PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · May 12, 2010
Juvenile Mentoring Program Act of 2010 or JUMP Act of 2010 - Amends the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 to direct the Administrator of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention to award grants to and enter into contracts with state and local educational agencies or nonprofit organizations to implement mentoring programs that link at-risk youth with responsible adults who, on a one-to-one volunteer basis, provide such youth with supportive relationships and exposure to new experiences that enhance their ability to become responsible citizens.
Defines an "at-risk youth" as an individual under age 18 who is at risk of educational failure or involvement in delinquent activities.
Requires the Administrator to develop and distribute to program participants specific model guidelines for screening prospective program mentors.
Gives grant priority to applicants that: (1) serve at-risk youth in high crime areas; and (2) have at least 60% of their youth eligible to receive funds under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.
People & committees
Sen. Lautenberg, Frank R. [D-NJ] · D–NJ
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 10, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.3353 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.3353 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.3353 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.3353 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.