Home | Help | Contact Us | Site Map | Glossary

Enter your keyword(s) Search Site Advanced Search

Program Profile: Youth Advocate Programs, Inc.

(YAP)
Evidence Rating: Promising - One study
Program Snapshot
Date: This profile was posted on October 16, 2019

Age: 10 - 19
Program Summary
This is an intervention designed to prevent future criminal activity among system-involved youth through
Gender: Both
using short-term, high-intensity relationships with paid mentors, referred to as Advocates. The program
is rated Promising. Program participants showed statistically significant improvement in educational
engagement and reductions in serious dispositions, compared with a comparison group. Race/Ethnicity: Black,
Program Description Asian/Pacific Islander,
Hispanic, White, Other
Program Goals/Target Population
Youth Advocate Programs, Inc. (YAP) is an intervention designed to help system-involved youth Geography: Suburban,
satisfy court mandates and prevent future criminal activity through short-term, high-intensity Urban
relationships with paid mentors, referred to as Advocates. Additionally, the intervention seeks to
provide system-involved youth with opportunities to become assets to their communities, through
Setting (Delivery):
alternatives to institutional placement. YAP targets youth who are at immediate risk of
institutionalization due to violent or repeat property offenses. Home, School, Other
Community Setting
Program Activities
Youth are referred to YAP from juvenile justice, child welfare, and behavioral health agencies under a Program Type:
“no reject–no eject” referral policy (meaning that all youth referrals are accepted into the program). Diversion, Mentoring
YAP provides wraparound services in a process that begins with a strength-based family assessment
occurring within 48 hours of referral. Staff members meet with the family to introduce the program, Targeted Population:
learn about the family, complete four assessment tools, and address any immediate safety concerns.
Status Offenders,
After this assessment process, a team of formal service and informal supports (e.g., family members,
Young Offenders
pastors) is gathered to identify the family’s needs and strengths, to develop a plan to meet these
needs, and to develop a thorough safety plan.
Current Program
YAP Advocate mentors are matched with youth based on shared interests and other similarities, Status: Active
when possible, including living in the same zip code. Advocates are expected to form trusting
relationships with youth to help them meet court-mandated goals (when required) and to strengthen
family and community relations that will help deter the youth from future harmful behavior. Advocate Program Director:
mentors and youth ideally meet for at least 7.5 hours per week, and sometimes for up to 30 hours per Jeff Fleischer
week, over a 4- to 6-month period. Advocate mentors work with youth to implement individual service CEO
plans (ISPs) that are developed with each family. ISPs include the youth’s goals and timeframes to Youth Advocacy
meet those goals; these are updated throughout the period of each youth’s intervention. Programs, Inc.
Phone: 717.232.7580
Though differences in activities and expectations exist among YAP sites, Advocates and youth are ext: 1404
generally free to schedule their own individual and group activities. These activities are driven by the Website
needs and interests of the specific youth and his/her Advocate mentor. Examples include working on Email
homework, doing community service, looking for employment, and recreational activities such as
going to the movies and playing basketball. Advocate mentors also engage families and communities Researcher:
through group activities, such as cookouts, and by providing wraparound services. Joseph Durso
Research Associate
Key Personnel Youth Advocacy
Advocate mentors are paid, trained, and provided with weekly supervision; when possible, they reside Programs, Inc.
in the same communities as the youth. Full-time Advocates carry caseloads that vary in size, Phone: 717.525.3667
according to location and current need, with reported caseload sizes ranging from 4 to 10 mentees
 per mentor (Karcher and Johnson 2016). Website
Email
Program Theory
YAP operates in accordance with the TEAM (Theoretically Evolving Activities in Mentoring) Researcher:
Framework for youth mentoring relationships (Karcher and Nakkula 2010), which comprises three Michael Karcher
main areas. The first, Focus, refers to the degree to which mentorship activities are directional (i.e., Professor and Principal
goal oriented) or relational (i.e., learning about one another). YAP Advocates focus on trust building Investigator
early in the relationship, to help mentees achieve their goals over time. The second, Activity Choice University of Texas, San
or Authorship, refers to who “drives” the mentoring activities. YAP Advocates encourage youth and Antonio
their families to take an active collaborative role in the development of their individualized service San Antonio TX 78249
plans. The third area, Activity Purpose, refers to the outcome expected from a particular mentor- Phone: 210.458.2032
mentee activity or conversation. For YAP, the purpose of a given activity is driven by the youth’s Email
individual service plan, in addition to the interests of the mentor and mentee.
Researcher:
Another relevant theory, Jessor’s Problem Behavior Theory (Jessor and Jessor 1977), states that David Johnson
youth participation in few conventional activities (i.e., serious, goal-driven, usually adult-driven) and Assistant Professor
frequent unconventional activities (i.e., problem behaviors, usually peer-focused) contributes to Wake Forest University
juvenile delinquency. P.O. Box 7406
Winston-Salem NC
Finally, cognitive behavioral therapy is also relevant. Fifteen states participating in YAP have 27109
incorporated Peaceful Alternatives to Tough Situations (Williams, Johnson, and Bott 1998), an Phone: 336.758.5673
intervention that uses cognitive behavioral therapy to help youth reduce conflict and build prosocial Email
skills.
Evaluation Outcomes

Study 1
Serious Dispositions
Karcher and Johnson (2016) found that, at 1-year post-discharge, Youth Advocate Programs (YAP)
graduates scored lower on most serious disposition, compared with untreated youth. This statistically
significant reduction indicated a large estimated program effect.

Educational Engagement
At 1-year post-discharge, YAP graduates scored higher on educational engagement, compared with
untreated controls. This statistically significant improvement indicated a large estimated program
effect.
Evaluation Methodology

Study 1
Karcher and Johnson (2016) examined the effectiveness of the Youth Advocate Programs (YAP)
using a recurrent institutional cycle (RIC) quasi-experimental design, in which program graduates are
compared with a counterfactual comparison group of youth of similar ages, who have yet to
participate in the program. Data were collected from five separate cohorts of youth (n = 164) at four
program sites (Toledo, Ohio; Camden, New Jersey; Las Vegas, Nevada; and Lebanon, Pennsylvania)
before their intervention cycle, and at 2 months (n = 133) and 4 months later (n = 103). Program sites
were selected for their geographic locations and because the size and the makeup of their youth
populations were representative of YAP sites.

At intake, 38.4 percent of participants were African American, 26.8 percent were white, 23.8 percent
were Hispanic, 0.61 percent were Asian American, 0.61 percent were Pacific Islander, 8.54 percent
were biracial, and 1.22 percent were classified as other. The average age of participants was 15.5
years old, and 78 percent of participants were male. Participants were referred to the program for
legal reasons (46.7 percent), child welfare issues (24.3 percent), mental health issues (12.9 percent),
school issues (10.8 percent), and other issues such as substance abuse (5.3 percent).

The outcomes of interest were educational engagement and most serious disposition. Data were
regularly collected internally by YAP and used to measure educational engagement. There were three
response options for educational engagement or attendance, which was primarily measured as
follows: 1) the youth was enrolled and attending 4 to 5 days of school per week, 1) the youth was
enrolled and attending 1 to 3 days of school per week, or 3) the youth was enrolled but not attending
school. A single-item measure was used to assess the youth’s most serious disposition; the response
options were none, non-criminal and/or status offense, misdemeanor/citation, or felony.
 Multiple imputation was used to account for missing outcomes at the 2-month and 4-month marks,
and for follow-up data 1 year after program discharge. Cross-cohort and pooled sample tests were
computed to investigate within- and between-group differences. A two-level, whole sample
hierarchical analysis was also conducted, with pre- and posttest scores nested within each person to
account for the dependency of the data. The study authors did not conduct subgroup analyses.
Cost

There is no cost information available for this program.

Implementation Information

All advocate mentors are paid adults who complete national Youth Advocate Programs, Inc. (YAP)
training. Youth and advocate mentor reports provide corroborating evidence of program dosage. At
some sites, fidelity is tracked through trainings and caseloads, intake timelines, and individualized
service plans. Advocate mentors typically meet with their youth an average of 3 days per week for
almost 9 hours.

More information can be found at the program’s website: http://www.yapinc.org

Evidence-Base (Studies Reviewed)

These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

Study 1
Karcher, Michael J., and David A. Johnson. 2016. Final Technical Report: An Evaluation of Advocacy-
Based Mentoring as a Treatment Intervention for Chronic Delinquency (Report No. 250454).
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/grants/250454.pdf
Additional References

These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

Evans, Douglas, Megan O’Toole, and Jeffrey A. Butts. 2016. Savings Rate: How Wraparound
Advocacy May Reduce the Consequences and Costs of State Commitment for Justice-Involved
Youth. New York, N.Y.: Research & Evaluation Center, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City
University of New York. (This study was reviewed but did not meet CrimeSolutions.gov criteria for
inclusion in the overall program rating.)
https://johnjayrec.nyc/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/savingsrate.pdf

Jessor, Richard, and Shirley L. Jessor. 1977. Problem Behavior and Psychosocial Development: A
Longitudinal Study of Youth. New York: Academic Press.

Karcher, Michael J., and Michael J. Nakkula. 2010. “Youth Mentoring with a Balanced Focus, Shared
Purpose, and Collaborative Interactions.” New Directions for Youth Development 126:13–32.

Williams, Ellen, Judith J. Johnson, and Cristine A. Bott. 1998. “Evaluation of a Program for Reduction
of Childhood Aggression.” Psychological Reports 103: 347–57.
Related Practices

Following are CrimeSolutions.gov-rated practices that are related to this program:

Mentoring
This practice provides at-risk youth with positive and consistent adult or older peer contact to promote
healthy development and functioning by reducing risk factors. The practice is rated Effective in
reducing delinquency outcomes; and Promising in reducing the use of alcohol and drugs; improving
school attendance, grades, academic achievement test scores, social skills and peer relationships.

Evidence Ratings for Outcomes:

Crime & Delinquency - Multiple crime/offense types
Drugs & Substance Abuse - Multiple substances
 Education - Multiple education outcomes
Mental Health & Behavioral Health - Psychological functioning

Juvenile Diversion Programs

An intervention strategy that redirects youths away from formal processing in the juvenile justice
system, while still holding them accountable for their actions. The practice is rated Promising for
reducing recidivism rates of juveniles who participated in diversion programming compared with
juveniles who were formally processed in the justice system.

Evidence Ratings for Outcomes:

Crime & Delinquency - Multiple crime/offense types