GIS Study of Youth Councils in the Boston-Metro Area

Background and Purpose

Youth Councils are municipal decision-making bodies that represent issues regarding a community’s young people. These municipal bodies are typically one of few spaces within a community that investigate youth-related issues and/or involve youth in governmental decision making processes. Youth engagement in community decisions is thought to benefit both young people and the community. Previous research showed that youth councils engage in a wide variety of activities and exist under different structures within municipal government. An improved understanding of the types of communities that currently support a youth council has the potential to expand upon the empirical research surrounding these councils, which has been largely made up of case studies.  Using a regional spatial analysis this paper seeks to answer the research question: Is there a discernable typology for towns/cities that have youth councils within the Boston Metro area?

Methods

To define the Boston Metro area, we used information from the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC). The MAPC definition of the Boston Metro area includes 101 sub-counties that span 6 counties. We include four additional sub-counties not represented in the MAPC definition: for a total of 105 communities. From previous research conducted on youth councils in the Boston area (authors, 2016), we identify 31 towns/cities within the area that had active municipal youth councils.

In order to assess a discernable typology of towns/cities that have youth councils, geocoded data was collected using the American Communities Survey, along with information from the Massachusetts Municipal Association. Community data regarding government structure, population size, youth population, race, owner-occupied housing, median income, and education was complied. Using ArcGIS, we created maps to illustrate the presence of youth councils in the region. Logistic regression was used to assess the probability of community demographics as predictive of active youth councils.      

 

Results

Analysis identified no statistical significance between communities with councils and without, based on demographic characteristics. However, spatial analysis revealed councils to be present only in larger communities. Spatial analysis also revealed a clustering of councils in communities surrounding the region’s largest city. While communities with youth councils were evenly spread among three forms of legislative bodies, youth council in communities with representative town meetings were more likely, compared to communities with open town meetings. Mayors were an insignificant indicator of youth councils. There was also no indicator that cities were more likely to have youth councils compared to towns, within the region.

Conclusions and Implications

The use of spatial analysis and the study of a region as compared to a single case provided some important insights. While no clear typology of a community was identified, there is a discernable pattern within the region related to youth council existence. This research illuminates the importance of studying the regional and governmental context surrounding youth councils. This research suggests that particular contexts encourage council formation, while other contexts do not. Future research on youth councils should pay attention to regional context.