28
The State of Youth Mentoring and Youth Development in Hampden County Findings from the 2014 Mass Mentoring Counts and Youth Development Organizations Survey PRESENTED BY RESEARCH CONDUCTED BY UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS DONAHUE INSTITUTE www.massmentors.org

Mentoring in Hampden County

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

A report from Mass Mentoring Partnership delivered in Holyoke Tuesday.

Citation preview

  • The State of Youth Mentoring and Youth Development in

    Hampden County

    Findings from the 2014 Mass Mentoring Counts and Youth Development Organizations Survey

    PRESENTED BY

    RESEARCH CONDUCTED BY UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS DONAHUE INSTITUTE

    www.massmentors.org

  • 1

    Launched in 2006 by Mass Mentoring Partnership, Mass Mentoring Counts (MMC) is a biennial research initiative of formal youth mentoring programs across Massachusetts. It depicts the landscape, trends, and needs of the youth mentoring field. Conducted by the Donahue Institute of University of Massachusetts, MMC is a powerful tool that has enabled MMP, its network of programs, and key stakeholders to establish benchmarks to better meet the needs of youth, strengthen the case for investment for public and private resources, raise public awareness for the field, and guide strategic decision-making.

    Introduction and Background

    The power of relationships is central to the youth development and formal youth mentoring fields in promoting the healthy growth and development of young people, enabling them to become successful and thriving adults. A variety of approaches, strategies and settings are utilized in both fields to create, support and nurture these types of youth-adult relationships. Mass Mentoring Partnership (MMP) defines empowering relationships as powerful, close connections between staff/volunteers and young people that positively shape their identities and contribute to their personal growth to reach their full potential. For the first time and as part of its 2015-2017 strategic visioning, MMP has broadened its scope to include the wider field of youth development and youth serving organizations in an effort to maximize resources and opportunities for youth to access programs and organizations focused on empowering youth-adult relationships. To better understand the landscape of youth development organizations, MMP engaged the Donahue Institute to conduct research on these organizations in four targeted geographies: the Boston neighborhoods of Dorchester, Roxbury and Mattapan, the Essex County cities of Lynn and Lawrence, Hampden County, and Cape Cod and the Islands. This report provides results from both surveys on Hampden County. The formal youth mentoring programs and youth development organizations that participated in the Mass Mentoring Counts and the Youth Development Survey were included in this report if they have administrative offices, program sites or serve youth who live Hampden County.

  • 2

    Table of Contents:

    Mass Mentoring Counts

    I. Formal Mentoring Programs: Overview and Characteristics.....3 II. Snapshot of Youth Served at Formal Mentoring Programs.......7 III. Youth Participants..9

    a. Map 1 Annual Number of Youth in Formal Mentoring Relationships by Single-Parent Families in Poverty.10 b. Map 2 Annual Number of Youth in Formal Mentoring Relationships by Educational Need11 c. Map 3 Annual Number of Youth in Formal Mentoring Relationships by Workforce Readiness12

    IV. Snapshot of Mentors at Formal Mentoring Programs......13 V. Program Practices/Organization...14 VI. Cultural Competency and Diversity.14 VII. Program Needs and Challenges........17

    Youth Development Survey

    I. Youth Development Survey: Overview and Characteristics....18 II. Snapshot of Youth and Adults Participating........21 III. Diversity...22 IV. Program Needs.....23

    Concluding Remarks.......24

    Appendix A- Participating Youth Mentoring Programs......26

    Appendix B- Participating Youth Development Programs......27

  • 3

    Mass Mentoring Counts 2014

    I. Formal Mentoring Programs: Overview and Characteristics

    In an effort to learn about new and existing formal mentoring programs, Mass Mentoring Partnership asked formal mentoring programs to provide or, in some cases, update their general information such as administrative location, mission, and year it was established. It also asked information regarding the mentoring program, such as program type, number of youth served, and the location and frequency matches meet. Furthermore, in an effort to learn more about the youth that the mentoring field is serving, MMC 2014 asked programs to identify demographic subgroups for the youth population served, the goals their program intends to address and any outcomes they measure to evaluate their progress.

    Nineteen formal youth mentoring programs located in or serving youth from Hampden County responded to MMC 2014. 79% of these programs have administrative offices in Hampden County, 16% in Hampshire County and 5% in Suffolk County.

    Approximately three-quarters of formal youth mentoring organizations have been

    established in the last ten years, one-quarter of programs have been in existence for 10 years or more.

    Mentoring matches meet in a variety of places. Three-quarters of programs reported

    being site-based, with the meetings between youth and mentors primarily taking place in designated locations such as schools, organizations and community centers. Programs reported serving youth in elementary, middle and high school equally, with about one-third reported for each. The remaining programs reported being community-based, with the meetings of mentors and youth taking place throughout the community.

  • 4

    The majority of formal mentoring programs reported that their matches are one-to-

    one (58%) with one young person matched with an adult. Nearly one-fifth of programs utilize group mentoring and a combined approach (combination of any type of mentoring) respectively. The remaining programs reported team or cross-age peer mentoring.

    Approximately 56% of programs serve less than 50 youth per year. Nonetheless,

    youth mentoring programs vary widely in the number of youth served. 40% of programs serve 50-249 youth and about 6% of programs serve 500 and more youth.

    Formal mentoring programs focus on building long-lasting and consistent

    mentoring relationships. 68% of programs require at least weekly meetings and 22% require meetings 2-3 times per month. Over one-half of programs estimate that their matches meet for 3-5 hours per month. One-fifth of programs reporting estimated that their matches meet more than 10 hours per month. 47% of programs expected their matches to last one year, 32% for at least a school year.

    Mentoring programs were asked to estimate the percentage of youth they serve who represent various subpopulations. Formal mentoring programs in Hampden County are reaching youth in need of mentors.

    The majority of programs estimated that 75% or more of their youth include youth who come from low-income families, youth from single-parent families, and those at academic risk.

    Similarly, programs estimated the following subpopulations most frequently: low-income families, single-parent households, recent immigrant/refugees, adjudicated-court involved, academic achievers and those at academic risk.

    No programs reported that the youth they serve are enrolled in post-secondary education, or foster care.

    Less than 10% of programs reported serving youth who dropped out of school and those who identify as LGBTQ.

  • 5

    Compared to statewide data, programs in Hampden County reported serving youth with disabilities, incarcerated parents and adjudicated/court-involved in higher percentages. Conversely, they reported serving youth who are first generation to attend college and recent immigrants in lower percentages when compared to statewide data.

    Youth Subgroups Hampden County Statewide data

    First Generation to Attend College 38% 58% Recent Immigrant 11% 29% Youth with Disabilities or Special Health Care Needs

    44% 32%

    Foster, Residential or Kinship Care 33% 15% Incarcerated Parents 24% 7% Adjudicated/Court-Involved 27% 13% Academic Risk 67% 81% Youth who have Dropped Out of School

    29% 7%

    The most cited primary intended youth impacts that formal mentoring programs are designed to address include increasing self-esteem, improving social competency and support for those who are academically behind. Approximately one-third of programs reported addressing youth identity, and supporting youth in college respectively. Similarly, one-fifth reported addressing violence prevention and promoting community involvement.

    100%

    100%

    11%

    27%

    24%

    44%

    55%

    90%

    36%

    94%

    40%

    9%

    8%

    11%

    50%

    18%

    Low-Income

    Single Parent Household

    Recent Immigrant

    Adjudicated/Court Involved

    Incarcerated Parent

    Youth with Disabilities

    Academic Achievers

    Academic Risk

    First Generation College

    Youth Subgroups

    75% or more

    25% or more

  • 6

    Compared to statewide data, programs in Hampden County reported intending to prevent high-risk behaviors like substance abuse and early pregnancy in higher percentages.

    Program Goals Hampden County Statewide data

    Job skills/work readiness 37% 47% Social competence 90% 79% Substance Abuse Prevention 37% 22% Avoidance of early pregnancy 42% 14%

    Nearly all (95%) programs reported currently measuring outcomes to assess their programs success in meeting its intended youth participant goals. The most commonly reported outcomes measured include quality of relationships between youth and mentor, academic performance/grades and attitudes towards school. Approximately one-third of programs reported measuring graduation rate, substance abuse and behavioral referrals for support/correction. Less than 20% of programs reported measuring gang involvement.

    58% 79%

    90% 37%

    58% 37%

    42% 41%

    41% 18% 18%

    12% 12%

    Academic support Self-Esteem

    Social Competence Job Skills / Work Readiness

    Youth who are Academically Behind Substance Abuse Prevention

    Avoidance of Early Pregnancy Academic Achievers

    Program Goals

    Primary Program Goals Intended Program Goals

  • 7

    Compared to statewide data, programs in Hampden County reported measuring gang involvement and early pregnancy at higher percentages as well as school attendance and academic performance.

    Program Outcomes Hampden County Statewide data

    School Attendance 61% 46% Academic performance 67% 59% Attitudes towards teachers 50% 29% Early Pregnancy 39% 11% Gang Involvement 17% 9%

    II. Snapshot of Youth Served at Formal Mentoring Programs Formal mentoring programs were asked to provide an annual number of youth that are involved in their programs and if available/possible, the demographics of their population (gender, age, ethnicity). Programs were also asked to provide information on the cities and towns in which the youth they serve reside. Youth Served Annually: 19 programs reported serving nearly 1,500 youth who participated in formal mentoring relationships in Hampden County.

    Youth of all ages and gender participate in mentoring organizations. Over one-half of programs reported that their youth are the ages of 10-14. Only 1% of youth participating in these organizations are the ages of 20-24. Programs in Hampden County reported that 57% of their youth are the ages 10-14, compared to 32% statewide. Similarly, programs in Hampden County reported that 11% of the youth that they serve are 6-9 compared to 30% statewide.

    17% 78%

    61% 67%

    28% 50%

    39% 67%

    50% 39%

    17%

    Other Quality of Relationship Youth and Adults

    School Attendance Academic Performance/Grades

    Career Readiness/Decisions Developmental Assets/Lifeskills

    Attitudes Towards Parents/Caregivers Attitudes Towards School

    Attitudes Towards Teachers Early Pregnancy

    Gang Involvement

    Program Outcomes

  • 8

    Youth of color are significantly more likely to be engaged in formal mentoring relationships. Mentoring programs reported that 85% of the youth that they serve are of color. Programs in Hampden County reported that 52% of their youth are Hispanic/Latino compared to 32% reported statewide; similarly, programs in Hampden County reported that 19% of their youth are Black/African-American compared to 31% reported statewide. Youth who reside in Hampden County: Program staff was asked to provide information on the cities and towns where their youth reside.

    Over one-half of total reported youth residing in Hampden County live in Springfield; one-quarter live in Holyoke. Compared to MMC 2012, there is a significantly higher number of youth reported living in Holyoke.

    Less than 10% of youth were reported to live in West Springfield and Westfield respectively

    4% live in Chicopee Youth in very low numbers were reported living in Agawam, East Longmeadow,

    Ludlow, Palmer, and Southwick.

  • 9 13

    III. Youth Participants

    As described earlier in this report, youth mentoring programs in Massachusetts frequently target youth from low-income families and from single-parent families. In order to better illustrate these target populations, maps of annual number of youth served in Hampden County were created based on the following risk factors:

    Youth in formal mentoring relationships in single-parent families in poverty; Youth in formal mentoring relationships by workforce readiness need; and Youth in formal mentoring relationships by educational need.

    These maps, found on the following pages, further illustrate that mentoring is occurring in places of high need (i.e. towns with rates of single parent families in poverty above the state average). However, the maps also illustrate an overwhelming gap and need for mentoring across all parts of the state.

    Single-Parent Families in Poverty-

    There are more than 63,000 single parent families in poverty residing in the state of Massachusetts. Towns with above-average percentages of single-parent families in poverty are significantly more likely to have multiple youth engaged in formal mentoring relationships. Springfield and Holyoke reported greater than 6% of single-parent families living in poverty and also reported over 250 youth in formal mentoring relationships.

    Workforce Readiness Need-

    There are over 20,000 youth aged 16-24, living in Massachusetts who are both not working (unemployed or not in the labor force) and not enrolled in school. While mentoring programs are increasingly focused on providing workforce readiness skills, there is not a significant difference in youth served by mentoring programs based on the workforce readiness needs (above or below state average) of their town of residence.

    Educational Need- Thirty-six percent of Massachusetts residents aged 25 or older hold a high school degree or less. As noted earlier, education and academic support is the most frequently reported primary goal of mentoring programs, Map 4 highlights potential educational needs of youth based on the percentage of adults (25+) residing in town with a high school degree or less. We find that there is not a significant different in youth served by mentoring programs based on the educational needs (above or below state average of their town residence.

    9

  • 9 13

    Map 1 Annual Number of Youth in Formal Mentoring Relationships by Single-Parent Families in Poverty

  • 9 13

    Map 2 Annual Number of Youth in Formal Mentoring Relationships by Educational Need

  • 9 13

    Map 3 Annual Number of Youth in Formal Mentoring Relationships by Workforce Readiness

  • 9 13

    IV. Snapshot of Mentors in Formal Mentoring Programs Formal mentoring programs were asked to provide an annual number of mentors that are involved in their programs and if available/possible, the demographics of their population (gender, age, ethnicity). Programs in Hampden County reported that 26% of their mentors are ages 23-35, compared to 38% state-wide. Similarly, programs in Hampden County reported that 28% of their mentors are 50+ compared to 15% statewide.

    853 individuals (ages 14+) served as mentors in formal mentoring relationships, with 66% female and 34% male.

    In Hampden County, all ages are represented, with approximately one quarter between the ages of 18-22, one-quarter 23-35 and one-quarter 50-64.

    Mentors do not adequately represent the diversity of youth mentees. The largest group of mentees is Hispanic/Latino youth, with 53% reported. However, only 16% of mentors identify as Hispanic/Latino. Youth mentoring programs reported that 38% of their mentors are of color.

    The most cited subgroups for mentors include young professionals (29%), college students (29%), retired individuals (21%) and those who belong to affinity groups - civic, service, cultural, religious, alumni or professional organization (21%).

    Only 7% of mentors are local or state employees and corporate partners respectively. 41% of programs reported that the number of individuals serving as mentors increased

    this year 24% reported that the number of mentors stayed constant, and 35% reported that the

    number decreased. The most cited reasons for decrease of mentors include: loss of staff, fewer recruitment

    opportunities took place, and fewer numbers of youth participants enrolling.

  • 14

    V. Program Practices/Organization

    In Hampden County, approximately 79% of programs reported being components of larger organizations. One-half of programs operate on an annual budget of $50,000 or less. One-fifth of programs operate with $25,000 or less annually. About 16% of programs operate with $100,000-$250,000.

    VI. Cultural Competency and Diversity

    This section was a new addition to Mass Mentoring Counts 2014. Mass Mentoring Partnerships new 2015-2017 mission and vision includes leading efforts to build a more inclusive mentoring movement to better meet the needs of young people and their communities. As a result, this section is crucial to inform our knowledge, particularly in Hampden County, regarding professional development practices in the mentoring field, as well as how representative staff, mentors and board members are of the youth that are being served.

    Nearly 56% of programs reported that they include the topic of cultural competency/inclusion in their programs mission.

    Roughly one-third of programs reported that they often provide professional development that includes content on cultural and linguistic competency for their staff members and mentors. Very few programs reported providing such services for their board members or did not know if their organization did.

    The vast majority of programs (78%) reported that they are often or always/routinely working with community leaders and organizations in diverse communities to increase awareness and acceptance of program services offered.

    16%

    21%

    32%

    11%

    16%

    5%

    Less than $10,000

    $10,000 to less than $25,000

    $25,000 to less than $50,000

    $50,000 to less than $100,000

    $100,000 to less than $250,000

    $250,000 to less than $500,000

    Annual Budget of Mentoring Program

  • 15

    Compared to statewide data, programs in Hampden County reported higher percentages of always providing professional development content on cultural competency for board and staff and lower percentages for mentors. Similarly, Hampden County programs also reported higher percentages for never providing these opportunities for board, staff and mentors.

    Never (Hampden

    County Report)

    Never (State-wide)

    Sometimes (Hampden

    County Report)

    Sometimes (State-wide)

    Always (Hampden

    County Report)

    Always (State-wide)

    Board 57% 29% 14% 24% 7% 4%

    Staff 38% 14% 25% 35% 13% 2%

    Mentors 35% 16% 18% 33% 12% 22%

    38%

    25%

    25%

    13%

    6%

    35%

    18%

    29%

    12%

    21%

    57%

    14%

    7%

    Dont Know

    Never

    Sometimes

    Often

    Always/Routinely

    Organization Provides Professional Development Content on Cultural Competency

    Board

    Mentors

    Staff

  • 16

    The diversity of board members, paid staff and or mentors in these programs is often not representative of the diversity of mentees served. Over three-quarters of programs reported that the diversity found in their youth mentees is minimally represented in their board. Conversely, about three-quarters also reported that the diversity found in their staff and mentors, is in fact, adequately represented.

    Compared to statewide data, programs in Hampden County reported higher percentages of the diversity found in their youth mentees adequately represented among their staff and mentors but lower percentages adequately represented on their board.

    Minimally Represented

    (Hampden County Report)

    Minimally Represented (Statewide)

    Adequately Represented

    (Hampden County Report)

    Adequately Represented (Statewide)

    Board 75% 58% 19% 27%

    Staff 24% 36% 71% 49%

    Mentors 28% 54% 67% 41%

    6%

    75%

    19%

    6%

    24%

    71%

    6%

    28%

    67%

    Not at all represented

    Minimally Represented

    Adequately Represented

    The Diversity that is Represented in Our Youth Mentees is Represented in the Following:

    Within Our Mentors In Our Staff

    On our Board

  • 17

    Youth who participate in formal mentoring programs in Hampden County are mostly referred/enrolled through their schools (89%), their parents (61%) or a self-referral and social worker (44% respectively). Mentors are recruited through the programs current mentors (83%) or word of mouth (71%).

    VII. Program Needs and Challenges

    MMP asked programs to rank the top three challenges to their sustainability and growth. Similarly, the survey asked which MMP services programs have utilized in the past, and to identify those they would like to see more or less resources invested. Finally, if programs have not utilized services in the past, MMP asked what would be most useful.

    Programs in Hampden County reported financial resource development infrastructure, identification and diversification of funding opportunities, mentor recruitment, and mentor retention as their most pressing challenges.

    Fifteen programs indicated they had utilized MMP services previously. Programs reported they would like to see more resources invested in grants/financial awards, sharing of funding opportunities, and government advocacy.

    Programs indicated they would like to see fewer resources invested in program start-up assistance, the AmeriCorps Ambassador of Mentoring program and the MMP website.

    39% 44%

    56% 22%

    61% 56%

    44% 67%

    61% 83%

    28% 71%

    Volunteer fairs Media outreach

    Social media Online volunteer database

    Marketing materials to local organizations Partnerships with corporations, affinity groups

    Info sessions and open houses Tabling events

    Community meetings networking opportunities Use current mentors

    MMPs training and technical assistance Word of mouth

    Mentor Recruitment

  • 18

    Youth Development Organization Survey

    This was the first year MMP disseminated a youth development survey to the field. MMPs main purpose was to learn more about what types of youth development organizations exist in Hampden County, an overview of their general characteristics, how relevant empowering youth-adult relationships are to the work they do, what goals they are striving to achieve, and any outcomes they currently measure.

    I. Program Overview and Characteristics

    Youth development organizations come in a variety of forms and provide a multitude of services to youth. Half of respondents selected multiple program type descriptions for their organizations. Description of Youth Development Organization Frequency Percentage

    Out-of-School Enrichment Program 13 59% Career Readiness/Youth Employment Program 11 50% Community Youth/Teen Center 6 27% Sports and Recreation 6 27% Arts and Culture Program 7 32% In-School Enrichment Program 4 18% Faith-Based Youth Group 2 9% Other 10 46%

    MMP asked youth development staff to identify if developing empowering relationships between youth and adults was a focus in their work. Over one-half of programs reported that the creation and support of empowering relationships between youth and adults is a primary focus. One-third of programs reported that it is a focus to some extent and less than 10% reported that it is not a focus but these relationships might develop. Consistent contact is critical for the development of strong, empowering relationships between youth participants and adult program staff and volunteers. Youth development organizations report a high degree of contact with their youth participants. On average, 70% reported that youth spend more than 10 hours per month building relationships with adults in the program.

  • 19

    Average Hours per Month Typical Youth Spends Building Relationships with Adults in Program

    Hours Frequency Percent More than 10 hours per month 14 70%

    3-5 hours per month 1 5%

    6-10 hours per month 4 20%

    1-2 hours per month 1 5% Almost three-quarters of youth development organizations report adult to youth ratios of 1:5 or greater. Its important to note that services and activities provided in youth development organizations are often in larger settings accounting for the larger ratio.

    Average Ratio of Adults to Youth in Program

    Youth serving organizations are designed to address a variety of youth goals. Programs most frequently reported improving self-esteem, supporting youth who are academically behind and increasing social competence as their intended goals. As a primary program goal, most programs identified violence prevention, social competence, and promoting community and civic involvement. Approximately one-third of programs reported addressing youth identity, physical fitness and sports skills, fostering pro-social skills and increasing STEM knowledge and skills. Less than a quarter of programs reported supporting youth in college.

    61%

    29%

    10%

    Focus on Developing Empowering Relationships Between Adults and Youth in

    the Program Yes, it is a primary focus

    Yes, we focus on it to some extent

    No, but these types of relationships may develop

    Ratio Frequency Percent

    1:1 1 5% 1:3 5 25% 1:4 2 10% 1:5 through 1:10 7 35% 1:11 + 5 25%

  • 20

    Youth development organizations serve substantial number of at-risk youth. Respondents were asked to select subgroups for which they serve substantial numbers (at least 25%) of youth participants. The most cited subgroups include youth from low-income families, youth from single-parent households and youth at academic risk. Less than 20% of programs reported serving youth who identify as LGBTQ, youth with disabilities or health care needs, those who have incarcerated parents, are recent immigrants or refugees, academic achievers or are currently enrolled in post-secondary/college.

    The vast majority of youth development organizations report measuring outcomes to assess their programs success in meeting its goals. The most frequently cited outcomes are attitudes towards future, and academic performance/grades. Approximately one-third of organizations report measuring early pregnancy and attitudes towards teachers; one-fifth of programs report measuring gang involvement and substance use.

    18% 86%

    82% 68%

    59% 50%

    91% 46%

    41% 36%

    41% 55%

    5% 14%

    5% 24%

    5% 5%

    33%

    10%

    Other Self-Esteem

    Social Competence Job Skills / Work Readiness

    Promoting Community Violence Prevention

    Youth who Academically Behind Substance Abuse Prevention

    Avoidance of Early Pregnancy Foster Pro Social Norms

    Academic Achievers Foster Resiliency

    Program Goals

    Primary Program Goals

    Intended Program Goals

    100% 86%

    33% 33%

    67% 29%

    38%

    Low-Income Single Parent Household

    Foster Residential Care Adjudicated/Court Involved

    Academic Risk Youth who have Dropped Out of School

    First Generation to go to College

    Youth Subgroups

  • 21

    II. Snapshot of Youth and Adults Participating in Youth Development Organizations

    In an effort to learn more about the youth that youth development organizations serve and their work, MMP asked program staff to provide information on the cities/towns where 25% or more of their youth reside. Similarly, the survey asked organizations to identify demographic subgroups for their youth population, the goals their program intends to address, and any outcomes they measure to evaluate their progress. Youth Served Annually: Twenty-two programs reported nearly 16,614 youth who consistently participated in their program in the past year.

    65% of youth reside in Springfield 9% of youth reside in Ludlow 7% reside in Holyoke 6% reside in West Springfield 7% of the recorded youth reside outside Hampden County/unknown neighborhood/not

    reported There were youth reported in low numbers who reside in Agawam, Blandford,

    Brimfield, Chester, Chicopee, East Longmeadow, Longmeadow, Monson, Palmer, Southwick, Westfield, and Wilbraham.

    32% 36%

    41% 59%

    41% 14%

    36% 36%

    46% 18%

    41%

    Other Quality of Relationship between Youth and Adults

    School Attendance Academic Performance/Grades

    Graduation Rate Behavioral Referrals for Support/Correction

    Career Readiness/Decisions Developmental Assets/Lifeskills

    Attitudes Towards Future Attitudes Towards Parents/Caregivers

    Attitudes Towards School

    Youth Outcomes

  • 22

    Approximately 2,465 adults worked or volunteered with youth at the 22 organizations that reported. Number of organizations responding

    Number of paid staff working with youth annually

    Number of volunteers working with youth annually

    22 845 1,621 Youth development organizations serve both male and female youth across a broad age spectrum. 5% of programs reported serving only males. The majority of programs selected multiple age groups; one-third of programs selected all age groups.

    Age groups Percentage

    6-9 years old 48% 10-14 years old 71% 15-19 years old 81% 20-24 years old 29%

    III. Diversity

    Similar to Mass Mentoring Counts 2014, and consistent with MMPs strategic plan for 2015-2017, the youth development survey asked programs from Hampden County to estimate from categories provided youth, staff and volunteers of color. This section is crucial to inform our knowledge regarding the diversity represented in the youth development field in an effort to build a more inclusive movement to better meet the needs of young people and their communities.

    Youth of color are more likely to be engaged in youth development organizations activities. The diversity of the adults working in youth development organization does not adequately reflect the diversity of the youth served.

    65% of programs reported that 75% or more of their youth identify as being of color 15% of programs reported that 75% or more of their volunteers identify as being of color 20% of programs reported that 75% or more of their staff members identify as being of

    color

  • 23

    IV. Program Needs In this first youth development survey disseminated to the field, Mass Mentoring Partnership collected data on how to target our capacity-building initiatives to meet programs needs and most pressing challenges. As a result, this section asked program staff to select up to three services they would be most interested in receiving from MMP. Additionally, they were also asked to select what type of training would be most useful.

    85% of respondents selected grants/financial awards, 30% identified training, and 26% indicated that they would be most interested in knowledge sharing of funding opportunities.

    MMP has a variety of trainings available; programs were asked to select those that they would be most interested in accessing. 22% selected volunteer training, 15% identified developing/implementing program evaluation, and 15% indicated theory and practice of positive youth development.

  • 24

    Concluding Remarks

    The results of these two surveys provide Mass Mentoring Partnership, our programs and stakeholders with a greater understanding and deeper insight on the services, reach and outcomes that formal youth mentoring and youth development organizations are achieving for youth in Hampden County. Some comparisons are presented between them to highlight potential similarities and differences between the youth development and formal youth mentoring fields. It is important to use caution when drawing conclusions from comparative data as the MMC survey represents a larger sample than the youth development survey. There is a substantial amount of consistent, quality, empowering and long-lasting contact between youth and adults that are occurring in Hampden County. MMPs goal is to support the organizations which foster these types of relationships, help them thrive and empower them to maximize their reach in an effort to successfully guide youth to reach their full potential.

    Formal youth mentoring organizations in Hampden County continue to foster quality mentor-mentee relationships for youth in need of mentors. These relationships are characterized by their consistency, frequency and individualized attention. Hampden Countys formal mentoring programs reported serving youth who have dropped out of school, with disabilities or special health care needs, in foster, residential or kinship care, who have been adjudicated or court involved and have incarcerated parents in higher percentages than state-wide reported data. Similarly, programs reported intending to address prevention of substance abuse, and avoidance of early pregnancy at higher rates than statewide results.

    Youth development organizations share many characteristics mentioned for formal mentoring organizations in Hampden County. They are reaching youth in need of empowering youth-adult relationships, citing that at least 25% or more of their youth come from low-income and single-parent households. At least one-third reported serving youth who have been in the foster care system, are the first generation to go to college, or have been adjudicated/court-involved youth. Similarly, over one-half reported that the creation and support of empowering relationships between youth and adults is a primary focus of their organization. Youth development organizations cited supporting those who are academically behind, and increasing social competence and self-esteem the most frequently as their intended goals. Similarly, at least one-half identified violence prevention as one of their goals.

    Youth of color are more likely to be engaged in youth development and formal youth mentoring organizations. However, the diversity of the adults working and/or volunteering in both types of organizations does not adequately reflect the diversity of the youth served. From an organizational and programmatic perspective, at least one-half of formal mentoring programs reported that they include the topic of cultural competency/inclusion in their programs mission. In this way, cultural competency efforts must be strengthened across a wide spectrum in both types of organizations.

    Youth development and formal youth mentoring organizations utilize different ways of addressing very pressing challenges for the youth they serve in Hampden County. Nonetheless, both types of organizations are fostering empowering youth-adult relationships to strengthen the

  • 25

    lives of young people and their community. Nearly one-quarter of formal youth mentoring organizations that reported data in Hampden County have been established since 2012, and are contributing to meeting the mentoring gap in the region; resources are needed to support new program development and to sustain and help scale established programs.

    Formal mentoring programs are predicted to grow and serve more youth over the next two years. Similarly, youth development organizations are impacting large numbers of youth; there is an opportunity to leverage and strengthen efforts. Even so, there are still too many young people not being served and unmet need is still very high in Hampden County. Springfield and Holyoke were among the top 10 cities of youth who are in formal mentoring relationships; they are also among the top 10 cities with estimated number of youth from single-parent families in poverty. In this way, there is still a significant amount of unmet need. We are defining unmet need as youth from single-parent families living in poverty who are not in mentoring relationships.

    Mass Mentoring Partnerships goals for 2015 and beyond are to build upon what we have learned from this research and programs serving in these communities to find avenues for partnership. In doing this, we will catalyze and expand the opportunities for empowering youth-adult relationships to further meet the needs of families, youth and their communities.

  • 26

    Appendix A: List of programs that participated in Mass Mentoring Counts

    Agency

    Mentoring Program City (location of administrative offices)

    Action Centered Tutoring Services Same Springfield B&G Club of Greater Westfield, Inc. Police Athletic League (PAL) Westfield Big Brothers Big Sisters of Hampden

    County Community-Based Mentoring Springfield

    Big Brothers Big Sisters of Hampden County

    Lunch Buddies Springfield

    Big Brothers Big Sisters of Hampden County

    MassMutual Career Pathways Mentoring Program

    Springfield

    Big Brothers Big Sisters of Hampden County

    Mentor Springfield Springfield

    Black Men of Greater Springfield, Inc. The W.E.B. Debois Academy Saturday School Progam

    Springfield

    Boys and Girls Club of Greater Holyoke

    21st Century Program Holyoke

    Boys and Girls Club of Greater Holyoke

    Career Pathways Mentoring Program Holyoke

    Girls Inc. of Holyoke myPod Mentoring Holyoke Kelly Full Service Community School iRead iLead Holyoke

    Kids Hope USA Evangel's Kids Hope USA Wilbraham NEARI NEARI Jump-Start Holyoke

    NEFWC WIA Youth ROOTS Mentoring Holyoke Springfield School Volunteers, Inc. SSV School-Based Mentoring

    Program Springfield

    Commonwealth Corporation AIM Mentoring Program Hadley Chica Project Chica Project for Mentoring Dorchester

    Massachusetts Academy of Sciences Engage in STEM (E-STEM) Amherst Reader to Reader Read, Think, Share Amherst

  • 27

    Appendix B: List of programs that participated in Youth Development Survey

    Organization Youth Development Program Targeted Community

    Boys & Girls Club of Chicopee Afterschool Program Hampden County

    Center for Human Development Court Appointed Special Advocates of Hampden County

    Hampden County

    Gandara Center Residential Services Hampden County

    Gandara Center STAY Initiative/ YAG Hampden County

    Greater Holyoke YMCA Child Care Programs Hampden County

    Holyoke Community College Skills, Training, and Enrichment Program (STEP)

    Hampden County

    Holyoke Public Library Hampden County

    Homework House INC Hampden County

    Tech Foundry Tech Foundry Hampden County

    The Gray House, Inc. Kids' Club Hampden County

    The Performance Project First Generation Hampden County

    The Salvation Army Bridging the Gap Hampden County

    West Springfield Boys & Girls Club

    Before & After School Programs Hampden County

    Westover Job Corps Center US DOL Job Corps (Education & Training Admin)

    Hampden County

    YWCA of Western Massachusetts YWCA Youth Build Springfield Hampden County

    YMCA of Greater Springfield Hampden County