Executive Summary
Quality, one-on-one
relationships that provide young people with caring role models for future
success have profound, life-changing potential.
Done right, mentoring markedly advances youths’ life prospects.[1]
Congress of the United States of America
The Mentoring Children of
Prisoners Program (MCP) (42 USC 629i) is designed to respond to the problems
and disadvantages of the estimated two million children between the ages of
five and eighteen who have an incarcerated parent. With the incarcerated population growing at a
rate of six percent a year, this number continues to rise. In most cases (ninety-three percent),
children of prisoners have fathers who are in jail, although the number of
incarcerated mothers is increasing. An
estimated sixty-five percent of female inmates have children and six percent or
more are pregnant. The problem of
parental incarceration is particularly acute among African-Americans: Forty-nine percent of inmates with children
are African-American.[2]
Under
the statute, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) is authorized to
fund community- and faith-based organizations, State or local units of
government, tribal governments, or tribal consortia to provide mentors to
children of prisoners. The Family and
Youth Services Bureau (FYSB), within the Administration for Children and
Families (ACF), is the agency responsible for administering the program.
HHS is required to submit a
report on an evaluation of the program. This
Report describes notable achievements, significant challenges, solutions, and
steps toward the future in the context of actual results and experience and
serves as an interim response pending the final evaluation.
The Report describes the
processes for awarding grant funds to the most qualified applicants; setting
strategic goals and performance measures; establishing a data collection system
(the ACF Online Data Collection System or OLDC); providing technical
assistance; and using program monitoring, caseload data, and evaluation
findings to improve outcomes for the children of prisoners being served by the
MCP program.
Children
of incarcerated parents are faced with serious challenges that place them at a
particularly high risk for delinquency, depression, and poor academic or social
outcomes. Children of prisoners are
seven times more likely than their peers to become involved in the juvenile and
adult criminal justice systems and six times more likely to be incarcerated during
their lives.[3] There is an
extensive body of research that shows mentoring by a trained, screened, caring
adult can result in significant positive changes in the lives of disadvantaged
youth.[4]
Through Fiscal Year (FY) 2007,
Congress has appropriated just over $208 million to establish and operate mentoring
programs for children of prisoners. The
size of the average grant is approximately $200,000 for each of three years;
grants range in size from $26,000 to $2,000,000 per year. MCP grantees must provide funding or in-kind
services to match the Federal award at a rate that increases from twenty-five
percent of total funding during the first two years to fifty percent in the
third year. For example, an applicant
requesting $100,000 must provide a minimum of $33,333 in project years one and
two (total project cost equals $133,333) and a minimum of $100,000 in year
three (total project cost equals $200,000).
As of the beginning of Fiscal Year 2007, 238 grantees are in operation.
By the end of FY 2006, these
programs had made 42,169 mentoring matches between children of prisoners and
caring adults. Research indicates that
mentoring generally begins to show positive effects on children only after about
six months of mentoring and relationship-building have occurred.[5] A Federally-funded
national evaluation of MCP will be undertaken to study the effects of mentoring
upon these children over the next several years. Chapter 5 describes how mentoring
relationships and long-term outcomes will be independently evaluated
nationwide.
On September 28, 2006, the
President signed into law P.L. 109-288 which reauthorized the Mentoring
Children of Prisoners program. The law
established a Service Delivery Demonstration project in which HHS can enter
into a cooperative agreement with an entity to ensure the distribution of
mentoring service vouchers to families and caregivers of children who parent(s)
are incarcerated. Vouchers will enable the family to choose a mentoring
program that meets quality standards, and enable organizations to serve
children closer to where they live. The cooperative agreement intends to reach
priority populations that are not already served by an MCP program, including
communities with substantial numbers of children of prisoners, rural areas, and
concentrations of American Indian and Alaskan Natives. Vouchers
will increase access to mentoring services for children of prisoners. The Service
Delivery Demonstration project is to achieve the following statutory outcomes;
3,000 vouchers for mentoring service in the first year, 8,000 vouchers in the
second year; and 13,000 vouchers in subsequent years.
Chapter 1
Introduction
Through countless acts of kindness, mentors across
America are changing our Nation for the better.
Every child deserves the opportunity to realize the promise of our
country, and mentors show that a single soul can make a difference in a young
person's life.... Mentors are soldiers
in the armies of compassion, sharing their time to help provide a supportive
example for a young person. Mentors help
children resist peer pressure, achieve results in school, stay off drugs, and
make the right choices.[6]
President George W. Bush
The Mentoring Children of Prisoners Program (MCP) (42
USC 629i) is designed to respond to the vulnerability and disadvantages of an
estimated two million children between the ages of five and eighteen who have
an incarcerated parent. The program, authorized by the
Promoting Safe and Stable Families Amendments of 2001, is administered by the
Family and Youth Services Bureau (FYSB) within the Administration for Children
and Families (ACF). The legislation
(Title IV-B Subpart 2, section 439(g) of the Social Security Act) requires an
evaluation of the program be conducted and a report on the findings of the
evaluation be submitted to Congress.
This Report describes and
assesses issues and activities involved in program start-up, implementation,
development, and maturation from the vantage point of more than one year of
formal data collection and two years of observations. It describes notable achievements,
significant challenges, solutions, and steps toward the future in the context
of actual results and experience.
The Report describes how
long-term outcomes will be independently evaluated nationwide over the next
several years. ACF plans to assess and
evaluate the MCP program nationally and comprehensively. The evaluation will seek to determine whether
or not the youth in the program have benefited and what practices can maximize
positive outcomes. An effective
evaluation not only will describe program operations and implementation
successes and challenges, but also will assess the efficacy of various practices
in launching and supporting programs.
At the time of this Report,
nearly all MCP grantees have recruited, trained, screened, and supervised
growing numbers of adult volunteers and carefully matched them as mentors for
youth. Most grantees have made
substantial progress toward their goals, and more and more of their mentoring
pairs have entered the period beyond six months that research shows is usually
the minimum time needed to establish suitable and nurturing relationships. It is the quality and endurance of
relationships that have the greatest effect on outcomes, such as children’s
behavior, educational commitment, and relationships with parents or authority
figures.
The Report describes the
current operational status of the MCP program and key characteristics of its
238 grantee organizations. The processes
for awarding grant funds to the most qualified applicants, setting goals and
objectives, establishing a data collection system, providing technical
assistance to improve service quality, using program monitoring, data, and
evaluation findings for continuous improvement, building partnerships at the
national and regional levels to promote the program, and putting in place a
coherent national evaluation strategy are discussed.
In the “Findings” of the
legislation establishing the MCP program, Congress cited research on mentoring
and the challenges faced by children of prisoners.
In the period between 1991 and 1999, the number of
children with a parent incarcerated in a Federal or State correctional facility
increased by more than 100 percent, from approximately 900,000 to approximately
2,000,000. In 1999, 2.1 percent of all
children in the United States had a parent in Federal or state prison…. Parental arrest and confinement lead to stress,
trauma, stigmatization, and separation problems for children…. As a result, these children often exhibit a
broad variety of behavioral, emotional, health and educational problems that
are often compounded by the pain of separation…. Empirical research demonstrates that
mentoring is a potent force for improving children’s behavior across all risk
behaviors affecting health. Quality,
one-on-one relationships that provide young people with caring role models for
future success have profound, life-changing potential….[7]
With the incarcerated
population growing at a rate of six percent a year, the number of children
between the ages of five and eighteen affected by parental imprisonment continues
to rise. In most cases (ninety-three
percent), children of prisoners have fathers who are in jail, although the
number of incarcerated mothers is increasing.
An estimated sixty-five percent of female inmates have children and six
percent or more are pregnant. The
circumstance of parental incarceration is particularly devastating among
African-Americans: Forty-nine percent of
inmates with children are African-American.[8]
Children
of incarcerated parents are faced with a number of serious issues that put them
at high-risk for delinquency, depression, and poor academic and social
outcomes. Children of prisoners are
seven times more likely than their peers to become involved in the juvenile and
adult criminal justice systems and six times more likely to be incarcerated during
their lives.[9]
These
poor outcomes are not surprising given the range and degree of problems that
these youth are likely to face. Parental
incarceration often adds stress to families already struggling with poverty,
instability, financial strain, abuse, domestic strife, or neglect. The child loses the supervision and emotional
and financial support that an incarcerated parent otherwise might provide. Additionally, children of prisoners are
likely to feel stigmatized by peers, teachers, and society in general. They are often limited by assumptions that
they too will go to prison. Out of
shame and fear of rejection, many children of prisoners do not tell even their
closest friends or potentially helpful adults of their parent’s imprisonment. [10]
As
a result of these stresses, children of incarcerated parents are at heightened
risk for psychological and behavioral problems.
Among the most commonly cited effects are:
·
Low self-esteem;
·
Anger and depression;
·
Emotional numbing and withdrawal from friends and family;
·
Feelings of abandonment, loneliness, shame, guilt, and resentment;
·
Eating and sleeping disorders;
·
Diminished academic performance; and
·
Inappropriate or disruptive behavior at home and in school.[11]
The
MCP program provides children with positive role models by matching children of
incarcerated parents with mentors. To
achieve results, MCP organizations must adopt evidence-based practices in
creating matches and supporting mentors.
Funded organizations agree to:
·
Identify children with incarcerated parents;
·
Recruit and train caring adult mentors;
·
Conduct criminal
background checks on mentors before they are matched with children;
·
Place mentors and
youth in one-to-one relationships;
·
Attempt to
establish relationships that last at least one year;
·
Monitor matches
and intervene if problems arise;
·
Help the families
of the youth (by connecting youth with their incarcerated parents, if
appropriate, and assisting custodial parents and siblings in accessing non-MCP
services);
·
Partner with
other organizations that provide services that youth in the program might need;
and
·
Promote positive
youth development (by fostering positive relationships and promoting education,
community involvement, and other pro-social behaviors).
Mentoring and
the MCP Program
Research
literature from multiple fields argues that supportive adult mentors can help
youth avoid risk behaviors and make successful transitions to adulthood.[12] A widely-cited
1995 Public/Private Ventures study of Big Brothers Big Sisters (BBBS) surveyed
959 youth, ages ten to sixteen. Half of
the youth were placed in the treatment group and half in the control
group. Youth were surveyed at intake
into the program and eighteen months later.
The experimental design revealed that mentored youth were forty-six percent
less likely than control group members to start using drugs, twenty-seven percent
less likely to start using alcohol, and almost thirty-three percent less likely
to engage in physical violence. Mentored
youth also had improved school attendance and performance as well as improved
peer and family relationships.[13] Additional
research analyzing a variety of mentoring efforts demonstrated modest benefits
across a broad spectrum of outcomes, ranging from academic achievement to
feelings of self-worth.[14]
Current
research suggests the following practices, all of which are emphasized in MCP,
may be effective in establishing and supporting mentoring:
·
For the most
intensive mentoring programs, matching youth and volunteers in one-to-one
relationships;
·
Fostering
relationships that last a minimum of one year;
·
Encouraging
mentors and youth to meet frequently (close to once a week);
·
Carefully
screening mentors (to ensure both that that they pose no threat to the youth
and are able to commit the requisite time);
·
Providing mentors
with ongoing training, support, and supervision;
·
Monitoring
implementation of the program;
·
Involving youths’
parents or guardians;
·
Providing
structured activities for mentors and youth;
·
Conducting
mentoring activities outside of school.
The
final point is not intended to downplay the value of formal and informal
relationships established between students and teachers, coaches, or
counselors. However, mentoring that
emphasizes a broad range of experiences, including fun, in a wide variety of
conducive settings shared with an adult on a one-to-one basis, may be able to
achieve positive effects that go beyond academic attendance and progress.[15]
Programs
serving older youth may need to adopt additional strategies to be effective and
tailor mentoring differently for pre-teens and young teenagers in comparison to
older children. The National Faith-Based
Initiative found that older children were more likely than younger children to
be engaged in the risky behaviors that mentoring programs aim to prevent.[16]
The study also revealed that older children tended to terminate
mentoring relationships earlier than younger children. This suggests that the kinds of interventions
most effective for older youth may need to be different from those geared to
help younger children.
Significant
benefits for the child accumulate gradually over time as the mentoring
relationship progresses and a bond develops.
Thus, fostering an effective and lasting connection between the youth
and the adult is of paramount importance.
Successful mentoring relationships are characterized by mutual respect,
trust, and understanding and by both partners valuing the relationship. High quality relationships predict positive
outcomes, particularly academic achievement and improved self-worth.[17]
Chapter 3
Implementation Objectives, Performance Measurement,
and
OMB Program Assessment (PART)
The Mentoring Children of
Prisoners program is committed to measuring program performance. In order to measure success or failure, a
program must have clearly defined objectives, establish outcome measures, and
conduct program assessments that incorporate program objectives and outcome
measures. This chapter identifies the
objectives and performance goals and outlines how they relate to the
implementation of the program, the performance budget, and the program rating
and assessment.
ACF’s implementation objectives for the program
Encourage
large numbers of qualified applicants to seek funding
In the
FY 2003 awards process, there were 427 applicants eligible for review and 572
in FY 2004. There was no competition
held in FY 2005; continuation funding was awarded. In FY 2006, there were 245 applicants. Particular care was taken to disseminate
information on the funding opportunity to a wide audience of potential
providers.
Award
grants based on high quality proposals and qualifications
Proposals
were reviewed by panels consisting of three independent, non-federal
experts. The review process took three
weeks and was carefully supervised by ACF staff to assure fair and consistent
scoring.
Carry
out the President’s Faith- and Community-Based Initiative effectively
ACF has
had more than two decades of experience working with many faith-based
organizations within its family of providers for Runaway and Homeless Youth
(RHY) programs. The MCP awards process acknowledged
the varying challenges for both small faith- or community-based organizations
and other, larger and more experienced secular organizations.
Put
in place systems for grants management, program training, and technical
assistance
Mentoring
grantees have a central office ACF program specialist assigned by location
within the ten Federal Regions. The
program specialist assists grantees in grants management, service delivery
planning, program start-up, program implementation, reporting,
partnership-building, and other requirements.
Staff closely monitor grantee activities and oversee detailed quarterly
narrative progress and financial reports.
Establish
and operate a data collection system
ACF
developed, with input from researchers, grantees, practitioners, and other
partners and interested members of the public, a series of thirty-eight questions
about caseload, clients, demographics, and child-adult “match” characteristics
that grantees answer on a quarterly basis.
The questions focus on factors that are associated with quality
mentoring relationships.
Design
and direct a national program evaluation
A
national evaluation began in FY 2006 to provide knowledge on the program’s
accomplishments and needed improvements.
Information on the evaluation can be found in Chapter 5.
Use
program monitoring, data and evaluation findings for continuous
improvement
As ACF
puts in place mechanisms for a long-term evaluation of MCP, staff and technical
assistant contractors are implementing measures to improve grantee operations
and to share promising practices. Staff
program specialists review financial statements and narrative reports on
grantee progress and are in constant contact with grantees seeking guidance,
innovative approaches, and other assistance.
Ongoing caseload data provides insight into program delivery and
effectiveness.
Build
partnerships at the national and regional levels to promote the program
ACF has
shared ideas and coordinated resources with Head Start, AmeriCorps, Senior
Corps, the Bureau of Prisons, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention, the National Mentoring Partnership, National Crime Prevention
Council, Big Brothers Big Sisters, America’s Promise, Campfire USA, Pew
Charitable Trusts, and other organizations to strengthen MCP program
operations.
Performance budget goals and target
The measures discussed below are
the principal outcome and efficiency measures derived from quarterly caseload
reporting and featured in annual performance plans.[18] They exist in both long-term and annual
versions. Additional measurements of
relationship quality and positive changes in the child’s life will be based
upon surveys and evaluation activities described in Chapter 5.
Companionship
with caring adults
This measure is based on the
number of children of prisoners with caring adult companions in relationships
that conform to the evidence-based (one-to-one relationship) standard of the
MCP. Forming and supporting these
matches are the primary tasks of MCP grantees.
Sustainability
of relationships
The percentage of relationships
that endure beyond twelve months would be evidence of lasting bonds and
possibly life-long relationships, which are not uncommon among successful
mentoring relationships in general. Research shows that mentoring relationships
must develop and deepen gradually before youth begin to demonstrate significant
positive outcomes. The greatest benefits
are associated with mentoring relationships that last twelve months and beyond.[19]
Duration
of relationships
The percentage of
relationships within the caseload that have reached twelve months combined with
the percentage that have endured beyond comprise a broader measure than the
long-term “sustainability” measure.
Efficiency
One of ACF’s goals is to
minimize matches of very short duration (i.e., those ending in three months or
less as a percentage of all cases terminating during a measurement period). Matches which end prematurely represent a
significant investment loss, because costs are largely front-loaded to cover outreach,
recruiting, screening, training, and preparing mentors before the initiation of
matches. Even more important, premature
cessations can diminish self esteem if the child feels abandoned, loses trust,
or believes himself or herself at fault for the end of the relationship.
Program rating and assessment (PART)
The MCP program underwent an
intensive review using the Program Assessment and Rating Tool (PART) over the
course of FY 2005. It required a
challenging and stringent general audit of the new program. Due to the program’s recent inception at the
time of the PART, previous performance data was not available to provide
sufficient analysis on the program’s progress and growth. Since this counted for fifty percent of the
total score, MCP received a mark of sixty-three percent, rating of Results not
Demonstrated. It achieved maximum scores
for design, strategic planning, and program management and was compared favorably
with similar programs, Federal or otherwise.
The following OMB diagram shows the scoring and weighting of the PART
review.[20]
|
Section |
Score |
|
Program Purpose & Design |
100% |
|
Strategic Planning |
100% |
|
Program Management |
100% |
|
Program Results/Accountability |
20% |
The PART is divided into four
sections with numerous subsections.
Program purpose and design requires explanation and
evidence to answer a number of questions.
Is the program purpose clear?
Does it address a specific and existing problem and is not redundant or
duplicative of any other effort? Is it
free of major flaws and effectively targeted?
Strategic planning requires a presentation of
specific long-term and annual performance measures that focus on outcomes with
ambitious targets and timeframes for demonstrating progress. It also requires evidence that grantees,
sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners
commit to the goals of the program. It
focuses on regular, independent evaluations, the methodology of budget
requests, strategic planning, and prioritization of funding decisions.
Program management addresses collection of timely
and credible performance information, how the federal manager and all program
partners are held accountable, obligation of funds, competitive procedures for
contracts and grants, partnerships and collaborations, financial management,
oversight practices, and publication of performance data.
MCP received “YES” scores, i.e., one hundred
percent, for every section and subsection described above, indicating that ACF
is consistently providing the program its best environment for success. ACF has been fully engaged since the
program’s inception, fulfilling its oversight and management responsibilities,
establishing credible and relevant goals and measures, collecting reliable
performance data, incorporating competitive business practices and
research-tested program design, efficiently targeting resources, and holding
itself and key players fully accountable.
Program results/accountability, the final section,
demonstrated that the MCP program score was affected by challenges facing
grantees during the start up of their programs, particularly their ability to
recruit and match volunteers and children in numbers sufficient to achieve
agreed-upon goals. Some organizations
had never received a Federal grant and/or were new and formed specifically to
operate an MCP program. During the PART
review, the program had operated for only two years, and the PART process was
underway as data collection was only just beginning.
The MCP program has developed corrective action
plans and taken numerous steps to meet the challenges identified by the PART
score, particularly to meet the need to establish a greater number of mentoring
matches for children of prisoners. The annual
targets could not be based on previous performance data and analysis;
additionally, these targets did not account for increased growth rates as
programs improved their efficiency in making matches. ACF staff began conducting site visits to
grantees in FY 2005 which continue to take place. In FY 2006, the technical assistance
contractor began national activities and local site visits and held four
regional and two national conferences. ACF expects that these efforts, along
with the growing success of experienced grantees in forming matches, will
increase program performance. Data
reports indicate that the number of matches has grown substantially and
steadily in every quarter.
Chapter 4
Program Activities and Achievements
Overview of MCP program
The MCP program attempts to
ameliorate some of the hardships and negative outcomes that can result from
parental incarceration. By matching
children of incarcerated parents with mentors, the MCP program seeks to provide
the children with positive role models and increased stability.
Through FY 2006, Congress has
appropriated nearly $159 million to develop mentoring programs for children of
prisoners. The size of the average grant
is approximately $200,000 for each of three years; grants range in size from
$26,000 to $2,000,000 per year. MCP
grantees must provide funding or in-kind services to match the federal award at
a rate that increases from twenty-five percent of total funding during the
first two years to fifty percent in the third year.
Fifty grantees, funded at the
end of FY 2003, the first year that funding was made available, operated for
three years. They were joined in FY 2004
by 169 more, most of who are well into their third and final year at the time
of this Report. In FY 2005 continuation
funding was awarded. In FY 2006,
approximately $11.2 million in new start funding was awarded to 76 mentoring
organizations. Of these, 29 were
veterans from the FY 2003 and FY 2004 competitions who were awarded funding to
expand into new service areas.
By the end of FY 2006, 42,169
mentoring matches had been established between children of prisoners and caring
adults. MCP operates in 48 of the50
States and Puerto Rico and includes five Native American tribal grantees. At this time, 238 grantees are in
operation. A few of the FY03 and FY04 grantees
relinquished their funding due to problems they encountered operating their
programs. A number of grantees had not
previously operated programs under federal grants, and some were organizations
newly-formed to provide mentors for children of prisoners. A variety of differing affiliations, experiences,
and program goals characterize the organizations implementing the MCP program. Grantees range from well-established
mentoring organizations to small community- and faith-based organizations.
Many MCP grantees are
following the “Amachi” model developed by W. Wilson Goode, Sr., D. Min. and
Public/Private Ventures.[21] The Amachi
model is a partnership between secular non-profit agencies and congregations in
the surrounding community. An
established mentoring program provides infrastructure, such as screening and
training of volunteers. The
congregations recruit participants and help nurture the success of the mentoring
relationships.
Currently available information
With its current data
protocol, ACF monitors a significant number of variables on grantees’
performance, such as number of children served, average frequency of
mentor/youth contact, average length of mentoring relationships, and support
activities provided. To assess outcomes,
ACF is accumulating data on the prevalence of relationships lasting at least
twelve months. Indirect indicators such
as average training hours for mentors and rate of premature relationship
terminations (e.g., matches ending for whatever reasons before the intended
time period has passed) can also be measured.
Every effort is made to ensure that grantees report data to the Online
Data Collection System fully and accurately.
Summary of preliminary data on grantee performance to
date
ACF
requires grantees to submit quarterly online reports on their caseloads,
participant demographics, frequency of contact between mentors and youth,
duration of matches, and other key programmatic data. The following paragraphs summarize key
grantee performance information applicable up by the fourth quarter of FY 2006 with
over ninety five percent of the grantees reporting.
At the
end of FY 2006, 42,169 mentoring matches had been established through the
program.
The
growth in the number of new matches from quarter to quarter has been fairly
rapid. Grantees made 6,437 matches in
the fourth quarter of FY 2006, compared to only 1,694 in the first quarter of
FY 2005.
With
this robust inflow of new matches, the active caseload has been expanding
accordingly: 4,493 cases were active
during the first quarter of FY 2005, 6,465 during the second quarter, and over
9,600 during the third quarter. The
active caseload rose to 10,644 in the fourth quarter of FY 2005 and exceeded
11,564 during the first quarter of FY 2006.
During the first quarter of FY 2006, 5000 matches were made while the
program grew and made 6437 matches during the last quarter of the same fiscal
year. This growth rate is expected to continue. These numbers represents the
most recently active cases with regular meetings between mentors and
mentees. The 40,000 match number
includes current active matches, those previously established which have
ceased, and the replacement matches found for many of the children involved in
matches that came to an end.
|
Illustrative
MCP program data, FY 2004-2006 |
FY 2004 |
FY 2005 |
FY 2006 |
||
|
Total Number of Grantees |
52 |
218 |
238[22] |
||
|
Number of Cumulative Matches |
2,823 |
14,644 |
42,169 |
||
|
Data as of the 4th
Quarter of FY 2006[23] |
FY 2006 |
||||
|
Number of children in current
mentoring matches |
16,626[24] |
||||
|
Percentage of male children in
current matches |
31.0% |
||||
|
Percentage of male mentors |
38.9% |
||||
|
Percentage of female children
in current matches |
69.0% |
||||
|
Percentage of female mentors |
62.1% |
||||
|
Average age of all children in
current mentoring matches |
10.8 |
||||
|
Average number of hours of
initial or pre-match formal training/orientation per mentor during the
quarter |
6.4 |
||||
|
Average number of hours of
post-match training per mentor during the quarter |
4.7 |
||||
|
Average number of mentors per
quarter counseled on not meeting obligations to mentees |
4 |
||||
—Source: Administration for Children and Families,
Online Data Collection System
Operational characteristics of the program at present
Recruitment
of youth
According
to quarterly narrative progress reports, grantees conduct outreach activities
using a variety of methods, including mailings, providing leaflets to people in
prison, talking with parents who are on buses that take visitors to prisoners,
family events at prisons, prison ministries, outside congregations, media
campaigns (radio announcements, etc.), and contacting social service agencies
and schools. This last strategy can be
particularly effective. Well-established
programs (such as Big Brothers Big Sisters) already had procedures in place to
identify children of prisoners and recruit mentors; therefore they were able to
rapidly expand their services to additional children through their MCP grant
funding.
Outreach to parents and recruitment
and retention of mentors
The organizations conduct outreach to parents, including incarcerated
parents. Parental consent is required
for youth participation in the program.
Finding the right volunteers
is a critical element of the program, and mentor attrition rates are high. In order to participate, all must submit to
criminal background checks. Most
prospective mentors must go through several rounds of screening, including
in-depth interviews. Most programs have
several mandatory trainings, and prospective volunteers sometimes drop out
during the pre-match process as they realize that mentoring represents a major
commitment of time and energy.
Opportunities to care, make a difference, and participate in social
events with other mentors/mentees are the primary reasons adults volunteer to
be mentors. Their motivation may derive
from self-actualization or a creed of fellowship and good works. Feelings of camaraderie and respect for children
are of the utmost significance for good mentoring. There are no financial or material
incentives.
Background checks on mentors
Funded programs must undertake a criminal background check for the
mentors. Some programs perform a
national background check; others do a State check, while others do a local check. In addition, many programs conduct interviews
with prospective mentors, and these too serve as a form of background
check. All programs exercise discretion
over what is a disqualifying characteristic in a potential mentor. This essential work can require time and
money and impose significant administrative burdens on grantees.
Mentor training and supports
Most mentor training is group training.
Some established programs already have training modules that have been
reconfigured for MCP. The average
pre-match mentor training time is currently six hours, with an average of an
hour and twenty minutes of post match training.
Federal mentoring dollars may not be used for case management or
ancillary services to the families, but programs must link with organizations
that provide social services. Some
organizations also provide training to mentors in critical elements such as how
to respond to signs of abuse, malnutrition, and other participant needs.
Other services
Some social service agencies that host programs have multi-service
support groups for parents, both incarcerated and custodial, and provide other
services for released ex-offenders and their families. ACF funds activities directly related to the
operation of the matching process, including administrative costs, mentor
training, and data collection, but also covers planning and coordination for
other services to support the family.
Faith-Based Grantees
Some grantees are faith-based organizations or partner with faith-based
organizations. ACF is committed to
ensuring compliance with 45 CFR Part 87, Equal Treatment for Faith-Based
Organizations. These regulations provide
for the following:
·
Non-discrimination against religious organizations;
·
Ability of religious organizations to maintain their religious character,
including the use of space in their facilities, without removing religious art,
icons, scriptures, or other religious symbols;
·
Prohibition against the use of Federal funds to finance inherently
religious activities;
·
Application of State or local government laws to religious organizations.
Partnerships and collaborations
ACF has initiated or joined collaborative efforts with many of the Federal
and non-Federal leaders in the mentoring field to strengthen the MCP
program. MCP has been implemented in
consultation with several partners, including the Departments of Justice and
Education, the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives
(OFBCI), USA Freedom Corps, and the HHS Center for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. ACF applied lessons learned from the Office
of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) demonstration grants for
services to children of prisoners, administered through the National Institute of
Corrections and the Child Welfare League of America. The initial program announcement for MCP was
drafted in consultation with the White House Office of Faith-Based and
Community Initiatives, the HHS Center for Faith-Based and Community
Initiatives, USA Freedom Corps, and the Department of Education.
Creating a high performance program
Technical assistance and support for grantees
From the program’s beginning, ACF has hosted several national educational
and training conferences, developed and facilitated online data reporting,
monitored grantee performance, helped grantees develop strategies for program
improvement, and assisted them in meeting grants management requirements. Federal program officers provide grantees
with extensive, one-on-one technical assistance to help them establish their
programs, improve services, and reach performance goals. ACF is also facilitating transfers of
promising practices from experienced to less experienced grantees and has
funded a national contract to provide technical assistance to all MCP grantees.
The most recent national conference in the
on-going series was held in November, 2006, and all grantees funded in FY 2006
were present. Regional conferences in FY
2007 will take place from March through May of 2007. Site visits, prioritized by need, will often
include meetings with more than one grantee.
ACF and the technical assistance contractor are assessing needs for
technical assistance and identifying promising practices among the most
successful grantees. A peer monitoring
tool and peer-to-peer technology transfer protocols are being developed. The contractor prepares monthly newsletters
emailed to all MCP grantees and has built a website that includes both public
and grantee-specific pages.
Chapter 5
Evaluation Projects and Plans
Research and evaluation strategy
Based
on extensive research by a number of scholars, mentoring is a highly promising
approach to helping disadvantaged and disconnected youth. The MCP evaluation is critical to enhancing
the impact and success of mentoring children of incarcerated parents. The end product of the research effort should
contribute to improved results through innovative tools, more effective
technical assistance, service improvement, and enhanced grantee capabilities. When possible, ACF will release interim
reports and updates during intermediate stages of the research in order to
assist grantees in their on-going work.
Ongoing measurement of relationship quality
The essence of mentoring is a
healthy companionship between at-risk youth and compassionate adults. A relationship measuring tool, developed by
Rhodes, Reddy, Roffman, and Grossman,[25] assesses the dynamics of the mentor/mentee
relationships. The Relationship Quality Instrument (RQI) includes variables to
measure mentee satisfaction with the relationships; the extent to which mentors
have helped mentees cope with problems; how happy mentees feel (or don’t feel)
when they are with their mentors; and whether there is evidence of trust in the
mentoring relationships. The RQI is
administered to MCP youth who are at least nine years old and have been in a
mentoring relationship for at least nine months; the survey is conducted on an
annual basis and aggregate results are published accordingly.
Additional questions in the
relationship survey focus on the preliminary identification of program design
factors and other elements, such as demographics, that appear to influence
responses on the tool. ACF made the
instrument available online for administration to mentees during the autumn of
2006. Results were reported in the FY
2006 Performance Report. Data from the
survey have been used to help in conducting the next phase of evaluation, which
focuses on outcomes.
Evaluation of child outcomes and positive life changes
The impact study of Big Brothers
Big Sisters by Public/Private Ventures found that after eighteen months
mentored youth were forty-six percent less likely to begin using illegal drugs
and twenty-seven percent less likely to begin using alcohol, as compared with similar
youth in a control group.[26] Little
Brothers and Little Sisters also “skipped” half as many days of school as did the
control group. (It should be noted that
mentees in MCP encompass a broader age range and are a higher risk population
than the youth participants in the Big Brothers Big Sisters impact study.)
The evaluation will compare
outcomes and changes in outcomes for children in the MCP program with outcomes
and changes in outcomes among groups of similar youth from other evaluations
and from national surveys. The
evaluation will determine whether children in the MCP program do better in a
number of areas than would ordinarily be expected from a control group.[27] The following categories for baseline and
follow-up measurement include:
·
Identity development;
·
Cognitive development;
·
Social and emotional development;
·
Relationships;
·
Behavioral outcomes;
·
Academic outcomes; and
·
Psychological outcomes
The study will examine mentoring outcomes in
fully-implemented programs that have demonstrated effectiveness in establishing
mentoring matches that increase the likelihood of positive outcomes for
participating youth. The evaluation will
collect information about organizational factors and service models to provide
context for the child outcomes, but will be limited in its documentation of
processes. ACF has a number of other
means by which to monitor program implementation, such as the caseload data
system, needs assessment surveys by the technical assistance contractor, and
observations by federal staff during site visits and as they review regular
progress reports.
The study will begin during the summer of 2007 after
final OMB clearance is granted for data collection. During this stage, criteria for site
selections will be finalized and a proposed list will be reviewed by the Family
and Youth Services Bureau with the firm contracted to conduct the study. Youth will voluntarily participate in an
intake survey at these sites, and will be asked to participate in a follow-up
survey at one-year. The research firm will
work in conjunction with participating sites to ensure that confidentiality and
standards for research are met while administering the surveys to youth.
Chapter 6
In Summary
Children of incarcerated
parents are plagued with a number of serious challenges that render them
particularly high-risk for delinquency, depression, and poor academic and
social outcomes. Extensive research has
shown that mentoring by a caring adult can result in significant positive
changes in the lives of disadvantaged youth.
Accordingly, the Mentoring Children of Prisoners program was enacted to
fund organizations to provide mentors for children of prisoners. In only a few short years, hundreds of
mentoring programs across the nation have provided mentors to tens of thousands
of children through the Mentoring Children or Prisoners program.
In the course of accomplishing this, HHS formed a
large community of now 238 organizations in 48 States, the District of
Columbia, and Puerto Rico and equipped them with the means to provide mentoring
for children of prisoners. Grants
administration protocols, accountability, program standards, performance goals,
data collection systems, training and technical assistance resources, and
evaluation plans had to be established and put into action. Most importantly, grantees needed to learn
and apply the practices shown by past experience and research to be
effective: building strong partnerships
with their surrounding communities, diligently screening and training mentors,
carefully tailoring services to the individual situations and needs of
children, supervising and supporting relationships to keep them together and on
the right track, and accurately gathering data with which to determine whether
their efforts are achieving results.
Not all programs experienced a smooth and quick start
up, and the ability of some grantees to grow the number of matches has been a
significant concern. Yet, as oversight
and technical assistance are focused where they have been needed the most, data
reports point to an accelerating growth curve toward long-term match
goals. To ensure that service quality
improves as the program expands, HHS has detailed plans and activities in place
to measure the quality of mentoring relationships from the viewpoint of the
children. HHS will also study how these
children’s lives are being affected over the long-term and how their
schoolwork, relationships, and health are progressing, not only compared to
their initial situation, but benchmarked against the experience of children in
similar programs and circumstances.
On Thursday, September 28,
2006, the President signed into law P.L. 109-288 which reauthorized the
Mentoring Children of Prisoners program. The law established a Service Delivery
Demonstration project in which HHS can enter into a cooperative agreement with
an entity to ensure the distribution of mentoring service vouchers to families
and caregivers of children whose parent(s) are incarcerated. Vouchers
will enable the family to choose a mentoring program that meets quality
standards, and enable organizations to serve children closer to where they
live. The cooperative agreement intends to reach priority populations that are
not already served by an MCP program, including communities with substantial numbers
of children of prisoners, rural areas, and concentrations of American Indian
and Alaskan Natives. Vouchers will
increase to access to mentoring services for children of prisoners . The Service
Delivery Demonstration project is to achieve the following specified outcomes;
3,000 vouchers for mentoring service in the first year, 8,000 vouchers in the
second year; and 13,000 vouchers in subsequent years. These matches will increase the total
performance of the program as it strives to bring compassion into the lives of
children of prisoners through one-on-one relationships.
Bibliography
Bauldry, S. & Hartmann, T. A. (2004). The promise and challenge of mentoring
high-risk youth: Findings from the
National Faith-Based Initiative.
Philadelphia: Public/Private
Ventures.
Congress of the United States of America. (2003). Findings, Title IV-B Subpart 2, section 439
(a) of the Social Security Act. Washington, DC.
Department of Health and Human Services,
Administration for Children and Families. (2005). FY 2007
ACF performance plan, pages M-55-60.
Washington, DC. Retrieved January, 2006 from http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/olab/budget/2007/cj2007/sec4_02_detail_perf_anlys_2007cj.doc
Department of Health and Human Services. (2004). President announces mentoring grants for children
of prisoners, USDHHS News Release, August 3, 2004. Washington, DC. Retrieved January, 2006 from http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2004pres/20040803a.html.
DuBois, D. L., Holloway, B. E., Valentine, J. C.,
& Harris, C. (2002). Effectiveness
of mentoring programs for youth: A
meta-analytic review. American
Journal of Community Psychology, 30: (2), 157-197.
Executive Office of the President. (December 22,
2005). National Mentoring Month 2006,
A proclamation by the President of the United States
of America. Washington, DC. Retrieved
January, 2006 from http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051222-13.html.
Executive Office of the President, Office of Management
and Budget. (2005). PART scores and
explanations. Washington, DC. Retrieved
January, 2006 from http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/detail.10003505.2005.html).
Gabel, K. & Johnston, D., (Eds.), (1995). Children of incarcerated parents. New York:
Lexington Books.
Gaudin, J. M., Jr. & Sutphen, R. (1993). Foster care v. extended family care for
children of incarcerated mothers. Journal
of Offender Rehabilitation, 19, 129–147.
Grossman, J. B., & Rhodes, J. E. (2002). The test of time: predictors and effects of duration in youth
mentoring relationships. American
Journal of Community Psychology, 30:
(2), 199-219.
Hairston, C. F. (2004). Prisoners and their families: Parenting issues during incarceration. In J. Travis & M. Waul (Eds.), Prisoners
once removed: The impact of
incarceration and reentry on children, families, and communities. (pages
259-284). Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press.
Henriques, Z. W. (1982). Imprisoned mothers and their
children: A descriptive and analytical
study. Washington, DC: University Press of America.
Johnston, D. (1995).
Effects of parental incarceration.
In K. Gabel & D. Johnston (Eds.), Children of incarcerated parents.
(pp. 59–88). New York: Lexington Books.
Jose-Kampfner, C. (1995). Post-traumatic stress reactions in children
of imprisoned mothers. In K. Gabel
& D. Johnston (Eds.), Children of incarcerated parents. (pp.
89–100). New York: Lexington Books.
Jucovy, L. (2003).
Amachi: Mentoring children of
prisoners in Philadelphia.
Philadelphia: Public/Private
Ventures and the Center for Research on Religion and Urban Civil Society.
Mumola, C. (2000).
Incarcerated parents and their children (NCJ 182335). U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice
Statistics. Washington, DC. Retrieved
April, 2005 from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/iptc.pdf.
National Crime Prevention Council (2004). People of faith mentoring children of
promise: A model partnership based on
service and community. Washington,
DC. Retrieved April, 2005 at http://128.121.17.146/cms-upload/ncpc/files/cover.pdf.
Rhodes, J. E. (2002).
Stand by me: The risks and
rewards of mentoring today’s youth.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Rhodes, J. E., Reddy, R., Roffman, J., & Grossman,
J. (2005). Promoting successful youth mentoring relationships: A preliminary screening questionnaire. Journal of Primary Prevention, 26: (2), 147-167.
Rhodes, J. E., Grossman, J. B., & Roffman, J. G.
(in press). The rhetoric and reality
of youth mentoring.
Tierney, J. P., & Grossman, J. B. (2000). Making a
difference: An impact study of Big
Brothers Big Sisters. Philadelphia:
Public/Private Ventures.
Travis, J. & Waul, M. (2004). Prisoners once removed: The children and families of prisoners. In J. Travis & M. Waul, (Eds.), Prisoners
once removed; The impact of incarceration and reentry on children, families,
and communities. (pp 1-32). Washington,
DC: The Urban Institute Press.
Appendices
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
News Release |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
President Announces Mentoring Grants for Children of Prisoners
President Bush today announced $45.6 million in grants to provide mentors
to children of prisoners. Aimed at
helping some of the two million children who have at least one incarcerated
parent, the grants are the latest in President Bush’s agenda of compassion in
action. “Mentors are the heroes who provide a trusting relationship with a child
or youth in need,” HHS Secretary Tommy G. Thompson said. “We know that youth outcomes can be
improved with the help of a mentor.
Today’s grants will give young Americans the hope and guidance they
need to grow up to be successful, healthy adults.” Research has found that significant physical absence of a parent has
profound effects on child development.
Children of incarcerated parents are seven times more likely to become
involved in the juvenile and adult criminal justice systems. Parental arrest and confinement often lead
to stress, trauma, stigmatization, and separation problems for children. These problems may be compounded by
existing poverty, violence, substance abuse, high-crime environments, child
abuse and neglect, multiple caregivers, and/or prior separations. “Children of prisoners need mentors.
They need caring, responsible, and committed adults who can be role
models, counselors, and teachers,” said Dr. Wade F. Horn, HHS assistant
secretary for children and families. “Youth who have parents in prison still
have the same yearning and desire for a father or mother as any other
child. These grants -- part of
President Bush’s agenda of compassion in action -- will help give kids
mentors who will make a difference in their lives.” The grants are administered through HHS’ Administration for Children and Families, which received 581 applications this year for new grant money. Panels were conducted in Washington for two weeks in May, and 164 grantees were selected, totaling $35 million. Some of the recipients include Volunteers of America in Louisiana, the Anchorage Children’s Home in Florida, and Big Brothers/Big Sisters in Michigan. The awards are the first installment in three-year grants. Additionally, five tribal grantees -- as announced by Secretary Thompson
during a July 19 visit to the Navajo Nation -- won mentoring awards totaling
$1.7 million. The awards are the first
installment in three-year grants. Finally, $8.9 million was awarded to organizations for their second year
of mentoring service, continuing the three-year grants announced last year. The mentoring children of prisoners program is a three-year initiative put
forth by President Bush in his 2003 State of the Union address, fully funded
this year by Congress. So far,
approximately 6000 kids have been mentored, with an expectation of 33,000
additional youth served as a result of the new grants. A complete list of organizations and grant
awards is below:
### |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NOTE: Since this press release was issued, several
of the grantees have relinquished grants or handed over operations to
successors.
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
News Release
HHS Awards $11.2
Million for Mentoring Children of Prisoners The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) today
awarded approximately $11.2 million to 76 organizations to train adult
volunteers to mentor children and youth whose parents are incarcerated. The
grants are part of mentoring children of prisoners program introduced by
President Bush in his 2003 State of the Union address. “With these grants, we are helping train mentors and match them
with children in need, because every child needs an enduring relationship
with a caring adult,” HHS Secretary Mike Leavitt said. “This program will
provide more children and youth of incarcerated parents with an opportunity
to grow in hope and make the right life choices.” Grantees will use the funds to train mentors and match them with
children and youth aged four to 18. Potential mentors will be screened for
child and domestic abuse and other criminal history. Mentors will receive
training and will also be required to commit to a one-on-one relationship and
meet at least once a week with the child. Grantees will monitor and assist
the mentors on an ongoing basis. “These grants will enable more volunteers to have a positive and
lasting impact in the lives of disadvantaged children,” said HHS Assistant
Secretary for Children and Families, Wade F. Horn, Ph.D. “They will help more
children and youth of incarcerated parents develop into responsible adults.” Nearly 2 million children in the United States have an
incarcerated parent. Studies have shown children with incarcerated parents
who have mentors are less likely to use drugs or alcohol and initiate
violence and are more likely to attend and perform well in school. Since this
program began in 2003, approximately $158 million has been awarded to
grantees to provide new mentors to children and youth of incarcerated parents.
Over 33,000 mentors and children have been matched so far, on track with the
target of 100,000 matches by fiscal year 2008. On Sept. 28, President Bush signed the Child and Families
Services Improvement Act of 2006 into law. The legislation reauthorizes the
Mentoring Children of Prisoners Program and includes the President’s proposal
to allow program vouchers to expand access to mentoring services nationwide. For more information on the mentoring children or prisoners
program, go to: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/fysb/content/youthdivision/programs/mcpfactsheet.htm. To view a complete list of the awards, go to: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/news/press/2006/mcpp_06_awards.htm. ### Note: All HHS press releases, fact sheets and other press
materials are available at http://www.hhs.gov/news. Last revised: October 5, 2006 |
|||||
|
U.S. Department of Health & Human
Services · 200 Independence Avenue, S.W. · Washington, D.C. 20201 |
|
Sept. 2006
Mentoring Children of Prisoners Grants |
|
Arkansas |
Boys and Girls Club of Benton County, Inc |
Bentonville |
$127,000 |
|
Arizona |
Big Brothers Big sisters of Northeastern Arizona |
Show Low |
$107,000 |
|
Arizona |
Pima Prevention Partnership |
Tucson |
$169,000 |
|
Arizona |
Pima Prevention Partnership |
Tucson |
$122,000 |
|
Arizona |
Pima Prevention Partnership |
Tucson |
$127,000 |
|
California |
Big Brothers Big Sisters of Marin and Napa Counties |
San Rafael |
$179,993 |
|
California |
Big Brothers Big Sisters of San Diego County, Inc |
San Diego |
$67,000 |
|
California |
Big Brothers Big Sisters of Ventura County, Inc |
Ventura |
$52,000 |
|
California |
Center for Children of Incarcerated Parents |
Eagle Rock |
$75,070 |
|
California |
Centerforce |
San Rafael |
$87,000 |
|
California |
Indio Youth Task Force |
Indio |
$107,000 |
|
California |
Metro United Methodist Urban Ministry |
San Diego |
$109,968 |
|
California |
Northern Valley Catholic Social Service, Inc |
Redding |
$165,000 |
|
California |
Path of Life Ministry |
Riverside |
$159,000 |
|
California |
Watts-Willowbrook Boys and Girls Club |
Los Angeles |
$122,000 |
|
California |
We Care America San Jacinto Valley |
San Jacinto |
$49,061 |
|
Colorado |
Big Brothers Big Sisters of Colorado, Inc |
Colorado Springs |
$77,000 |
|
District of Columbia |
Capitol Educational Support |
Washington |
$157,000 |
|
Delaware |
Big Brothers Big Sisters of Delaware |
Wilmington |
$77,000 |
|
Florida |
Big Brothers Big Sisters Association of Florida, Inc |
Palm Springs |
$507,000 |
|
Florida |
Faith Temple Christian Center |
Rockledge |
$87,000 |
|
Florida |
Youth In Action, Inc |
Panama City |
$87,000 |
|
Georgia |
Big Brothers Big Sisters of the Heart of Georgia |
Macon |
$35,000 |
|
Georgia |
DeKalb County, Georgia |
Atlanta |
$139,302 |
|
Georgia |
SafeHouse Outreach, Inc |
Atlanta |
$207,000 |
|
Georgia |
Tennis in the Hood, Inc |
Fayetteville |
$182,000 |
|
Georgia |
Youth Connections, Inc |
College Park |
$112,000 |
|
Iowa |
Big Brothers Big Sisters of Central Iowa |
Clive |
$50,000 |
|
Iowa |
Big Brothers Big Sisters of Siouxland |
Sioux City |
$150,000 |
|
Illinois |
Franklin Williamson Human Services, Inc |
West Frankfort |
$82,000 |
|
Indiana |
Big Brothers Big Sisters of Central Indiana, Inc |
Indianapolis |
$129,990 |
|
Indiana |
Big Brothers Big Sisters of Monroe County, Inc |
Bloomington |
$61,235 |
|
Kentucky |
YMCA of Greater Louisville |
Louisville |
$75,000 |
|
Maryland |
Center for Children, Inc |
La Plata |
$55,000 |
|
Maryland |
Institute for Interactive Instruction |
Laurel |
$107,000 |
|
Maryland |
U.S. Dream Academy, Inc |
Columbia |
$367,000 |
|
Michigan |
Muskegon Community Health Project, Inc |
Muskegon |
$107,000 |
|
Michigan |
Oakland Livingston Human Services Agency (OLHSA) |
Pontiac |
$132,000 |
|
Michigan |
Volunteers in Prevention, Probation & Prisons, Inc |
Detroit |
$185,000 |
|
Missouri |
Big Brothers Big Sisters of Eastern Missouri |
St. Louis |
$200,000 |
|
Mississippi |
Adams County Coalition for Children and Youth |
Natchez |
$182,000 |
|
Montana |
Missoula County |
Missoula |
$60,000 |
|
North Carolina |
Big Brothers Big Sisters of Greater Charlotte |
Charlotte |
$185,000 |
|
North Carolina |
Chatham County Together |
Pittsboro |
$36,055 |
|
North Dakota |
Big Brothers Big Sisters of Bismarck-Mandan |
Bismarck |
$55,526 |
|
New Jersey |
Big Brothers Sisters of Morris, Bergen & Passaic, Inc |
Parsippany |
$98,700 |
|
Nevada |
Big Brothers Big Sisters of Northern Nevada |
Reno |
$127,000 |
|
New York |
Big Brothers Big Sisters of the Capital Region, Inc |
Albany |
$126,359 |
|
New York |
Exodus Transitional Community, Inc |
New York |
$90,000 |
|
New York |
Greenhope Services for Women, Inc |
New York |
$132,000 |
|
New York |
Hour Children, Inc |
Long Island City |
$75,000 |
|
New York |
New York at Risk, Inc |
New York |
$75,000 |
|
Ohio |
Big Brothers Big Sisters Association of Central Ohio |
Columbus |
$750,000 |
|
Ohio |
Community Drop In Center |
Canton |
$30,125 |
|
Oklahoma |
Little Dixie Community Action Agency |
Hugo |
$100,000 |
|
Oregon |
Big Brothers Big Sisters of Metropolitan Portland |
Portland |
$112,000 |
|
Oregon |
Committed Partners for Youth |
Eugene |
$75,000 |
|
Pennsylvania |
Big Brothers Big Sisters of Buck County, Inc |
Jamison |
$120,000 |
|
Pennsylvania |
Big Brothers Big Sisters of the Capital Region |
Harrisburg |
$72,000 |
|
Pennsylvania |
Big Brothers Big Sisters of Southeastern PA (BBBS SEPA) |
Philadelphia |
$630,000 |
|
Pennsylvania |
Pittsburgh Leadership Foundation |
Pittsburgh |
$200,000 |
|
South Carolina |
Clemson University |
Clemson |
$174,195 |
|
Tennessee |
Boys to Men |
Johnson City |
$112,000 |
|
Tennessee |
University of Tennessee |
Chattanooga |
$136,972 |
|
Texas |
Big Brothers Big Sisters of South Texas, Inc |
San Antonio |
$607,000 |
|
Texas |
City of Longview |
Longview |
$92,000 |
|
Texas |
Serving Children and Adolescents In Need, Inc |
Laredo |
$107,000 |
|
Texas |
Travis High School Education Foundation |
Austin |
$107,000 |
|
Virginia |
Big Brothers Big Sisters of Harrisonburg & Rockingham Counties |
Harrisonburg |
$82,000 |
|
Virginia |
Big Brothers Big Sisters of the Peninsula |
Hampton |
$91,340 |
|
Virginia |
Mother Seton House, Inc T/A Seton Youth Services |
Virginia Beach |
$50,000 |
|
Washington |
Volunteers of America Western Washington |
Everett |
$199,406 |
|
Wisconsin |
Big Brothers Big Sisters of Metropolitan Milwaukee |
Milwaukee |
$750,000 |
|
Wisconsin |
Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superiour Ojibwe Indian |
Hayward |
$67,000 |
|
West Virginia |
Children’s Home Society of West Virginia |
Charleston |
$73,708 |
|
West Virginia |
Ohio County Commission |
Wheeling |
$77,000 |
Appropriations Information
From the FY 08 ACF Congressional Justification
MENTORING CHILDREN OF PRISONERS
Authorizing Legislation – Section 439(h) of the
Social Security Act.
|
2006 Enacted |
2007 Enacted |
2008 President’s Budget |
Increase or Decrease |
|
$49,459,000 |
$49,493,000 |
$50,000,000 |
+507,000 |
2008 Authorization: $50,000,000.
Statement of the Budget Request ─ The FY 2008 budget
request of $80,000,000 will provide funding to establish mentoring
relationships for children of arrested and/or incarcerated parents.
Program Description ─ The Mentoring Children
of Prisoners program was reauthorized in
2006. In addition to the basic program,
the legislation authorized a new voucher program allowing families to enroll
children in accredited mentoring programs of their choice. The Mentoring Children of Prisoners basic
program provides competitive grants to State and local governments; Indian
tribes and consortia; and faith- and community-based organizations to create and maintain one-to-one
mentoring relationships between children,
ages 4 through 18, of parents who are incarcerated with caring, supportive
adult mentors. The authorizing language allows applicants to apply for
grants up to $5 million which will represent up to 75 percent of the program
cost in the first two fiscal years of funding. In the final year of
funding, grantees are required to become gradually more self-sufficient with at
least 50 percent of funding provided through public-private partnerships.
Funding for the Mentoring Children of Prisoners
program during the last five years has been as follows:
|
2003 |
$ 9,935,000 |
|
2004 |
$49,701,000 |
|
2005 |
$49,598,000 |
|
2006 |
$49,459,000 |
|
2007 |
$49,493,000 |