Youth Lead the Change - Participatory Budgeting Pt 1

Youth Lead the Change: Participatory Budgeting Initiative on Cities Boston University 75 Bay State Road Boston, MA 02215 www.bu.edu/ioc @BUonCities 617-358-8080 IOC@bu.edu Katharine Lusk Executive Director Initiative on Cities Boston University klusk@bu.edu Boston University Initiative on Cities I. INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND The year 2015-16 marks the third year of Youth Lead the Change: Participatory Budgeting Boston. As with the program’s first two years, young people from across the city were asked to suggest ideas for capital projects that will bring long-term physical improvements to parks, streets, schools, and neighborhoods on city-owned property. Youth volunteers, called Change Agents, reviewed the ideas and turned them into proposals. The final proposed infrastructure projects needed to benefit the public, cost at least $25,000, and have a lifespan of at least five years. Then young people from throughout Boston voted on their top priorities for funding. This evaluation report examines the Youth Lead the Change process in its third year, drawing on qualitative and quantitative data from a variety of sources. Throughout the year, the Evaluation Team of Boston University researchers conducted interviews, observations, and other data collection activities to fully understand and analyze the process, its intent, and its outcomes. We describe the participatory budgeting process, present our research questions, explain our methods, report our findings, and summarize the conclusions with recommendations to further develop this innovative effort to engage youth in city government. History of Participatory Budgeting in Boston and Beyond The participatory budgeting process provides an opportunity for citizens to determine how to utilize a government budget. The concept of participatory budgeting arose from an experiment in Porto Alegre, Brazil in the 1980s when a new government invented a method to manage public resources through community involvement. This broad concept spread to nearby cities, with each adopting their own modified version. In the following decade, participatory budgeting spread to other locations in Latin America and on to Europe and Canada (Cabannes, 2004; Lerner 2011). The United States eventually began to experiment with participatory budgeting in 2010 in Chicago’s 49th Ward (Lerner, 2011). Youth engagement in participatory budgeting, in particular, has been examined as one type of participatory budgeting (Cabannes, 2006), but cases of youth participation in participatory budgeting outside of Latin America are limited. The City of Boston was the first instance of youth-led participatory budgeting in the United States. This initiative, established in 2013 by the Boston Mayor’s office, allows Boston youth ages 12-25 to determine how to spend one million dollars of the city’s capital budget. The Participatory Budgeting Project (PBP) estimates that Boston’s process incorporates about 2,000 youth participants annually (Participatory Budgeting Project, 2016b). Dubbed Youth Lead the Change: Participatory Budgeting Boston, Boston’s approach allows young people to not only vote on how to spend the one million dollars, but also enables youth to play a role in identifying and shaping particular projects to propose for voting, particularly through the Mayor’s Youth Council (Participatory Budgeting Project, 2016a). In Boston, the Mayor’s Youth Council is comprised of mayoral-appointed youth delegates from neighborhoods citywide. During the inaugural year of Youth Lead the Change, which ran from November 2013 to June of 2014, the City of Boston and the Mayor’s Youth Council collaborated with the Participatory Budgeting Project for guidance on how to conduct the participatory budget process (Participatory Budgeting Project, 2016a). Specifically, the Participatory Budgeting Project1, a nonprofit organization operating mostly in the U.S. and Canada, assisted Youth Lead the Change by providing guidance materials, training for youth participants and adult facilitators, and developing other educational material (2016a). Youth Lead the Change Project Goals 1. Increase Youth Power: Engage youth in meaningful decision-making and prove that young people are the solution, not the problem. 2. Allow All Voices to Be Heard: Include all community stakeholders in the democratic process. 3. Build Stronger, Safer, and Healthier Communities: Bring neighborhoods together, solve community problems, and develop projects that will improve the well-being of all members of the community. 4. Strengthen City-wide Sense of Pride, Solidarity, and Equality: Create a unified Boston across neighborhoods where everyone feels part of a growing community. 5. Pathways into Civic Life: Create an entry point for young people to become civically engaged and learn about the city and government. Research Questions This evaluation and associated data collection activities were focused on two research questions: (1) Where are opportunities for improvement to Boston’s youth participatory budgeting process, including the pre-planning stages, as well as idea collection, proposal development and voting? (2) What general needs and priorities of Boston youth emerged as a result of the process? Description of Annual Cycle Youth Lead the Change involves a series of meetings and events that feed into the city’s budget cycle. The 2015-16 process has five main steps, starting in November 2015 and concluding in June 2016. Table 1: Description of YLC Stages Month(s) Step Explanation Nov-Dec Pre-Planning Multi-Stakeholder (Adult and Youth) Steering Committee decides on rules and plans the process Jan Idea Collection Public (Adult and Youth) invited to submit ideas for spending $1 million of Boston’s capital budget Feb-Apr Proposal Development Youth “Change Agents” develop ideas into concrete project proposals May Voting Youth residents between the ages of 12 and 25 vote on the projects to be funded June Evaluation and Monitoring Implementation of Projects Adult and youth participants evaluate the process and oversee the implementation of projects, including reviewing associated Requests for Proposals Phase 1: Idea Collection The public was invited to submit ideas for consideration and evaluation through personal outreach by Mayor’s Youth Council representatives, community events and mass advertising. Ideas were intended to improve the City of Boston or a neighborhood within Boston. Anyone could propose project ideas, regardless of age or residence, and considerable effort was made to engage a broad audience. Public events were held throughout the city to collect ideas, and ideas were submitted online, through social media and via text message. This year’s process was also intended to inspire friendly competition among the youth, with prizes awarded for the most number of clicks on shared links. Language translation and interpretation were provided as often as feasible to ensure widespread participation. There were additional outreach efforts focused on youth who faced barriers to participating. All submitted ideas were logged into a spreadsheet by Mayor’s Youth Council representatives for tracking purposes and assigned to a relevant subcommittee. Measures of Success: • Total youth engaged The Youth Lead the Change effort is perceived by the City as a valuable way to engage youth in Boston via the promise of real impact. Related marketing materials invest youth with decision-making authority, calling on them to spend $1 million of City money. • Total number of submitted ideas, both capital eligible and non-capital eligible, aligned with the mission of each of the Subcommittees Rather than focus exclusively on capital eligible projects, the City seeks a wide array of both capital eligible projects and programmatic ideas from youth citywide. The rationale is three-fold: First, the City believes it will engage more youth if it introduces fewer parameters, helping to achieve Goal 1. Second, City staff see the Idea Collection phase as an opportunity to inform both the Youth Lead the Change ballot and the strategic priorities of the Mayor’s Youth Council. Third, they feel the city’s youth Change Agents are able to convert at least some programmatic ideas into capital eligible ideas, due to their greater understanding of capital eligibility and consultations with departmental staff within the City.2 2 Interview with Boston Mayor’s Youth Council Manager, Francesco Tena on June 17, 2016 Phase 2: Proposal Development Change Agents were central to the Proposal Development phase. All members of the Boston Mayor’s Youth Council were Change Agents. Additionally, select youth ages 12-25 volunteered to be involved in this process. In addition to the age requirement, youth must be residents of Boston. Youth were trained by the Participatory Budgeting Project and interacted with city staff to identify feasible ideas that could be honed into projects for the public vote. Youth worked in thematic committees to develop project proposals for issues such as: Education, Parks & Recreation, Environment, and Public Safety. Trained youth facilitators guided each committee. Change Agent committees met weekly after school between February and May and typically dedicated 8-10 hours each month to this phase of the project. The Steering Committee provided the criteria by which Change Agents evaluated and developed project ideas, including feasibility, community need, and community impact. Change Agents visited sites to evaluate need and feasibility. Proposal writing was a group activity, with multiple Change Agents contributing to the wording of a single proposal. Measures of Success: • Focused ballot ideas which are: a. Financially and jurisdictionally feasible b. Necessary c. Predicted to have a positive community impact d. Inspired by or directly related to ideas submitted by youth The Proposal Development stage is intended to refine submitted ideas into vetted capital projects. Change agents and City Hall department staffers hone the ideas to ensure they fall within the jurisdictional boundaries of the city (e.g., Wi-Fi on city streets vs on MBTA buses) and are financially feasible within the bounds of the allotted $1 million funds. The teams also work to winnow down ideas to those that are deemed necessary and predicted to have a positive community impact.3 Youth were eligible to vote if they were: (a) between the ages of 12 and 25, and (b) a resident of the City of Boston. Only one vote per voter was allowed. Voting was held primarily at schools and public assemblies over several days. Voting was also held at voting stations in public places, and through digital ballots. To educate the broader youth population about the project proposals on the ballot, events such as science-fair style project expos were held before or during the voting period. Additionally, the project proposals were posted online. 3 Interview with Boston Mayor’s Youth Council Manager, Francesco Tena on June 17, 2016 Phase 3: Voting The following capital projects received the highest number of votes: • More trash cans and recycling bins in Boston neighborhoods of Roxbury, Dorchester, and Mattapan. • Job and resource finder app to be managed by the Division of Youth Engagement & Employment to streamline youth job searches. • Incorporation of individual play elements designed for people with disabilities in 10 parks in five Boston neighborhoods (Dorchester, South End, Roxbury, Jamaica Plain, and Roslindale). • “Wicked Free Wi-Fi 3.0” to provide free Wi-Fi and charging stations at key locations and bus stops across Boston. • Digital billboards in schools to broadcast events, resources, and programs. • “Sunshine & Books”- an app that will let anyone know where there are designed outdoor study spaces. Measures of Success • Total votes cast by eligible youth voters in Boston The Voting phase provides youth with an opportunity to select capital eligible projects they deem most critical to improving Boston. In addition to the capital projects, the ballot includes a list of potential strategic priorities on which the Mayor’s Youth Council could spend time in the year ahead. Youth are thus invited to prioritize both strategic priorities of their youth representatives and specific investments in the City. Additional Stakeholders and Roles While youth are at the center of the process there are additional stakeholders who contribute to the project. • A City of Boston Oversight Committee made up of City staff and Participatory Budgeting Project staff oversees the project. Duties of the Oversight Committee include appointing a Steering Committee, helping with outreach and event planning, providing background information for participants, connecting participants to relevant City agency staff, and overseeing the work of the Participatory Budgeting Project. • A Steering Committee of 25 organizations oversees the PB process (see Appendix). • City Departments, staff and experts provide feedback on project eligibility and cost, and advise Change Agents in developing proposals. The City of Boston contracts with the Participatory Budgeting Project (PBP) each year to provide technical assistance. The PBP is a nonprofit organization that empowers people to decide together how to spend public money, primarily in the U.S. and Canada. They “create and support participatory budgeting processes that deepen democracy, build stronger communities, and make public budgets more equitable and effective.” PBP convened the Steering Committee and led the group through a series of participatory rule-making workshops to decide the basic structure and rules of the process. PBP worked on an ongoing basis with city staff and participants, providing training and technical assistance. A team of researchers at the Boston University School of Social Work conducted the present evaluation. A previous evaluation report of the pilot year evaluation of Youth Lead the Change was produced in 2014 (Grillos, 2014). Some of the recommendations from this earlier report included utilizing an expanded timeline and improved communication throughout all stages of the process. Additionally, the author recommended enhancing the educational aspects of the process. In order to increase turnout and reduce attrition, it was recommended that youth have a more direct role in marketing and have a greater web presence. Lastly, the author recommended that the City engage more young men and youth who are not involved in City programming or related youth programs. Overall, there was a need for more youth leadership and engagement in committee meetings. Evaluation Components The 2016 evaluation utilized various quantitative and qualitative data sources and focused data collection to analyze the process, discover areas for improvement and glean insight about the needs and priorities of Boston youth. Data sources and methods are noted below. Mayor’s Youth Council Interviews and Observations. Between September 2015 and June 2016, the research team from Boston University collected data regarding the Mayor’s Youth Council for an initially unrelated study of the scope, structure, function, and activities of youth councils. Although this study was broader than the specific Youth Lead the Change evaluation, some data are relevant to the evaluation. For example, the study team observed the Mayor’s Youth Council meeting at which PBP conducted the training of Change Agents. In-person interviews were conducted with 27 Youth Council members. Interviews were held during regularly scheduled office hours from October 2015 to December 2015. Interviews were conducted in a private room in City Hall and lasted approximately 30 minutes. The interviews followed a semistructured interview guide focused on youths’ reasons for joining the Council, experiences on the Council, perceptions of city government, and the impact of participation on the youth. All interviews were audio recorded and electronically transcribed for analysis. In-person interviews were conducted with four adults associated with the Boston’s Youth Council, including the former Mayor, the former Mayor’s Youth Council Manager, the current Mayor’s Youth Council Manager, and the Executive Director of Youth Engagement and Employment. Interview questions focused on the design, origin, purpose, structure, and functioning of Boston’s Youth Council. Researchers took handwritten notes, which were electronically transcribed for analysis. Researchers attended seven Youth Council meetings between August 2015 and May 2016. All meetings occurred in Boston City Hall between 5:30-7:30 pm. Researchers completed a general observation guide focused on the number of participants, content of the meetings, level of youth engagement, and barriers to youth engagement. Handwritten notes documenting Council member interactions, the meeting process, and the location of the meetings accompanied the observation guide. All handwritten notes were electronically transcribed for analysis. Focus Group Data. Three focus groups were conducted with Change Agents to provide feedback about the stages of Youth Lead the Change, including idea collection, proposal development, and voting. The focus groups were held during regularly scheduled office hours on April 25, 26 and 27 of 2016. All youth attending office hours participated in the focus groups. The sample consisted of 32 participants, including Youth Lead the Change Change Agents and Subcommittee Facilitators. Two researchers from Boston University led each focus group, including one of the principal investigators and a trained research assistant. All groups began with an introduction, notifying participants that the purpose of the focus group was to better understand youths’ experiences participating in the Boston participatory budgeting process. Confidentiality was assured to participants in each of the groups. Participants were asked to complete a one-page handout reflecting on their role and their subcommittee’s role during each stage (idea collection, proposal development and voting) of the participatory budgeting process. Participants were asked: 1) if there was enough time allotted to each stage, 2) whether they received enough guidance from staff, and 3) whether they received enough information to carry out tasks. Once completed, the focus group began. Participants were asked to discuss their experiences participating during each stage of the participatory budgeting process, including what worked well and what needed improvement. All focus groups were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Each focus group lasted between 30-45 minutes. Change Agents. Some Change Agents were interviewed as described above. All members of the Mayor’s Youth Council were enlisted as Change Agents in the Youth Lead the Change process, along with select youth volunteers. A pre/post survey of Change Agents was also designed and administered by City Hall staff. Survey questions included attitudes towards government, perceptions of soft skills such as communication and public speaking, and demographics. Pre-surveys were collected in late February/early March, with 47 Change Agents participating (N=47). Post surveys were sent to Change Agents at the beginning of May (N=18). The research team was unable to compare pre/post survey data, due to the low rate of post-surveys collected. Results from the pre-survey, including a detailed analysis of Agent’s response to “What are the three biggest problems facing your neighborhood?” is included in this report. Idea Collection Data. Analysis was conducted on two additional sources of data, which were gathered as part of or during Idea Collection. First, the research team analyzed the results of a quantitative survey of both Change Agents and members of the general public who contributed ideas for consideration. These surveys were designed by the City of Boston to capture demographic information and the needs and priorities of young people in Boston. Individuals were prompted to complete the idea collection survey once they had submitted ideas for the vote; 134 individuals completed the survey. The idea collection survey was almost identical to the pre-survey for Change Agents, which enabled comparisons between the two groups. In addition to demographic comparisons, a detailed qualitative analysis was conducted based on each group’s responses to the question “What are the three biggest problems facing your neighborhood?” Second, the evaluation team coded and analyzed the qualitative capital and programmatic ideas that were submitted during Idea Collection. Subcommittees were responsible for recording these ideas verbatim, assigning them to a Subcommittee and providing an initial indication of whether each was capital eligible. This database of ideas was further reviewed and coded by the evaluation team to: 1) remove obvious duplicates, 2) note likely capital eligibility if it had not been indicated, 3) specify intended location for the project (e.g., citywide, specific neighborhood, specific school etc.), and 4) specify project type (e.g., technology, youth program, mass transit). Given the large number of proposed ideas that could be considered youth programs, that category of projects was further coded (e.g., after-school program, youth jobs) to provide additional insight. Voter Data from Boston Public School. Attempts were made to survey voters by sending surveys to individuals after the voting process concluded. This yielded a very low response rate (3%) and could therefore not be used in the report. In order to analyze the voting population, the Boston Public Schools Office of Data and Accountability matched student ID numbers of those who voted to public school student demographics. Roughly 70% of the total voting population were Boston Public School students. Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Data. To examine the demographic distribution of participants a series of GIS maps were produced. These included: distribution of youth in the city of Boston, distribution of Mayor’s Youth Council representatives, distribution of individuals who completed surveys during idea collection, and distribution of Boston Public School student voters. II. FINDINGS This section begins with an overview of Change Agents and individuals who participated in the idea collection phase as well as those who voted on the final balloted projects. It then delves into the two research questions. Representativeness of Change Agents, Idea Collection Participants and Voters Data from the Change Agent pre-survey and the Idea Collection survey help illustrate who participated in the early stages of Youth Lead the Change. Responses to a voter survey were too low to allow for analysis of that data, but Boston Public Schools (BPS) provided demographic data on the roughly 70% of voters who attend their schools. While these surveys and BPS data provide strong directional evidence on demographics, including age, race and languages spoken, it is important to remember that in every instance they represent only a subset of participants. Nothing is known about the non-responders and non-BPS voters. Demographics Table 2 summarizes the basic demographics for each group, with some comparison data from Massachusetts and Boston, drawn from a Boston Redevelopment Authority report4. Table 2: Comparison of Change Agent ICPs, and BPS voters, with State and City data frame Massachusetts 5 6 Idea Collection Participants (N=134) Median Age: 16 (Age Range: 3-23; 99% between the ages of 12 and 25)5 BPS Voters (N=3087) Age Median Age: 39 Median Age: 31 Median Age: 17 (Age Range: 13-22) Median Age: 17 (Age Range: 11-61; 86% between ages of 12 and 25) Gender -- -- 71.7% female 55.2% female 55.8% female Born in the U.S. 82.1% 69.5% 83% 83% N/A Speak Only English6 77.8% 63.4% 80% 88% N/A -- White (46%) Black (22.7%) Latino/a (18.4%) Asian (9.1%) White (30.4%) Black (32.6%) Latino/a (8.7%) Asian (19.6%) White (15.7%) Black (33.6%) Latino/a (34.3%) Asian (7.5%) White (26.2%) Black (26.2%) Hispanic (27%) Asian (19.1%) Race 4 Boston Change Agents (N=47) http://www.bostonredevelopmentauthority.org/getattachment/7b9b1201-8b4f-4fa9-b0f2-4acbbe083198 According to data provided by the Boston Public Schools, 21 BPS student voters were under the age of 12 including two as young as three. The authors presume this is an error in the data. The Change Agent pre-survey and the Idea Collection survey were only administered in English, suggesting non-English or non-Native English speakers may be underrepresented among survey respondents. The most notable demographic differences among Change Agents, Idea Collection Participants (ICPs), and voters are age range, gender, race, and neighborhood representation. Change Agents were selected with age restrictions, which is evident in the data. ICPs encapsulated a noticeably larger range of ages, with individuals as old as 61 submitting ideas to the process. There was no age restriction in the idea collection stage, so contributions from adults were permitted. However, 86% of survey respondents who contributed ideas were between the age of 12 and 25, suggesting the City successfully engaged youth in the idea collection process. The City also appears to have been successful at engaging youth during the voting stage, when there was an age restriction in place. Not surprisingly, given the sample pool are all students, 99% of voters enrolled in Boston Public Schools fell into the prescribed age range of 12-25. Median age was consistent among groups; age 16 for Agents and 17 for ICPs and BPS voters. With regard to gender, the Change Agents who participated in the survey were much more likely to be female, whereas the ICP and voters had a more balanced sampling of male and female contributors. Asian and Black youth are slightly overrepresented among Change Agents, whereas ICPs are heavily Latino/a and Black. Stakeholder interviews help to explain the racial representation, as City staff sought to explicitly target youth-of-color and partnered with My Brother’s Keeper7 for recruitment efforts. However, youth interviews and focus groups suggest that school affiliation may be an important, yet missing piece of information that complicates representation based on race alone. Change Agent and ICP surveys did not solicit educational status or affiliated school type, but interviewees remarked on the over representation of “exam school kids” on the Mayor’s Youth Council. At first glance, it appears that Boston Public School voters, who represent roughly 70% of the population of youth who voted this cycle, are strongly representative of the diversity of the City’s school system. Seventy-six of the City’s 125 Boston Public Schools were represented in this subset of voters. While this suggests strong outreach to a wide array of schools in Boston, one school was overrepresented among voters: 42% of BPS voters are enrolled at the Boston Latin School, one of the City’s public exam schools. Overall, this equates to roughly 30% of youth voters drawn from one school. These data illustrate that racial and educational representation are important to consider, as the City seeks to engage its youth. Race, ethnicity and school affiliation should all be considered when recruiting Change Agents, soliciting ideas for the ballot and devising youth voter outreach activities. Future Youth Lead the Change survey instruments would gain in analytical depth by asking participants about school affiliation. Comparing averages for Boston and Massachusetts on persons born in the U.S. and English-only speakers with youth engaged in Youth Lead the Change suggests the City could do more to engage non-English speakers and foreign born residents. Throughout the idea collection phase, as well as ballot design and preparation for voting outreach, Change Agents were mindful of language barriers. For instance, at a Mayor’s Youth Council/Youth Lead the Change meeting in April “thinking stations” were set-up around the room. Posters were hung from the wall and youth went around to each station to provide input for the advertising and organizing of the voting process. One such station asked youth to list and prioritize the languages voting materials should be translated into, in order to reach more youth. The top three languages according to the youth were: Haitian Creole, Spanish, and Vietnamese.85 Ballots were printed in multiple languages in order to engage a diverse youth population. https://youth.boston.gov/category/my-brothers-keeper. President Obama established a federal program that local municipalities have re-created to address the disproportionate number of young Black men who are failing school or dropping out. 8 Field Notes from meeting on April 12th, 2016 7 In spite of awareness of the need to engage youth in other languages, Change Agents and ICPs responding to the surveys are more likely to be born in the U.S. (83%) and speak only English (80% and 88%, respectively) than the state and city populations overall (see Table 2). Youth representatives attending Mayor’s Youth Council meetings spoke exclusively English. Data on languages spoken were not available for BPS voters. Neighborhood Representativeness Neighborhood representation of participating youth is difficult to measure. Based on the map below9, the Boston neighborhoods with the highest concentration of youth (age 0-17) are: Dorchester, Roxbury, Mattapan, East Boston, and Hyde Park. A more recent report by the Boston Redevelopment Authority defined youth as ages 0-19, and showed the Longwood and Fenway neighborhoods as those with the highest concentration of youth10; followed by Roxbury, Dorchester, and Mattapan. Given Boston’s large college student population, it is important to draw distinctions between Boston resident youth and young people attending college in the City. As expected, neighborhoods such as Longwood and Fenway —which are both home to multiple colleges and universities and large proportions of students—spike dramatically when comparing populations of 10-14 and 15-19 year olds. For analysis purposes, we focus primarily on representation from Roxbury, Dorchester, and Mattapan, which have large youth populations but fewer college students. Map 1: Neighborhood Representation of Youth in Boston Age 0-17, 2010 Provided by Boston Redevelopment Authority, http://www.bostonredevelopmentauthority.org/getattachment/4cda8ee0-6ebf-49ca-ae8f-90c577546c60/. 10 This may be indicative of non-native college students living in these neighborhoods. 9 The adjacent graph illustrates where Change Agents (red/lower bar), ICPs (orange/middle bar), and BPS voters (yellow/upper bar) reside. Representation from Dorchester is strong among all three groups. In contrast, few Change Agents, ICPs, and youth voters were drawn from Mattapan, suggesting that youth from this neighborhood were scantly involved in Youth Lead the Change. A major change for the Mayor’s Youth Council in the last two years was expanding total membership to exceed 80 youth, with the direct intention of achieving neighborhood representativeness. The Mayor’s Youth Council controls for college-aged youth when configuring a standard for youth representation among Change Agents, which is particularly important given Boston’s large higher education student population. However, among the three neighborhoods certain to contain a high proportion of resident youth (Dorchester, Roxbury, and Mattapan), few Change Agents appear to be drawn from Roxbury and Mattapan. East Boston also appears to be under-represented. One factor to consider when examining the representativeness of Change Agents is transportation to City Hall, where Mayor’s Youth Council and Youth Lead the Change meetings are typically held. Boston’s City Hall, located in the downtown, is not easily accessible from many of the neighborhoods with the largest proportions of youth. Youth regularly mentioned transportation challenges as one limiting factor in their participation. While Change Agents do not well-represent Roxbury and Mattapan, there seems to have been a concerted effort made to collect ideas and votes from communities where fewer Change Agents resided. ICPs are mostly from East Boston, Roxbury, and Dorchester. Initial findings highlight a number of ways in which Change Agents and ICPs differ, particularly in age range, gender, race, and neighborhood representation. It is possible that ICPs differ widely in age range, gender, race, and neighborhood because of targeted recruitment strategy. It’s also important to remember that these results are drawn from surveys which only represent a subset of Change Agents and ICPs. Further analysis on Change Agents’ neighborhood representation and member involvement are discussed on the following pages. Greater insight is also provided in regards to the idea collection stage and its participants. Community Engagement by Participants Information collected in the Change Agent and ICP surveys also addressed community involvement (see Table 3) and perceptions of self and community. Graphs detailing the self and community perceptions are provided in the appendix, as this information adds little to the overall analysis of these groups. Regarding involvement, both groups were asked “Over the past 12 months, have you worked with others in your community to try and solve a community problem OUTSIDE of YLC or MYC?” Table 3: Involvement outside of YLC or MYC Change Agents Idea Coll. Yes 47.8% 40.3% No 32.6% 34.3% Don’t Know 19.6% 25.4% Table 3 shows that Change Agents reported slightly higher levels of involvement outside of YLC/MYC (47.8% compared to 40.3%). A quarter percent of ICP respondents marked “don’t know”, which may signal phrasing confusion; perhaps respondents did not consider themselves involved in the YLC/MYC, or were unaware of what the acronyms stood for. Reasons for Participating in Youth Lead the Change Specific to Change Agents, data from the pre-survey reveal that 75.6% heard about YLC through the Mayor’s Youth Council. The pie chart illustrates why youth volunteered as Change Agents. Youth checked “To make a difference in my community,” as the major reason for participating in YLC. Interestingly, two of the five “other” reasons for volunteering highlight confusion in distinguishing the MYC from YLC. These respondents wrote in “I didn’t. I thought it was MYC, oops” and “way too many acronyms. I’m confused”. Research Question 1: Process Improvements Where are opportunities for improvement to Boston’s youth participatory budgeting process, including the pre-planning stages, as well as idea collection, proposal development or voting? Three data sources help shed light on the success of the City’s current participatory budgeting process: 1) interviews with Mayor’s Youth Council members and observation of Council meetings, 2) focus groups with Youth Lead the Change Subcommittee Change Agents, and 3) analysis of the submitted and balloted ideas. Overall themes emerged, as well as opportunities within specific phases. General Themes We describe focus group data here and supplement these findings with other data from individual interviews with Mayor’s Youth Council members and observations of Mayor’s Youth Council meetings, to provide insight on general areas of opportunity. Table 4: Focus Group Summary of Findings Feedback from Participants Overall, participants enjoyed participating in the participatory budgeting process and appreciated having a concrete project to work on11. Participatory budgeting provided the youth with a unique opportunity to learn about city government, develop leadership skills and expand their social networks. 11 The focus groups took place in April prior to the voting phase of the process; therefore, the present analysis is focused mainly on idea collection and proposal development.” Focus group participants discussed six themes, shared below, including: 1) preparation, 2) communication, 3) member engagement, 4) access to expert advisors, 5) outreach via social media, and 6) member representation. Preparation Prior to idea collection, Change Agents received training, led by Mayor’s Office and Participatory Budgeting Project staff, on the context of participatory budgeting, strategies for outreach and mapping the process month by month. Participants found the training to be useful as it provided specific information regarding the three stages of the process (idea collection, proposal development and voting) as well as their role as Change Agents. Reflecting on the training, one participant said, “I felt it was good because we basically had a broad idea of what participatory budgeting was, and then they came in and filled us in on specific details of how it works and what, like our role in it is. So it helped to clear up that kind of confusion.” Similarly, another youth stated, “they painted a picture of what the process looks like in a very vivid or clear way. For example, I remember that they had a timeline, what specific month we were going to be doing what.” Participants reported a need for additional training and guidance during the proposal development stage. One participant stated, “I, personally, could have used some more guidance on how to write the proposal.” Specifically, participants lacked an understanding of the structure and components of the proposal. For example, although the Change Agents decided to write one of their proposals on green roofs, the participant in charge of writing stated, “Okay. I’m not an expert on green roofs so I had no idea how to start or where to begin, and what information I needed to convey.” In sum, participants found the trainings held by the Mayor’s and Participatory Budgeting Project staff to be useful in terms of understanding the specific stages of the process and outreach strategies. They would benefit from additional training and guidance focused on the nuts and bolts of proposal writing. Communication Participants felt supported by Mayor’s Office staff and Change Agents. Staff members were always available to answer questions posed by the Change Agents. As reported by one participant, “I feel like the Change Agents are always able to come to the facilitators and ask them questions, and rarely will they not know the answer. And then they’ll have to go [staff members] and I feel like we always had what we need.” Although participants were supported, they reported a need for clearer communication regarding their role as Change Agents and the time commitment of that role. As reported by one participant, “I was applying for Mayor’s Youth Council… So then I show up to a meeting and suddenly it’s Youth Lead the Change, I’m like, ‘What’s this? This isn’t Mayor’s Youth Council,’ so I just wasn’t aware of what this was at the beginning.” Similarly, a returning member of the Mayor’s Youth Council stated: “Last year we had two separate things: MYC and YLC. And this year, we’re trying a new thing where all MYC members would be YLC, so it’s kind of combined. Instead of working on MYC issues, MYC issues became YLC issues, and that just all became one thing. So, it didn’t feel like we were doing anything else other than YLC for the entire year. And like is that right?” Although the majority of participants enjoyed working on the participatory budget process, they expressed a desire for transparency during recruitment and orientation regarding their role as Change Agents. Participants reported a need for better communication regarding meeting times. They expressed a need for a calendar at the beginning of the year with each subcommittee meeting listed and more frequent reminders so they could plan better, rather than receiving last minute emails: “I also think you should have more frequent reminders ‘cause once a couple weeks ago, I got a reminder that we had a meeting an hour before, and I was home and I couldn’t get to it. So that day I got it and I thought, ‘I can’t go to this.’ We should get more frequent reminders.” Participants also reported a need for better communication regarding the expectations of the subcommittees. During Idea Collection, they received clear communication regarding their responsibilities, including developing a mission statement and specific goals. Communication broke down during the proposal development stage. Participants were aware they needed to write a proposal, but there was confusion as to who on the committee was responsible for the writing and the specific information that should be included. One participant said, “Communication was really distant. Last year seemed more regimented and everyone had to be at their meetings. This year, it seemed a bit more disjointed, and, it’s hard to write a proposal when not everyone’s on the same page.” Member Engagement At the start of the participatory budget process there was strong enthusiasm, including member attendance at participatory budget meetings. For example, almost all Youth Council members were present at the Council meeting in October 2015 where Mayor Walsh spoke. Participants reported feeling inspired by the Mayor and wanting to “make a difference” for Boston’s youth. As the participatory budget process progressed, there were issues pertaining to retention of Change Agents. Member engagement was especially challenging during Proposal Development, resulting in greater responsibility placed on select members of the subcommittee. Reflecting on Proposal Development, one participant said: “I wasn’t super involved in this part of the process. I feel bad because I would have loved to be because I love writing, but I don’t know if it was personally being busy, but I just felt like this was a more disjointed part of the process in terms of getting everyone involved, especially members of the Youth Council.” Similarly, another participant reported that one member wrote the entire proposal: “it was crazy to see just one person just working on a proposal. It wasn’t a group of people… it was not a committee working on it.” To improve the issue of member engagement, participants recommended the use of online meetings and/or utilizing Google Docs for a more efficient communication. One youth stated: “We were really good at discipline in the beginning of the year, and then as we started to drop off, I fell into that lull, and I was one of those people, I fell into that lull, and I think if we placed more of an importance on showing up for the proposal development, or doing stuff online, like online meetings, if we tried that more, maybe it would have been more effective.” Participants also reported a need to find a way to accommodate their busy schedules, which may fluctuate throughout the year: “But, I think we need to find some way to address attendance, ‘cause I play tennis, and I can’t really come to spring meetings, and I feel we need to find a way to accommodate people who have athletics or some sort of break in their schedule, and find a way to keep them in the loop without making them feel ashamed.” Access to Expert Advisors Participants highlighted the important role of Youth Lead the Change facilitators and second year Change Agents in providing guidance and support. One participant stated: “The facilitators are the in-between, Francesco and the Change Agents, because Francesco can’t run two meetings at the same time, so it’s the facilitators who take charge of that.” Another participant said: “if there was a Youth Council member who didn’t know what they were doing, then Francesco was always around, but they have other Youth Council members and we’re always helping out one another. So, it’s very easy to get the directions you needed.” Participants wanted to have access to City staff throughout the entire participatory budget process. Early in the participatory budget process, City staff met with the subcommittees and provided guidance around the mission and goals. Participants found it very useful: “they were just giving us guidance from like a professional point of view. Cause like they really know like what goes into it and how to get things done, so they would kind of just like smooth it over and explain to us how we could do that in like a way that would actually be able to make it happen.” Similarly, another participant discussed feeling as if they were working together as a team with City staff: “Yeah, it was cool ‘cause we got to meet with like Julie Burros 12, she’s like arts for the City of Boston, which is like very cool. But she definitely treated us like we were like bringing valid ideas to the table. We weren’t kids. We were like telling her what we wanted and she was like, ‘That’s cool. Let’s write it down on the board and talk more about it.’ Participants expressed a need for more direct access to expert advisors throughout the entire participatory budget process. One participant stated, “I mean, I think that it was nice to have them (City staff) visit once but it would have been better if we had a consistent support system.” Similarly, another participant said: “I also think that more direct contact with the City official, so that you don’t have to go through Francesco. You have more of that direct line so if you have a burning question that needs to be answered really soon, you won’t need a few days for Francesco to get in contact, you can just send them an email and be like, ‘what’s the answer to this question?’ Or, talk to them and just have more of a familiar kind of relationship with your city employee.” Outreach via Social Media “Through social media we’re able to reach all youth from across the City of Boston at the same time. So that way all young people are getting involved throughout the process.” –Change Agent One goal of the 2016 Youth Lead the Change was to reach underrepresented youth including court involved youth, homeless youth and LBGTQ youth. Participants overwhelmingly believed that the increased use of social media (e.g., texting, Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook) enhanced the Youth Lead the Change efforts and allowed them to reach a more diverse audience. 12 Julie Burros serves as the Chief of Arts & Culture for the City of Boston. As reported by one Change Agent: “My outreach is on social media, on Twitter, Facebook, and I know a lot of kids are on that. So sharing that and then, I know many people from the Mayor’s Youth Council and Youth Lead the Change, kept continuing to share and favorite, and retweet. So, I think that the message was able to spread through different communities.” Although participants perceived the enhanced use of social media to be effective in reaching Boston youth, a few noted that they did not feel as personally involved in the idea collection process as in previous years. One participant stated, “A lot of it was on social media, so it took away from, I guess, like not reaching out to the community ‘cause social media did that, but I just, I didn’t feel as involved as I did last year, and that’s because of those sort of personal interactions that were not there this year.” Participants noted the need to find ways to enhance social media while also maintaining the person-to-person connection. Member Representation Although the Mayor’s Youth Council strives to be representative of the diverse youth population of the city by recruiting and accepting youth based on neighborhood representation, a large proportion of youth come from Boston Public Schools. Participants felt that the private and charter schools were less represented than the large public and exam schools: “We go to a huge school, and like it’s a public school, so like a lot of us, there’s a lot of public school kids, like a lot of us don’t know about private school and stuff.” Similarly, another youth explained: “… there’s like really heavy focus on the public schools and a little bit less focus on the private and charter schools, and I know that makes sense ‘cause a lot of the students here go to Boston Latin School, but I think sometimes that the other schools are neglected a little bit, and it’s more about like the students who are in the private and the charter schools to reach out to them.” Participants noted that the Mayor’s staff was aware of the disproportionate representation and took steps to prevent any bias. One participant said, “I know [Boston’s Youth Council Manager] does a really active job of trying to keep the numbers even, and I don’t know, I think just talking to kids from different neighborhoods that go to different schools is very important for in terms of getting more perspectives.” That said, participants felt this issue needed further attention.