Project Narrative for Juvenile Re-Entry Grant

Applicant Name Here
Department of Justice
Second Chance Act Juvenile Mentoring Initiative
Project Abstract.
The Applicant was established in 1933 and is the largest public housing agency in the
state of State. We provide quality affordable housing in a safe environment for low
and moderate- income persons throughout the City Metropolitan area. We provide approximately
4,000 public housing units and approximately 6000 Section 8 units for 20,000 residents. We
work to enhance the quality of life of the residents we serve by offering opportunities to
participate in a multitude of community, educational, recreational, and training programs. We
have a high rate of juvenile crime and as such we are pursuing a mentoring program to counter
that need. The purpose of our application is to request funds to establish and implement a
juvenile offender mentoring program in the city of City. This program will aim to reduce
recidivism among juvenile ex-offenders, enhance the safety of communities, and enhance the
capacity of local partnerships to address the needs of juvenile ex-offenders returning to their
communities. We intend to target juvenile offenders currently incarcerated and ex-offenders
returning to the community. These youths will be under the age of 18 years.
The activities we will use throughout our mentoring program are one-on-one mentoring
sessions, group mentoring sessions, events, presentations by distinguished people in the
community, and referrals to needed social services such as housing, financial assistance,
education, and employment. We intend to measure the progress of our mentoring program by
using an evidence-based model. We will look at the number of community participation and the
number of positive outcomes for our participating mentees such as the number of program
youths who exhibit an improvement in behavior, family relationships, reduced recidivism,
substance use, high school graduation, and rate of continued participation in the mentoring
program.
Statement of the Problem
In 1998, more than 70 million persons in the United States were below age 18, the age
group commonly referred to as juveniles. The Juvenile Justice Bulletin, dated December 2009,
from the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, reported that in 2008 law
enforcement agencies made an estimated 2.11 million arrests of persons under the age of 18 in
the United States. Juveniles accounted for 16 percent of all violent crimes and 26 percent of all
property crimes. The juvenile murder arrest rate in 2008 was 3.8 arrests per 100,000 juveniles
ages 10 through 17. This was 17 percent more than the 2004 low of 3.3 per 100,000. These
figures in turn transfers themselves disproportionately in City because of the rate of poverty.
The United States Census Bureau reported that 28.3 percent of families and 33.1 percent
of individuals live below the poverty line in City. That number is in contrast to the national
average of 9.6 percent and 13.2 percent respectively. Patricia Montemurri, a free press staff
writer at the State State University, wrote in her article, City Tops Nation in Poverty Census, that
City is the poorest big city in the United States. She stated that nearly half of City’s children 17
years old and younger lived in an impoverished home. In an article dated April 2010, by the
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention entitled, Causes and Correlates of Girls,
delinquency neighborhoods with structural disadvantaged or concentrated poverty have higher
rates of violence, violent victimization, exposure to violence, and arrests for property and
personal crime. As a result of higher rates of poverty, the city of City subsequently encounter
1

Applicant Name Here
higher rates of juvenile crime. The American Bar Association in their article Juvenile
Justice: Facts and Figures, reported that the city of City is one of four cities that account
for 1/3 of all juvenile homicide arrests. Juveniles under age 18 were 26% of the U.S.
population, but were 40% of all persons living below the poverty level in 1997. The rate of
poverty in City has a direct impact on the youth offenses in our city.
Evidence that the Problem Exists and the Scope and Size of the Problem
The state of State ranks 11th
for the number of juveniles who have committed serious
offenses in the United States. Subsequently, the city of City has one of the highest rates of
crime in the state of State. The Juvenile Offenders and Victims 1999 National Report by
Howard N. Snyder and Melissa Sickmund, reported that the State of State has 3710 juveniles
offenders in custody. Also, State has 263 juveniles offenders committed for every 100,000
juveniles and 108 juvenile offenders detained for every 100,000 juveniles. According to the
State State University violent crimes index, these offenses include murder, rape, robbery, and
aggravated assault. In 1999, three urban counties in State had the highest rates of juvenile arrests
for violent crimes. They are Kent County (6 per 1,000 youth), Wayne County (5 per 1,000
youth), and Ingham County (5 per 1,000 youth). There are three less populous counties, Bay,
Ottawa, and St. Clair, who sustained a doubling of rates during the same time period. Table 1
below shows the number and percentages of City Juvenile Crime Statistics for 1990-1998 for
offenses such as murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, larceny, motor vehicle theft, and
arson and violent crimes such as murder, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault for 8 counties
with urban centers in State. These numbers evidence that the problem does exist, and that the
size and scope of the problem is very large.
Table 1
City Juvenile Crime Statistics for City (1990-1998)
1990 1992 1994 1996 1998
Homicide 43 44 36 10 3
Criminal Sexual Conduct 59 88 44 34 13
Robbery 243 222 250 148 108
Assaults 397 596 432 318 298
Burglary 219 230 234 215 129
Larceny 190 275 138 92 67
Auto Theft 81 79 59 39 18
TOTAL PART I OFFENSES 1,232 1,534 1,193 856 636
Forgery 2 3 4 1 3
Fraud 4 6 2 6 1
Stolen Property 553 279 410 314 219
2

Applicant Name Here
Weapons Possession 263 378 394 133 83
Prostitution 1 1 1 1 0
Other Sex Offenses 4 8 4 3 0
Family Offenses 0 0 1 0 0
Narcotics 480 269 301 166 158
Liquor 2 0 0 2 1
Disorderly Conduct 42 57 21 5 23
Vagrancy 1 0 0 0 0
Gambling 0 2 0 0 0
Traffic 22 23 25 5 18
Arson 22 35 28 11 19
Miscellaneous Offenses 405 487 239 134 191
TOTAL PART II OFFENSES 1,801 1,548 1,430 781 716
Effects of the Problem on the Target Population and the Larger Community
Nearly 650,000 adults are released from America’s prisons each year.1 They return to their
communities needing housing and jobs, but their prospects are generally bleak. The majority of
returning prisoners have not completed high school.2 Close to three quarters of them have a
history of substance abuse, and more than one third have a physical or mental disability.3 These
former prisoners are going home to some of the nation’s poorest neighborhoods, where they
often lack stable social bonds and where there are few supports and services to help them restart
their lives. Given the huge gap between their complex challenges and their limited opportunities
for addressing them, it is not surprising that recidivism rates are high. In fact, more than half (52
percent) of former state prisoners are back behind bars within three years after their release,
either as a result of a parole violation or because they have committed a new crime.4 This cycle
of recidivism has layers of negative consequences. Households that are already fragile become
overwhelmed. Communities that are already struggling fall further behind. And the lives of those
who move in and out of prison are wasted. The cost to taxpayers is enormous. Overall, the US
spends more than $60 billion a year on prisons and jails. (It costs more than $23,000 to
incarcerate someone in a Federal Bureau of Prisons facility for one year and approximately
$3,500 per year for probation; incarceration in a state prison can run as high as $45,000 per
year.)5 Without the development of effective approaches for reducing recidivism, the problem is
certain to grow. The number of Americans behind bars has increased steadily and now includes
more than 2.3 million men and women.6 Almost all of them will eventually be released—and
unless something changes, more than half will not be successful in reentering their communities
and will return to prison. The cost of juvenile crime in the community is wide reaching and
3

Applicant Name Here
varying. Studies show that the true cost of juvenile crime is not only monetary but manifest itself
in numerous forms. There is a shared burden by the entire community as a result of juvenile
crime. These burdens include a lost of public safety for the community, a lost of productivity for
the juvenile, and a public price that each citizen has to pay. Table 2 shows the number of
juveniles arrested for the state of State.
Lost of Community Safety
The Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 1999 National Report stated that for every 100,000
juveniles in State, the general public had to endure 309 violent crime, 11 murders, 25 forcible
rapes, 88 robberies, and 185 aggravated assaults, 1586 property crimes, 271 burglaries, 1171
larceny/theft, 120 motor vehicle theft, and 25 arson offenses. 26 percent of the 38,000 juveniles
murdered had a juvenile offender identified. The proportion of juvenile murders that involved a
juvenile offender increased from 21% in 1980 to 33% in 1994—the peak year for all murders by
juveniles. In 1980, an estimated 400 juveniles were killed by other juveniles, growing to nearly
900 in 1994. Of juveniles killed by other juveniles between 1980 and 1997, 13% were under age
6. In nearly half of these murders (47%), the juvenile offender was the parent of the victim. In
another 18%, the juvenile offender was another family member. Of juveniles killed by other
juveniles, 63% were age 15 or older. Fewer than 5% of these older juvenile victims were killed
by family members; 76% were killed by acquaintances and 19% were killed by strangers.
Weapons: More crime guns were recovered from youth ages 16 and 17 than from adults of any
age over 26 In 1996, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms established the Youth Crime
Gun Interdiction Initiative to trace crime guns (i.e., any firearm illegally possessed, used in a
crime, or suspected to have been used in a crime) recovered by law enforcement. More than
76,000 crime guns were traced from 27 cities during a 1-year period between 1997 and 1998.
Almost one-half (44%) of crime guns were recovered from persons under the age of 25;11%
were recovered from youth age 17 or younger. When juveniles kill juveniles, the victims are
generally acquaintances killed with a Firearm.
Table 2
City Arrests of Juveniles Ages 10-17 for Crimes Committed in 1997
Index Crimes Violent Index Crimes
County Number Arrested Rate Number Arrested Rate
Kent 2,402 38.0% 372 5.9%
Wayne 4,340 17.9% 1,325 5.5%
Ingham 802 26.9% 149 5.0%
Kalamazoo 724 29.6% 198 4.4%
Genesee 1,012 18.5% 208 3.8%
Washtenaw 596 22.2% 89 3.3%
Saginaw 199 7.5% 43 1.6%
4

Applicant Name Here
Calhoun 120 7.1% 22 1.3%
SOURCE: Zehnder-Merrell, J., & Corey, M. (1999). Kids Count in State: 1999 data book. East
Lansing: State League for Human Services.
Lost of Productivity
There is a lost of productivity, resources, and community safety. The study calculated external
marginal costs associated with the average lifetime of heavy cocaine or heroin abuse on the basis
of estimated drug treatment and rehabilitation costs, emergency and other medical costs, lost
productivity costs, criminal justice costs incurred in connection with drug possession and other
drug-defined crime, and the cost of resources diverted away from productive uses and into the
drug market itself. The present-value total of all such costs for the average heavy drug abuser
was estimated at $150,000–$360,000. (This figure does not include costs associated with
additional drug-motivated and drug-related crime, which were estimated at $283,000– $781,000,
or $220,000–$606,000 discounted to present value.) The external marginal costs imposed by the
average high school dropout were estimated largely on the basis of productivity losses and other
“nonmarket” educational benefits foregone. Discounted to present value, the total loss suffered
by society over the lifetime of the average high school dropout came to $243,000–$388,000.
Adding all of these marginal cost estimates together produces an estimate of the present value of
preventing a single youth from leaving school and turning to drugs and crime as a way of life:
$1.7–$2.3 million. and a study calculated external marginal costs associated with the average
lifetime of heavy cocaine or heroin abuse on the basis of estimated drug treatment and
rehabilitation costs, emergency and other medical costs, lost productivity costs, criminal justice
costs incurred in connection with drug possession and other drug-defined crime, and the cost of
resources diverted away from productive uses and into the drug market itself. The present-value
total of all such costs for the average heavy drug abuser was estimated at $150,000–$360,000.
(This figure does not include costs associated with additional drug-motivated and drug-related
crime, which were estimated at $283,000–$781,000, or $220,000–$606,000 discounted to
present value.). The external marginal costs imposed by the average high school dropout were
estimated largely on the basis of productivity losses and other “nonmarket” educational benefits
foregone. Discounted to present value, the total loss suffered by society over the lifetime of the
average high school dropout came to $243,000–$388,000. Adding all of these marginal cost
estimates together produces an estimate of the present value of preventing a single youth from
leaving school and turning to drugs and crime as a way of life: $1.7–$2.3 million. Obviously, it
is not possible to arrive at an estimate of this kind without making a number of assumptions,
including some about matters that are at least controversial, if not unknowable. The figures do,
however, serve to illustrate that, under almost any reasonable set of assumptions, intervention
efforts that are narrowly focused on high-risk
youth and that succeed at least some of the time are likely to pay for themselves many times
over.
5

Applicant Name Here
Monetary Lost
According to the Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 1999 National Report, the cost of juvenile
crime is based on estimates of the number and range of crimes committed by the average career
criminal (68–80 crimes of various levels of seriousness, over an active career of about 10 years,
including 4 as a juvenile); the tangible and intangible costs that such crimes impose on their
victims; the expenses borne by the criminal justice system in connection with investigation,
processing, and punishment; and productivity losses caused by incarceration. Discounted to a
present-value dollar amount, the total crime costs imposed by a single lifetime of crime were
estimated at $1.3–$1.5 million. Note that these are external costs borne by those other than the
perpetrator— victims, fellow citizens, and taxpayers. About half are intangible costs—pain,
suffering, and diminished quality of life—imposed on victims alone and monetized according to
widely accepted techniques developed by economists for purposes of cost-benefit analysis. The
analysis, however, includes only marginal cost items—those associated with adding a single
individual to the pool of career criminals. No attempt was made to gauge a single criminal’s
share of aggregate crime costs (expenses incurred because of the fear of crime generally, for
example), which would have yielded a much higher figure.
According to the Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 1999 National Report, the monetary cost of
one juvenile on the community is $1.7million-$2.3million
Invoice
To: American Public
For: One Lost Youth
Description Cost
Juvenile Career (4 years @ 1-4 crimes per year)
Victim Cost $62,000-$250,000
Criminal Justice Cost $21,000-$84,000
Adult Career (6 years @ 10.6 crimes per year)
Victim Costs $1,000,000
Criminal Justice Costs $335,000
Offender Productivity Loss $64,000
Total Crime Cost $1.5-$1.8 million
Present Value $1.3-$1.5 million
Cost of High School Drop Out
Lost Wage Productivity $300,000
Fringe Benefits $75,000
Non-Market Losses $95,000-$375,000
Total Drop Out Cost $470,000-$750,000
Present Value $243,000-$388,000
Total Loss $2.2-3 million
6

Applicant Name Here
Present Value $1.7-$2.3 million
Burden on Policing Resources
About 1 of every 10 juveniles arrested was held in a lockup in 1990 Lockups are the temporary
holding facilities maintained by law enforcement agencies. Twenty-six percent of local police
departments in 1993 operated a lockup facility separately from a jail. While the average capacity
of these lockups was 10 inmates, the range was quite broad. The average capacity of lockups was
only 4 in communities with populations under 10,000, but was more than 810 in communities
with populations of more than 1 million. A national survey asked departments that administered
these facilities for the number of juveniles they had admitted on Friday, June 29, 1990. It was
estimated that approximately 750, or 4% of persons admitted to lockups on this day, were
classified by State law as juveniles. If it is assumed that, on average, about 6,000 juveniles were
arrested per day in 1990, this means that roughly 1 in 10 was placed in a lockup. While most
stays are short, this volume of admissions implies that a substantial portion of all juveniles in
custody are held in police lockups. Most juveniles arrested in 1997 were referred to court for
prosecution The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program asks law enforcement agencies to
report their responses to the juveniles they take into custody. This is the only component of the
UCR Program that is sensitive to State variations in the definition of a juvenile. Consequently, in
New York, law enforcement agencies report their responses to those persons arrested who were
younger than age 16 at the time of arrest; in Illinois and Texas, the reports are for arrestees
younger than age 17; and in most other States, the reports are for arrestees younger than age 18.
Twenty-five percent of juveniles taken into custody by law enforcement in 1997 were handled
within the department and released. These juveniles were warned by police and then released,
usually to parents, other relatives, or friends. In some jurisdictions, the law enforcement agency
may operate its own diversion programs that may provide some intervention services to
juveniles. Another 1% of arrested juveniles were referred either to another law enforcement
agency or to a welfare agency. The remaining juveniles, more than 2 in 3 arrested, were referred
to court intake, the next step in the justice system. Most of these juveniles (91%) were referred to
a juvenile court or a juvenile probation department. The other 9% were referred to criminal
courts for prosecution as an adult. Juveniles arrested in small cities and in rural areas were more
likely than those in large urban centers to be referred to a criminal court. For example, in 1997,
only 6.1% of juveniles referred for prosecution in cities with populations of more than 250,000
were sent to criminal courts, compared with 9.3% in suburban counties and 9.8% in cities with
populations of less than 10,000.
Describe any Previous or Current Attempts to Address the Problem
City's Partners Against Crime (PAC) mentoring program offers one approach to the problem of
repeat juvenile crime that plagues urban centers across the Nation. OJJDP's Juvenile Mentoring
Program (JUMP) was established in 1992 to award grants to local governments or nonprofit
organizations that partner with local education agencies to pilot programs in which adults mentor
high-risk and court-involved youth. The PAC program matches an adjudicated young offender
with a community volunteer who has been screened and trained. Through PAC training,
7

Applicant Name Here
volunteers become well versed in the five characteristics PAC has determined to be pillars for
successful mentoring: friendship, regular contact, listening, tapping resources, and reporting. In
1995, Wayne State University in City, MI, conducted an impact evaluation of the PAC program.
The evaluation findings indicate that recidivism was 38 percent lower for PAC clients compared
with a control group and more than 50 percent lower for PAC clients compared with
probationers who declined to participate in PAC. The results of the PAC program in City
continue to be impressive. Young boys and girls who might otherwise see a probation officer
once or twice during probation instead see a mentor an average of 50 hours during the same time
period. Youth who appeared to be caught in a downward spiral have found new hope. They are
improving in school, are better able to cope with family situations, and are staying out of further
trouble. The PAC program is a success because volunteer mentors from the community take the
time to demonstrate that they care and want to make a difference in the life of an adjudicated
youth.
Studies that relate to the Problem and Contribute to the Applicant’s Understanding of its
Causes and Potential Solutions.
Mentoring is often touted as one of the most cost-effective solutions to juvenile delinquency and
recidivism. Mentoring programs engage community advocates and volunteer mentors who are
assigned to work with delinquent or at-risk youth and their families. Mentors can help create
links from corrections to schools and the community. In some cases, mentors help monitor
youth's compliance with conditions of parole. We are familiar with the studies that relates to the
problem that caused juvenile offender recidivisms. We also understand the potential solutions
that will aid to assist these juveniles not to re-offend. According to the article Mentoring–A
Proven Delinquency Prevention Strategy, published by the Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention, Public/Private Ventures operated an 18-month experimental evaluation
of the Big Brother Big Sister (BB/BS) mentoring program. For the study, the locations selected
were Columbus, Ohio; Houston, Texas; Minneapolis, Minnesota; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania;
Phoenix, Arizona; Rochester, New York; San Antonio, Texas; and Wichita, Kansas. The youths
in the study were between 10 and 16 years old. Slightly more than 60 percent were boys, and
more than 50 percent were minority group members. Almost all lived with one parent (usually
the mother). Many were from low-income households, and a significant number came from
households with a history of either family violence or substance abuse. The theory being
evaluated was the effects that mentoring have on an at-risk youths. The BB/BS program has
paired adult volunteers with youth from single-parent households. The volunteer mentor and the
youth make a substantial time commitment, meeting for about 4 hours, two to four times a
month, for at least 1 year. Developmentally appropriate activities shared by the mentor and the
young person may include taking walks; attending a play, movie, school activity, or sporting
event; playing catch; visiting the library; or just sharing thoughts and ideas about life. Such
activities enhance communication skills, develop relationship skills, and support positive
decision making. The BB/BS mentor/mentee relationships are achieved through professional
staff and national operating standards that provide a level of uniformity in recruitment,
8

Applicant Name Here
screening, matching, and supervision of volunteers and youth. BB/BS agencies provide
orientation for volunteers, parents, and youth to assist the individuals in determining if
involvement in the program is appropriate for them. BB/BS maintains monthly contact with the
volunteer and parent or child for the first year. In addition, in person or telephone contact is
maintained quarterly between case managers and both the volunteer and the parent, guardian,
and/or child for the duration of the match. The overall findings were:
 Mentored youth were 46 percent less likely than controls to initiate drug use during the
study period. An even stronger effect was found for minority Little Brothers and Little
Sisters, who were 70 percent less likely to initiate drug use than similar minority youth.
 Mentored youth were 27 percent less likely than were controls to initiate alcohol
use during the study period, and minority Little Sisters were only about one-half as likely to
initiate alcohol use.
 Mentored youth were almost one-third less likely than were controls to hit someone.
 Mentored youth skipped half as many days of school as control youth, felt more
competent about doing showed modest gains in their grade point averages. These gains
were strongest among Little Sisters, particularly minority Little Sisters.
 The quality of their relationships with their parents was better for mentored youth than
for controls at the end of the study period, primarily due to a higher level of trust between
parent and child. This effect was strongest for white Little Brothers.
 Mentored youth, especially minority Little Brothers, had improved relationships with
their peers.
The Private/Public Ventures concluded that the research presented clear and encouraging
evidence that mentoring programs can create and support caring relationships between adults and
youth, resulting in a wide range of tangible benefits. The study lists the following elements as
prerequisites for an effective mentoring program:
 Thorough volunteer screening that weed out adults who are unlikely to keep their time
commitment or who might pose a safety risk to 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.
 Procedures that take into account the preferences of the youth, their families, and
volunteers and that use a professional case manager to determine which volunteer would
work best with each youth.
 Intensive supervision and support of each match by a case manager who has frequent
contact with the parent or guardian, volunteer, and youth and who provides assistance as
difficulties arise.
The Private/Public Ventures also did a study on the OJJDP’s Juvenile Mentoring Program
(JUMP). The JUMP is designed to reduce delinquency and improve school attendance for at-risk
youths. According to the Juvenile Mentoring Program 1998 Report to Congress JUMP projects
match an adult mentor with a youth who may be at risk for delinquency, gang involvement, drug
use, and failing or dropping out of school. The intent of the mentoring relationship is to provide
one-to-one support, guidance, and supervision for participating youth to help buffer the risks that
may interrupt their healthy development. JUMP projects may operate as a component of a larger
9

Applicant Name Here
agency, or may stand alone to provide only mentoring services. Many JUMP projects
supplement their core mentoring activities with a variety of additional services for mentees and
their families. Most frequently reported supplemental activities such as parent support groups,
self-help groups, in-agency referrals, referrals to other community organizations, case
management, and advocacy. JUMP project mentors for the most part are highly educated with
about 90% having at least some college experience, and over half (56%) having college or
graduate degrees. Since mentors are sought to provide positive role models for the youth,
especially with regard to educational achievement, the scholastic success of the mentors is an
important characteristic. JUMP projects offer training and require that mentors participate in
some orientation and training prior to being matched with a youth. The JUMP evaluation utilizes
an approach that tracks each youth’s progress in such areas as school performance and
attendance, avoidance of delinquent behavior, abstinence from alcohol and drugs, and avoidance
of gang affiliation. Baseline measures will be taken at the time of the youth’s enrollment into the
JUMP project. Measures of progress will be obtained annually, with outcomes obtained at the
time of the youth’s exit from the project.
Unpublished Local Sources of Research or Evaluation Data are Available
SMART: We have fully demonstrated that we have queried the OJJDP’s Socioeconomic
Mapping and Resource Topography (SMART) by enclosing our SMART reports in this
application package. We have also queried local police database and have enclosed incidents of
juvenile crime reports in our application.
Performance Measures Requirements
Goals Program Objectives Reporting Format
Establish/improve
administration of
mentoring
programs for at-
risk, underserved
youth, including
expansion of
mentoring
strategies and
program design.
Enhance/improve
the organizational
capacity, system
efficiency, and
Percent increase in number of program
mentors recruited
35 Mentors at beginning of program.
Percent of program mentors successfully
completing training.
50 Mentors at close of reporting
period.
Percent of trained program mentors with
increased knowledge of the program area.
45 Mentors.
Program mentor retention rate. 50 Trained program mentors.
Number of grantees implementing an
evidence- based program/practice*, as
determined by OJJDP.
45 Mentors successfully completing
training.
Percent increase in youth enrolled since the 45 Trained mentors demonstrating
10

Applicant Name Here
cost effectiveness
of mentoring
programs through
training/ technical
assistance and
other strategies.
Improve
outcomes for at-
risk youth in
mentoring
programs by
establishing and
strengthening
collaborative
community
approaches.
beginning of the program (grant period). increased knowledge of the program
area.
Percent of mentoring programs with active
partners.
5 Mentors who left the program.
Number of program youth served. Evidence-based programs/practices
implemented by grantee.
Percent of program youth completing
program requirements.
25 Youths enrolled at the beginning
of the program.
Percent of program youth who
offend/reoffend.
0 Youth currently enrolled.
Percent of program youth exhibiting desired
change in the targeted behavior, which will
depend on specific program goals and
activities and may include academic
achievement, school attendance, social
competence, etc.
2 Mentoring programs.
Percent of youth with whom an evidence-
based practice was used.
1 Current mentoring program with
active partners, including nonprofit
service organizations, faith-based
organizations, private industry,
secondary and post-secondary
education providers, vocational
training providers, and other active
partners.
Number of youth carried over from
the previous reporting period, plus
new admissions during the current
period.
30 Youths exited the program,
successfully and 25 youths exited the
program unsuccessfully .
11

Applicant Name Here
30 Youths who exited the program
having completed program
requirements
5 Youths with a new offense.
35 Youths exhibiting a desired
change in targeted behavior.
35 Youths served using an evidence-
based practice.
Project/Program Design and Implementation
We will detail how our project will operate throughout the funding period and describe
the strategies that we will use to achieve the goals and objectives identified in our performance
measures table. We have selected an evidence-based practice for our program and have adopted
a project design that will facilitate the gathering of data on the required performance measures.
We will also discuss our partners and the resources they have leveraged in support of this
program. We will also discuss our plans to sustain the program beyond the grant period.
We will also discuss other federal, state, or private foundation grants that serve the same local
area and target population. The Public/Private Ventures is a national organization and a leader in
creating and strengthening programs that improve lives in low-income communities. They have
created a manual to assist organizations who want to implement successful mentoring programs
for offenders. We have consulted the Mentoring Former Prisoners: A Guide for Reentry
Programs and have used it as a guide to tailor our program. In addition to following this guide,
we have duplicated the mentoring concepts from the Big Brother/Big Sister mentoring program
and the SOCP program. We have done this to show a evidence based approach to our mentoring
program.
Target Group:
Our mentoring program is very comprehensive in its approach to respond to the needs of the
target population. We intend to serve the incarcerated youths in the local Wayne County
Juvenile Detention Facility. We intend to target the juvenile offenders and juvenile ex-
offenders under the age of 18 years. The location of the target population will be in the city of
City in the Wayne County area. We and our partners will advertise our mentoring program on
the radio, at schools, at community centers, at community events, and most importantly at
12

Applicant Name Here
Wayne County Juvenile Detention Facility. In addition to advertising our mentoring program,
our partners will refer at-risk youths to our program for mentoring. Once the at-risk youths are
aware that mentoring is available to them they will contact our office and get additional
information on how to participate in the mentoring program. In addition, literature will be
circulated by the Blazers and during events to let potential mentees know how the mentoring
program works and what they can do receive mentoring.
Outreach:
A Program Coordinator will be hired within the first month of program award. The Housing
Authority’s Executive Director and the Resident Services Administrator will use our enclosed
Program Coordinator position description as a guide to select the future Program Coordinator.
The Program Coordinator will be responsible for the day to day operation of all program
activities. Within the first three months of program award, the Program Coordinator will contact
all program partners and inform them of program award and schedule dates and times for the
delivery of their program commitments. The Program Coordinator and Resident Services
Administrator will develop a Standard Operating Procedures manual for the mentoring program.
This manual will provide rules, regulations, and will govern the program. The Standard
Operating Procedures will identify the mission, goals, and objectives of the program. It will
define eligibility requirements and mandatory training for the mentors. It will exhibit a sample
mentor participation and a confidentiality agreement. It will provide guidelines for screening
potential mentor and strategies that encourage participants to become involved in mentoring. The
Program Coordinator will advertise mentoring program to potential mentors and work with the
Resident Services Administrator to select mentors.
Recruiting Mentors:
Recruiting Mentors is a difficult and often frustrating job, requiring patience, creativity,
organization and persistence. It is an ongoing challenge for almost all programs. In most
communities, there is stiff competition for volunteers —and especially for people who possess
both the available time and the kinds of personal characteristics that are required of mentors.
There are no easy solutions for the challenges of recruiting. However, we will pursue a
systematic recruitment plan, carefully developed and implemented. We will advertise for needed
volunteer mentors using a varied assortment of news outlets such as the radio, local community
newsletters, daily newspaper, and the local television stations. We will advertise at multiple
locations such as local faith based organizations, town meetings, college campuses, and local
community events. According to the Mentoring Former Prisoners: A Guide for Reentry
Programs , as many as 40 to 50 percent of mentors applicants may drop out of some time in the
recruitment process, therefore, we intend to advertise for more mentors than we need to make up
for the mentors who will drop-out. After the first few months of implementation we will be
better able to estimate the dropout rate and have a better understanding of the number of
volunteers to target for recruitment. Our ideal mentors will be graduate students, corporate
employees, faith-based groups, and entrepreneurs. After potential mentors have expressed on
interest in becoming a mentor they will undergo a systematic selection process.
We will:
13

Applicant Name Here
 Respond within 24 hours to all phone call and email inquiries from potential volunteers.
 Follow up by mailing (or emailing) a brochure and letter thanking them for the inquiry
and informing them about next steps.
 schedule a face-to-face orientation and screening interview that takes place within a week
 After the orientation and interview, if they seem like a good candidate, immediately
inform them of next steps and get their permission to move forward with the screening
process. (If they do not meet your eligibility requirements, send them a letter thanking
them for their interest.)
 Begin the criminal background check immediately
 Tell them about the next training, and follow up with a letter giving the training date(s).
One week before the training, call or email to remind them of the date—and emphasize
the importance of attending. (Your program might decide that potential volunteers can be
trained while the screening process is still underway. But they must not begin as mentors
until the screening is complete Within a few days after the training, call or email to keep
their interest up and let them know an approximate date when they will be matched with
a participant or begin to be part of a mentoring group
The requirements are listed below:
 Must pass mandatory criminal background check.
 Mentors must have some college education.
 Must sign confidentiality agreement.
 Must sign mentor participation agreement.
 Must participate in mandatory mentor trainings.
 Must be willing to commit specified time to the program.
 Willingness to work with juvenile offenders
Structure of the Mentoring Program
Transitional Services
Juvenile ex-offenders newly released from lock-up have many needs—including housing,
education, healthcare, and employment. These needs must be addressed very quickly so that
they don’t become insurmountable barriers to successful reentry to the community. The
importance of such services is well known. While dependable and supportive mentoring
relationships can be a crucial component of a reentry initiative, they are a complement to—
not a substitute for—these more traditional services. We intend to provide additional social
services that will assist these youths to reduce the likelihood of re-offending. There are
various community organizations that we have partnered. These partnerships will allow us to
provide transitional services to the youths. Our transitional services will include:
14

Applicant Name Here
Housing: As a housing authority, we have a large inventory of possible housing options. We
will provide the youths with the proper housing resources. We will also refer youths to the
United Community Housing Coalition and the Wayne County Neighborhood Legal Services
who provide housing assistance to juveniles.
Education: We have partnerships with local non-profits organizations and the local
community colleges. They will provide free tutoring for high school students and free GED
preparation classes.
Life Skills: we have partnered with multiple faith-based organizations that will provide
classes on managing anger, dealing with the death of a loved one, teaching the importance of
respecting other people, their property, and oneself.
Employment: We have partnered with City Workplace One-Stop, the City Urban League
Employment Services, and the City Employment and training Department. They will provide
resume writing classes, job search assistance, proper work attire classes, workplace etiquette
classes, and job retention classes.
Sports: We have partnered with local sports groups that will provide free practice and
trainings to the youths who have an interest in playing a particular sport.
Clothing: We have partnered with the local Salvation Army, the Neighborhood Service
Department, and the Crossroads organization that will provide clothing to youth offenders.
Parental Assistance: We have partnered with the Guidance Center, the Merrill Palmer
Institute, and the professional Outreach Counseling Services. These organizations will assist
families with at-risk youths and ex-offenders.
According to the Mentoring Former Prisoners: A Guide for Reentry Programs ,participants
who were mentored, regardless of whether they ever became employed, were 35 percent less
likely to recidivate than those who were not mentored.
Nature of the Mentoring Sessions
The mentoring sessions will have three primary focuses:
1. Building healthy relationships with others.
2. Obtaining an education
3. Wholesome fun through structured and un-structured activities.
What will the Program Accomplish
Mentors: Mentors are expected to see many benefits by participating in a juvenile ex-offender
program. Mentors will feel a sense of pride that they are contributing in a positive fashion in
someone else’s life that otherwise would not have such a positive influence. The mentor will
know that they motivated the mentee to seek other alternatives than crime and at-risk behaviors.
The mentor will know that their influence cause a teen to complete their basic education and
possibly seek higher education
15

Applicant Name Here
Mentees: The mentee will be motivated to complete their basic education. They will learn the
proper way to interact with other people by respecting people’s property, obeying rules, and
following instructions. They will understand that there are various alternative to having fun than
engaging in at-risk behaviors. They will realize the negatives of crime and disorder. They will
decrease or eliminate the opportunity to re-offend.
Sponsoring Organizations: The sponsoring organization will decrease crime in the community.
They will lower the rate if juvenile offenses and re-offenses. They will provide community
residents with safer neighborhoods. They will make it easier for community collaborative to
implement mentoring programs by having needed supportive services..
When the Mentoring will Take Place
Mentoring will take place in various locations as listed below. Sessions will take place after
school hours between 3pm and 6pm and on the weekends during community center business
hours between 9am and 5pm. Studies show that the average match for a successful mentoring
relationship is no less than one year; therefore we intend to match each pair for at least one year
to provide the optimal environment for success.
Mentoring Structure Locations Party Time-Frame
One to One Mentoring Pre-Release /Juvenile
Facility
1 Mentor/1 Mentee 1-2 hours per
week
Post-Release/Community
Center
1 Mentor/1 Mentee 1-2 hours per
week
Post-Release/Community
Center
1 Case Manager/1
Mentee
1 hour per
month
Social Events 1 Mentor/1 Mentee Once per month
Group Mentoring Community Center:
Discussions, games, case
management.
2 Mentors/10 Mentees 1-2 hours per
week
Scheduled Events: Trips to
the museums, fairs,
cultural events, historical
tours, etc…
3 Mentors/10 Mentees Approximately
3 hours
Evidence-Based Approach
1. We will provide a community based collaborative similar to JUMP and BB/BS.
2. We will provide a parent support group similar to JUMP and BB/BS
3. we will provide case management similar to JUMP and BB/BS
16

Applicant Name Here
4. We will provide referrals to other community supportive services similar to JUMP and
BB/BS.
5. We will provide college-educated mentors.
6. We will provide structured trainings to our mentors.
7. We will provide mentee evaluation utilizing an approach that tracks each youth’s
progress in such areas as school performance and attendance, avoidance of delinquent
behavior, and avoidance of re-offense. The baseline measures will be taken at the time of
the youth’s enrollment similar to JUMP and BB/BS.
Mentoring Activities: The structure of our mentoring activities will always be in a group
setting. We will partner one mentor for every ten mentees. The location of our mentoring
activities will take place at numerous locations as we will host activities throughout the state. We
will mentor at local community centers, local high schools, and at community events. All
mentors will have an established schedule outlining when they will be available. Mentors will be
paired with a predetermined set of mentees that they will perform mentoring activities. The
mentors and mentee will meet as frequently as the mentors schedule allows. An estimated
amount of meeting will be twice per week for at least an hour. This will take place between the
hours of 3pm and 6pm on school days. The mentors will work with participants to talk about the
benefits of education, working towards higher education or another vocational area of interest,
being respectful to others, staying drug-free, and preventing unwanted pregnancies. Youth will
be encouraged to participate in community activities, including basketball games, to provide an
opportunity for healthy socializing with other youths. Activities will include visiting local
museums, historical homes, cultural fairs and sporting events to learn about different cultures
and see that there is an attractive option to at-risk behaviors.
Standard of Conduct: Please see the attached Code of Conduct.
Mentoring services should be a part of a comprehensive program plan and continuum of services
that will serve the youth before and after release. It is critical that a component of the program
link the juvenile offenders to the services in the community. A community mentoring
collaborative or coalition must be established or enhanced to link participating youth to services
and to fill in gaps to services in support of mentoring and other transitional services, i.e.
educational services, employment assistance, socialization and life skills training, entrepreneurial
training and exposure, substance abuse treatment, housing, family functioning, special
recreational interests, etc. The mentoring partnership should encourage collaboration among
nontraditional partners that may not have mentoring as their primary mission but have areas of
common interest that include providing services and support to juvenile offenders. Examples
may include faith-based organizations; for-profits, i.e., local businesses; physical and mental
health organizations; substance abuse prevention organizations; social services; early
childhood/elementary educational systems; educational/ vocational entities; universities/
colleges; and other governmental or tribal units and agencies. This collaboration should develop
the community’s capacity to provide mentoring services for juvenile offenders and to facilitate
17

Applicant Name Here
the communication, collaboration, and delivery of mentoring services among service providers,
community stakeholders, and governmental partners. OJJDP will give priority to proposals that
seek to expand existing partnerships among a broad spectrum of organizations. OJJDP will give
special consideration to initiatives that seek to pilot innovative approaches to mentoring.
Research has identified key elements that support successful youth aftercare programs.
Accordingly,
OJJDP expects applicants to focus on the following elements in designing their aftercare plan:
 services and mentoring relationships that begin in the correctional facility and are
reintegrative
 assessments of the juvenile offenders to determine appropriate services
 frequent service contacts
 long-term mentoring.
Logic Model. Applicants must include a logic model that graphically illustrates how the
performance measures are related to the project’s problems, goals, objectives, and design.
Sample logic models are available at ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/grantees/performance.html. The logic
model must be submitted as a separate attachment, as stipulated in “Other Attachments,” page15.
Timeline. Applicants must submit a timeline or milestone chart that indicates major tasks,
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” at ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/grantees/timelines.html). The timeline must be
submitted as a separate attachment, as stipulated in “Other Attachments,” page 15. On receipt of
an award, the timeline may be revised based on training and technical assistance provided by
OJJDP.
Capabilities/Competencies
Applicants must describe the roles and responsibilities of project staff and explain the program’s
organizational structure and operations. Management and staffing patterns must be clearly
connected to the project design described in the previous section. This section must describe the
experience and capability of the applicant’s organization and any contractors that will be used to
implement and manage this effort and its associated federal funding, highlighting any previous
experience implementing projects of similar design or magnitude.
Research, human subjects, IRB review, and confidentiality
All applicants for OJP funds are advised that the Department of Justice defines research 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). If OJP determines
that a funded application involves research and includes human subjects, the approval of an
18

Applicant Name Here
Institutional Review Board (IRB) might be required before OJP funds may be spent for these
purposes. If an application includes an evaluation component, that component will be examined
by OJP to determine whether it meets the definition of “research.” All applications should be as
clear as possible in describing the purpose of the evaluation, and the extent to which its findings
may contribute to generalizable knowledge.
Letters of Support/Memoranda of Understanding. If submitting a joint application, applicants
must provide letters of support or Memoranda of Understanding for all key partners. Either
format is acceptable as long as they are signed, dated, and cover the following information: An
expression of support for the project and a statement of willingness to participate and collaborate
with the project. A description of the roles and responsibilities of each partner in the planning
process and expected responsibilities when the project is operational.
Budget Narrative
The budget narrative must describe each budget item and relate it to the appropriate project
activity. It must closely follow the content of the budget detail worksheet and provide
justification for all proposed costs listed in the budget detail worksheet (particularly supplies,
travel, and equipment) and demonstrate that they are reasonable. In the budget narrative, the
applicant must explain how fringe benefits were calculated, how travel costs were estimated,
why particular items of equipment or supplies must be purchased, and how overhead or indirect
costs (if applicable) were calculated.
19

Project Narrative for Juvenile Re-Entry Grant

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (6)

Similaire à Project Narrative for Juvenile Re-Entry Grant

Similaire à Project Narrative for Juvenile Re-Entry Grant (7)

Project Narrative for Juvenile Re-Entry Grant