likely or equally likely
to be committed as were white youth.

Between 2003 and 2013, 28 states had increasing
American Indian/white disparities; 22 states and the
District of Columbia saw decreases or no changes.

6The Sentencing Project • 1705 DeSales Street NW, 8th Floor • Washington, D.C. 20036 • sentencingproject.org

POLICY BRIEF: RACIAL DISPARITIES IN YOUTH COMMITMENTS AND ARRESTS

OVERVIEW OF DISPARIT Y
CHANGES, 2003-2013
Fourteen states saw increased racial and ethnic
disparities between white juveniles and three minority
groups: Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Kansas,
Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma,
Tennessee, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin. Only
four states, Idaho, Missouri, North Dakota, and
Pennsylvania, decreased their disparities among all
three.

DISPARIT Y AT THE POINT OF
ARREST FEEDS COMMITMENT
DISPARITIES
Juvenile arrest rates fell 34 percent from 2003 to 2013
with roughly equivalent drops across major categories
of offenses. This drop partly explains the 47 percent
decrease in juvenile commitments: with fewer juveniles
being arrested, fewer were on a path that could lead
to secure placement in juvenile facilities. That the drop
in commitments outpaced the drop in arrests suggests
the impact of policy and practice initiatives; arrests
that would have led to incarceration in earlier years
may have been resulted in diversion to alternatives
such as probation, counseling, or low-level sanctions
in the form of community service.

Despite few differences in delinquent behaviors or
status offending, African American juveniles throughout
this period have much more likely to be arrested;
moreover, the significant arrest disparity grew by 24
percent.9 Researchers have found few group differences
between youth of color and white youth regarding the
most common categories of youth arrests.10 While
behavioral differences exist, black and white youth are
roughly as likely to get into fights, carry weapons, steal
property, use and sell illicit substances, and commit
status offenses, like skipping school.11 Those
similarities are not reflected in arrest rates; black
teenagers are far more likely than their white peers to
be arrested across a range of offenses, a vital step
toward creating the difference in commitments. Black
youth are more likely than their white peers to commit
violent offenses12, but those offenses comprise less
than 5 percent of all juvenile arrests. Their infrequency

Table 1. Changes in Racial and Ethnic Disparities in
Youth Commitments, 2003-2013

State B:W H:W AI:W

United States +15% -2% 46%
Alabama +75% +7% Unchanged
Alaska +106% Unchanged +44%
Arizona +68% +11% +190%
Arkansas +20% +80% —
California +30% +26% -10%
Colorado +48% +14% +19%
Connecticut +320% +365% -100%
Delaware -13% -68% Unchanged
Dist. of Columbia +513% +394% Unchanged
Florida +25% +62% +1,227%
Georgia +36% -23% -100%
Hawaii -58% +12% Unchanged
Idaho -12% -28% -24%
Illinois -16% +74% +1,079%
Indiana -12% -19% +37%
Iowa +8% Unchanged +64%
Kansas +12% +44% +60%
Kentucky -23% +194% Unchanged
Louisiana +51% -37% -100%
Maine +255% -100% +46%
Maryland +66% +4% -100%
Massachusetts +33% +46% -100%
Michigan +73% +5% +7%
Minnesota +45% -18% +56%
Mississippi +79% -100% -100%
Missouri -7% -28% -100%
Montana +26% -20% +13%
Nebraska +5% -8% -21%
Nevada +47% +37% +7%
New Hampshire +897% +517% Unchanged
New Jersey +50% +53% -100%
New Mexico -41% -6% -51%
New York +4% -24% +83%
North Carolina +189% +292% +225%
North Dakota -6% -53% -8%
Ohio +8% +14% +169%
Oklahoma +105% +27% +9%
Oregon Unchanged +45% +73%
Pennsylvania -2% -1% -100%
Rhode Island +52% +211% -100%
South Carolina -23% +1,149% —
South Dakota -29% -50% +15%
Tennessee +55% +59% —
Texas +4% -15% -40%
Utah +879% +79% +205%
Vermont Unchanged Unchanged —
Virginia +28% -22% Unchanged
Washington +1% +72% +50%
West Virginia -20% -70% +24%
Wisconsin +82% +83% +93%
Wyoming -72% +13% +102%

See full data in Appendix D.13

7The Sentencing Project • 1705 DeSales Street NW, 8th Floor • Washington, D.C. 20036 • sentencingproject.org

POLICY BRIEF: RACIAL DISPARITIES IN YOUTH COMMITMENTS AND ARRESTS

means that differences in violent offending do not
explain the scope of racial disparities in commitments.

Juvenile placement ought to be reserved for those
who pose the greatest risk to public safety, but national
data show confinement is still used for less serious
offenses. In 2003, 76 percent of all committed juveniles
had been adjudicated on a nonviolent offense; by 2013,
that proportion had barely changed and is now 74
percent.14

The Relative Rate Index (RRI), a formula that OJJDP
uses, is one method of tracking disparity. It is a ratio
of the rate of minority juvenile interaction with the
justice system at a particular contact point as compared
with white juveniles’ contact. An RRI for arrest of 2.0
means that the minority in question is twice as likely
as a white youth to be arrested whereas an RRI of 1.0
would reflect no disproportionate minority contact.
Table 2 shows that black youth are 2.3 times as likely
to be arrested as white youth for all delinquent
offenses.15 They are disproportionately arrested for all
major offense categories.

Such disparities in arrest have grown worse over this
10 year period. The RRI of 2.3 for arrest disparities in
2013 was 1.8 ten years prior.

Racial disparities grow with almost every step of the
juvenile justice system but start with arrests. Among
those juveniles who are arrested, black youth are more
likely to have their cases referred to juvenile court.
Among those cases referred to court, black youth are
more likely to have their cases heard (and not diverted
pre-adjudication). Among those cases that are
adjudicated, black youth are less likely to receive
probation and more likely to be committed to secure
placement in a juvenile facility. The arrest disparity is
the entrance to a maze with fewer exits for African
American youth than their white peers.

RRI African AmericanWhite

20132012201120102009200820072006200520042003
0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

100

120

Figure 8. Black/White Youth Arrest Disparities, 2003-2013

Table 2. Arrest Rate (per 100,000 Juveniles), 2013
White Black RRI

All delinquent offenses 32.2 73.8 2.3

Person 5.1 18.3 3.6

Violent offenses 1.1 5.8 5.3

Simple assault 4.0 12.5 3.1

Property offenses 9.3 23.5 2.5

Property crime index 7.1 19.4 2.7

Other property 2.2 4.1 1.9

Drug law violations 4.1 6.0 1.5

Public order offenses 13.6 26.0 1.9

8The Sentencing Project • 1705 DeSales Street NW, 8th Floor • Washington, D.C. 20036 • sentencingproject.org

POLICY BRIEF: RACIAL DISPARITIES IN YOUTH COMMITMENTS AND ARRESTS

THE CENTRALIT Y OF DISPARIT Y
AT THE POINT OF ARREST TO
COMMITMENT DISPARITIES
Racial and ethnic disparities are a pervasive attribute
of the juvenile justice system. Along with disparities
in which youth get transferred to the adult system,
commitments are the residue of disparities that grow
at each stage of the justice system.

There are sharp limitations to this level of analysis:
while the National Disproportionate Minority Contact
Databook16 aggregates data for African American
youth, white youth, Asian youth and American Indian
youth, there are no Hispanic-specific data for disparities
at points of contact other than pre- and post-
adjudication placements. Moreover, the black/white
disparity is probably understated. Because most
Hispanic youth are white, Hispanic youth in contact
with the justice system are mostly categorized as
white, increasing the number of white youth and
artificially decreasing the disparity between white and
black youth.

While disparities in arrests have grown increased, the
data also reveal the existence of disparities at other
points of contact with the juvenile justice system (see
Table 3). Black youth are more likely to be arrested,
and are then treated with disproportionate harshness
as they go deeper into the juvenile justice system.

The 2013 disparities, shown in Table 3, look largely
similar to the 2003 disparities with two exceptions:
arrests and the decision to commit.

• In 2013, African American youth were 129
percent more likely to be arrested than white
youth. That reflects an increase from 2003,
when African American youth were 85 percent
more likely to be arrested than white youth.

• Among youth adjudicated delinquent, black
youth were 19 percent more likely to be
committed – an increase from the 13 percent
disparity in 2003.

The pattern is clear: while disparities pervade the
juvenile justice system, it is the disparities at the front
of the system – arrests – are both where disparities
are largest and the point at the system at which
disparities grew between 2003 and 2013.

Black juveniles White juveniles

Out of every 10,000 teenagers 738 arrests 322 arrests

Out of every 1,000 arrests 934 referrals to juvenile court 806 cases referrals to juvenile court

Out of every 1,000 arrests 217 diverted away from formal court processing
298 diverted away from formal
court processing

Out of every 1,000 cases referred
to juvenile court 249 detained prior to adjudication 186 detained prior to adjudication

Out of every 1,000 cases tried in
juvenile court 511 adjudicated delinquent 518 adjudicated delinquent

Out of every 1,000 juveniles
adjudicated delinquent 611 received probation 648 received probation

Out of every 1,000 juveniles
adjudicated delinquent 272 commitments 228 commitments

Table 3. Youth Outcomes by Race, 2013

9The Sentencing Project • 1705 DeSales Street NW, 8th Floor • Washington, D.C. 20036 • sentencingproject.org

POLICY BRIEF: RACIAL DISPARITIES IN YOUTH COMMITMENTS AND ARRESTS

CONCLUSION
The existence of racial and ethnic disparities is a
disturbing feature of the juvenile justice system. Over
the 10-year period in this report, disparities for African
American youth and American Indian youth have grown
even as overall indicators, such as total arrests and
the total numbers of youth in placement, have fallen.
These trends suggest that the successful reforms that
have led to fewer overall arrests and fewer commitments
have not been shared equally among all youth and, in
fact, are benefiting white youth the most.

Further study is needed to discern the extent to which
growing arrest disparities reflect disparate treatment
of youth of color within localities or whether they reflect
changing standards in different geographic regions
within a state. Racially and ethnicity segregated
housing mean that, in most states, youth of color are
concentrated in cities and inner suburbs while white
youth are more likely to live in suburbs and rural areas.

As such, an increased racial disparity might reflect
sharply decreased arrests in rural counties and a
smaller decrease in urbanized counties. What is clear,
however, is that states should not ignore the ways that
disparate arrest rates impact the deep end of the
system.

Along with policing reform to respond to youthful
behavioral issues without relying on high levels of
arrests of youth of color, other actors in the juvenile
justice system can decrease racial disparities in
commitments. Prosecutors’ and judges’ decisions
have not caused the increase in commitment disparities,
but they also have not mitigated them.

The public and policymakers can celebrate the sharp
drops in overall juvenile incarceration and a falling
arrest rate. However, it is clear that these changes are
not impacting communities of color at the same pace
as white communities.

ENDNOTES
1 Sickmund, M., Sladky, T.J., Kang, W., & Puzzanchera, C.

(2015). “Easy Access to the Census of Juveniles in
Residential Placement.” Available: http://www.ojjdp.gov/
ojstatbb/ezacjrp/

2 The District of Columbia’s commitment rate increased
during these ten years.

3 Puzzanchera, C., Sladky, A. and Kang, W. (2015). “Easy
Access to Juvenile Populations: 1990-2014.” Online.
Available: http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezapop/.
Juveniles are between 10 and 17 years of age.

4 The remaining commitments were Hispanic, American
Indian, Asian, Pacific Islander, and other.

5 Calculations on racial and ethnic disparities are derived
from data provided by the Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention on a nationwide and statewide
level. This report does not attempt to show county-by-
county differences in commitments and arrests, an
important issue to explore. As states vary in their racial
and ethnic disparities, so too do regions within states.

6 For example, New Hampshire’s African American
commitment rate (1,846 per 100,000 African American
juveniles) is derived from just 21 committed juveniles
who were African American.

7 Data accuracy for Hispanic juveniles is considered to
have improved over time, but some caution is warranted.

8 In 1992, this law was expanded to require that
measurements of disparity be taken at all points of
contact in the system rather than just the point of
confinement.

9 Puzzanchera, C. and Hockenberry, S. (2015).
10 Lauritsen, J.L. (2005). Racial and ethnic differences in

juvenile offending. In D.F. Hawkins and K. Kempf-Leonard
(Eds.), Our Children, Their Children: Confronting Racial and
Ethnic Differences in Juvenile Justice (pp. 83-104). Chicago,
IL: University of Chicago Press.

11 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2013 Youth
Risk Behavior Survey. Available at: www.cdc.gov/yrbs.
Accessed on January 26, 2016.

12 Lauritsen, J.L. (2005).
13 OJJDP data for Hispanic commitments in New Mexico

in 2003 may be in error. The 2003 New Mexico disparity
is based on the author’s calculation on the assumption
that New Mexico’s Hispanic youth were miscategorized
as “other” in the 2003 data set.

14 Sickmund, M., Sladky, T.J., Kang, W., & Puzzanchera, C.
(2015). “Easy Access to the Census of Juveniles in
Residential Placement.” Available: http://www.ojjdp.gov/
ojstatbb/ezacjrp/

15 Puzzanchera, C. and Hockenberry, S. (2015).
16 Puzzanchera, C. and Hockenberry, S. (2015).

10The Sentencing Project • 1705 DeSales Street NW, 8th Floor • Washington, D.C. 20036 • sentencingproject.org

POLICY BRIEF: RACIAL DISPARITIES IN YOUTH COMMITMENTS AND ARRESTS

Black and White Commitment Rates per 100,000, 2013
State Black White B:W Ratio

Utah* 1,846 54 34.2
New Hampshire* 818 26 31.5
New Jersey 243 10 24.3
Connecticut 169 7 24.1
Wisconsin 631 42 15.0
Rhode Island 649 62 10.5
Minnesota 548 58 9.4
Pennsylvania 682 80 8.5
Massachusetts 116 14 8.3
North Carolina 108 14 7.7
California 365 50 7.3
Oklahoma 277 39 7.1
Kansas 739 112 6.6
Hawaii* 77 12 6.4
Colorado 595 95 6.3
Virginia 342 57 6.0
Mississippi 83 14 5.9
Louisiana 261 45 5.8
Iowa 688 120 5.7
Delaware 240 42 5.7
Michigan 396 72 5.5
Nebraska 451 84 5.4
New York 249 47 5.3
Tennessee 173 33 5.2
Maryland 159 31 5.1
North Dakota* 727 149 4.9
Maine* 413 87 4.7
Ohio 308 65 4.7
Georgia 160 34 4.7
United States 294 69 4.3
Arkansas 337 80 4.2
Washington 297 72 4.1
Texas 250 63 4.0
Nevada 381 98 3.9
Arizona 193 52 3.7
Kentucky 324 89 3.6
Illinois 156 43 3.6
Dist. of Columbia 336 96 3.5
Oregon* 697 200 3.5
Montana* 227 66 3.4
Idaho* 524 155 3.4
Florida 241 72 3.3
Missouri 351 105 3.3
New Mexico* 241 78 3.1
Indiana 296 98 3.0
West Virginia 463 154 3.0
South Dakota* 475 167 2.8
Alabama 180 64 2.8
South Carolina 171 71 2.4
Alaska 206 91 2.3
Wyoming* 276 213 1.3
Vermont* 0 16 —

* Less than four percent are African American

APPENDIX A.

11The Sentencing Project • 1705 DeSales Street NW, 8th Floor • Washington, D.C. 20036 • sentencingproject.org

POLICY BRIEF: RACIAL DISPARITIES IN YOUTH COMMITMENTS AND ARRESTS

Hispanic and White Commitment Rates per 100,000, 2013
State Hispanic White H:W Ratio

Connecticut 73 7 10.4
New Hampshire 228 26 8.8
Massachusetts 97 14 6.9
New Jersey 54 10 5.4
South Carolina 309 71 4.4
Hawaii 49 12 4.1
Dist. of Columbia 374 96 3.9
Pennsylvania 282 80 3.5
Utah 169 54 3.1
California 131 50 2.6
Rhode Island 158 62 2.5
Arkansas 178 80 2.2
Kansas 242 112 2.2
North Carolina 30 14 2.1
New Mexico 156 78 2.0
Wyoming 425 213 2.0
Wisconsin 80 42 1.9
Minnesota 106 58 1.8
Iowa 219 120 1.8
Illinois 78 43 1.8
Maryland 56 31 1.8
Nebraska 151 84 1.8
Montana 117 66 1.8
Washington 123 72 1.7
Tennessee 55 33 1.7
United States 111 69 1.6
Oregon 308 200 1.5
New York 71 47 1.5
Ohio 98 65 1.5
North Dakota 219 149 1.5
Arizona 76 52 1.5
Colorado 129 95 1.4
South Dakota 221 167 1.3
Texas 83 63 1.3
Nevada 125 98 1.3
Idaho 192 155 1.2
Oklahoma 47 39 1.2
Virginia 67 57 1.2
Alabama 69 64 1.1
Missouri 110 105 1.0
Kentucky 91 89 1.0
Michigan 73 72 1.0
Georgia 34 34 1.0
Indiana 82 98 0.8
Florida 60 72 0.8
Louisiana 30 45 0.7
Delaware 26 42 0.6
West Virginia* 92 154 0.6
Mississippi* 0 14 —
Maine* 0 87 —
Alaska 0 91 —
Vermont* 0 16 —

* Less than four percent of youth are Hispanic.

APPENDIX B.

12The Sentencing Project • 1705 DeSales Street NW, 8th Floor • Washington, D.C. 20036 • sentencingproject.org

POLICY BRIEF: RACIAL DISPARITIES IN YOUTH COMMITMENTS AND ARRESTS

American Indian and White Commitment Rates per 100,000, 2013
State American Indian White N:W Ratio
Vermont** 1,010 16 63.1
Minnesota* 903 58 15.6
Illinois** 628 43 14.6
South Carolina** 830 71 11.7
Wisconsin* 386 42 9.2
Florida** 646 72 9.0
Iowa** 866 120 7.2
Nebraska* 596 84 7.1
West Virginia** 1,017 154 6.6
Utah* 348 54 6.4
South Dakota 1,041 167 6.2
Maine* 529 87 6.1
North Carolina* 82 14 5.9
Tennessee** 174 33 5.3
Wyoming* 1,113 213 5.2
North Dakota 732 149 4.9
Washington* 311 72 4.3
Oregon* 841 200 4.2
United States 254 69 3.7
Montana 218 66 3.3
Alaska 288 91 3.2
Idaho* 461 155 3.0
Colorado* 281 95 3.0
Kansas* 328 112 2.9
Arizona 113 52 2.2
Nevada* 198 98 2.0
New York* 93 47 2.0
California* 95 50 1.9
Oklahoma 68 39 1.7
Michigan* 117 72 1.6
Ohio** 100 65 1.5
Indiana** 149 98 1.5
Arkansas* 104 80 1.3
New Mexico 76 78 1.0
Texas* 33 63 0.5
Connecticut** 0 7 —
New Hampshire** 0 26 —
Massachusetts** 0 14 —
New Jersey** 0 10 —
Hawaii** 0 12 —
Dist. of Columbia** 0 96 —
Pennsylvania** 0 80 —
Rhode Island* 0 62 —
Maryland** 0 31 —
Virginia** 0 57 —
Alabama** 0 64 —
Missouri** 0 105 —
Kentucky** 0 89 —
Georgia** 0 34 —
Louisiana* 0 45 —
Delaware** 0 42 —
Mississippi** 0 14 —

* Less than 4 percent American Indian
**Less than 1 percent American Indian

APPENDIX C.

13The Sentencing Project • 1705 DeSales Street NW, 8th Floor • Washington, D.C. 20036 • sentencingproject.org

POLICY BRIEF: RACIAL DISPARITIES IN YOUTH COMMITMENTS AND ARRESTS

APPENDIX D.
Changes in Black to White Commitment Disparities, 2003 to 2013

State 2003 black/white disparity
2013 black/white
disparity Change

New Hampshire* 3.2 31.5 897%
Utah* 3.5 34.2 879%
Dist. of Columbia 0.6 3.5 513%
Connecticut 5.7 24.1 320%
Maine* 1.3 4.7 255%
North Carolina 2.7 7.7 189%
Alaska 1.1 2.3 106%
Oklahoma 3.5 7.1 105%
Wisconsin 8.2 15.0 82%
Mississippi 3.3 5.9 79%
Alabama 1.6 2.8 75%
Michigan 3.2 5.5 73%
Arizona 2.2 3.7 68%
Maryland 3.1 5.1 66%
Tennessee 3.4 5.2 55%
Rhode Island 6.9 10.5 52%
Louisiana 3.8 5.8 51%
New Jersey 16.2 24.3 50%
Colorado 4.2 6.3 48%
Nevada 2.6 3.9 47%
Minnesota 6.5 9.4 45%
Georgia 3.5 4.7 36%
Massachusetts 6.2 8.3 33%
California 5.6 7.3 30%
Virginia 4.7 6.0 28%
Montana* 2.7 3.4 26%
Florida 2.7 3.3 25%
Arkansas 3.5 4.2 20%
United States 3.7 4.3 15%
Kansas 5.9 6.6 12%
Iowa 5.3 5.7 8%
Ohio 4.4 4.7 8%
Nebraska 5.1 5.4 5%
New York 5.1 5.3 4%
Texas 3.8 4.0 4%
Washington 4.1 4.1 1%
Oregon* 3.5 3.5 0%
Vermont* 0.0 0.0 Unchanged
Pennsylvania 8.7 8.5 -2%
North Dakota* 5.2 4.9 -6%
Missouri 3.6 3.3 -7%
Idaho* 3.8 3.4 -12%
Indiana 3.4 3.0 -12%
Delaware 6.6 5.7 -13%
Illinois 4.3 3.6 -16%
West Virginia 3.8 3.0 -20%
Kentucky 4.7 3.6 -23%
South Carolina 3.1 2.4 -23%
South Dakota* 4.0 2.8 -29%
New Mexico* 5.3 3.1 -41%
Hawaii* 15.3 6.4 -58%
Wyoming* 4.7 1.3 -72%

* Less than 4 percent African American.

14The Sentencing Project • 1705 DeSales Street NW, 8th Floor • Washington, D.C. 20036 • sentencingproject.org

POLICY BRIEF: RACIAL DISPARITIES IN YOUTH COMMITMENTS AND ARRESTS

Changes in Hispanic to White Commitment Disparities, 2003 to 2013
State 2003 Hispanic/white disparity

2013 Hispanic/white
disparity Change

South Carolina 0.3 4.4 1,149%
New Hampshire 1.4 8.8 517%
Dist. of Columbia 0.8 3.9 394%
Connecticut 2.2 10.4 365%
North Carolina 0.5 2.1 292%
Rhode Island 0.8 2.5 211%
Kentucky 0.3 1.0 194%
Wisconsin 1.0 1.9 83%
Arkansas 1.2 2.2 80%
Utah 1.8 3.1 79%
Illinois 1.0 1.8 74%
Washington 1.0 1.7 72%
Florida 0.5 0.8 62%
Tennessee 1.1 1.7 59%
New Jersey 3.5 5.4 53%
Massachusetts 4.8 6.9 46%
Oregon 1.1 1.5 45%
Kansas 1.5 2.2 44%
Nevada 0.9 1.3 37%
Oklahoma 1.0 1.2 27%
California 2.1 2.6 26%
Ohio 1.3 1.5 14%
Colorado 1.2 1.4 14%
Wyoming 1.8 2.0 13%
Hawaii 3.6 4.1 12%
Arizona 1.3 1.5 11%
Alabama 1.0 1.1 7%
Michigan 1.0 1.0 5%
Maryland 1.7 1.8 4%
Iowa 1.8 1.8 0%
Alaska 0.0 0.0 Unchanged
Vermont* 0.0 0.0 Unchanged
Pennsylvania 3.5 3.5 -1%
United States 1.6 1.6 -2%
New Mexico1 2.1 2.0 -6%
Nebraska 2.0 1.8 -8%
Texas 1.5 1.3 -15%
Minnesota 2.2 1.8 -18%
Indiana 1.0 0.8 -19%
Montana 2.2 1.8 -20%
Virginia 1.5 1.2 -22%
Georgia 1.3 1.0 -23%
New York 2.0 1.5 -24%
Idaho 1.7 1.2 -28%
Missouri 1.4 1.0 -28%
Louisiana 1.1 0.7 -37%
South Dakota 2.7 1.3 -50%
North Dakota 3.1 1.5 -53%
Delaware 1.9 0.6 -68%
West Virginia* 2.0 0.6 -70%
Mississippi* 0.9 0.0 -100%
Maine* 1.4 0.0 -100%

* Less than 4 percent Hispanic.

15The Sentencing Project • 1705 DeSales Street NW, 8th Floor • Washington, D.C. 20036 • sentencingproject.org

POLICY BRIEF: RACIAL DISPARITIES IN YOUTH COMMITMENTS AND ARRESTS

Changes in American Indian to White Commitment Disparities, 2003 to 2013

State 2003 American Indian/white disparity
2013 American Indian/
white disparity Change

Vermont** 0.0 63.1 —
South Carolina** 0.0 11.7 —
Tennessee** 0.0 5.3 —
Arkansas* 0.0 1.3 —
Florida** 0.7 9.0 1,227%
Illinois** 1.2 14.6 1,079%
North Carolina* 1.8 5.9 225%
Utah* 2.1 6.4 205%
Arizona 0.8 2.2 190%
Ohio** 0.6 1.5 169%
Wyoming* 2.6 5.2 102%
Wisconsin* 4.8 9.2 93%
New York* 1.1 2.0 83%
Oregon* 2.4 4.2 73%
Iowa** 4.4 7.2 64%
Kansas* 1.8 2.9 60%
Minnesota* 10.0 15.6 56%
Washington* 2.9 4.3 50%
Maine* 4.2 6.1 46%
United States 2.5 3.7 46%
Alaska 2.2 3.2 44%
Indiana** 1.1 1.5 37%
West Virginia** 5.3 6.6 24%
Colorado* 2.5 3.0 19%
South Dakota* 5.4 6.2 15%
Montana 2.9 3.3 13%
Oklahoma 1.6 1.7 9%
Nevada* 1.9 2.0 7%
Michigan* 1.5 1.6 7%
Alabama** 0.0 0.0 Unchanged
Delaware** 0.0 0.0 Unchanged
Dist. of Columbia** 0.0 0.0 Unchanged
Hawaii** 0.0 0.0 Unchanged
Kentucky** 0.0 0.0 Unchanged
New Hampshire** 0.0 0.0 Unchanged
Virginia** 0.0 0.0 Unchanged
North Dakota 5.4 4.9 -8%
California* 2.1 1.9 -10%
Nebraska* 9.0 7.1 -21%
Idaho* 3.9 3.0 -24%
Texas* 0.9 0.5 -40%
New Mexico 2.0 1.0 -51%
Connecticut** 7.3 0.0 -100%
Georgia** 1.6 0.0 -100%
Louisiana* 2.1 0.0 -100%
Maryland** 2.4 0.0 -100%
Massachusetts** 2.5 0.0 -100%
Mississippi** 2.7 0.0 -100%
Missouri** 0.7 0.0 -100%
New Jersey** 5.9 0.0 -100%
Pennsylvania** 2.5 0.0 -100%
Rhode Island* 3.5 0.0 -100%

* Less than 4 percent American Indian
** Less than 1 percent American Indian

16The Sentencing Project • 1705 DeSales Street NW, 8th Floor • Washington, D.C. 20036 • sentencingproject.org

POLICY BRIEF: RACIAL DISPARITIES IN YOUTH COMMITMENTS AND ARRESTS

This briefing paper was written by Joshua Rovner, State Advocacy
Associate at The Sentencing Project. Published April 2016.

The Sentencing Project works for a fair and effective U.S. justice
system by promoting reforms in sentencing policy, addressing unjust
racial disparities and practices, and advocating for alternatives to
incarceration.

1705 DeSales Street NW, 8th Floor
Washington, D.C. 20036

sentencingproject.org

Juvenile Mentoring Program (JUMP)

Purpose: To support one-to-one mentoring programs for youth at risk of educational failure, dropping out of school, or involvement in delinquent activities, including gangs.

Background: Part G of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (JJDP) Act of 1974, as amended, authorizes the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) to fund a Juvenile Mentoring Program (JUMP). In fiscal year (FY) 1996, Congress appropriated $4,000,000 to implement this program.

Mentoring, as the term is currently used, can be defined as a one-to-one relationship between a pair of unrelated individuals, usually of different ages, which takes place on a regular basis over an extended period of time. It is usually characterized by a “special bond of mutual commitment” and “an emotional character of respect, loyalty, and identification” (Hamilton, 1990).

As a movement, mentoring has its roots in the closing decades of the 19th century with “Friendly Visitors” who served as role models for children of the poor. Mentoring enjoyed new popularity in the 1970’s when corporations heralded the concept as one that fosters achievement. Mentoring was seen as a particularly critical ingredient to success on the corporate ladder (Freedman, 1992).

Within the past 10 years, mentoring has taken on a new dimension and a new target group disadvantaged children and youth. It has emerged as a promising approach for enriching children’s lives; addressing the isolation of youth from adult contact; and providing, on a one-to-one basis, support and advocacy to children who need it. Mentoring is also recognized as an important vehicle for harnessing the talents of volunteers to address the problems of poverty (Freedman, 1992).

Congress has recognized the potential of mentoring as a tool for addressing two critical concerns: poor school performance and delinquent activity. Accordingly, OJJDP is making funds available for mentoring programs that specifically address these concerns. Congress also has recognized the importance of school collaboration in mentoring programs, whether as a primary applicant or in partnership with other public or nonprofit private entities.

In a recent study of mentoring, Public/Private Ventures (P/PV) conducted an experimental evaluation of Big Brothers and Big Sisters (BB/BS) programs (Tierney et al., 1995). In this study youth were randomly assigned to a BB/BS mentoring program or to a BB/BS waiting list. The study emphasized the importance of carefully structured programs with adequate management, training, case management, policies, procedures, and establishment of clear standards. These standards relate to screening of the adults and youth, training and orientation of volunteers, the matching process, required frequency of meetings, and supervision of matches.

In determining whether a one-to-one mentoring experience made a tangible difference in the lives of these young people, the study identified several positive results:

· Mentored youth were 46 percent less likely than the control group to initiate drug use during the study period. The finding was even stronger for minority youth: They were 70 percent less likely to initiate drug use when in a positive mentoring relationship.

· Mentored youth were 27 percent less likely than the control group to initiate alcohol use.

· Mentored youth were less assaultive, skipped fewer days of school, and had much better relationships with their parents.

P/PV concluded that the research presented clear and encouraging evidence that caring relationships between adults and youth, resulting in a wide range of tangible benefits, can be created and supported by mentoring programs.

While the P/PV study did not characterize the type of relationship that was formed or relate it to the impact on the youth, the researchers did say that the study enabled them to make several findings about the relationships between mentor and mentee:

· They had a high level of contact. A typical Big Brother or Big Sister met with a Little Brother or Little Sister approximately three times a month for four hours per meeting over the course of a year, totaling 144 hours of direct contact. For those who spoke on the telephone, as many did, hours of interaction would be even higher.

· The relationships were built using an approach that defines the mentor as a friend, not as a teacher or preacher. The mentor’s role is to support the youth in his or her various endeavors, not explicitly to change the youth’s behavior or character.”

P/PV’s study and others also identified key program infrastructure prerequisites:

· Thorough volunteer screening that weeds out adults who are unlikely to keep their time commitment or might pose a safety risk to the youth.

· Mentor training that includes communication and limit-setting skills, tips on relationship-building, and recommendations on the best way to interact with a young person.

· Matching procedures that take into account the preferences of the youth, their family and the volunteer, and that use a professional case manager to analyze which volunteer would work best with which youth.

· Intensive supervision and support of each match by a case manager who has frequent contact with the parent/guardian, volunteer and youth, and provides assistance when requested or as difficulties arise.

Although there are no research findings to date with regard to the OJJDP-funded JUMP programs, several observations can be made as a result of the establishment and operation of these programs:

· The relationship between the private nonprofit sector and the schools is critical. Real collaboration must take place with joint decisionmaking. Problems in implementing and operating the program have occurred when the relationship is weak.

· Parents must have a role in the decision to involve their child in the mentoring program. Staff must be trained in the best way to approach parents so that the mentors and the program are seen as allies and not competitors.

· Programs must engage in multiple strategies for recruiting mentors. Because recruitment has sometimes been difficult, programs should set realistic goals for projecting the number of mentors to be recruited and the way in which matches will be made, clearly describing the strategies to be used.

· If the project plans to use university students, care must be taken to identify their actual availability and share this with the mentees. This precaution will result in clear expectations and as much consistency as possible in the mentoring relationship.

· Projects should do all they can to recruit mentors so as to facilitate making matches of the same gender, racial, and cultural background.

· Finally, single-parent mentors have on occasion brought their young children into the mentoring relationship. This should be avoided if at all possible. Mentors should provide specific times for activities with the mentees that are one-to-one. For those occasions when bringing children is unavoidable, mentoring projects may want to determine how they can provide for child care.

Goals: To reduce juvenile delinquency and gang participation by at-risk youth; to improve academic performance of at-risk youth; and to reduce the dropout rate for at-risk youth.

Objectives: The objectives of this initiative are to:

1. Provide general guidance to at-risk youth.

2. Promote personal and social responsibility among at-risk youth.

3. Increase participation of at-risk youth in elementary and secondary education and enhance their ability to benefit from this schooling.

4. Discourage use of illegal drugs and firearms, involvement in violence, and other delinquent activity by at-risk youth.

5. Discourage involvement of at-risk youth in gangs.

6. Encourage participation in service and community activity by at-risk youth.

Program Strategy: Applicants should submit funding requests for a 3-year project period. JUMP programs currently funded by OJJDP are not eligible to receive funds under this solicitation. OJJDP encourages applications from both new programs and those programs with proven track records and a desire to expand their mentoring activities in accordance with this solicitation. All applicants must address the following elements in their application.

The Nature of the Partnership With Local Educational Agencies

Both local education agencies (LEA’s) and public/private nonprofit organizations may apply. When public/private nonprofit agencies are the primary applicant, their programs must involve collaboration with an LEA. Likewise an LEA must collaborate with a relevant public/private nonprofit agency. Because two goals of this program are to improve academic performance and reduce the dropout rate, applications must contain written assurance from the LEA that it will agree to provide academic records in accordance with its regulations for use in carrying out a funded program and that it will cooperate to the fullest extent possible with a national program evaluator. Another example of the form this collaboration might take is the designation of a school employee to be a school coordinator. Suggested responsibilities might include assisting with the selection of mentees, advising on the academic needs of the mentee, coordinating meetings, providing academic records when needed, and notifying mentors of the inability of mentees to meet.

Target Population

Programs should target only at-risk youth. This solicitation uses the term “at-risk youth” to mean a youth who is exposed to high levels of risk in his or her family, home, community, and social environment, which may lead to educational failure, dropping out of school, or involvement in juvenile delinquency, including gangs. Programs must target at-risk youth in high crime areas that have 60 percent or more of their youth eligible to receive Chapter I funds under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 and have a considerable number of youth who drop out of school each year. Documentation of the existence of those prerequ-isites should be included in all applications.

Program Goal, Objectives, and Design

The goal should be an overall statement of purpose on what the applicant expects to achieve with the grant. The objectives should be activities that will help the applicant achieve the goal, and they should be stated in clear measurable terms. For example, the mentoring program will serve x-number of mentees per year, academic performance will be improved by x-percent, gang participation will be reduced by x-percent, and dropout rates will be reduced by x-percent. Applicants are encouraged to be realistic in developing their goals and objectives and specific in addressing the needs of their targeted community.

Project Design

1. Role of the Mentor. Information on the role of the mentor, the mentoring site, and specific implementation steps must be provided. These include organizational commitment; mentor recruitment, orientation, screening, training, and support; youth selection and orientation; matching; monitoring; and evaluation. Criteria for mentor termination should be specified. The responsibilities of each funding partner and program participant (LEA, nonprofit public/private agency, business, mentors, mentees, and mentees’ parents) should be spelled out up front. At a minimum, programs must specify that each participant mentor one child for a period of at least a year on a one-on-one basis. It is also recommended that mentor-mentee contact be not less than 4 hours a month, preferably scheduled weekly.

2. Recruitment, Selection, and Screening of Mentors. Only programs using adult mentors qualify. An adult is defined as being 21 years of age or older. Efforts should be made to enlist mentors who are responsible adults, such as law enforcement officers or persons with local businesses or with community-based organizations. Applicants should be aware that college undergraduate or graduate students can have some limitations that may make it difficult for them to fulfill their mentoring responsibilities. Special care should be exercised in recruiting from this group.

All prospective employees and volunteers who would have contact with youth must be screened. Each program is required to have a written screening policy that would be implemented with great care and applied consistently to all mentors. At a minimum, this policy must require the names of two to three character references (at least one of whom is a work reference) and the applicant’s consent for a name check through criminal and child abuse records. A written form for reference checks must be used and kept on file.

The extent of the background search should depend on the circumstances in which the mentor and mentee will be having contact. For example, a program involving young mentees and contacts or activities that do not occur at the school or work site or as part of a larger group should at a minimum require criminal history checks on all matched volunteers, from local, State, or national law enforcement authorities, where legally permissible. There should be a case-by-case determination as to whether the background information obtained from screening should be a bar to participate unless otherwise provided by statute or regulation. A candidate may be disqualified to reasonably protect youth from physical, psychological, or sexual abuse. A mentor applicant’s failure to provide information requested would result in automatic disqualification of the applicant.

3. Youth Selection and Orientation. Criteria should be developed for youth selec-tion based on the program’s goals. Parents should be included in an orientation session, and the program should obtain the parent’s written permission for the child’s participation. In addition, parents should have a say in the selection of the mentor.

4. Parent Involvement. Parental involvement is encouraged. If and where possible, parents of the mentee should be allowed to participate in programs. Applicants should indicate a plan for securing and maintaining parental involvement in the program.

5. Matching Criteria. The mechanism for matching youth with mentors should be described. Where possible, there should be a match of gender, racial, and cultural backgrounds. Screening mechanisms should be established to weed out volunteers who will not keep their commitments.

6. Mentor Support and Training Activities and Lessons Learned from P/PV. Support for mentors is essential to ensure program success. Each program must employ a program coordinator for mentors to contact for feedback and advice. To the extent possible, the program coordinator should have frequent contact with the parents or guardians, volunteers, and youth and provide assistance when it is requested or as problems arise. Periodic feedback from mentors and mentees should be obtained, especially during the first 2 months of the relation-ship. Mentors should receive training prior to being matched with a youth and at specific intervals during their participation in the program. This training should include communication and limit-setting skills, tips on relationship building, and recommendations on best ways to interact with youth.

7. Mentor/Mentee Relationships and Activities. There should be a high level of contact between the volunteer and youth at least once per week for 1 hour, and the commitment by the volunteer should be for at least 1 year. Mentors should focus on being a friend and not a teacher or preacher.

Applicants must assure that projects operated in secondary schools will provide mentees with a variety of activities, including an opportunity to spend time or participate in the work environment, witness job skills useful for obtaining employment, obtain assistance with homework, and be exposed to positive new experiences. These youth should also receive emotional support. Projects involving elementary school age children should include such activities as academic assistance, exposure to positive new activities, and emotional support. Projects should assure that mentors and mentees can meet in safe, secure, and mutually convenient locations.

Evaluation Methods and Processes

Evaluation is critical to ensuring that the mentoring program is operating as designed and meeting its goals in terms of both the process and the impact on the mentee. The program must collect data on program operations and program effectiveness in reducing juvenile delinquency and gang participation, improving academic performance, and reducing the school dropout rate. OJJDP is required by Congress to submit a report regarding the success and effectiveness of these programs 120 days after the programs’ termination. Consequently, programs funded under JUMP must be capable of providing this information and must provide written assurance that they will participate in a national program evaluation. Applicants selected for funding under this mentoring program will be provided with an evaluation manual that has been specifically developed for OJJDP. The JUMP program evaluation manual will include data collection procedures and the national evaluation program requirements.

Additional Application Requirements

Applicants with existing mentoring programs must provide data on the number of youth in the ongoing project; the number of active matches originally planned; the number of existing matches at the time of submission of this application; and an outline of the strategy currently being used to recruit, screen, conduct background checks, train, and maintain mentors and youth.

Applicants should address how their program either currently complies with these guidelines or will comply with them in the future. Applicants must demonstrate that they have or will create an infrastructure capable of fully supporting their program.

All applicants must submit written documentation and specify that they have the support of a school. If the applicants have an existing relationship with an LEA, this should be explained and assurances must be provided that this relationship will continue. Where appropriate, similar documentation from public agencies, community groups, and businesses that might be directly involved must also be provided.

If the project has been evaluated, results should be reported and a summary of the evaluation provided as an appendix.

Applicants must provide a 3-year (36 month) workplan with a timeline that specifies all program activities to be accomplished in the first, second, and third years of the program.

Staffing/Budget

Applicants shall provide a 36-month budget with a detailed justification for all costs, including the basis for computation of these costs. Whether the school or an eligible public/private nonprofit group is the primary applicant, it is suggested that one full-time staff coordinator oversee up to 60 70 matches. In addition, a second individual, either a volunteer, paid, or assigned employee, should generally be expected to devote at least 6 7 hours a week to this project. Allocation of $75 per mentoring match per year to cover incidental expenses is also recommended. Program funds cannot be used directly to compensate mentors except for reimbursement for reasonable incidental expenses, such as transportation, that are directly associated with the mentoring program.

Applicants must provide an Internet address or include a line item in their budget for Internet setup.

There will be two cluster meetings held during the 3-year project period. Applicants shall budget for the costs for the JUMP Coordinator and one other key staff person to attend two meetings lasting a day and a half each in the first and third project years. These meetings will be held in Washington, D.C., for the purpose of reviewing program implementation, evaluation, and any other related programmatic concerns.

Products: If appropriate, applicants should describe what written materials they will produce and how materials may be useful to their own program participants and others hoping to replicate their efforts.

Eligibility Requirements: Applications are invited from local education agencies and public/private nonprofit organizations that can demonstrate knowledge of and/or experience with mentoring programs, volunteers, and youth. When an LEA is the primary applicant, it must enter a partnership with a public or private agency or a public/private nonprofit agency. Likewise, a public/private nonprofit agency that applies as a primary applicant must partner with the LEA. National organizations are not eligible for these funds. Applicants awarded FY 1994 and 1995 OJJDP JUMP Program funds are not eligible for FY 1996 funding.

Selection Criteria: Applications will be rated by a peer review panel on the extent to which they meet the criteria below.

Problem(s) To Be Addressed (15 points)

The applicant clearly identifies the need for this project, describes the target population, and documents that it meets statutory requirements for focusing on at-risk and delinquent youth in a community where at least 60 percent are eligible for Chapter 1 funds and that the target area has the characteristics needed for an effective mentoring program.

In addressing this requirement, applicants must provide data on (1) existing school dropout rates; (2) teenage pregnancy rates; (3) the serious and violent juvenile crime rate; (4) gang activity in the target area; (5) juvenile arrest data; (6) drug use and sales; and (6) other indicators of risk factors in the target area, such as poverty, unemployment, and neighborhood disintegration.

Goals and Objectives (10 points)

The overall goal for the project is clearly related to the problems of at-risk youth in this targeted community. The objectives are clearly defined, measurable, and obtainable.

Project Design (30 points)

The project design is sound and contains program elements directly linked to the achievement of the project objectives. The applicant explains in clear terms how the mentors and mentees will be recruited, screened, trained, and matched to achieve their mentoring program and how other resources and individuals will be used to implement the mentoring program in the community. The applicant includes a partnership agreement between the private nonprofit organization and the LEA. The applicant provides a workplan with a timeline that indicates significant milestones in the project, due dates for products, and the nature of the products to be submitted.

Management and Organizational Capability (35 points)

The project’s management structure and staffing are adequate to complete the project success-fully. The applicant demonstrates that the project will be appropriately staffed. Collaborative relationships are established in writing and clearly document the responsibilities of the repre-sentative partners. The applicant organization’s potential to conduct the project successfully and its history of working with volunteers and youth are documented.

Budget (10 points)

Budgeted costs are reasonable, allowable, and cost effective for the activities proposed.

Award Period: Grantees selected for award will be funded for a 3-year project period.

Award Amount: OJJDP is limiting the amount of individual awards to a maximum of $190,000 for a total project and budget period of 3 years. The total amount of funds for the JUMP program in FY 1996 is $4,000,000.

Delivery Instructions: All application packages should be mailed or delivered to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, c/o Juvenile Justice Resource Center, 1600 Research Boulevard, Mail Stop 2K, Rockville, MD 20850; 301 251 5535. Note: In the lower left-hand corner of the envelope, you must clearly write “Juvenile Mentoring Program.”

Due Date: Applicants are responsible for ensuring that the original and five copies of the application are received no later than 5 p.m. EDT on September 20, 1996.

Contact: For further information call Travis Cain or Cora Roy, Program Managers, Special Emphasis Division, 202 307 5914, or send an e-mail inquiry to

travis@ojp.usdoj.gov

royc@ojp.usdoj.gov

References

Caliber Associates. OJJDP Juvenile Justice Mentoring Program Evaluation Workbook.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, December 1995.

Freedman, M. The Kindness of Strangers; Reflections on the Mentoring Movement.

Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private Ventures, 1992.

Furano, K., P. A. Roaf, M. Styles, and A. Branch. Big Brothers/Big Sisters. A Study of

Program Practices. Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private Ventures, Winter 1993.

Greim, J. L. Adult/Youth Relationships Pilot Project: Initial Implementation Report.

Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private Ventures, 1992.

Hamilton, Stephen F. Apprenticeship for Adulthood. New York: Free Press, 1990, p. 156.

“Juvenile Mentoring Program (JUMP) Guidelines. Notice.” Federal Register 59 (144, ), July

28, 1994, 38520 38522.

Mecartney, C. A, M. B. Styles, and K. V. Morrow. Mentoring in the Juvenile Justice System:

Findings from Two Pilot Programs. Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private Ventures, Winter

1994.

Morrow, K. V., and M. B. Styles. Building Relationships with Youth In Program Settings: A

Study of Big Brothers/Big Sisters. Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private Ventures, 1992.

Pittman, K. Defining the Fourth R: Youth Development Through Building Relationships.

Washington, DC: Academy for Educational Development, 1992.

Roaf, P. A., J. P. Tierney, and D. E. I. Hunte. Big Brothers/Big Sisters of America: A Study

of Volunteer Recruitment and Screening. Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private Ventures,

Fall 1994.

Styles, M. B., and K. V. Morrow. Understanding How Youth and Elders Form Relationships:

A Study of Four Linking Lifetimes Programs. Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private

Ventures, 1992.

Tierney, J. P., and A. Y. Branch. College Students as Mentors for At-Risk Youth: A Study of

Six Campus Partners in Learning Programs. Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private

Ventures, 1992.

Tierney, J. P., J. B. Grossman, and N. L. Resch. Making a Difference: An Impact Study of

Big Brothers/Big Sisters. Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private Ventures, Fall 1995.

Community-based programs positively change the trajectories of young people’s lives. Jurisdictions are building continuums of alternative-to-placement programs with graduated levels of supervision and services to ensure youth are placed in programs that help them progress personally. Having a variety of community programming available for youth provides options for decision-makers and therefore options for youth.

Community-based alternative-to-placement programs range from probation to wraparound services with intensive supervision. They can include home confinement, alternative education, family preservation, mentoring, victim-offender meditation, restitution, community services, respite care, and day and evening reporting centers with educational, recreational, and counseling opportunities. Programs can stand alone or be housed in existing organizations serving a broad range of youth.

Jurisdictions should be encouraged to adopt evidence-based and evidence-informed programming as well as broaden the evidence-based field by supporting evaluations of new, innovative programs.

Service Coordination helps build stronger relationships and increased communication with stakeholders and other state agencies to enhance service delivery and create blended funding opportunities. Service Coordination addresses the needs of the youth in the least restrictive environment, with options allowing progressive movement throughout the system.

The Probation and Parole Officer (PPO) is the central point of contact, working to create an integrated effort among field staff, facilities, providers, family, and youth.

PPOs provide a comprehensive, integrated approach to the care, management, and service delivery for OJJ youth. PPOs are responsible for the youth’s initial entry into the OJJ system (court hearings, adjudications, etc.) As a coordinator of services, they take an active role in each phase of the youth’s classification, placement, and programming.

The PPO coordinates effective services and supervises the youth to ensure seamless case management. The PPO ensures that the youth’s service plan is implemented, followed, and modified as necessary.

Service Coordination significantly impacts and improves case management. Seamless case management allows for better information gathering and coordination of services, which lead to improved data collection, improved relationships with youth and families and ultimately greater success with the youth.

Service Coordination promotes productive interactions with youth, families, and providers. For youth who are removed from the home, aftercare and reintegration planning begins immediately and is coordinated with facility and/or program staff.

Utilizing Programs that Work

Evidence-Based Research and Treatment Interventions

The Office of Juvenile Justice is committed to utilizing treatment interventions that have a demonstrated ability to help youth acknowledge accountability, learn pro-social attitudes and behaviors and avoid risky thinking and actions. Research indicates that evidence-based treatment is the most efficient and effective means of protecting the public and reducing recidivism. Below is a sample of evidence based interventions/practices employed by OJJ and its partners.

Motivational Interviewing (MI) is an evidence-based practice used by criminal justice professionals to enhance communication, build rapport and motivate offenders into changing their behavior. OJJ uses Motivational Interviewing as a part of its LAMOD process in secure care as a non-confrontational approach to guide offender awareness of potential problems and the consequences of their actions.

Thinking for a Change (T4C) is an integrated, 25 lesson cognitive behavioral change program for youth that includes cognitive restructuring, social skills development, and development of problem solving skills. T4C is utilized in all of OJJ’s secure care facilities as well as several residential community based programs.

Functional Family Therapy (FFT) is an empirically grounded, highly successful family intervention program for dysfunctional and at-risk youth and their families, including youth with problems such as conduct disorder, violent acting-out, and substance abuse issues. OJJ contracts for FFT services with community providers who serve both adjudicated and non-adjudicated youth and their families. Treatment has specific phases that organize intervention in a coherent manner, allowing clinicians to maintain focus in the context of considerable family and individual disruption.

Multi-Systemic Therapy (MST) is an empirically grounded, intensive family and community based treatment program that focuses on addressing all environmental systems that impact chronic and violent juvenile offenders, including their homes and families, schools and teachers, neighborhoods and friends. MST clinicians go to where the child is; they are on call 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and they work intensively with parents and caregivers to put them in control and to help keep the youth focused on school and gaining job skills. MST is a Medicaid eligible service available to at-risk and justice involved youth and their families.

What Will You Get?

We provide professional writing services to help you score straight A’s by submitting custom written assignments that mirror your guidelines.

Premium Quality

Get result-oriented writing and never worry about grades anymore. We follow the highest quality standards to make sure that you get perfect assignments.

Experienced Writers

Our writers have experience in dealing with papers of every educational level. You can surely rely on the expertise of our qualified professionals.

On-Time Delivery

Your deadline is our threshold for success and we take it very seriously. We make sure you receive your papers before your predefined time.

24/7 Customer Support

Someone from our customer support team is always here to respond to your questions. So, hit us up if you have got any ambiguity or concern.

Complete Confidentiality

Sit back and relax while we help you out with writing your papers. We have an ultimate policy for keeping your personal and order-related details a secret.

Authentic Sources

We assure you that your document will be thoroughly checked for plagiarism and grammatical errors as we use highly authentic and licit sources.

Moneyback Guarantee

Still reluctant about placing an order? Our 100% Moneyback Guarantee backs you up on rare occasions where you aren’t satisfied with the writing.

Order Tracking

You don’t have to wait for an update for hours; you can track the progress of your order any time you want. We share the status after each step.

Order Now Talk to Us

Areas of Expertise

Although you can leverage our expertise for any writing task, we have a knack for creating flawless papers for the following document types.

Essay

Thesis

Presentation

Dissertation

Term Paper

Research Paper

Book Review

Assignment

Report

Case Study

Letter

Article

Coursework

Speech

Q & A

Critical Thinking

Areas of Expertise

Although you can leverage our expertise for any writing task, we have a knack for creating flawless papers for the following document types.

Essay

Thesis

Presentation

Dissertation

Term Paper

Research Paper

Book Review

Assignment

Report

Case Study

Letter

Article

Coursework

Speech

Q & A

Critical Thinking

Trusted Partner of 9650+ Students for Writing

From brainstorming your paper's outline to perfecting its grammar, we perform every step carefully to make your paper worthy of A grade.

Preferred Writer

Hire your preferred writer anytime. Simply specify if you want your preferred expert to write your paper and we’ll make that happen.

Grammar Check Report

Get an elaborate and authentic grammar check report with your work to have the grammar goodness sealed in your document.

One Page Summary

You can purchase this feature if you want our writers to sum up your paper in the form of a concise and well-articulated summary.

Plagiarism Report

You don’t have to worry about plagiarism anymore. Get a plagiarism report to certify the uniqueness of your work.

Free Features $66FREE

Most Qualified Writer $10FREE
Plagiarism Scan Report $10FREE
Unlimited Revisions $08FREE
Paper Formatting $05FREE
Cover Page $05FREE
Referencing & Bibliography $10FREE
Dedicated User Area $08FREE
24/7 Order Tracking $05FREE
Periodic Email Alerts $05FREE

Our Services

Join us for the best experience while seeking writing assistance in your college life. A good grade is all you need to boost up your academic excellence and we are all about it.

On-time Delivery
24/7 Order Tracking
Access to Authentic Sources

Academic Writing

We create perfect papers according to the guidelines.

Professional Editing

We seamlessly edit out errors from your papers.

Thorough Proofreading

We thoroughly read your final draft to identify errors.

Thorough Proofreading

We thoroughly read your final draft to identify errors.

Delegate Your Challenging Writing Tasks to Experienced Professionals

Work with ultimate peace of mind because we ensure that your academic work is our responsibility and your grades are a top concern for us!

Check Out Our Sample Work

Dedication. Quality. Commitment. Punctuality

It May Not Be Much, but It’s Honest Work!

Here is what we have achieved so far. These numbers are evidence that we go the extra mile to make your college journey successful.

0+

Happy Clients

0+

Words Written This Week

0+

Ongoing Orders

0%

Customer Satisfaction Rate

Process as Fine as Brewed Coffee

We have the most intuitive and minimalistic process so that you can easily place an order. Just follow a few steps to unlock success.

Call Us +1 (877) 657-8180 Discuss Order Details Now

See How We Helped 9000+ Students Achieve Success

We Analyze Your Problem and Offer Customized Writing

We understand your guidelines first before delivering any writing service. You can discuss your writing needs and we will have them evaluated by our dedicated team.

Clear elicitation of your requirements.
Customized writing as per your needs.

We Mirror Your Guidelines to Deliver Quality Services

We write your papers in a standardized way. We complete your work in such a way that it turns out to be a perfect description of your guidelines.

Proactive analysis of your writing.
Active communication to understand requirements.

We Handle Your Writing Tasks to Ensure Excellent Grades

We promise you excellent grades and academic excellence that you always longed for. Our writers stay in touch with you via email.

Thorough research and analysis for every order.
Deliverance of reliable writing service to improve your grades.

Place an Order Start Chat Now

Juvenile Mentoring Populations PPT

Community Reintegration: Change though Continued Care

Search

Multimedia

Assignment Content

What Will You Get?

Premium Quality

Experienced Writers

On-Time Delivery

24/7 Customer Support

Complete Confidentiality

Authentic Sources

Moneyback Guarantee

Order Tracking

Areas of Expertise

Essay

Thesis

Presentation

Dissertation

Term Paper

Research Paper

Book Review

Assignment

Report

Case Study

Letter

Article

Coursework

Speech

Q & A

Critical Thinking

Areas of Expertise

Essay

Thesis

Presentation

Dissertation

Term Paper

Research Paper

Book Review

Assignment

Report

Case Study

Letter

Article

Coursework

Speech

Q & A

Critical Thinking

Trusted Partner of 9650+ Students for Writing

Preferred Writer

Grammar Check Report

One Page Summary

Plagiarism Report

Free Features $66FREE

Our Services

Academic Writing

Professional Editing

Thorough Proofreading

Thorough Proofreading

Delegate Your Challenging Writing Tasks to Experienced Professionals

Check Out Our Sample Work

It May Not Be Much, but It’s Honest Work!

0+

Happy Clients

0+

Words Written This Week

0+

Ongoing Orders

0%

Customer Satisfaction Rate

Process as Fine as Brewed Coffee

Share Your Requirements

Place Order & Deposit Funds

Release Payment to Your Writer

See How We Helped 9000+ Students Achieve Success

We Analyze Your Problem and Offer Customized Writing

We Mirror Your Guidelines to Deliver Quality Services

We Handle Your Writing Tasks to Ensure Excellent Grades