Volume 13, 2007

Collaborative Efforts to Address Minority Over-representation in Juvenile Justice:  A Community-Based Mini-Grant Process

James M. Frabutt
University of Notre Dame

Mary H. Kendrick, Emily R. Cabaniss, and Stephanie M. Horton
University of North Carolina at Greensboro

Margaret B. Arbuckle
Guilford Education Alliance

Table of Contents

Juvenile Disproportionate Minority Contact Background
Efforts in Guilford County, North Carolina
Developing Local Capacity through Mini-Grants
     Emergence of the Mini-Grant Concept
     The Mini-Grant Process
Mini-Grant Implementation
     Program-Level Outcomes
Reflections on the Process
About the Author
Appendix 1
Appendix 2
Appendix 3
Appendix 4


This paper is centered on sharing experiences and knowledge gained from orchestrating a community-driven mini-grant process as part of a larger initiative designed to reduce disproportionate minority contact (DMC) in the juvenile justice system.  Since this project was supported by federal funding, channeled through a university-based center to local service providers and non-profits, it provides insight into resource sharing and processes of shared accountability.  Moreover, the mini-grant process (e.g., writing the proposals, implementing the programs, documenting outcomes) contributed to increased community capacity and community sustainability of this initiative. 

Juvenile Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) Background

In this country, equal justice for youth of color is not a given.  Disproportionate minority contact (DMC) with the juvenile justice system is truly an issue of public health disparity for communities, regardless of size or geographic location (Cabaniss, Gathings, Frabutt, Kendrick, & Arbuckle, 2006).  DMC is a rate of contact with the juvenile justice system among juveniles of a specific minority group that is significantly different than the rate of contact for whites or for other minority groups (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2006).  Often cited nationwide statistic highlights that, while minority youth comprise 34% of the juvenile population in the United States, they represent 62% of the nation’s detained youth (Hsia, Bridges, & McHale, 2004).  Pope, Lovell and Hsia (2002) reviewed numerous empirical investigations and noted that disproportionate numbers of minority youth exist at several decision points in the juvenile justice system and the effects of that disproportionality may be cumulative.  It is safe to say that disproportionate minority contact in the juvenile justice system is almost at a level of epidemic proportions (Frabutt & Hefner, 2007). 

Since 1988, the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act required states receiving funding under the act to determine whether the proportion of juvenile minorities in confinement exceeds their proportion in the general population.  Trends were still so alarming in 1992 that Congressional amendments made it a “core requirement” that states demonstrate their efforts to reduce DMC in order to continue receipt of federal formula grants (Section 223(a)(23)).  However, the purpose of the DMC core requirement remains the same: to ensure equal and fair treatment for every youth in the juvenile justice system, regardless of race and ethnicity.

Given increased social recognition that DMC is a significant issue, federal and state governments (e.g., Leiber, 2002; Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2006), research and policy organizations (e.g., Building Blocks For Youth, 2005; Nellis, 2005), and community initiatives (e.g., Hsia, Wilson, Wilson, & Frabutt, 2006; Frabutt, Cabaniss, Arbuckle, & Kendrick, 2005; Frabutt, Wilson, Kendrick, Arbuckle, & Cabaniss,2005) have provided more direction in terms of how to address and reduce DMC.  North Carolina, through the Governor’s Crime Commission, has supported four demonstration counties over the past three years to plan, implement, and sustain locally-relevant DMC reduction strategies.

Efforts in Guilford County, North Carolina

The mission of the Guilford County [1] DMC Project is to mobilize government and community agencies to take strategic actions that will contribute to a reduction of disproportionate minority contact in Guilford County.  The Guilford County demonstration site housed its project management at the Center for Youth, Family, and Community Partnerships (CYFCP) based at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro.  The Center emerged as the grant recipient and manager after the local chair of the Juvenile Crime Prevention Council (JCPC) and several JCPC members recommended the Center as an appropriate base for the initiative.  CYFCP was selected as a convener of this project for several reasons.  First, the Center was a “known commodity” in the areas of child, family, and community development in Guilford County.  The Center had engaged in several partnership-based initiatives since 1996 focused on youth violence prevention, children’s mental health, community-based evaluation, and early childhood development.  Second, as outlined in its mission and visioning documents, the Center itself holds shared leadership and partnership approaches as an organizational value.[2]   Third, for the issues at hand—youth delinquency, best practices in juvenile justice, and awareness of interface among child-serving systems—faculty at the Center possessed content knowledge and a track record of community practice.

To ensure that the DMC remained firmly rooted in the community, even the though the formal funding arrangement was with a university-based Center, the Guilford site employed a management team approach, consisting of a Project Coordinator, Project Director, Management Team member, and Parent Management Team member.  The Project Coordinator role was a newly created position, advertised broadly ultimately filled with a part-time consultant that remained external to the University.  In addition, one Management Team member was the executive director of a local non-profit educational advocacy organization.  The Management Team then worked in close concert with the wider DMC Committee, which consisted of both community-based and institutional partners (see Table 1).  Local efforts to address DMC centered on four core areas:

(a) Data: maintain local data mapping system and disseminate these data;

(b) Training: use juvenile justice staff training to heighten practitioners’ awareness of institutional racism;

(c) Resources: support innovative prevention and intervention services for youth and their primary caregivers; and (

d) Policy: make relevant policy recommendations at the state and local level (Frabutt & Hefner, 2007).

Table 1. DMC Committee Members and Agency Affiliations


Alcohol and Drug Services
Jackie Butler
Black Child Development
June S. Valdes
(Brothers Organized To Save Others)
Hank Wall, Marjorie Rorie
Center for Youth, Family, and Community Partnerships
Jim Frabutt, Mary Kendrick, Emily Cabaniss, Terri Shelton, Damie Jackson
Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
Rich Smith, Sandra Reid, Amie Haith,
Maxine Hammonds
Department of Social Services
Pamela Watkins
District Court Judges
Joe Turner, Lawrence McSwain
Family Life Council
Spencer Long
Faithworks Ministries
Kenneth & Sheila Fairbanks
Family Services of the Piedmont
Erv Henry, Rayvone Poole
Governor’s Crime Commission
Kimberly Wilson, Claudette Burroughs-White
Greensboro City Council
Dianne Bellamy-Small
Greensboro Education and Development Council
Michael Prioleau
Greensboro Housing Authority
Tina Akers Brown
Greensboro Lifeskills Center
Shirley Foster
Greensboro Parks and Recreation, YouthFirst
Darryl Kosciak, Connie White
Greensboro Police Department
Tim Bellamy, Mike Loy
Guilford Center
Emily Latta


Guilford County Manager’s Office
Beverly Williams
Guilford County Department of
Court Alternatives
 Doug Logan, Thomas Turner
Guilford County Schools
Richard Tuck, Gwendolyn Willis
Guilford County Sheriff’s Department
Herb Jackson
Guilford Education Alliance
Margaret Arbuckle
Guilford Technical Community College
Pat Freeman
High Point Parks and Recreation
Gretta Bush
High Point Police Department
Beth Workman, Jim Tate, Quintin Trent
Hype 4 Life
Arlicia Campbell
Juvenile Crime Prevention Council
Owen Lewis
David Moore
North Carolina Office of the
Juvenile Defender
Eric Zogry
One Step Further
Tommye Gant, Susan Ayers
Parent Representatives
Dianne Walker, Stephanie Horton,
Mildred Poole, Cynthia Davis
Prayer Network
Melvin DuBose
United Piedmont Center
Guin White
United Way
Anthony Ward (now at Guilford Center)
Win-Win Resolutions
Kathy Grumblatt, Debra Vigliano,
Lenora Billings-Harris
YWCA of Greensboro
Carolyn Flowers
Youth Focus
Chuck Hodierne


Developing Local Capacity through Mini-Grants

Emergence of the Mini-Grant Concept

A critical working group derived from the overall DMC Committee was the Resource and Needs Subcommittee, chaired by parent advocate and representative, Ms. Mildred Poole.  The Resource and Needs Subcommittee was tasked with identifying and cataloging a local continuum of services—both prevention and intervention—that could reduce DMC.  Moreover, by identifying the array of existing services, the subcommittee gained a better understanding of services that were needed in Guilford County but that were currently unavailable.  Since differential opportunities for prevention and treatment (e.g., access, implementation, and effectiveness) are one identified cause of DMC, the Year 1 efforts of the Resource and Needs Subcommittee were critical.  The local continuum of prevention and intervention services was intended as a community resource and the document has been posted to the county web site, the university website, and the website of Guilford Educational Alliance.  It was distributed to numerous potential users through both hard copy format and e-mail.  Importantly, this work contributed to the identification of critical gaps in services that could reduce DMC.  Based on that effort, in Year 2 the DMC project applied to the Governor’s Crime Commission and received $30,000 to support locally targeting community programming.  In sum, the DMC Committee piloted a community process with an active feedback loop to scan the current status of resource provision; note assets, gaps and needs; and derive a concrete plan for channeling funding to needed services.  The next section outlines the full process and is summarized in Table 2.

Table 2. Mini-Grant Timeline


January – June 2005

Development of Resource Guide

July 2005

Second Year Funding Received

Early September 2005

Call for Proposals

Late September 2005

Grant Submission Workshop

October 2005

Review of Proposals

November 2005

Grant Awards and Contract Negotiation (3 Awards made at $10,000 each)

November 2005

Reporting and Reimbursement Requirements

December 2005 – June 2006

Program Implementation

February–June 2006

Monitoring and Reporting (site visits)


The Mini-Grant Process

Call for Proposals and Instructions to Applicants.  Early in Year 2, the Resources and Needs Subcommittee developed and distributed a call for proposals for mini-grant funding to local service providers.  Press releases were issued to several local newspapers announcing the call for proposals.  Only programs which addressed one of four identified service gaps would be considered for funding: (a) aftercare – support for youths after suspension or incarceration; (b) mentoring – one-on-one mentoring for at least two hours each week; (c) mediation – school-based conflict resolution/peer mediation; and (d) parenting support – guidance from parent/youth advocates.

All mini-grant applicants were required to attend a Grant Submission Workshop presented by the Resources and Needs Subcommittee.  In this workshop, the grant application, submission, review, and selection processes were explained (see Appendix 1).  Because DMC cannot be fully addressed and progress sustained without far-reaching community involvement, the committee sought to minimize funding obstacles for all applicants (not just those selected as mini-grant recipients).  For that reason, the mini-grant application was purposefully modeled after the form used by the North Carolina Governor’s Crime Commission, with the goal of facilitating future or alternate community funding for applicants (Appendix 2).

Proposal Development.  In order to be considered for funding, all proposals were expected to address a wide range of considerations.  First, applicants were asked to identify the particular aspect of DMC their projects would address and to explain why it was important.  Next, applicants were asked to describe their recruitment strategies and to state their overall project goal(s), as well as particular objectives that must be met to reach these goals.  More specifically, for each objective, applicants were asked to identify performance measures, or indicators of success, and to explain how they would measure success (their evaluation method).  They were also asked to place their project activities on a timeline, to relate them to their stated objectives, and to indicate what steps they would take to sustain their service beyond the grant period. 

Applicants were also expected to provide a detailed outline of their budgets, ensuring that expenses did not exceed $10,000.  Non-allowable costs included indirect costs (maintenance of facilities; administrative salaries or costs not assigned to a particular project); purchase of vehicles, buildings, or land; and construction costs.   Applicants were expected to discuss their organizational capacity as well.  This included previous experience with the target populations that they proposed to serve.  They were also asked to list the agencies with which they must effectively collaborate to carry out their proposals.  A letter from each partner agency describing the collaborative arrangement was required from each mini-grant applicant.

Review of Applications.  When all proposals (total of 9) were received in early October 2005, the Resources and Needs Subcommittee met to review applications according to a list of pre-established criteria: 

As a first step, each reviewer independently read all proposals and selected the three strongest applications.  Then, all reviewers reconvened to re-examine the most highly ranked applications.  Each proposal was assigned a cumulative score from 0 to 100, based on how well it met each criterion.  The three proposals receiving the highest scores were selected as potential funding candidates.

Mini-Grant Awards Announced.  At the October 2005 DMC Committee meeting, the Resources and Needs Subcommittee presented its funding recommendations.  At that time, the DMC Committee endorsed the selections and authorized award notifications to be sent.  Announcements were made via local media outlets (Appendix 3).  Three mini-grants of $10,000 each were made available on a reimbursement basis to the following programs:

Each mini-grant recipient then signed an individual subcontract (using a standard form issued by the Governor’s Crime Commission) with the Center for Youth, Family, and Community partnerships which was then sent to the Governor’s Crime Commission for approval.  By entering into this contract, grant recipients agreed to submit regular reports on their activities, the number of youth served, and any challenges.  These were submitted monthly with their invoices.

Mini-Grant Implementation

In November 2005, funded programs officially began their activities.  From that point forward, representatives from each funded program reported on their work at each monthly meeting of the full DMC Committee.  As agreed, they also submitted formal progress reports to Jim Frabutt at the Center for Youth, Family, and Community Partnerships with their monthly reimbursement requests.

Formal program monitoring site visits by members of the Resources and Needs Subcommittee began in April 2006.  In these visits, subcommittee members assessed each program according to criteria put forth by the Juvenile Crime Prevention Council in their monitoring reports (Appendix 4).  Such criteria included compliance with program agreement, program operation and staffing, financial accounting, and number of referrals from law enforcement, juvenile court, or other sources.  Other DMC Committee members also visited program sites throughout the funding period on a more informal basis. 

Program-Level Outcomes

Some of the programs produced documentable results, which are reported below.

Brothers Organized To Serve Others (BOTSO).  Over the course of the grant period, the BOTSO program engaged 15 new adults to serve as mentors and served 88 African American youth (20 were aged 8 and under; 26 were 9-12; 33 were 13-15; and 9 were 16-18).  The approach and presence of African American males had a tremendous positive impact in attitudes and performance levels of the participants.  The students responded with an increased interest in school and school-related activities.  The project exposed the youth to school-based and evening programs such as “Thankful Heritage: A Traveling African American Museum,” semi-professional basketball games, community service through Super Saturday Clean-ups, a “Scared Straight” program at Polk Correctional Center, conflict resolution skills through Win-Win Resolutions, and a six-week character-building program call “A Hero Factor.”  One of the project goals of BOTSO over the grant duration was to recruit African American men as mentors.  A presentation during Sunday school at High Point Christian Center allowed the project to address 20 men.  Twelve of those men agreed to register as mentors for the program and have dedicated themselves to the process.

Hype For Life.  Hype 4 Life’s life skills training program, with a focus on self-esteem, attitudes, and personal responsibility, was successfully offered at four school sites throughout the grant period: Kirkman Park Elementary, Cone Elementary, Welborn Middle, and High Point Central High School.  Table 3 displays the demographic characteristics of the program participants.

Table 3. Hype for Life Program Participants, Age and Race Demographics






≤ 8




≤ 8





African American








































One particular participant was a seventh grade black female who was always in trouble. She was constantly in danger of long-term suspensions due to fighting.  In fact, some administrators regarded her as the “holy terror.”  This particular student began the program in December and immediately the Hype for Life program began to nurture her.  For example, “we just singled her out and did one-on-ones with her” a facilitator mentioned.  However, it was a home visitation and daily communicating by phone and e-mail that provided insight to help explain “why she was acting out fighting and in trouble everyday.”  At home, “her dad was not in the picture and her mom was on drugs.”  Her family life was best described as “on her own…raising herself and feeding herself.”   The Hype 4 Life Project Director told her “I love you [and] I want you to do better.”  Therefore, the Director began to take a personal interest in her at both home and school, and in 30 days changes were evident. For instance, she came to workshops and eventually got directly involved, while both her attitude and attendance improved.  She was more talkative, cooperative, and interactive not only with Hype 4 Life staff, but in her school classroom.  In addition to the behavioral changes at school, she transformed personally; she was becoming more confident and began to dress better and fix her hair and was even getting along better with her mother. 

Although she got into a fight with another girl during the last week of school, Hype program staff still considered her a successful model because the girl did not get suspended for nearly six months. The Hype 4 Life plan also helped her see that “what happens at school affects not only her day-to-day reality but her future.”

ParentTalk.  The ParentTalk program served 75 adults during the grant duration (18 men and 57 women.  Participants were White (36%) and African American (64%). Martha Thompson, a widow, worked two jobs to support her 14-year-old son Jared and her three other children ages 12, 9, and 7.[3]  During the past two years, Jared had become increasingly “out of control.”  He talked constantly in classes, fought with other students, and screamed obscenities at his teachers.  His behavior at home was similar, and he was damaging property around his neighborhood.  He was ordered to the district’s alternative school, and juvenile professionals warned Ms. Thompson that he was headed for juvenile detention and possibly a youth development center. His mother was desperate for help.

In ParentTalk sessions, after viewing examples in DVDs and participating in several role plays, Ms. Thompson realized that she was not listening to Jared. “It’s hard to work two jobs, cook and clean at home with four children, and take time to listen to my children,” she said. Talking with other parents showed her that she, in part, had contributed to Jared’s anger and to his antisocial behavior. Another parent recommended an anger management program (with a sliding fee scale).  Jared and Ms. Thompson attended.  She also returned to ParentTalk to practice communicating positively with all of her children.

ParentTalk staff learned in follow-up contacts with Ms. Thompson that Jared’s behavior at home and in school had “improved a lot.”  He had “quieted down” and was actually talking to his mother. She learned how other parents dealt with disruptive kids, that being a dictatorial parent was ineffective with Jared, and that she did have the ability to really listen to her son.  As she added, the next step is “to bring that boy’s grades up.”

Reflections on the Process

Throughout the mini-grant process, the DMC Committee encountered challenges, recognized opportunities, and learned valuable lessons.  The following represents reflections and observations made by recipients of grants funds, the Resource and Needs subcommittee, and the broader DMC Committee. 

Additionally, mini-grant recipients helped the committee understand the “insider” experience with this process by sharing their perspectives as funding recipients:

“As a result of the success of the program we have modified it to include serving parents of youth gang members, youth exhibiting gang-like behavior, and youth at-risk of joining a gang.”

“DMC mini-grant funding provided us with funding to continue operation as well as expand the program to serve not only parents of school enrolled youth but also parents residing in public housing, involved in community agencies, or self-referrals.”

“The main strength of the mini-grant includes new-found partnerships formed through and by the process.  Quite refreshing to be part of a committee that is actually hands on.”

“The mini-grant did open the door for us to apply for other grants to reach more youth (we have received a gang grant as a result of this mini-grant).”


The mini-grant process described in this paper represents a small attempt—within the context of a larger, community-based initiative—to build ownership and capacity around issues of youth development.  The process is also illustrative of one initiative’s attempt to strategically use and manage finite resources.  That is, the DMC project conducted a comprehensive scan of the existing social service environment, issued a call for proposals to address identified gaps, selected responsive and innovative programs, and committed to ensuring full implementation and monitoring of those programs.  Even on this limited scale, the mini-grant process involved both university and community-based stakeholders jointly committed to improving community services for at-risk youth.  A longer period of funding support would have allowed for a continuation of needed services—and a deeper understanding of the programs’ impact.  Even within the short timeframe of this mini-grant experience, however, it is clear that community initiatives can share resources, implement programming, and establish a system of accountability, all to build the infrastructure that best services children and families.


1. As part of the eleven-county Piedmont Triad region (population: 1.27 million) of North Carolina, Guilford County is centered along the Piedmont industrial crescent stretching from Raleigh to Charlotte.  Guilford County has the third-highest population in the state at 421,000.

2. Several cornerstone values guide the Center’s work: a) Active involvement of multiple stakeholders who represent a diversity of perspectives; b) Healthy, open, respectful, and constructive relationships among stakeholders; c) Programs and strategies informed by the best available research and youth, family, and community wisdom; and d) Programs and policies in support of children that are individualized, asset-based, developmentally appropriate, and culturally sensitive.

3. Pseudonyms are used.


Building Blocks for Youth. (2005). No turning back: Promising approaches to reducing racial and ethnic disparities affecting youth of color in the justice system. Washington, DC: Building Blocks for Youth Initiative.  

Cabaniss, E. R., Gathings, M. J., Frabutt, J. M., Kendrick, M. H., & Arbuckle, M. B., (2006, August).  Disproportionate minority contact in the juvenile justice system: Voice of our youth.  Poster presented at the 101st Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association, Montreal, Canada.

Frabutt, J. M., Cabaniss, E. R., Arbuckle, M. B., & Kendrick, M. H. (2005, May). Reducing disproportionate minority contact in the juvenile justice system: Promising practices. Poster presented at the 2005 Society for Prevention Research Annual Conference, Washington, DC.

Frabutt, J. M., & Hefner, M. K. (2007).  Taking DMC to scale in North Carolina: A multi-site study. Greensboro, NC: Center for Youth, Family, and Community Partnerships, University of North Carolina at Greensboro.

Frabutt, J. M., Wilson, M., Kendrick, M. H., Arbuckle, M. B., & Cabaniss, E. R. (2005, November). Collaboration to reduce disproportionate minority contact in the juvenile justice system. Invited panelist at the Coalition for Juvenile Justice Fall 2005 Conference on Disproportionate Minority Contact: Assuring Equal Justice, Innovation for the Future, Seattle, WA.

Hsia, H. M., Bridges, G. S., & McHale, R. (2004). Disproportionate minority confinement: 2002 update. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Hsia, H., Wilson, M., Wilson, K., & Frabutt, J. M. (2006). Federal, state and local efforts to reduce disproportionate minority contact. In Disproportionate minority contact technical assistance manual, 3rd edition (pp. 6.1-6.26).  Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.  Available online at:

Leiber, M. (2002).  Disproportionate minority confinement (DMC) of youth: An analysis of state and federal efforts to address the issue.  Crime and Delinquency, 48, 3-45.

Nellis, A. M. (2005). Seven steps to develop and evaluate strategies to reduce disproportionate minority contact (DMC). Juvenile justice evaluation center guidebook series. Washington, DC: Juvenile Justice Evaluation Center.

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (2006).  DMC technical assistance manual, 3rd edition.  Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.  Available online at

Pope, C. E., Lovell, R., & Hsia, H. M. (2002). Disproportionate minority confinement: A review of the research literature from 1989 through 2001. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

About the Author

Dr. Frabutt is a faculty member in the Institute for Educational Initiatives at the University of Notre Dame. He teaches in the ACE Leadership Program, an innovative innovative research-based administrative degree program that forms, educates, and supports selected Catholic school teachers to continue their service to K-12 schools through administrative preparation. He previously served as Deputy Director of the Center for Youth, Family, and Community Partnerships at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro (UNCG). Prior to that, he was the Director of the Division for the Prevention of Youth Violence and Aggression at the Center for the Study of Social Issues at UNCG.  Dr. Frabutt led an action research approach to violence reduction and community safety as the Research Partner for the Project Safe Neighborhoods effort in the Middle District of North Carolina. His research and practice efforts have centered on the mental health needs of court-involved youth, university-community partnerships, and the impact of multiple contexts on adolescent development.

This paper is based on a poster: (2006, May).  Building community capacity through a community-driven mini-grant process.  Poster symposium presented at the Community-Campus Partnerships for Health 9th Annual Conference, Walking the Talk, Achieving the Promise of Authentic Partnerships, Minneapolis, MN.

Appendix 1.
Presentation to Potential Mini-Grant Applicants


Appendix 2.
Mini-Grant Application












Appendix 3.
Mini-Grant Press Release

Contact: Jim Frabutt, 336-334-5826;
Dan Nonte, 336-334-4314

Juvenile Justice Grants Awarded by DMC Committee

GREENSBORO – The Guilford County Disproportionate Minority Contact Committee has announced the recipients of three $10,000 mini-grants to reduce the number of African American youth in the juvenile justice system. Agencies submitted applications to the UNCG Center for Youth, Family, and Community Partnerships to address four identified service gaps in services in Guilford County:

  1. Aftercare – support for youths after suspension or incarceration
  2. Mentoring – one-on-one mentoring for at least two hours each week
  3. Mediation – school-based conflict resolution/peer mediation
  4. Parenting Support – guidance from parent/youth advocates

A resource and needs subcommittee reviewed and scored several applications. The grant recipients are Hype 4 Life, One Step Further, Inc., and BOTSO (Brothers Organized To Save Others).
Hype 4 Life, a life skills training program focused on self-esteem, attitudes, and personal responsibility will be offered at four school sites: Kirkman Park Elementary, Cone Elementary, Welborn Middle, and High Point Central High School.  One Step Further, Inc. will implement a program called ParentTalk to provide an open, supportive forum for parents of undisciplined and delinquent youth to share juvenile justice experiences and explore successful alternative parenting techniques.  The BOTSO program is designed to empower African American youth though mentoring, support for academic achievement, and character building education.  Each program includes specific goals, objectives, and evaluation measures to assess the impact of the program.  The grants, which will expire June 30th, are supported by funding from the Governor’s Crime Commission.

Appendix 4.
Program Monitoring