EffectEffect typeEffect directionLevel of analysisMeasurement quality
Projects chosen by youth vote: seven in 2014 (Franklin Park playground and picnic area, Boston Art Walls, Chromebooks for three high schools, skate park feasibility study, security cameras at Dr. Loesch Family Park, Paris Street playground, sidewalks for new parks), six in 2016, Boston Shelters 2.0 and Next Level Sports in 2023-24, Wicked Free WiFi Parks Expansion in 2024-25Material or project outcomePositiveCommunityClaimed
Youth allocation differs from the City's own capital plan: more to Parks and to Dorchester, East Boston and Jamaica PlainMaterial or project outcomeMixed or unintendedCommunityVerified
Skills and civic knowledge among Change Agents: leadership, teamwork, networking, communication, professionalism, how capital budgeting works and what things costCapacity builtPositiveIndividualVerified
Camaraderie within Change Agent committees and working relationships with City officials and the MayorRelationships and trustPositiveInterpersonalTestified
Disillusionment among Change Agents whose proposals were ruled ineligible or lost the voteRelationships and trustNegativeIndividual, InterpersonalTestified
Awareness of needs in other neighbourhoods and schools, and of how little $1 million buysMental model emergedPositiveIndividual, InterpersonalTestified
Stated intent to contact officials, vote, volunteer and join community groups; some Change Agents lobbied through other City forums for an ineligible projectBehavior or practice changePositiveIndividualClaimed
Parochial voting: 83.2 percent at the Condon Community Center chose its own renovation, 85.7 percent at East Boston High its own bathroom; 42 percent of Boston Public Schools voters in 2016 came from Boston Latin SchoolBehavior or practice changeMixed or unintendedCommunityVerified
Mayor's Youth Council reorganised around the process: all members enrolled as Change Agents, membership expanded past 80 for neighbourhood representation, and the ballot doubles as a poll on Youth Council prioritiesInstitutional or policy changeMixed or unintendedOrganizationalVerified
Process sustained for over a decade at $1 million a year: 1,531 voters in 2014, about 4,480 votes in 2016, 4,284 ballots across 50 sites in 2023-24, 3,693 ballots in 2024-25Institutional or policy changePositiveOrganizational, SocietalVerified
City learns youth priorities beyond the ballot: 718 ideas in 2016, 21 percent about youth programming, with public safety and mental health the top concerns and mostly unreachable with capital moneyCapacity builtMixed or unintendedOrganizationalVerified
Maker’s note · curator

Both evaluations measure the individual level best and say so. Grillos (2014) found Change Agents reported significantly more knowledge, skills, confidence and community connection than voters, but that is self-report from a single cycle, and she interviewed those who stayed. The material row is Claimed rather than Verified because no source studies delivery: Augsberger et al. (2016) note that several projects had been implemented and recommend an implementation study that the sources do not contain. Two effects sit at levels PB rarely measures: the distributional finding that youth spent differently from the City's plan (one year of data), and the reorganisation of the Mayor's Youth Council around the process, which brought neighbourhood representation but also confused youth about which body they had joined. The negative effects are real and were anticipated: disappointment among youth whose work went nowhere, and parochial voting that Grillos flags as a risk to the goal of city-wide solidarity. The 2023-24 and 2024-25 winners are a signal that the pot has shifted toward one or two large citywide projects. Narrative effects such as proving that young people are the solution, and any effect on how other cities run youth PB, are asserted and unmeasured.

Guest book

Notes left on Effects.

No notes yet. Be the first to leave one on this node.