www.massmentors.

org

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

Introduction and Background

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.
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.

Table of Contents:
Mass Mentoring Counts
I.
II.
III.

IV.
V.
VI.
VII.

Formal Mentoring Programs: Overview and Characteristics.....3

Snapshot of Youth Served at Formal Mentoring Programs.......7
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
Snapshot of Mentors at Formal Mentoring Programs......13
Program Practices/Organization...14
Cultural Competency and Diversity.14
Program Needs and Challenges........17

Youth Development Survey

I.
II.
III.
IV.

Youth Development Survey: Overview and Characteristics....18

Snapshot of Youth and Adults Participating........21
Diversity...22
Program Needs.....23

Concluding Remarks.......24
Appendix A- Participating Youth Mentoring Programs......26
Appendix B- Participating Youth Development Programs......27

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 onethird reported for each. The remaining programs reported being community-based, with
the meetings of mentors and youth taking place throughout the community.

The majority of formal mentoring programs reported that their matches are one-toone (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.

Youth Subgroups
18%

First Generation College

36%
50%

Academic Risk
Academic Achievers
Youth with Disabilities

55%
11%

Incarcerated Parent

8%

Adjudicated/Court Involved

9%

Recent Immigrant

90%

44%

75% or more
25% or more

24%
27%

11%
40%

Single Parent Household

Low-Income

100%
94%
100%

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

Recent Immigrant
Youth with Disabilities or Special
Health Care Needs
Foster, Residential or Kinship Care
Incarcerated Parents
Adjudicated/Court-Involved
Academic Risk
Youth who have Dropped Out of
School

38%
11%
44%

58%
29%
32%

33%
24%
27%
67%
29%

15%
7%
13%
81%
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, onefifth reported addressing violence prevention and promoting community involvement.

Program Goals
Primary Program Goals

Intended Program Goals

Academic Achievers

41%

Avoidance of Early Pregnancy

42%

Substance Abuse Prevention

37%

Youth who are Academically Behind

12%

Job Skills / Work Readiness

12%
18%

Social Competence

58%
37%
90%

18%

Self-Esteem

41%

Academic support

79%
58%

Compared to statewide data, programs in Hampden County reported intending to prevent highrisk behaviors like substance abuse and early pregnancy in higher percentages.
Program Goals
Job skills/work readiness
Social competence
Substance Abuse Prevention
Avoidance of early pregnancy

Hampden County

Statewide data

37%
90%
37%
42%

47%
79%
22%
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.

Program Outcomes
Gang Involvement
Early Pregnancy
Attitudes Towards Teachers
Attitudes Towards School
Attitudes Towards Parents/Caregivers
Developmental Assets/Lifeskills
Career Readiness/Decisions
Academic Performance/Grades
School Attendance
Quality of Relationship Youth and Adults
Other

17%
39%
50%
67%
39%
50%
28%
67%
61%
78%
17%

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
School Attendance
Academic performance
Attitudes towards teachers
Early Pregnancy
Gang Involvement

II.

Hampden County
61%
67%
50%
39%
17%

Statewide data
46%
59%
29%
11%
9%

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.

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.

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.

13
99

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

13
9

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

13
9

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

13
9

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.

13
9

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.

Annual Budget of Mentoring Program

$250,000 to less than $500,000

5%

$100,000 to less than $250,000

$50,000 to less than $100,000

16%
11%

$25,000 to less than $50,000

32%

$10,000 to less than $25,000

Less than $10,000

VI.

21%
16%

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.

14

Organization Provides Professional Development

Content on Cultural Competency
7%

Always/Routinely

12%
13%

Board
29%
25%

Often
14%
18%

Sometimes

Mentors
Staff

25%

Never

57%

35%
38%

Dont Know

6%

21%

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
(Statewide)

Sometimes
(Hampden
County
Report)

Sometimes
(Statewide)

Always
(Hampden
County
Report)

Always
(Statewide)

Board

57%

29%

14%

24%

7%

4%

Staff

38%

14%

25%

35%

13%

2%

Mentors

35%

16%

18%

33%

12%

22%

15

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.

The Diversity that is Represented in Our Youth Mentees

is Represented in the Following:
Adequately Represented

19%
28%
24%

Minimally Represented
Not at all represented

67%
71%

Within Our
Mentors
In Our Staff

75%
On our Board

6%
6%
6%

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)
75%

Minimally
Represented
(Statewide)

Staff
Mentors

Board

Adequately
Represented
(Statewide)

58%

Adequately
Represented
(Hampden County
Report)
19%

24%

36%

71%

49%

28%

54%

67%

41%

27%

16

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%).

Mentor Recruitment
Word of mouth
MMPs training and technical assistance
Use current mentors
Community meetings networking opportunities
Tabling events
Info sessions and open houses
Partnerships with corporations, affinity groups
Marketing materials to local organizations
Online volunteer database
Social media
Media outreach
Volunteer fairs

VII.

71%
28%
83%
61%
67%
44%
56%
61%
22%
56%
44%
39%

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.

17

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 youthadult 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
Out-of-School Enrichment Program
Career Readiness/Youth Employment Program
Community Youth/Teen Center
Sports and Recreation
Arts and Culture Program
In-School Enrichment Program
Faith-Based Youth Group
Other

Frequency

Percentage

13
11
6
6
7
4
2
10

59%
50%
27%
27%
32%
18%
9%
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.

18

Focus on Developing Empowering

Relationships Between Adults and Youth in
the Program
Yes, it is a primary
focus

10%

Yes, we focus on it to
some extent

29%

No, but these types of

relationships may
develop

61%

Average Hours per Month Typical Youth Spends Building Relationships with Adults in Program
Hours
More than 10 hours per month

Frequency
14

Percent
70%

3-5 hours per month

5%

6-10 hours per month

20%

1-2 hours per month

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
Ratio

Frequency

Percent

1:1

5%

1:3

25%

1:4

10%

1:5 through 1:10

35%

1:11 +

25%

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.

19

Program Goals
Foster Resiliency
Academic Achievers
Foster Pro Social Norms
Avoidance of Early Pregnancy
Substance Abuse Prevention
Youth who Academically Behind
Violence Prevention
Promoting Community
Job Skills / Work Readiness
Social Competence
Self-Esteem
Other

10%

55%

Primary Program
Goals

41%
36%
41%
46%
33%
5%
5%

Intended Program
Goals
91%

50%
59%
68%

24%
5%

82%
86%

14%
5%

18%

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.

Youth Subgroups
First Generation to go to College
Youth who have Dropped Out of School
Academic Risk
Adjudicated/Court Involved
Foster Residential Care
Single Parent Household
Low-Income

38%
29%
67%
33%
33%
86%
100%

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.

20

Youth Outcomes
Attitudes Towards School
Attitudes Towards Parents/Caregivers

41%
18%

Attitudes Towards Future

46%

Developmental Assets/Lifeskills

36%

Career Readiness/Decisions

36%

Behavioral Referrals for Support/Correction

14%

Graduation Rate

41%

Academic Performance/Grades

59%

School Attendance
Quality of Relationship between Youth and Adults
Other

II.

41%
36%
32%

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.

21

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

Number of paid staff

working with youth
annually
845

Number of volunteers
working with youth
annually
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
6-9 years old
10-14 years old
15-19 years old
20-24 years old

III.

Percentage
48%
71%
81%
29%

Diversity

Similar to Mass Mentoring Counts 2014, and consistent with MMPs strategic plan for 20152017, 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

22

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.

23

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 mentormentee 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 singleparent 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 onehalf 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
24

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 youthadult relationships to further meet the needs of families, youth and their communities.

25

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

Agency

Mentoring Program

Action Centered Tutoring Services

B&G Club of Greater Westfield, Inc.
Big Brothers Big Sisters of Hampden
County
Big Brothers Big Sisters of Hampden
County
Big Brothers Big Sisters of Hampden
County
Big Brothers Big Sisters of Hampden
County
Black Men of Greater Springfield, Inc.

Same
Police Athletic League (PAL)
Community-Based Mentoring

City (location of
administrative offices)
Springfield
Westfield
Springfield

Lunch Buddies

Springfield

MassMutual Career Pathways

Mentoring Program
Mentor Springfield

Springfield

The W.E.B. Debois Academy

Saturday School Progam
21st Century Program

Springfield

Career Pathways Mentoring Program

Holyoke

myPod Mentoring
iRead iLead
Evangel's Kids Hope USA
NEARI Jump-Start
ROOTS Mentoring
SSV School-Based Mentoring
Program
AIM Mentoring Program
Chica Project for Mentoring
Engage in STEM (E-STEM)
Read, Think, Share

Holyoke
Holyoke
Wilbraham
Holyoke
Holyoke
Springfield

Boys and Girls Club of Greater

Holyoke
Boys and Girls Club of Greater
Holyoke
Girls Inc. of Holyoke
Kelly Full Service Community School
Kids Hope USA
NEARI
NEFWC WIA Youth
Springfield School Volunteers, Inc.
Commonwealth Corporation
Chica Project
Massachusetts Academy of Sciences
Reader to Reader

Springfield

Holyoke

Hadley
Dorchester
Amherst
Amherst

26

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

Hampden County

Gandara Center

Court Appointed Special Advocates

of Hampden County
Residential Services

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

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
Westover Job Corps Center

Before & After School Programs

Hampden County

US DOL Job Corps (Education &

Training Admin)

Hampden County

YWCA Youth Build Springfield

Hampden County

YWCA of Western Massachusetts

YMCA of Greater Springfield

Hampden County

27