U

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).

Chapter 2

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 4^th Quarter of FY 2006[23]				FY 2006
Number of children in current mentoring matches