www.massmentors.org
2014 Survey Findings
YouthDevelopmentOrganizations
Serving Four Targeted Geographies
in Massachusetts
PRESENTED BY
RESEARCH CONDUCTED BY
UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS DONAHUE INSTITUTE
Introduction and Background
Launched in 2006 by Mass Mentoring Partnership (MMP), Mass Mentoring Counts is a biennial initiative to depict the
landscape, trends, and needs of youth mentoring programs. Mass Mentoring Counts (MMC) is a powerful tool that
has enabled MMP, its network of programs, and key stakeholders to establish benchmarks for the field to better meet
the needs of youth, to strengthen the case for investment of private and public resources, to raise public awareness
for the field, and to guide strategic decision-making.
At the core of the youth mentoring field is the belief that empowering youth-adult relationships is central to the
healthy growth and development of young people, enabling them to reach their full potential. As Mass Mentoring
Partnership shaped its strategic vision for 2015–2017, it broadened its scope to include the wider field of youth
development and youth serving organizations in which these empowering youth-adult relationships also serve as
cornerstone of their work.
In an effort to better understand the landscape of youth development and youth serving organizations, the UMass
Donahue Institute (UMDI) conducted a research initiative in four targeted geographies within the Commonwealth:
Cape Cod; Hampden County; the Essex County communities of Lawrence and Lynn; and the Boston neighborhoods
of Roxbury, Dorchester, and Mattapan. These communities have been identified as having a great need for
increased access for youth to empowering youth-adult relationships, but possessing insufficient resources to meet
that need. Although there are many other communities across Massachusetts that would fit this definition, these four
were identified as strategic geographies in which MMP will deepen its efforts to enhance the empowering
relationships found in these programs through targeted focus and resources.
In October 2014, UMDI administered a brief, confidential web survey to youth development and youth serving
organizations. The survey gathered general information about the work of youth development and youth serving
organizations, particularly related to program characteristics, youth impacts and goals, and youth participant
characteristics, as well as the identification of program service needs. Seventy-four organizations, representing a
35% response rate, completed the survey.
Targeted Geography
Dorchester, Mattapan & Roxbury
Hampden County
Cape Cod
Lawrence & Lynn
TOTAL
Number of
Surveys
Successfully
Distributed
Frequency
65
52
69
25
211
Number of
Surveys
Completed
Survey
Response
Rate
Frequency
26
22
17
9
Percent
40.0%
42.3%
24.6%
36.0%
74
35.1%
This brief highlights findings from these 74 organizations. Comparisons to MMC 2014 data are presented to highlight
potential similarities and differences between the youth development and youth mentoring fields. It is important to
use caution drawing conclusions from comparative data as the youth development survey represents a sample of
youth development and youth serving organizations in four targeted geographies, whereas the MMC survey
represents a sample of youth mentoring programs across the state of Massachusetts.
UMass Donahue Institute
Applied Research and Program Evaluation
1
Program Characteristics of Youth Development Organizations
Youth development organizations come in a wide variety of forms and provide a multitude of services to
youth. Two-thirds of respondents selected multiple program type descriptions for their organization. More than sixty
percent categorized their organization as an out-of-school enrichment program. Approximately 30–40% of
respondents described their programs as a career readiness program, community youth / teen center, sports and
recreation program, and/or arts and culture program.
Which of the following best describes your youth
development program? Select all that apply.
Out-of-school enrichment program
Career-readiness / youth employment program
Community youth / teen center
Sports & recreation program
Arts & culture program
In-school-enrichment program
Faith-based group
Other
Number of
Youth Development
Organizations Responding
Frequency
Percent
45
61.6%
30
41.1%
30
41.1%
27
37.0%
24
32.9%
16
21.9%
3
4.1%
19
26.0%
The majority of youth development organizations focus on the creation and support of empowering
relationships between adults and youth participants. The development of empowering relationships between
young people and their mentors is a hallmark of youth mentoring programs. MMP defines empowering relationships
as ‘close connections between staff / volunteers and young people that powerfully and positively shape their
identities and help them develop a thriving mindset.’ We find that more than half of youth serving organizations cite
the development of empowering relationships between their program staff / volunteers and their youth participants as
a primary focus of their program.
Youth development organizations report a high degree of contact with their youth participants. Consistent
contact is critical for the development of strong, empowering relationships between youth participants and adult
program staff and volunteers. More than 80% of youth development organizations report spending at least 6 hours
per month with youth, with 59% citing a minimum of 10 hours monthly.
UMass Donahue Institute
Applied Research and Program Evaluation
2
On average, how many hours per month does a
typical youth spend building a relationship with adults
in the program?
1 – 2 hours per month
3 – 5 hours per month
6 – 10 hours per month
More than 10 hours per month
TOTAL
Number of
Youth Development
Organizations Responding
Frequency
Percent
1
1.5%
11
16.7%
15
22.7%
39
59.1%
66
100.0%
Comparisons between the youth development and MMC 2014 survey data reveal that youth participating in youth
development programs spend significantly greater amounts of time meeting with adults as compared with youth
participating in mentoring programs.
The majority of youth development organizations report adult to youth ratios of 1:5 or greater.
While adults in youth development organizations may be in contact with their youth participants for increased hours
monthly, services and activities provided are often in larger group settings. In the youth mentoring field, a ratio of 1
adult to 4 or fewer youth is considered a best, quality practice. Comparing youth development and MMC 2014 data
reveals striking differences in ratios of adults working with youth participants. As depicted below, 33% of youth
development organizations reported a maximum 1:4 ratio compared with 85% of mentoring programs.
UMass Donahue Institute
Applied Research and Program Evaluation
3
Youth serving organizations are designed to address a variety of youth goals, with improvements in selfesteem, social competence, and education most frequently noted.
Intended Youth Goals
Self-esteem
Social competence
Education / academic support:
Education support for youth who are academically behind
Education support for youth who are academic achievers
Entrance and retention support for youth in college
Promoting community / civic involvement
Job skills / work readiness / career exploration
Violence prevention
Foster resiliency
Substance abuse prevention
Physical fitness and sports skills
Foster pro-social norms
Youth identity / connection to ethnic, religious, social, cultural group
Avoidance of early pregnancy
STEM knowledge and skills
Other
% Reporting As
Intended Goal of
Program
(n=74)
82.4%
74.3%
70.3%
66.2%
32.4%
18.9%
63.5%
60.8%
51.4%
43.2%
43.2%
40.5%
37.8%
35.1%
31.1%
27.0%
16.2%
% Reporting As
Primary Goal of
Program
(n=68)
17.6%
13.2%
23.5%
19.1%
1.5%
2.9%
11.8%
14.7%
8.8%
4.4%
1.5%
0.0%
1.5%
1.5%
0.0%
0.0%
1.5%
While self-esteem, social competence and education were the most frequently cited intended goals addressed by
both youth serving and youth mentoring organizations in both surveys, comparative analysis reveals that youth
development organizations are significantly more likely to report promoting community and civic involvement and
increasing job skills and work readiness as intended goals of their programs. Moreover, youth development
organizations are significantly more likely to try to address high-risk activities—violence prevention, substance abuse
prevention, and avoidance of early pregnancy—as goals of their programs.
UMass Donahue Institute
Applied Research and Program Evaluation
4
Though education and academic support was the most frequently cited primary goal of both program types, analysis
reveals that mentoring programs are significantly more likely to select it as their primary goal. Youth development
organizations are significantly more likely to cite promoting community and civic involvement and violence prevention
as primary program goals.
The vast majority (85%) of youth development organizations report currently measuring outcomes to assess
their programs’ success in meeting its intended youth participant goals. While youth development and youth
mentoring programs report using similar outcome measures most frequently, comparative analysis reveals that
mentoring programs are significantly more likely to report measuring quality of youth / adult relationship, attitudes
toward school, and attitudes toward the future. Youth development organizations are significantly more likely to
measure gang involvement.
Snapshot of Youth and Adults Participating in Youth Development Organizations
These numbers reflect solely those relationships at youth development organizations in the four targeted
geographies that responded to the youth development survey and provided youth and adult counts.
Nearly 60,000 youth consistently participated in activities run by the 66 youth development organizations
responding to this survey in 2013–2014.
UMass Donahue Institute
Applied Research and Program Evaluation
5
Number of Youth
Development
Organizations
Responding
Number of Youth
Consistently
Participating in
Program Annually
Cape Cod
Hampden County
Lawrence & Lynn
Dorchester, Mattapan, & Roxbury
16
19
7
24
15,306
16,134
1,215
26,996
TOTAL
66
59,651
Targeted Geography
In 2013–2014, approximately 5,400 adults worked with or volunteered with youth at the 68 youth
development organizations responding to this survey. Approximately one-third represent paid staff and twothirds volunteers.
Number of Youth
Development
Organizations
Responding
Number of Paid
Staff Working
with Youth
Annually
Number of
Volunteers
Working with
Youth Annually
Cape Cod
Hampden County
Lawrence & Lynn
Dorchester, Mattapan, & Roxbury
17
20
8
23
415
845
175
360
404
1,621
158
1,419
TOTAL
68
1,795
3,602
Targeted Geography
Youth development organizations generally serve greater numbers of youth than youth mentoring programs.
Youth development organizations vary widely in the number of youth served annually with reported numbers ranging
from 2 to 14,000 with a median of 124 youth served. MMC 2014 survey findings revealed the range of youth served
annually for youth mentoring programs during a similar time frame was 2 to 3,800 with a median of 42 youth served.
Youth development organizations serve both male and female youth across a broad age spectrum. Youth of
all ages participate in youth development programs. The most frequently cited age groups served include high school
and middle school aged youth. Nearly all (96%) youth development organizations serve both male and female youth.
The diversity of the adults working in youth development organizations does not adequately reflect the
diversity of the youth served. Youth development organizations were asked to describe the diversity of their
program represented by their youth participants, paid staff members, and volunteer staff. Programs identified what
percentage of their youth participants and adults working with youth are people of color. Similar to findings in the
mentoring field, youth development organizations primarily serve youth of color but the adults working with these
youth are more often Caucasian / White.
UMass Donahue Institute
Applied Research and Program Evaluation
6
Youth development organizations serve substantial numbers of at-risk youth. Respondents were asked to
select subgroups for which they serve substantial numbers (at least 25%) of their youth participants. Similar to
findings on youth served by mentoring programs, the most frequently cited subgroups include youth from low-income
families, from single-parent families, and those at academic risk. All of these circumstances are correlated with risk
factors for youth.
Youth Subgroups Served
% of Programs Serving 25%+
Youth from low‐income families Youth from single‐parent household
Youth at academic risk
Recent immigrant / refugee populations
First generation of family to go to college
Youth in foster, residential, or kinship care
Academic achievers
Adjudicated / court involved
Youth who have dropped out of school Youth with disabilities or special health care needs
Children of incarcerated parents
LGBTQ youth
Currently enrolled in post‐secondary education
96%
82%
56%
24%
27%
21%
19%
18%
16%
13%
13%
10%
9%
Conclusion
There are a number of commonalities between the work of youth development organizations and youth mentoring
programs. Similar to mentoring programs, the majority of youth development programs report focusing on the
development of empowering relationships between program staff / volunteers and youth participants and generally
seek to increase youth participants’ self-esteem, social competence, and education / academic support skills.
Furthermore, both organizations serve similar age ranges with the majority of participants served being youth of
color. This diversity is not reflected in the adults working with these youth. The vast majority of both organizations
serve substantial numbers of low-income youth and youth from single-parent households.
Key differences revealed include youth development organizations’ increased likelihood to serve larger numbers of
youth annually, with greater exposure to adults in programs (i.e., increased amount of monthly hours spent together),
but in a larger group setting (i.e., higher adult-to-youth ratio) than mentoring programs. Moreover, youth development
organizations are significantly more likely to be designed to address high-risk behaviors (violence, substance abuse,
early pregnancy) as well as to promote community / civic involvement and work readiness skills than mentoring
programs.
Mass Mentoring Partnership is well positioned to increase outreach and engagement to youth development
organizations. MMP works with mentoring programs and youth development organizations across the state to assess
their program needs and provide customized strategies that strengthen their capacity to serve youth, families, and
their communities. Youth development organizations identified numerous service needs for their youth development
organizations, with the vast majority (88%) selecting grants and financial rewards as a top program need. Moreover,
approximately one-quarter identified the need for quality best practices assessment and improvement resources,
sharing funding opportunities, and training services. Training topics most frequently requested include theory and
practice of positive youth development, program evaluation, and volunteer training.
UMass Donahue Institute
Applied Research and Program Evaluation
7