Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies

[Excerpt] This report first provides an overview of the youth population and the increasing complexity of transitioning to adulthood for all adolescents. It also provides a separate discussion of the concept of “disconnectedness,” as well as the protective factors youth can develop during childhood and adolescence that can mitigate poor outcomes. Further, the report describes the evolution of federal youth policy, focusing on three time periods, and provides a brief overview of current federal programs targeted at vulnerable youth. (Table A 1 at the end of the report, enumerates the objectives and funding levels of such programs. Note that the table does not enumerate all programs that target, even in small part, vulnerable or disconnected youth.) The report then discusses the challenges of coordinating federal programs for youth, as well as federal legislation and initiatives that promote coordination among federal agencies and support programs with a positive youth development focus

Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies

[Excerpt] This report first provides an overview of the youth population and the increasing complexity of transitioning to adulthood for all adolescents. It also provides a separate discussion of the concept of “disconnectedness,” as well as the protective factors youth can develop during childhood and adolescence that can mitigate poor outcomes. Further, the report describes the evolution of federal youth policy, focusing on three time periods, and provides a brief overview of current federal programs targeted at vulnerable youth. (Table A-1, at the end of the report, enumerates the objectives and funding levels of such programs. Note that the table does not enumerate all programs that target, even in small part, vulnerable or disconnected youth.) The report then discusses the challenges of coordinating federal programs for youth, as well as federal legislation and initiatives that promote coordination among federal agencies and support programs with a positive youth development focus

Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies

[Excerpt] This report first provides an overview of the youth population and the increasing complexity of transitioning to adulthood for all adolescents. It also provides a separate discussion of the concept of “disconnectedness,” as well as the protective factors youth can develop during childhood and adolescence that can mitigate poor outcomes. Further, the report describes the evolution of federal youth policy, focusing on three time periods, and provides a brief overview of current federal programs targeted at vulnerable youth. The report then discusses the challenges of coordinating federal programs for youth, as well as federal legislation and initiatives that promote coordination among federal agencies and support programs with a positive youth development focus

Stakeholders' Views on the Movement to Reduce Youth Incarceration

Youth incarceration rates have changed dramatically over the past 10 years . Following two decades of "tough-on-crime" policies and steep surges in juvenile incarceration during the 1980s and 1990s, the field is now seeing sharp reductions in youth confinement . The latest data from the US Justice Department showed that the rate of youth in confinement dropped 41% between 2001 and 2011 . Since 2001, 48 states have experienced such a decline . Several states cut their confinement rates by half or more . Juvenile facilities have closed in a dozen states, with more than 50 facilities closing in the past five years alone .The National Council on Crime and Delinquency (NCCD) decided to seek the opinions of system stakeholders regarding these changes . These stakeholders included advocates who successfully pressured their local systems to adopt reforms; the majority of study participants work inside the system as judges, probation chiefs, probation officers, directors of child welfare agencies, elected officials, and district attorneys.Through interviews and listening sessions, these system stakeholders expressed their beliefs that declining youth crime and rising costs were key drivers of the current trend . Additionally, respondents said that many of these successes were driven by successful legislation, innovative incentives built into state budgets, decisions to place youth close to home, and supervision strategies that rely on positive relationships between youth and their families

Vulnerable Youth: Federal Mentoring Programs and Issues

[Excerpt] Since the mid-1990s, Congress has supported legislation to establish structured mentoring programs for the most vulnerable youth. The Department of Justice’s Juvenile Mentoring Program (JUMP), the first such program, was implemented in 1994 to provide mentoring services for at-risk youth ages 5 to 20. The purpose of contemporary, structured mentoring programs is to reduce risks by supplementing (but not supplanting) a youth’s relationship with his or her parents. Some of these programs have broad youth development goals while others focus more narrowly on a particular outcome such as reducing gang activity or substance abuse, or improving grades. Research has shown that mentoring programs have been associated with some positive youth outcomes, but that the long-term effects of mentoring on particular outcomes and the ability for mentored youth to sustain gains over time are less certain. Although there is no single overarching policy today on mentoring, the federal government has supported multiple mentoring efforts for vulnerable youth since JUMP was discontinued in FY2003. In recent years, two mentoring programs—the Mentoring Children of Prisoners (MCP) program and Safe and Drug Free Schools (SDFS) Mentoring program—have provided a significant source of federal funding for mentoring services. However, the programs were short- lived: funding for the MCP program, carried out by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) since FY2003, was discontinued as of FY2011; and funding for the SDFS program, carried out by the Department of Education (ED) since FY2002, was discontinued as of FY2010. The federal government currently funds mentoring efforts through short-term grants and initiatives. Many of these grants are carried out by the Department of Justice (DOJ), which has allocated funding for multiple mentoring programs, including mentoring for certain vulnerable youth and research on mentoring. In addition, the federal government has provided funding to programs with vulnerable youth that have a strong, but not exclusive, mentoring component. Youth ChalleNGe, an educational and leadership program for at-risk youth administered by the Department of Defense, helps to engage youth in work and school, and leadership opportunities. Adult mentors assist enrolled youth with their transition from the program for at least one year. Finally, federal agencies coordinate on mentoring issues. The Federal Mentoring Council was created in 2006 to address the ways agencies can combine resources and training and technical assistance to federally administered mentoring programs, and to serve as a clearinghouse on mentoring issues for the federal government. The council has been inactive in recent years but federal agencies, including the Departments of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and Justice, are collaborating to reconvene the council. This report begins with an overview of the purpose of mentoring, including a brief discussion on research of structured mentoring programs. The report then describes the evolution of federal policies on mentoring since the early 1990s. The report provides an overview of the federal mentoring initiatives that are currently funded. Note that additional federal programs and policies authorize funding for mentoring activities, among multiple other activities and services. These programs are not discussed in this report. The report concludes with an overview of issues that may be of interest to Congress. These issues include the limitations of research on outcomes for mentored youth, the potential need for additional mentors, grantees’ challenges in sustaining funding, and the possible discontinuation of federal mentoring funding. The Appendix includes a description of two federal mentoring programs that were funded until FY2010 and FY2011

Disproportionate Detention of Minorities: A Case Study of One State's Compliance with the Mandates of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act

Pursuant to Section 223(a)(23) of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, states must examine whether minority youth are disproportionately detained in relation to their proportion in the general population. For a preliminary assessment of Alaska’s compliance, five and a half years of detention data (1990–June 1995) for the state of Alaska are analyzed to assess the detention of minority and non-minority youth. A number of factors are used to compare racial groups: type of offense, prior record, gender, age, length of detention, etc.This study was made possible by a gift from Cook Inlet Region, Inc. and was conducted in collaboration with the Alaska Division of Family and Youth Services.Abstract / [Introduction] / Background / Background of the Study / Findings / Discussion / References / Appendix 1. Repeat Offender

Developing a Federal Research Agenda for Positive Youth Development: Identifying Gaps in the Field and an Effective Consensus Building Approach

The field of positive youth development (PYD) is at an important crossroads in terms of defining its scope and directions for future research. This paper describes an effective consensus-building process that representatives from 16 federal agencies engaged in to develop a research agenda focused on PYD and the product that resulted from using this approach. During this process, the representatives identified and refined three research domains (conceptual issues related to PYD, data sources and indicators, and program implementation and effectiveness) and key research questions that could benefit from future research. We share lessons learned from our experience to emphasize the importance of organizational systems change efforts and interagency collaborations. A major contribution of this paper is to provide specific areas for future research in PYD from the federal perspective and to describe future implications for PYD policy and interagency collaborations