Does Design Make a Difference: An Analysis of the Conditions

Under Which Youth Centers Operate

by

Sarah Shin

S.B. Urban Planning

S.B. Architecture

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Cambridge, Massachusetts (2004)

Submitted to the Department of Urban Studies and Planning

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Master in City Planning

at the
MASSACHUSESLINST UE
MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY OF TECHNOLOGY

June 2005 JUN 2 8 2005

@ Sarah Shin LIBRARIES

All rights reserved.

The author hereby grants to MIT permission to reproduce and to distribute publicly
paper and electronic copies of this thesis document in whole or in part.

Signature of A uthor ...................................... r------

... ---- c-- - ----
Depa4ent of Urba tudies and Planning
A May 15, 2005

Certified by .......................................... ............

Professor John de Monchaux
Department of Urban Studies and Planning
/InThesis Supervisor

Accepted by ..................................
Professor Dennis Frenchman
Chair, MCP Committee
Department of Urban Studies and Planning

ROTCH
 DOES DESIGN MAKE A DIFFERENCE: AN ANALYSIS OF THE

CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH YOUTH CENTERS OPERATE

by

SARAH SHIN

Submitted to the Department of Urban Studies and Planning

On May 15, 2005, in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of Master in City Planning in Urban Studies and Planning

ABSTRACT

This paper looks at youth centers, specifically Boston-based Boys & Girls Clubs, as
neighborhood-scale enclosed public spaces. Due to the lower income and high-risk
populations the Boys & Girls Clubs of America serves, these clubhouses serve as field
subjects for scrutinizing what conditions must be present for youth centers, an age-
specific community space, to function and serve their intended populations.

A series of interviews with Boys & Girls Clubs staff-persons and youth and
observational studies were conducted to analyze how the clubhouses are used in the
Boston area. Physical clubhouse designs, as well as programs, policies, users and
personnel were compared. These analyses have led to a number of conclusions and
recommendations concerning the establishment and function of youth centers.

The variables found to be in common or have some relationship to each other include
architectural process and design, staff, programs, accessibility, bureaucracy, facilities,
seasonal adaptability, and neighborhood risk.

Overall, design concerning clubhouse interiors was found to make a significant

difference in how youth centers work while exterior architecture did not.
 Thanks to:

ProfessorJohn de Monchaux - The best advisor ever. I neverfail to learn

and think differently every time I step into your office.

Professor CeasarMcDowell - Thanks for always giving me a smile during

this process. You make itfun, insightful, and much less scary.

La Tonya Green - For the long pep talks, especially when you didn't have to.
You helped me see the light.

ProfessorAnnette Kim - Thank you for your incrediblepatience,

encouragingme, and giving me a lot offreedom in exploring what this thesis
has become.
Table of Contents

pg
. .. .. ..
Chapter 1: Why Are Youth Centers Important? . . . . . . . . .. . . . .
5
1.1 The relevance of public space 5
1.2 Community centers as public space 6
1.3 Youth Centers as community spaces 11
1.4 Why Boys & Girls Clubs 15

Chapter 2: About Boys & Girls Clubs ............................... 19

2.1 Boys & Girls Club of America 19
2.2 Boys & Girls Clubs in Boston neighborhoods 22

Chapter 3: Meet the Clubhouses ....... ..... ...................... 31

3.1 Boys & Girls of Boston 31
Blue Hill 32
Charlestown 35
Chelsea 39
Roxbury 42
South Boston 44
3.2 Non-BGCB Clubs 47
Colonel Daniel Marr 47
Salesian East Boston 50

Chapter 4: Methodology & Interview Process ......................... 55

Chapter 5: Design Elements That Make a Difference ....................... 59

5.1 Intro: Design that matters 60
5.2 Initial conditions & opportunity 61
5.3 Surveillance & opportunity 67
5.4 Maintenance & opportunity 75
5.5 Facilities & opportunity 78
5.6 Age-sensitive interior design & circulation 82
5.7 The effect of good design 86

Chapter 6: Design Elements That Do Not Make a Difference ............... 90

Chapter 7: Non-design Elements That Make a Difference ................. 91

7.1 Staff & opportunity 91
7.2 Programs & opportunity 95
7.3 Seasonal adaptability & opportunity 98
7.4 Accessibility & opportunity 103
7.5 Bureaucracy & opportunity 106
7.6 Neighborhood risk & opportunity Ill

Chapter 8: Recommendations ................................... 115

8.1 Design that matters
8.2 Designing future youth centers: Roxbury Clubhouse model 117
8.3 Relevance to community centers 119

W orks Cited ................................................................... 125

Appendices 1277...
 Chapter 1: Why Are Youth Centers Important?

1.1 The relevance of public space

Public space has been something long sought after by architects and urban

designers in the design of buildings and cities. According to the Oxford

English Dictionary, the term public means, "in general, and in most sense

of the word, opposite of private." Historically, urban squares and

marketplaces served as public spaces and "arenas of communication."

(Madanipour, 2000) Madanipour states that the growth of modem cities

and their increasingly segregated neighborhoods have led to increase in

segregation and a decrease in the meaning and use of these former public

spaces. Planners and architects have attempted to address and reverse this

process of segregated physical space and moved towards creating and

maintaining meaningful, cohesive social and physical environments.

However, regeneration policies and plans have led to an increase

privatization, restricted access, and depublicing of space. Providing and

sustaining public spaces have also been costly, and many public bodies

responsible for such upkeep have struggled to maintain such areas. Scores

of new developments now contain a public spaces controlled in various

degrees by private bodies. Madanipour attributes this to the changing

nature of development companies and the entry of the finance industry

into the built environment, who reduce levels of risk and uncertainty that

could threaten their interests, such as uncontrolled public space.

(Madanipour, 2000)
 Thus, while several theorists still hold onto the idea that public

urban spaces are places that are not controlled by private entities and thus

open to the public, it becomes increasingly difficult to define at what point

semi-private crosses the line to public. Madanipour claims that private

and semi-private spaces keep individuals away based on some aspect of

race, age, class, and gender, thus preventing mingling (Madanipour,

2000). Juxtapose this with "public space is a space we share with

strangers, people who aren't our relatives, friends, or work associates. It is

space for politics, religion, commerce, sport; space for peaceful

coexistence and impersonal encounter." (Hester, 1975)

1.2 Community Centers as Public Space

This climate then becomes a strange place to define community

centers. There seems to be something public, something inclusive hinted

at in the word community. Community centers conjure images of kids in

after-school programs, swimming or playing basketball, babies and teens,

senior citizens playing bingo, technology education programs, English as a

Second Language classes for immigrants in the community; the list could

go on and on. Community itself is a difficult word to define as it can be as

small as two or as large as a nation. However, say community center, a

building, the realm of community starts to become more finite. A finite

number of individuals fit in a building, in a space. They should not be

willing to travel days to spend a couple hours at this community center.

There exists something about proximity being important in who a

community center reaches. Words like neighborhood, whether it means an

entire district or just the block one lives on, seem to be more appropriate

to slap onto the front of "center".

From this, we can surmise that a community center, a

neighborhood center, can be public yet private. It can be open to a

neighborhood, yet restricted to that neighborhood. Community centers are

small public spaces that can often have membership fees associated with

them; private and public bodies are responsible for their upkeep and

program management. There are rules for using spaces; no guns, no

black-soled shoes on the court, no food in the technology room. With

such variables, the public realm of the community center becomes a little

more restricted, for it is neither free nor without rules. Community centers

can claim inclusiveness yet leave out entire sub-communities that might

not be able to pay, to access, or feel comfortable there.

Look up what a community center claims to provide: classes,

recreation, health services. There is consistently a mantra of serving the

members, the community. Many seem to cater towards different groups of

people, particularly the young and the aged. I have found plenty of

articles expounding on public open space, its virtues, how to design it, etc.

However, with community centers, I find very little cohesive literature

saying "here, this is a community center" or "necessary ingredients for a

community center." There are RFP's, policies that state how funds can be
used for community purposes if a community development corporation or

city intends to set up community facilities, but community center is

loosely, if ever defined.

Community centers also may not have to be multi-purpose, multi-

user facilities. Youth centers, YMCA's, senior citizen's centers, health

centers: are these non-communal because they cater to certain ages, or

specific functions? A youth center that is able to reach a variety of youth

and place them in rooms to learn together and play together: can it be

called non-communal because it excludes non-youth populations while

bringing together a community of neighborhood youth?

I have an agenda in discussing this term community center that I

have yet to define successfully. The fears I have mentioned about

community centers above touch on individual and community exclusion, a

natural and unnatural phenomenon that has occurred in our schools, cities,

jobs, government, and religious institutions, based on income, based on

race. Poorer communities, minority communities, have often gotten the

short end of the stick in well designed homes, excellent services and

education, upwardly-mobile jobs. There is a perceived element of safety

or the lack thereof associated with urban neighborhoods that are thought to

battle crime, drugs, and gang warfare. In such a environment, it becomes

increasingly hard to find true public space, a safe public space, that can be

used by the community. They exist, on streets, in small open spaces, but

not necessarily in formalized public squares.

 Can public space, a community space, a neighborhood space, ever

be indoors? In the range of literature I found on the topic of public space,

very few went beyond the realm of the outdoors to indoors in discussing

public or neighborhood space. According to Randolph T. Hester, Jr. in his

book PlanningNeighborhoodSpace with People, "Neighborhood space is

that territory close to home, including houses, churches, businesses, and

parks, that, because of the residents' collective responsibility, familiar

association, and frequent shared use, is considered to be their "own.""

(Hester, 1984) Here, he positively identifies buildings and indoor spaces

as neighborhood, spaces. He continues, however, in that book, by stating,

"But in this discussion, the concept of neighborhood space will be limited

to public, outdoor territory close to home."

I believe that a community center is a physical public space that

has imploded upon itself; walls contain it, and flow and access are

controlled and restricted. Yet, there is something about it, its express

function that draws people together just as marketplace would draw people

together in a village square during times long ago. And in many minority,

low-income neighborhoods, sentiments like "the kids have nowhere else to

go to hang out", or "it's a safe place for community gatherings" start to be

expressed about neighborhood spaces. Thus, community centers are

enclosed, controlled indoor spaces of public interaction. Their

inclusiveness is limited, but their aim is achieve some amount of mingling

ofpeople based on activity andplace.

 My thesis research started with a focus on community centers in

Boston, particularly in the more economically and ethnically diverse

neighborhoods. However, due to a number of unforeseen political events

and local drama, I moved the focus of my study to a more specified

subject: youth centers, and in particular, Boys and Girls Clubs in Boston.

What was a frustrating circumstance turned out to be in my favor, as I

have had the opportunity to interview several clubs that share enough

programmatic similarities and values to enable me to draw conclusive

analyses. My pool of study was small enough so that I could conduct a

qualitative experiment, and yet it may be applicable to other community

canters as well. So now I thank the political events that drove me to what

I now realize to be a perfect sample for observation.

These clubs are private neighborhood centers that discriminate

based on age but open their doors to youth of all backgrounds. A

significant amount of effort and funding goes into the program planning

and building design of each clubhouse. While they share the same

mission and similar programs, these clubhouses are located in ethnically

diverse neighborhoods all over Boston. Some are a decade old; others

have been established for over a century. There is enough of a control to

compare the variables between each clubhouse.

1.3 Youth Centers As Community Space

Youth centers share users that fall under the same age group.

There are usually specific programs, activities, decor, and individual

rooms designed to suit the needs of youth. While studying youth centers

excludes infants, adults, and senior citizens from this thesis, it includes

both male and female, of different ethnic backgrounds. Youth center

usage is usually bound by physical accessibility for youth; thus it is a

matter of proximity and location that affects whether a youth uses the

space, which is different from a politically assigned school district. Usage

is voluntary, and cost, at least in these examples, is minimal.

Someone may raise the argument that the clubhouses are part of a

private entity, the Boys and Girls Club of America, and thus cannot truly

be public. I will maintain that controlled space does not mean that it is not

public. It has rules, limits, restrictions, but it is still usable. Hajer and

Reihndrop state that "while politicians are dreaming about socially

positive meetings of different kinds of citizens, public space has to a large

extent been parochialized, and the places are being stage-managed."

(Hajer, 2001) Parochialism does not nullify a public space, but rather

redefines the composition of the human public that use the space. William

Whyte also is known for pointing out the usefulness of watchdogs and

doormen in plaza spaces in New York City. (Whyte, 2000) Could BGCA

and its staff persons be considered managers, the watchmen, of public

space? I ask you to consider them as such for the remainder of this thesis.
 My question is "under what conditions can successful youth

centers operate?" If neighborhood centers are increasingly becoming

places of resource and community interaction, attention needs to be paid to

what is needed in order to make that happen. As a designer, my real

underlying question is this "does design make a difference, particularly in

a lower-income context?"

Why is this important? Why the interest? Hajer states that "the

upsurge of interest in the public space in the 1980s resulted in renewed

attention to design. Design came to be seen as the solution for a multitude

of issues, from the improvement of the image of the city to the complex

problems in deprived metropolitan areas." (Hajer, 2001) It is well known

that public projects are a steady source of commissioning for design-

oriented firms; contests are held, awards are given, honor is ascribed to

those designers who can draft a plan that suits lower-income,

disadvantaged neighborhoods. Some of the clubhouses to be discussed

have won such awards. In practice and in academia, public spaces,

community centers, and places for youth are used as important parts of

design solutions, if not the only programmatic element of design aimed at

fostering community. I found however, that the literature in general

contained very little comprehensive analysis that states, you must have X,

Y, Z in order to have good design of community centers, or youth centers

for that matter. As a student in a studio attempting to design for foreigner,

lower-income community, I found myself wishing for such literature.

Emily Talen states that:

"There is nothing controversial about the view that the

environment affects behavior or that physical planning has a
profound effect on a wide variety of social goals. But neither of
these phenomena can be used to endorse the notion that sense of
community can be physically designed. The best we can
confidently say is that certain types of physical designs promote
certain types of social behaviors and responses for certain kinds
of people." (Talen, 2000)

Other writers claim that while we tend to think that the public

space fulfils an important role in increasing the 'social cohesion' in

society, the explanation of the exact significance of the public space

remains an implicit one. (Hajer, 2001) This does not point to the

obsolescence of public spaces; it indicates that attempting to pin down the

exact reason why such spaces are important will not yield satisfactory

answers. All that really remains is that some sort of public space is good

for a neighborhood, that parks, community spaces, and public facilities are

community assets.

Hajer makes a disturbing observation that "one of the reasons for

the lack of vision as regards the quality of the public space lies in the fact

that important "players" such as administrators, designers and developers

to a large degree think along the same lines, at least at the moment, when

it comes to the design of that urban public space." (Hajer, 2001) If these

key players all think along similar, possibly inappropriate assumptions,

their creations are made in vain. In reading the current literature,

including the widely cited Whyte's observations on plaza usage in New

York City, I understood that successful plaza spaces could be designed if

accessible seating, seasonally-adaptable usage areas, sunlight-shade

manipulation, etc, were all considered in plaza design. However, with

youth & community centers, this has much less clarity, as an open public

space does not have the additional factors of doors, user hours, programs,

and other restrictions that a neighborhood center has.

I do not wish to neglect the literature out there that stresses the

importance of listening to the communities that a design is intended to

serve. Community input, meetings, and overall clear communication of

needs by future users to the designer has become more and more valued,

particularly after the unfortunate demolitions and deteriorations of well-

meant public projects meant to "better" the lives of the poor who lived

there. In evaluating the question of does design make a difference, I will

include such factors as I review how each youth center came into

existence. Hester writes the following about poorly designed

neighborhood spaces:

In the past ten years designers have been awakened to the

plight of the users of ill-designed spaces everywhere. They
have begun to realize that it is critical to design the space near
one's home in response to one's idiosyncratic needs. It has
been shown that design and planning must be user-oriented,
that the design of the neighborhood space must relate to the
behavior patterns and values of the people for whom that space
 is designed, not the values of the designer. The plans for those
environments which have been criticized because they did not
respond to user needs are many and infamous." (Hester 1984)

The purpose of this thesis is to see under what conditions Boys &

Girls Clubs in Boston can operate successfully. Each serves well over 200

kids a day; each believes it to fulfilling its goals and mission. In the eyes

of funders, parents, the city, even their own, they are successful. By

comparing the clubhouses and looking for overall trends, I hope to find

common threads and perhaps even a concrete set of recommendations that

can be referred to the in the future design of youth centers.

1.4 Why Boys & Girls Clubs?

Let me emphasize again why these clubhouses may be considered

semi-public spaces. The Boys & Girls Clubs of America has over ten

clubhouses in the Boston area, seven of which were interviewed for this

thesis. The BGCA has a specific mission to "inspire and enable all young

people, especially those from disadvantaged circumstances, to realize their

full potential as productive, responsible and caring citizens." This shared

mission results in a number of similar programs involving education,

technology, recreation, and culture, as well as administrative patterns in

how staff are hired and treated, how funds are utilized and allocated, and

how staff are expected to interact with youth.

The seven Boston clubhouses serve over 200 kids a day, and they
contain large amounts of meeting space that allow for the youth who use

the clubhouse to mingle, learn, and enjoy recreation together. The

clubhouses are situated in some of the most deprived areas of the city, and

they can be places where charter school and public school children, youth

from different school districts, can meet. It is this mingling of the youth

that makes it public to youth. The clubhouses charge a minimal

membership fee of no more than $25 a school year, which by no means

covers the heavy costs per kid a year. The clubhouses are also in locations

close to schools and residences, making transportation and travel costs to

and fro minimal. Overall, the minimal cost, building proximity, and

available space make it a very attractive place to cluster, mingle, and

enjoy. Though the BGCA is a private entity, its invitation is open to all

youth who enter its doors, thus making it a semi-public, if not public

space.

In many lower-income neighborhoods that struggle with crime and

danger on the streets, outdoor spaces no longer becomes friendly public

spaces. They are places that children are warned not to go to, for fear of

running into a local drug-pusher, gang fights, or robbery. An open

playground that is seen as a picturesque space for kids to play in middle-

class suburbia might be seen as breeding ground for trouble in a different,

less privileged community that struggles to keep the peace on its streets. It

seems then, that supervised spaces, where Jane Jacob's "eyes of the

neighborhood" can keep vigilance over the young, is the ideal space for
public gatherings, particularly the gathering of youth. What one might

consider a privatized, tightly-controlled, and thus less free space might

actually be the most friendly space possible for the youth who use the

clubhouses.

The clubs however, can be questioned in terms of their

appropriateness of evaluating design because of a number of

programmatic and logistical elements. First, there are a number of

controls and restrictions on the freeform movement of youth in the

clubhouses. Many of them are on a rotation schedule in which they switch

activities and rooms each hour. Most clubs have a strict policy about

youth not being in rooms that are not on surveillance, and staff

accompaniment is usually a necessity. These restrictions must be

considered as I evaluate the spaces and each clubhouse; thus the

evaluation of design and its effect is viewed under the condition of

controlled movement and activity. Which is more appropriate, to evaluate

how the designs enables ease of surveillance or how youth use the space?

Both will be considered. Another issue to remember is that because Boys

& Girls Clubs are limited to 6-18 year-olds and the staff workers of the

clubhouses, they exclude infant, adult, and senior populations. Thus,

access is limited to a certain age group. This programmed exclusivity will

not be questioned, and evaluation will instead view how the included

persons use the space. Third, though the cost is minimal, it is still a cost.

In the summer, a majority of the clubhouses hike up their prices per week
and for the summer. This affects clubhouse use and who can access the

facilities, thus limiting the extent to which one can evaluate how design

and architecture affects use and movement.

Not public Public

Only open to children 6-18 Open to all children between 6-18;
particularly those who are
economically & socially excluded
from other centers of education,
recreationetc.
Payment required Payment is minimal at less than $25
Enclosed space Space available for youth use;
during the winter, youth are able to
use the space
Obedience to rules, times, Activities and facilities available to
programs youth

However, with these things considered, the clubhouses will be

looked at according to how they function with respect to their designs and

their programs. The Boys & Girls Clubs share enough similarities

programmatically that it is possible to look their individual building

designs and other conditions and compare. It is for this reason that other

place for youth have not been included. Very few organizations have

youth centers that serve a population of the magnitude that BGCA

clubhouses serve; they also have different standards, times, and programs.

In order to avoid incomparable variables and open up the opportunity to

draw more concrete conclusions about the effect of design and program on

youth centers, only Boys & Girls Clubs based in Boston were selected.
 Chapter 2: About Boys & Girls Clubs

2.1 The Boys & Girls Clubs of America

The Boys and Girls Club of America is a national private organization

that serves youth of ages 6-18 by providing a place and programs for

education and recreation outside of school. Its stated mission is "to inspire

and enable all young people, especially those from disadvantaged

circumstances, to realize their full potential as productive, responsible and

caring citizens." The BCGA operates in more than 3,400 locations across the

50 states, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, as well as military bases,

serving more than 4 million boys and girls in total. Over 42,000 trained

professional staff are dispersed throughout these clubs, as well as countless

volunteers who tutor and coach the youth.

The BGCA started in 1860 in Hartford, Connecticut. Several upper-

middle-class women, after seeing numerous boys run the streets, established

the first Club as a positive alternative place for male youth. After several

such Boys Clubs formed, they decided to affiliate in 1906 and the Federated

Boys Clubs in Boston was formed with 53 participating organizations. They

were renamed the Boys Clubs of America in 1931, and in 1956, the BCA

celebrated its 5 0 th anniversary and received a U.S. Congressional Charter. In

1990, the national organization's name was changed to Boys & Girls Clubs

of America, after many clubs had adopted female youth into their cause. A

number of the clubhouses in the Boston area have as long and rich a history

as this parent organization.

 In the past ten years, BGCA has been ranked as the number one youth

organization in America by Philanthropy400, and as number 15 among all

nonprofit organizations. In 2001 and 2002, BGCA was praised for its

financial efficacy, strength of reputation, and program effectiveness and

listed as one of the top 100 charities in the US by WORTH magazine.

The BGCA touts its clubhouses as specially designed buildings for

youth-based activities that open on a daily basis in order to provide positive,

productive outlets for youth. The staff that act as role models and mentors

are also emphasized when referring to the organization's methodology and

vision. Providing hope and opportunity to youth is the most emphasized,

resonant train of thought underlying all the explanations of the organizations

mission and facts. Membership fees are said to average $5 to $10 a year.

Overall, the BGCA specifically targets youth from disadvantaged

backgrounds and argues that the average expense of $200 per child per year

in keeping youth in a clubhouse surrounded with activities and positive

influences far outweighs the cost of incarcerating young adults in

jail-anywhere from $25,000 to $75,000 per year. The BGCA assumes that

disadvantaged circumstances lead to higher exposure to and adoption of

criminal tendencies. This is supported by criminal statistics found in lower

incomes neighborhoods. Under this light, the BGCA is thought to be an

efficient prevention program for juvenile delinquency.

As for the composition of clubhouse users, the following overall

national statistics were listed. These vary by neighborhood & region:

 65% are from minority families

I1% are less than 7 years old

27% are 7-9 years old

30% are 10-12 years old

21% are 13-15 years old

10% are 16-18 years old

1%are more than 18 years old

56% are male

44% are female

The total assets of the BGCA totals to more than $2 billion. In

supporting its cause, the US federal government has given a BGCA grant to

the organization every year. In fact, as of 2005, President George W. Bush

and the First Lady have sat as honorary co-chairs on the national board.

Overall, the national organization is powerfully supported and respected for

its efficacy and vision.

 2.2 About Boys & Girls Clubs in Boston

Tuts Evereltt ' Revere

Figure 2a:

A.
BGCB
Administrative
Office

B.
Roxbury
Clubhouse

C. Camtvidge
Charlestown
Clubhouse .. Mssacsens
f f Is$a

D.
Blue Hill
Clubhouse

E.
Salesian
Clubhouse 3rook n~e

F.
South Jamaicaway
Boston
Mpor-Mw -*osp.i
Clubhouse

G.
Daniel Marr
Clubhouse

H.
Chelsea
Clubhouse
PopeJoh,
Source: Map data Came'y Paul.I Pa-
C2005 NAVTEQ,
Tele Atlas

There are two types of clubhouses that are found in Boston. Seven of

the eight existing clubhouses were interviewed for this thesis. Five clubs that

are located in Charlestown, Chelsea, Roxbury, South Boston, and the Blue

Hill-Dorchester area are under an umbrella organization called the Boys &

Girls Clubs of Boston. The two others are affiliated with other private
institutional organizations. The similarities between the two types are that

both are answerable to the national organization and follow the same

principles of youth development, positive influence, and programming. They

also reach out to youth from disadvantaged neighborhoods and have a

number of programs in common.

There are a couple differences. First, the BGCB has its own central

office and board that raise annual support for the five clubs, in addition to the

fundraising that each club's individual board raises. Through this system, the

clubhouses do not ask for support from the same sources. Second, the five

clubhouses undergo capital investments and renovations based on evaluations

done by the main office, which oversees architectural and engineering

commissions. Third, the BGCB has established partnerships with MIT, the

MFA, Boston Community Learning Centers, CityYear, and other private and

public bodies. The five clubhouses all have programs incorporating these

partnerships. Fourth, the membership fees for the BGCB clubhouses are at

$25, which is more than double the $5 or $10 the others charge.

As for the two others, they are located in Upham's Corner in

Dorchester and in East Boston. The Colonel Daniel Marr Boys & Girls Club

is affiliated with the Marr Family and functions separately from the BGCB.

The other is the Salesian Boys & Girls Club of East Boston, which is

affiliated with the Catholic order of Salesian priests but open to all youth.

Significant support comes from the Salesian headquarters in New York. This

clubhouse also operates apart from the BGCB.

 Regardless of their affiliation, however, these clubs are all located in

areas that are mostly lower income and have high crime. The graphs below

will compare race, income, crime, and other variables across the seven

neighborhoods. Please note that Dorchester is split up into North and South

Dorchester.

Race

70000

60000-

50000

40000 El other
:'EHispanic
: Asian
I= back
30000 - white
Figure 2b:
Ethnic 20000
composition of
Clubhouse
neighborhoods 10000

0
Charlestown Chelsea North South Roxbury East Boston South Boston
Dorchester Dorchester

Figure 2.2 depicts the ethnic composition and population of each

neighborhood. The race categories are white (non-Hispanic), black (non-

Hispanic), Hispanic, Asian (non-Hispanic), and other. It is evident that of the

seven, only South Boston serves a majority-white neighborhood. In

Charlestown, Chelsea, and East Boston, the population contains a significant

percentage of Latinos. Roxbury and South Dorchester have high

concentrations of blacks in their neighborhoods. North Dorchester contains a

 diverse spread of ethnicities; it has been called the most diverse zip code in

the United States and is home to the Daniel Marr Boys & Girls Club.

Roxbury and Dorchester overall have the largest populations. It will be

interesting to note any correlations between the neighborhood ethnicity and

clubhouse ethnicity, if there are any relationships to funding support, etc.

North South East South

race Charlestown Chelsea Dorchester Dorchester Roxbury Boston Boston

white 42.24% 38.27% 35.59% 30.02% 4.84% 49.67% 84.52%

black 1.91% 5.62% 24.34% 41.73% 62.55% 3.06% 2.47%

Asian 2.69% 4.64% 13.16% 9.58% 0.63% 4.04% 3.89%

Hispanic 53.00% 48.42% 14.16% 10.25% 24.40% 39.02% 7.49%

other 0.16% 2.85% 6.71% 3.73% 3.47% 1.33% 0.40%

Figure 2c:
Table of ethnic
composition in BGC
Boston neighborhoods
 Median Household Income
$80,000

$70,000

$60,000 -

$50,000
$40,000
$30,000

$20,000

$10,000

$0
Figure 2d:
Income levels of
BGC e 4

neighborhoods

Figure B depicts the median household incomes of the six

neighborhoods in Boston. The census statistics used for this data lumped the

two Dorchesters into one. Boston's average household income is $68,313.

The neighborhoods overall have been composed of working class whites,

immigrants, and people of color. Of the clubhouses interviewed,

Charlestown, South Boston, and the Daniel Marr Clubhouse in Dorchester all

commented on a rise in young urban professionals entering the

neighborhoods. While Chelsea, Dorchester, East Boston, Roxbury, and

South Boston show similar median incomes, Charlestown is significantly

higher than the $40,000 mark. When exploring the neighborhoods, I was
struck by the number of people dressed in business and business casual

clothing in the neighborhood during evening commuting hours.

Median Home Value

$350,000

$300,000

$250,000

$200,000

$150,000

$100,000

$50,000 Figure 2e:

$0 Median values
of homes in
e, c BGC
\e, neighborhoods

Compare also the median values of homes in each of these

neighborhoods. The average age of these homes range from 30-35 years.

Though the home values of Chelsea, Dorchester, East Boston, Roxbury, and

East Boston are significantly lower than Boston's average, Chelsea is

significantly higher than even Boston's average at almost $300,000. This

information leads us to suspect that gentrification is well under way in

Charlestown.
 Rate of Home-ownership
70.00%

60.00%
50.00%

40.00%

30.00% -
20.00% -

10.00%-
Figure 2f:
Rates of home- 0.00%W
ownership in
BGC zl 0
neighborhoods 0 4o

However, even with such housing price appreciation, Charlestown

exhibits similar rates of homeownership as its comparable neighborhoods.

All have less than 30% home-ownership, in the case of Roxbury, under 20%,

and these rates of homeownerships are significantly lower than the ownership

rates found in the greater Boston metropolitan area.

Though there may be slight variations in these background statistics,

the figure below shows strikingly similar characteristics in terms of crime. A

website called "Spalding's Best Places" takes census data and police reports

and uses a crime index scaled between 1 to 10. This crime index indicates

the likelihood of a certain kind of crime occurring to a person in that

neighborhood. 1 is low; 10 is high. Figure E shows that across the board, all

six neighborhoods have equally high indices of violent crime at a value of 7.

Charlestown is no exception; its young urban professionals have little effect

on the crime levels. Compared to the national and citywide value of a little

more than 3, this is very significant, as violent crime is more likely to occur

in these neighborhoods. In terms of property crime, the risk is also high at a

value of seven for the majority of these neighborhoods. Thus, if the Boys &

Girls Clubs strive to keep kids of the streets and under positive influence,

such data indicates that the youth in these neighborhoods may be exposed

more frequently to violence and criminal activity. In other words, the

clubhouses are in the right places.

Likelihood of Crime Indices

9 E violent crime risk index
8 * property crime risk index
7
6
5
4-
3
2
Figure 2g:
Risk of violent
and property
_A crime in BGC
neighborhoods

In summary

These are the existing social conditions in which the seven selected

Boys & Girls Clubs operate. Overall, income, median house value, and rates
of home-ownership are significantly lower than the Boston metropolitan

average. The neighborhoods range from majority white, Latino, black, or

mixed in ethnic composition. Crime indices are high in all neighborhoods.

These factors show that the clubhouses are serving appropriate target

populations of youth from primarily lower-income, high-risk neighborhoods.

 Chapter 3: Meet the Clubhouses

Seven Boston-based Boys & Girls Clubs were studied for this thesis.

Of the seven, five belong to an umbrella sub-organization of the Boys &

Girls Club of America, called the Boys & Girls Club of Boston. The two

others are affiliated with both the BGCA and a separate private organization.

These are brief descriptions of each clubhouse and its specific programs.

3.1 The Boys & Girls Clubs of Boston

The BGCB holds clubhouses in 5 different neighborhoods. The

clubhouses under this organization obtain funding from the support raised by

the main Boston Office. All private donations, federal, state, and city grants,

and charity fundraisers are obtained through the Boston headquarters. This is

done so that the five clubhouses do not compete for funding; the clubhouses

also know which federal, state, or city funds not to ask for.

The clubhouses share similar program regiments based on arts,

education, technology, social and fitness recreation, and sometimes daycare.

All five share similar youth leadership programs and partnerships with the

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Media Lab, Museum of Science,

Museum of Fine Arts, CityYear, a senior-citizens reading program called

Generations Inc, a youth-technology initiative called Wired Woods, and

Boston Community Learning Centers (CLC). These clubhouses charge a

higher than the national average fee of $25 a year and are open 1 or 2 PM to

8 or 9 PM on Mondays through Fridays. Schedules change in the summer,

 when summer camps are held from morning to afternoon for anywhere from

$75-$100 a week.

Finally, all building renovation and redesign is handled by the main

office, who is responsible for hiring and selecting the architect designer.

Fundraising for construction is also supported in great deal by the main

Boston office.

Blue Hill/George Robert White Youth Center

Interviewee: Hector Alvarez, Director of Operations

Figure 3-al:
The entrance
to the Blue Hill
BGC.

The Boys and Girls Club at Blue Hill started in 1995. It is the

youngest established clubhouse, though not the newest building, of the Boy's
& Girls Clubs of Boston's five clubhouses, and it differs from the others in

that the property is not owned by the BGCB but rather by the George Robert

White Trust Fund, the namesake of the clubhouse. The clubhouse was

designed by Leers Weinzapfel Associates after the plans for retrofitting an

old MDC outdoor rink and pool area into a center for youth. It won the 1996

Harleston Parker Prize for Design, a Design Award from New England

Region division of the American Institute of Architects, and an Honor Award

from he Boston Society of Architects.

Figure 3-a2,
left:
A glass
conference
room in the
3 lobby
Figure 3-a3,
right:
The
education
room

Figure 3-a4,
left:
The main
corridor

Figure 3-a5,
right:
The
reception
and
entrance
area

When asked to estimate the percentage of ethnic groups that use the

clubhouse, Alvarez replied that 85% of them were black, 2-3% were white,

5% were Hispanic, and %2 were Asian. An average of 270 youth use the
clubhouse daily. 700 youth overall are enrolled in the club's roster. When

asked if the clubhouse was operating under, at, or over capacity, the reply

was that the clubhouse was at capacity. The clubhouse apparently has a

waitlist that is 2 months long; no more applications are being received.

Since the Blue Hill clubhouse is relatively young, it has not been

renovated in the past ten years. However, it is due for renovations within the

next couple years. The clubhouse's staff have been wanting to expand. Thus

far, the youth rotate on an hourly schedule between the following rooms: a

gym, a computer room, an art room, a game room, a teen room, and an

education room. An outdoor pool, leftover from the MDC rink days, is also

used during the few months of warmer weather.

As for what the clubhouse does well, Alvarez replied that the

clubhouse's creativity and resourcefulness in keeping the kids interested was

its number one asset. His wish list consisted of a bigger building and more

space for programs and a full staff capacity. Apparently, the outdoor pool,

though it is one of the largest in Boston, has not been very useful because

Boston has very few warm months during which the pool is usable.
Charlestown Clubhouse

Interviewee: Jenny Atkinson, Executive Director

Figure 3-b1:
The entrance
to the Keane
Children's
Center at the
Charlestown
BGC

The Charlestown BGC is composed of two buildings, the Ansin

Youth Center, and the Keane Children's Center. The Club itself is one of the

oldest in America. It traces its roots back to

1893. The Keane Children's Center was

designed to be a BGC in 1918. The Ansin

Youth Center is in a retrofitted church

Figure 3-b2:
building that was acquired years later by the The entrance
to the teen
center located
BGCB. The Charlestown Clubhouse should in a retrofitted
church
receive special note for its large budget,
 which is particularly due to the recent renovations that the clubhouse has

undergone. The Architectural Team won a Merit Award for Outstanding

Achievement from the International Forum for Innovative Schools for the

renovation design of the Children's Center, which was completed in 2003.

Figure 3-b3:
The
entrance
lobby of the
Keane
Children's
Center

The majority of the youth who use the clubhouse are from working

Irish-Catholic families. 225 youth use the clubhouse per day. About 25-30%

Figure 3-b4,
left:
The game
room

Figure 3-b5,
right:
The art room
are Hispanic, but Atkinson remarked that this is from observation and stated

that it was difficult at times to differentiate between races. A smaller

percentage of the youth are black. The majority of kids reach the clubhouse

by foot; a special shuttle drops off the kids at the end of the day. Many of the

families have been in Charlestown for decades; Atkinson remarked that

great-grandmothers sign their great-grandkids into the clubhouse. However,

Atkinson also remarked that a greater number of new, young urban

professionals have started to change this neighborhood demographic.

Figure 3-b6,
left:
The
computer
room

Figure 3-b7,
right:
The
underground
tunnel.
Skylights
puncture the
walls and
roof..
The Charlestown clubhouse has the most extensive facilities of all the

clubhouses interviewed. There are rooms dedicated to the following uses:

gym, work-out, computer, art, education, laboratory, multi-purpose,

auditorium, performing arts, music, games, teen, kitchen, daycare, and social

worker conference calls.

Figure 3-b8,
left:
A
refurbished
fireplace in
the
education
center

Figure 3-b9,
right:
A picture of
the original
fireplace and
reading area
in the early
1900's

Atkinson responded that the clubhouse was operating under capacity

and stated that the clubhouse could take more kids in at night. No wait list

exists for the clubhouse. Strong programs and staff relationships with kids

were cited as the clubhouse's greatest strengths.

Figure 3-blO:
The teen
center's
banner across
the top of the
building is
visible from far
away
Chelsea Clubhouse

Interviewee: Josh Kraft

Figure 3-cl:
The entrance
to the Jordan
BGC in
; Chelsea

The Chelsea Clubhouse wandered from home to home since its birth

13 years ago. After using basements of schools and churches as a meeting

space, the club made a home in its current building, the Jordan BGC, which

includes part of an old forwarding warehouse, in 2002. The Architectural

Team met with Kraft for a year and a half, conferring about what was needed

for adequate space, staffing, and youth. The AT won the following

distinctions for their design: K-12 Education Facilities Design Award (BSA),

Project of the Year (City of Chelsea), and the Recognized Value Award from

the International Forum for Innovative Schools.

Figure 3-c2,
left:
The gym

Figure 3-c3,
right:
The main
hallway
which has
street-light
resembling
fixtures

Kraft estimated that 75% of the youth who use the clubhouse are

Hispanic, 15% are black, 8% white, and 2% Asian. While the majority of

kids have grown up in the area, a greater number of short-term residents have

started to move in to the neighborhood. Most kids walk over to the

clubhouse, and there are school-bus drop-offs that are near the club. Around

210 kids use the clubhouse per day, and 780 youth are enrolled in the

clubhouse's programs. A wait list of 1 year exists for pre-teens.

Figure 3-c4,
left:
The game
room

Figure 3-c5,
right:
The main
hallway
which has
street-light
resembling
fixtures
The Chelsea Clubhouse has a large indoor pool, gym, technology

room, education and arts rooms, and a teen center slightly removed from the
remainder of the these activities. It is also difficult to move through the

hallways without being in full view of the two receptionist desks.

Figure 3-c6,
left:
A hallway
nto the
lounge area

Figure 3-c7,
right:
The teen
center

When asked what the Chelsea Clubhouse does well, Kraft

unequivocally answered that it was the relationships that staff have with

youth. Kraft also said, "We can always have more kids" when asked if the

center was operating at capacity.

 Roxbury Clubhouse

Interviewee: Anita Sutton, Assistant Director of Operations

Figure 3-d1:
The entrance
to the Roxbury
BGC

The Roxbury Clubhouse was designed in 1968 by an unknown

architect. It has not undergone major renovations since that date and is due

for renovations and expansion in 2006. It was designed specifically to be a

BGC, and its central hallway atrium allows for maximum views of youth

activity from any spot in entrance lobby. The clubhouse has plans to house

youth activity in trailers while the renovations take place.

Sutton estimated that over 85% of the clubhouse users are black, then

Hispanic and white comprising the small leftover minority. Over 210 kids

are reported to use the clubhouse every day, and 1200 youth are enrolled in

the clubhouse's roster. The majority of youth are dropped off by school-
buses and some others use public transportation, as the club is located close

to Dudley Station. Most families in the area have lived there for most of their

lives; grandparents often sign their kids in for different programs.

Figure 3-d2,
left:
The
fireplace in
the middle of
the atrium

- Figure 3-d3,
Sright-
A view of the
fireplace
sitting area,
the teen
room, and
the balcony

Figure 3-d4,
left:
The
education
room

Figure 3-d5,
right:
The game
i room

The Roxbury clubhouse contains an arts room, a computer center, an

education library, a pool, a gym, a social recreation multi-purpose room,

reading rooms, a daycare center, and a teen center. Teens are given free reign

to move from room to room while younger persons follow a rotation

schedule.
 Sutton expressed that staff's positive influence on kids and the

clubhouse's presence as a safe haven and a welcoming home were some of

the clubhouse's greatest strengths. She stated that further resources for staff

and youth and being employ more staff were some items she would put on a

wish list.

Figure 3-d6,
left:
The outdoor
basketball
court behind
the clubhouse

Figure 3-d7,
right:
Another view
of the balcony

South Boston Clubhouse

Interviewee: Harry Duvall

Figure 3-el:
The front
entrance to
the South
Boston BGC

44
 The South Boston Clubhouse has been in existence since 1940. The

building was designed to be a Boys & Girls Club and Leers Weinzapfel

Associates designed a gym and teen center addition in 1990, which replaced

an outside play area. The building's structural and mechanical issues have

created cause for piecemeal renovations every year. The clubhouse was one

of the first to include girls as part of the clubhouse's membership.

A 70% majority of clubhouse users are white, then Hispanic at 15%,

then 10% black, and 5% Asian. 200 youth

use the clubhouse per day, and 800 children

Figure 3-e2:
are enrolled in the clubhouse's programs. Signage for
the South
Boston BGC
The majority are residents, and the very

small minority of non-residents that use the

clubhouse are part of the school-busing system. Most children are dropped

off by schoolbuses, and a smaller percentage reach the clubhouse by foot.

The South Boston Clubhouse contains the following: arts room, music

room, gym, specialized teen rooms, day-care facilities, a pool, an education

room, a mutli-purpose performing space, a game room, and a kitchen.

Figure 3-e3:
The first-floor
hallway

Figure 3-e4:
The game
room (the old
gym)
 Duvall touted staff relationship with kids and the clubhouse's role as a

safe haven as two things that the clubhouse does well. Clubhouse

renovations, more support for staff, and greater accessibility to the clubhouse

were wish list items he mentioned in the interview.

Figure 3-e5,
left:
The teen room

Figure 3-e6,
right:
The
technology
room

Figure 3-e7,
left:
The second
floor hallway

Figure 3-e8,
right:
The art room
3.2 Non-BGCB Clubhouses

Colonel Daniel Marr Boys & Girls Club of Dorchester

Interviewee: Michael Joyce, Vice President of Programming

Figure 5f-1:
A tot lot
behind the
Daniel Marr
BGC Youth
Center

The Colonel Daniel Marr Boys & Girls Club has been in existence

since 1974. It is owned by the Marr Company, and runs a much more

intensive daycare program than all the aforementioned

clubs. It was designed by William Christopher

Woodward and underwent significant renovations in

Figure 5f-2:
1987 and 1994. This clubhouse is split into three The entrance
to the Daniel
Marr BGC
buildings, soon to be four, two of which are within the Youth Center

same block, and one which is less than a mile away.

 The zipcode of the area the clubhouse is in is said to be the most

diverse in the entire country. Joyce estimated that 30% of youth who use the

clubhouse are black, another 30% are white, 20% are Cape Verdian, 10% are

Hispanic, and 10% are Asian. Most youth are from within a 1 mile radius of

the clubhouse, and they reach it either by walking or through public transit.

Approximately 450 to 500 youth visit the clubhouse per day.

Figure 3-f3,
left:
The childcare

Figure 3-f4,
right:
The gym

Figure 3-f5,
left:
The game
room

Figure 3-f6,
right:
The education
room

The Daniel Marr BCG differs in its availability and cost. It is open on

Saturdays in addition to Mondays through Fridays. Though its school year

times are similar to the BGCB, during the summer, it expands its hours from

9AM to 11PM. The cost throughout is at $5 a child per year. It is interesting

to note that the mission of Daniel Marr Clubhouse is slightly different in that
they state helping youth from "challenging", not "disadvantaged"

circumstances, a change they created to prevent stigmatism.

The clubhouse receives most of its funds from private and corporate

sponsors. It also receives federal BGCA grants and United Way support, as

does the BGCB. It offers a rigorous, well-reputed day-care program that

spans several classrooms and facilities.

Figure 3-f7,
left:
One of three
playgrounds

Figure 3-f8,
right:
The fence
perimeter
around the
outdoor
basketball
court

In addition to day care facilities, the main clubhouse building holds a

game room, a gym, a pool, an arts room, an education room, a kitchen, and a

multi-purpose room. The teen center holds additional day care facilities,

several teen-oriented education and recreation rooms, and a work-out fitness

center. There are also several small outdoor play areas near the clubhouse.

Joyce also cited staff as the clubhouse's greatest strength. He

expressed a desire for more resources for staff and for youth.
 Salesian East Boston Clubhouse

Interviewee: Father Richard Crager, Executive Director

Figure 5g:
The front
fagade of the
Salesian East
Boston BGC

The East Boston Clubhouse was established 40 years ago by the

Catholic order of the Salesian of Don Boston. It is supported both by the

BGCA and by the Salesian Society in New York. The central clubhouse is in

an old schoolhouse that now functions as a BGC, and the other half of the

clubhouse is located nearby at Savio High School, where it shares its

facilities with the public school system. The Clubhouse became affiliated

with the BGCA in 1985. It has been undergoing significant capital

improvements each year.

 Father Crager stated six years ago, when he started, the area used to

be 90% white. Now, 50% of clubhouse users are Hispanic, 35% white, and

the rest are African American and Asian. A mixture of both residents and

non-residents use the clubhouse. Most walk to the clubhouse, and some are

dropped off by school buses and parents. Between the two buildings, 250

youth use the clubhouse per day. 3500 are enrolled in the program.

Figure 3-g2,
left:
The blacktop
outdoor courts

Figure 3-g3,
right:
The outdoor
entrance to
the clubhouse

The Salesian BGC also differs from the BGCB in that it is open on

Saturdays from 1OAM-5PM. It's teen hours are from 6-9 Tuesday through

Friday, closing one hour later on Fridays. The Salesian Society covers the

salary of the staff workers that it brings to the club; there are currently two

priests that have been appointed to the Clubhouse. It charges a minimal fee

of $10 a year per child. The Salesian BGC has the lowest number of full-

time staff-persons out of all the clubhouses and relies on highly sophisticated

surveillance cameras and technology to keep watch over its hallways and

rooms. Father Cragaer claimed that the youth are more careful to act

appropriately because they know about the cameras. Chapel services are held

at 4:30 each day. The religious affiliation of the clubhouse also yields the
 pursuit of another goal: the spiritual development and conversion of the

youth.

Figure 3-g4,
left:
The computer
room

Figure 3-g5,
right:
The first-floor
hallway

Figure 3-g6,
left:
The game
room

Figure 3-g7,
right:
The eating
area in the
basement
hallway

The main clubhouse contains a quarter-sized gym, several classrooms

dedicated to art, computers, education, games, a chapel, and a teen center.

The club is surrounded by uneven blacktop with a dozen basketball hoops.

Youth have been seen playing basketball here even when temperatures drop;

they don their coats and play regardless. The Savio High School branch has a

fitness and work-out center and more recreation spaces both indoors and

outdoors. Father Crager commented that this place sees a lot of use at night

as well, which is different from the peak hours stated by all the other Boys &

Girls Clubs.
 Father Crager commented that the clubhouse's greatest strength are its

staff: "the kids would vote with their feet". He also stated that the clubhouse

is welcoming and serves as a home for many of the children. When asked

about a wish list, he listed building renovations and additions, full staff

support, and renovated appropriate outdoor facilities.

Figure 3-g8,
left:
The chapel

Figure 3-g9,
right:
The quarter-
size gym
Chapter 4: Methodology & Interview Process

There were two primary forms of collecting field data for this

research. One consisted of interviews. Staff-persons, often executive

directors or directors of operations, were asked a range of questions about the

clubhouses' architecture, programs, users, strengths, and wish lists. The

other set of subjects included youth who were present in the clubhouses

during my visits, which were between the peak hours of 3-5PM. The other

form of data collection came from observations of use: seeing how many kids

were in the building and what activities they clustered around. Based on

these observations and background information about the clubs, I came to a

number of conclusions about the clubhouses and how they function.

The interviews with clubhouse personnel were conducted in person,

during the late morning or early afternoon, which are quiet hours in the

clubhouses. A set of questions were asked about the following: building

design, community partnerships, clubhouse strengths, neighborhood

background, program offerings and operations, staff capacity, and youth user

patterns. The final question asked for items on a wish list unlimited by

funds, which excited many. Interviews lasted for approximately one hour.

Some of the interviewees spoke freely and answered questions thoroughly,

providing additional knowledge and background; others were brief, which

prompted more questioning on my part in order to obtain some answers.

After the interview, I was given a tour of each clubhouse, its various spaces
and rooms, and allowed to take photographs of the facilities as long as

children were not contained in the images.

After this introduction to each clubhouse, I visited a second time

during what the clubhouse reported to be its peak hours. The visits occurred

during April during warmer weather when the temperature ranged in the mid

to low 60's. Some clubhouses commented as I started my observations that

"today is a slow day". Others said that they were right on schedule, at

capacity. I have not been able to procure a second visit to the Blue Hill

Clubhouse, so any mention of youth activity there is from my past

recollections of volunteering at that location. These memories, however, will

not serve as a basis for any major findings about the clubhouse.

During these second visits, I walked through each room that was in

use, most of the time accompanied by a staff-person. I wrote down

comments about how many children were there, how many staff-persons,

including junior-staff, were in the room, what the youth were doing, what

equipment they were using, whether they were using all the computers in the

room, and how they moved through the hallways, as well as other details.

After writing brief observations down, I would ask to interview a couple

youth in each room.

The interview would consist of a brief greeting and a request to help

me, a student, with my thesis paper. My question would be "why do you like

it here?" If this prompted hesitation (or in the case of little children, "I don't

know"), I would change the question to be "why do you come here?", which
older teens responded better to for reasons I yet do not fully understand. So,

the question answered was a combination of "why do you like it here" and

"why do you come here?"

Most younger children would clamor over who got to answer first. I

stuck out like a sore thumb in many of the clubhouses, but once some of them

started responding, they would rattle off answers like popcorn. The gym, the

pool, fun activities, fun with friends: these would be common answers.

Sometimes they would compete to say something different. The teens would

view me suspiciously and look at the staff-person near me to get assurance

that I was "okay" and answer in succinct, matter-of-fact sentences. I got to

see patterns in their answers that I will disclose later. Overall, anywhere

from 12 to 16 youth were interviewed per clubhouse, excluding Blue Hill.

Another groups of people were interviewed for this thesis. They

include architects from two different design firms responsible for the design

of several clubhouses and Lisa Lewis, the project manager from the main

BGCB headquarters.

Because both the Architectural Team and Leers Weinzapfel

Associates have been hired on a number of occasions to renovate or create

BGCB clubhouses, I was interested in what they had to say about the design

process, necessary elements. I met with Josiah Stevenson from LWA in

person, and he walked me through the design of the Blue Hill Clubhouse

while commenting on construction costs that cut out a number of elements

from the original plan. LWA was also responsible for the renovation of the

Ansin Teen Center in the Charlestown Clubhouse.

Mark Rosenschein of the Architectural Team spoke with me over the

phone about the Charlestown Keane Children's Center renovations, the

Chelsea Clubhouse, and the pending Roxbury Clubhouse renovations. Both

Rosenchein and Stevenson mentioned similar design elements such as

transparency, material durability, adaptable spaces, and movable walls. Each

clubhouse represented a unique physical challenge, as many of them are

housed in old buildings that are historically significant. Through their

comments, I was better able to understand how to observe how each building

was meant to function and if it fulfills that intent.

Lisa Lewis was also valuable in interviewing because of her role as

the intermediary between the BGCB and the architects. She mentioned the

policy of separating teens and pre-teens, as well as building durability, appeal

of interior spaces, and standard procedures of involving staff and youth in the

clubhouse designs and renovations. Interestingly enough, she mentioned

that the ideal square footage of a clubhouse to be 42,000 square feet. This

figure was reached after a process of evaluating what feels like a good space

for different activities in each clubhouse. Staff and youth were involved in

this process. Lewis stated that the BGCB is continually evaluating its

buildings and programs as it pursues expansion and renovation.

Overall, these interviews and observations were used to uncover

answers to the question "under what conditions can youth centers operate?"
Chapter 5: Design Elements that Make a Difference

The next series of chapters are observations on the BGC clubhouses

and their users. They contain conclusions about design and non-design

elements aimed to equip architects and people who work with youth and

youth organizations with information they should know as they are involved

in the birth and renovation of centers for youth. These conclusions should

not be limited to Boys & Girls Clubs alone. They can extend to other places

for youth, or further into spaces for community. It is such information that I

had wished for while brainstorming though my previous projects. Some of it,

I already knew instinctively; others became more palpable and concrete

throughout the course of my interactions and interviews with the various

children in each clubhouse and their dedicated staff.

These conclusions state the relationship of variables such as

architecture, accessibility, and bureaucracy with opportunity, the situation in

which creating a placefor youth is possible. Opportunity should entice youth

to voluntarily enter a clubhouse, particularly as they become older and more

autonomous. Creating a place for youth involves delivering spaces,

programs, conditions in which youth-specific recreation, education, and

socialization can occur and can be enjoyed by children while being

maintained feasibly by responsible staff-persons. Facilities must be

maintained by some entity; and though centers that are less dependent on

bureaucratic overseers exists, nonetheless, once a child wants to use a space

or pursue a program, someone needs to be accountable. A signature is

 needed, waivers of accountability are a reality, and responsibility rests on

someone's shoulders for space, a building, a place.

The following chapters will explore the relationship of a variable with

the opportunity to be a well-functioning youth center. This chapter

specifically looks at the crux of the thesis question "does design make a

difference?" by picking out the design variables that do matter when creating

a place for youth.

5.1 Intro: Design that matters

This paper was not written to be a beauty contest. Good design does

not translate into aesthetic pleasure. These next sections talk about different

factors that lead to good design, which I define as architecture that leads to

maximum opportunity for a youth center to serve its intended population.

The factors have to do with the existing conditions (pre-design) and building

components (design) and thus are about the design process as much as they

are about the design itself.

Design is discussed first because, contrary to my misgivings of the

importance of good design in a lower income context, I have found that

design does make a difference and can profoundly impact programs, staff,

facilities, and budgets, all of which influence the amount of energy and funds

that are dedicated to each individual user. A carefully planned and designed

clubhouse, though it may incur high costs in the beginning, can lead to

minimum maintenance, expansion, and technical adjustments if ample

 facility space is given, durable materials are used, and surveillance through

different spaces and hallways are maximized. Minimizing such items frees

up operating budgets to provide dedicated staff with salaries befitting their

hard work and programs that enrich the lives of youth. Because design has

such a direct effect on how budgets each year allocate funds to renovations,

improvements, and expansions, it significantly impacts how a clubhouse is

used.

5.2 The relationship between response to initial conditions & opportunity

This section is derived from information from the more recently

established clubhouses, as it was more possible to receive accounts from the

younger clubhouses of how the buildings came into being and how they were

transformed from former uses. Building owner perspective is important

because it the owner is the client that most heavily influences how an old

building of a former use becomes a BGC. The design response to physical

restrictions also shapes how space is allotted for clubhouse use. Thus, these

two must have appropriate responses to existing conditions in order for good

design to take form.

Building ownership is important because it is the client (a BGC) that

informs the architect of clubhouse needs. Because the Boys & Girls Club of

Boston's main office has been handling renovations and clubhouse design for

a great length of time, it is well aware of standards of space that are required

for its programs and users. It is also practiced and savvy in handling budgets
and raising funds for its clubhouses. Of the five BGCB clubhouses, one was

not owned by the BGCB: the Blue Hill BGC in Dorchester. The city owns

the property, and it is supported through the George Robert White Trust

Fund. Though the Blue Hill Clubhouse is one of the more recent clubhouses

in the Boston Area, it is already creating plans to expand. Compared to the

Roxbury Clubhouse, which has not expanded since its opening in 1968, this

appears to be a move that one would have expected after a longer period of

time, since more recent designs should have been more informed by

precedents of size, space, and functionality.

However, in conversing with the architect for the Blue Hill BGC,

Josiah Stevenson at Leers Weinzapfel Associates, I discovered that several

elements of the plan were cut out during the construction process, a need that

came about as the economy turned bad and previous funding did not cover

the costs of the clubhouse. A fitness center, an elevator shaft, and an entire

second floor around the gym area were eliminated during the construction

process. Perhaps if they had delayed construction to keep these elements,

they would not expansion need so soon after the clubhouse was built.

In the case of the Chelsea Clubhouse, they added additional space, a

multi-purpose performance space above the gym, which is now used for both

BGC and community purposes. Though it was not immediately needed, the

planners for the clubhouse and Josh Kraft, the director, foresaw a likely

expansion in that area and decided to include it in the plans despite the higher

costs. The Boston headquarters supported this move.

 Since both clubhouses are supported by the BGCB, the difference

seems to be in building owner perspective. One chose to cut plans in order to

meet costs; the other raised the budget necessary to support a design that

would require less expansion in the future. There exists a difference in the

orientation of these attitudes: present versus future. It seems that almost all

clubhouses will expand; not a single clubhouse visited had avoided

expansions or was not planning for future ones. The BGCB as an owner was

able to value and support a design that was more adaptable to future

demands. Thus, building owner perspective is important in the formation of

adaptable clubhouses.

It would be interesting to see what kind of building renovation

recommendations the BGCB would have for the East Boston Salesian

clubhouse, which has been undergoing a quarter-million to a half-million

dollars worth of renovations every year. This is necessitated by the poor

condition of the clubhouse building, which is an old schoolhouse structure

that has several structural issues that need to be addressed. The Salesian

Clubhouse may benefit from a larger-scale renovation project that might call

for a new building. Though that project itself would have a high cost, it may

equal the steady renovation costs that the clubhouse has been incurring due to

capital improvements.

The response to initial building settings is also important because

they may restrictions on space and flow that are beneath an acceptable

capacity for youth. One of the two Charlestown Clubhouse buildings, the
Roxbury Clubhouse, the main Daniel Marr building, and the South Boston

Clubhouse, were built from the ground up specifically to function as Boys &

Girls Clubs. The Chelsea Clubhouse, the Blue Hill Clubhouse, and the

Charlestown Teen Center are retrofitted and gutted old buildings that used to

be an old forwarding warehouse, a skating rink, and a church, respectively.

The Salesian East Boston Clubhouse retains the original circulation flow and

rooms the schoolhouse building was designed for, and the clubhouse is

starting to adapt internal rooms for different uses.

The Roxbury Clubhouse stands apart as the only clubhouse that has

not undergone significant renovations since its start in 1968. It was designed

to be a BGC. Stepping inside the clubhouse, you immediately enter a lobby

atrium with a receptionist desk on your right. Almost all rooms on the first

and second floor are viewable, as they are separated by glass from the open

hallway. A fireplace sits in a depression at center of the atrium with a semi-

circle bench facing the hearth. There are banners that are strung from one

side of the building to the other above the fireplace. The transparency and

circulation flow of this building has made it possible for staff to continually

have a view on youth activities while allowing the youth to use a number of

different facilities.

Both the buildings that were built as BGC's and retrofitted buildings

are sensitive to transparency and surveillance needed in clubhouses. A

building that was intended for a different use than a clubhouse and was never

fully retrofitted is less likely to have the surveillance and transparency that
many of the clubhouses strive for. In the East Boston Clubhouse, extensive

surveillance equipment is used in order to compensate for its solid walls and

limited circulation. In summary, when considering building a youth center, it

will be beneficial to consider retrofitting and gutting the building in order to

make it more appropriate for use.

In the case of the Charlestown Ansin Teen Center and the Blue Hill

Clubhouse, the original floor plate dictated the physical bounds within which

the clubhouse was contained. The Chelsea clubhouse was not bound to the

warehouse into which it was built. In all, it seems possible to create just as

appropriate space from the complete gutting and renovation of a building

intended for a previous use. The Blue Hill clubhouse's constrained size

seems to be a more a product of construction process decisions than of the

original container's size and shape.

Implications

Appropriate design response to initial building conditions and a future-

oriented building owner perspective is vital to creating a youth center that

will house appropriate programs and facilities and deal with limited

maintenance and renovation issues.

If the youth center is being constructed on an empty plot of land, then

initial condition considerations are obsolete because no physical building

limitations exist. However, many of the clubhouses studied were built into

old buildings that once served different purposes, such as a warehouse, an

ice-skating facility, and a church. In a situation where the initial floor-plate

and out-door pool affected the design of the clubhouse to have smaller indoor

space and no indoor pool, expansion is being pursued only after 10 years

since construction. However, in the case of the Chelsea Clubhouse, it was

able to incorporate an old warehouse structure while also going beyond its

floor-plate in the clubhouse that was built. Having the initial building limit

what facilities are available and how large they are yields a design that

requires more frequent maintenance and less adequately suited facilities for

youth.

In the case of the Blue Hill Clubhouse, the building owner, the city of

Boston, chose to cut out sections of the plan due to construction costs. This

too, limited facilities and reflects a present-oriented view of clubhouse

functions. Building owners must have a perspective that reflects the change

and growth many of these clubhouses will experience. The East Boston

Clubhouse may benefit more from a whole-scale renovation than from

piecemeal rehabilitation projects that repair its very old structure.

Understanding current trends and use of spaces is important

knowledge that a building owner must have when investing in clubhouses.

Pursing the implementation of such knowledge will give building owners a

perspective that is valuable and less restrained by current physical and

financial situations. Thus, initial building conditions that do not restrain

clubhouse size and function and a progressive building owner mentality will

yield a clubhouse that has appropriate facilities and will not need to undergo

renovations for a significant amount of time, such as the Roxbury Clubhouse.

 Proper facilities are important, but they will not happen without proper space.

Renovation and expansion projects are expensive and take a toll on clubhouse

budgets, which ideally should cover program and staff expenses.

5.3 The relationship between maximizing surveillance & opportunity

Surveillance is an important element that all designers should consider in

creating spaces for youth. Because youth are under age, an outside body, the

institution that houses the center, is held accountable for all the good and bad

that occurs in the clubhouse. In order to avoid liabilities, those in charge

need to be able to see as much activity as possible. Thus, surveillance

maximization is ideal for youth centers.

Glass walls and multiple interior windows were found in all five of

the BGCB clubhouses. The concept of a staff-person being able to see from

his or her office through a window, past a room with interior glass paneled

walls into a third or even fourth room and/or hallway was pursued in every

clubhouse. All walls that faced the atrium in the Roxbury Clubhouse were

transparent, allowing for views into and out of the rooms. The teen room

renovations in the Salesian Boys & Girls Club allowed a staff-person in an

office to look through a library, past a wall of fish tanks, through a game

room, and into a teen lounge area. Duvall of the South Boston Boys & Girls

Club gestured at his office wall near a stairway and expressed a desire for a

window that would allow him full view of the stairway as well as the first

floor corridor. He also wanted to cut out the wall that separated the reception
desk area from the entrance hallway, allowing for the receptionist to have

prolonged surveillance of entries and exits.

If transparencies were not pursued, then open, connected spaces with

movable walls were installed. The Daniel Marr Teen Center is a large, L-

shaped room that has distinct sections for recreation, study, and lounging, but

its open circulation allows for less staff to have increased surveillance of the

different activities within the room. Movable walls and adaptable interior

spaces were design elements pursued by both the Architectural Team and

Leers Weinzapfel Associates. The main BGCB office also emphasized the

importance of adaptable spaces, along with transparencies.

Centralized main circulation in the clubhouses allows for minimal

staff surveillance dedicated solely to the activity of working a hallway desk.

The cruciform hallway at the Blue Hill BGC allows for a desk worker to

view all entries and exits as well as activity in the hallway because of its

placement at the joining of the two corridors. Roxbury's central atrium also

allows all staff to view both first and second floor activity, an element none

of the other clubhouse have. The Chelsea clubhouse's receptionist desk

stands an the joint of the entrance hallway and a main corridor, allowing the

staff at that area to view all activity.

 Figure Sa:
A diagram
showing the
transparencies
pursued in the
teen rooms of
the East Boston
Salesian
ent e Clubhouse.

Figure 5b:
The hallway
circulation found
in the Blue Hill
Clubhouse. The
dark pink is the
reception area,
which has a
2700 view of all
hallway activity
Leers Weinzafel
Associates
 Figure 5c:
The entrance
hallway in the
Chelsea Clubhouse.
The dark pink is the
reception area,
which view of the
angled entryway and
the main corridor
axis.
Architectural Team

Figure 5d:
The transparencies
(red) of staff office
views onto the
gymnasium at the
Chelsea Clubhouse
Architectural Team
Figure 5e:
Layered
transparencies
(red) through
different rooms
and hallways in
the Chelsea
Clubhouse
Architectural Team

Figure 5f:
The Ansin Teen
Center at the
Chelsea
Clubhouse. The
reception desk
(pink) is able to
view both the
entrance (right)
and behind the
desk through a
glass
conference room
(aka the
fishbowl) in the
teen game area.
Leers Wein:afel
Associates
 Figure 5g:
The
transparencies
(red) of adjacent
rooms in the
teen center in
the South
Boston
Clubhouse.
Leers Weinzafel
Associates

In the case of the East Boston Clubhouse, which has few layered

transparencies and broken circulation, as well as a fourth of the average staff

count, surveillance was achieved by several video cameras that were installed

in every room. A highly sophisticated surveillance system makes Father

Crager's desk, at first glance, seem like the desk of a security guard rather

than that of a youth clubhouse director. Human eyes are replaced with

electronic ones; surveillance is maintained. Father Crager explained that

because youth are fully aware of the cameras, they exhibit self-control and

keep away from questionable activity. However, he also stated that staff try

their best not to leave the kids by themselves, stating that youth have a sort of
natural entropy and if left alone, they would get into troublesome situations.

He viewed staff's role and the clubhouse's role to be diverters of possible

troublesome or illegal activity. This example shows that surveillance ability,

if not implemented in the building design, can be pursued and substituted

with technology.

The clubs that did have outdoor facilities had some relationship with

surveillance from the interior spaces. The executive director's office in the

Salesian clubhouse overlooked the asphalt basketball courts, and several

cameras guarded the entrance. The outdoor pool at the Blue Hill clubhouse

was viewable from the reception desk through a transparent meeting space

through a wall of glass. Others, such as the Daniel Marr Clubhouse or the

Roxbury Clubhouse, had little relationship to their outdoor facilities. The

Daniel Marr main building has no windows that open to the outside, thus

rendering it no view of its three separate playgrounds.

Some other surveillance tactics that were pursued were prohibiting

use of certain staircases without staff present and disallowing hallway

activity outside of rotation periods. Overall, controlling movement in and

through various low-visibility spaces seems to be common practice in

pursuing surveillance.

The importance of creating an environment of easy surveillance is

that minimizing the time, effort, and persons it takes to keep watch over

youth allows for staff to engage with and encourage the children in doing

their schoolwork, pursuing a hobby, playing sports, or learning a new skill. It

 allows for a youth center to have more opportunities to engage youth in

healthy activities.

Figure 5h, left:

The windows of
staff offices in
the South
Boston BGC art
room

Figure 5i, right:

A typical interior
window in the
South Boston
BGC

----
-----
-----
----
----------
Figure 5j, left:
A view through
the lounge into
the game area in
the Charlestown
BGC teen center

Figure 5k, right:

Internal windows
in the Chelsea
BGC
_j

Figure 51, left:

A staff office that
looks into both
the game room
and library in the
Roxbury BGC

Figure 5m,
right:
The teen center
renovations in
the Salesian
BGC

Implications

It is crucial that youth center building design leads to maximum possible

surveillance. All designers should incorporate this element into their designs.

All clubhouses pursued transparencies of interior walls and windows or

 linked open rooms with uninterrupted flow. The renovations of the Salesian

Clubhouse included a three-room teen center that contained such

transparencies. Because the number of children that occupy a clubhouse is so

high and staff capacities are limited, facilitating surveillance becomes

important, so important that thousands of dollars of technology and cameras

are invested into maintaining surveillance. Thus, a building that provides

physical transparency and surveillance in its walls and hallways does not

solicit the need for additional budget funds into cameras and technology.

New youth centers should also incorporate glass interior walls, layered

transparencies, and maximization of staff-office views. Youth centers that

are considering renovations should also invest in building design that

maximizes internal transparency and surveillance. Surveillance, above all

other elements, is the most important physical design element that will

optimize youth center opportunities to provide programs and facilities for

youth.

5.4 The relationship between maintenance and opportunity

Maintenance is another element that has consistently been part of

clubhouse budgets and efforts. Budgets are exhaustive, however, and any

money that goes into capital improvements translates less for activities and

staff salaries, which are often very low to begin with. The manner of

renovations differs by clubhouse. Both the Chelsea Clubhouse and the

Charlestown Clubhouse have both had substantial renovation projects

completed in the past couple years, the Salesian BGC has seen incremental

rehabilitation projects each year, and the Roxbury Clubhouse has seen none.

Regardless of the manner of renovation, whether is aesthetic, structural, or

expanding, there seems to be no relationship with how the children use the

clubhouses. The Roxbury Clubhouse, which has not undergone renovations

since 1968, had the highest number of users during peak times, while the

Salesian Clubhouse and the new Chelsea Clubhouse held comparable

numbers of youth. All are bustling and thriving; and the condition of the

buildings are again never mentioned in the interviews with children.

It is interesting to note the correlation between maintenance and the

initial function and date of the building. Maintenance is more needed when

the clubhouse is older than the 1940's. However, those clubhouses that were

built on property intended for BGC's from the very beginning are more likely

to have a longer time of wait before expansion becomes necessary. The

Charlestown Clubhouse, the Salesian Clubhouse, and the South Boston

Clubhouse all had their origins in the 1940's or earlier. All had gymnasiums

that were too small; larger ones were incorporated in expansions. However,

the Roxbury Clubhouse, which was built with both adequate gymnasium and

pool facilities that fit today's standards, has not seen expansion since the

clubhouse started.

Though the Blue Hill Clubhouse has a gymnasium, it does not have

an indoor pool. An outdoor pool, one of the largest in Boston, exists, but its
outdoor state disables use for the majority of the year when temperatures

drop. This outdoor pool was adopted from the existing building conditions

when the site used to hold an old skating rink and other facilities. An indoor

pool facility was stated as a desired item on a wish list. Contrast this with the

Chelsea Clubhouse, which did use the old forwarding warehouse as part of its

new structure, but was not limited to its size and floor-space. Initial building

size should not be the limiting factor in determining the constraints of a

building. Thus, even a recently built clubhouse can face expansion needs if

the initial conditions are too constraining. This leads us to our next variable.

Implications

The bulk of maintenance projects come from expansion projects. Thus, if a

building is designed with adequate facilities that are not constrained by initial

building conditions and aimed to serve future, and not just present

populations of youth, maintenance budgets and costs will be significantly

reduced. Thus, this emphasizes the need for a building owner perspective

that is able to pursue a vision beyond present limiting financial and physical

conditions. This, with a design unlimited by initial building restraints, will

lead to a lower maintenance level that is ideal and allows for a larger

percentage of the budget to be dedicated to staff and programs for youth.

Low maintenance is an ideal effect caused by a proper response to initial

conditions, which emphasizes the importance of having appropriate starting

conditions in the formation of a youth center.

5.5 The role of facilities in creating opportunity

There are number of facilities that are consistently included in these

youth centers; the BGCB in particular has a "department" formula for a set of

programs that are pursued across its five clubhouses, thus often requiring a

similar set of rooms dedicated to the same purposes. After interviewing the

youth and observing their activities, I have come upon a number of

conclusions about the demand of certain facilities over others.

Recreation areas have the highest demand of all facilities found in

clubhouses. By this, I mean fitness recreation areas and social recreation

("game-room") areas. During visitations to each clubhouse, the game-rooms

had the greatest concentration of pre-teen children. Pool tables, foosball,

arcade and video games, air hockey, ping-pong, four-square: these are all

activities that had clusters of children, anywhere from three to nine of them,

crowded around. If there were lounge areas nearby, these too would spill

over with youth. Younger children often responded when asked what they

liked about the clubhouse "it's fun here" or "you get to (do activity X)". A

clubhouse with 120 children in an area can expect, around 4PM, to have

25%-30% of its children in the game-rooms.

The age group of children using gymnasium facilities is slightly older,

as many teens replied when asked why they like it at their specific clubhouse,

"I come to play ball here." Basketball was always the one sport that was

being held in all the clubhouse gyms. The half of all teen responses for each

clubhouse mentioned being able to play basketball for leisure or being part of
a basketball league. Though the Salesian main clubhouse has a very small,

old gym in its basement, it has expansive blacktop courts surrounding it; a

third of its youth were outside shooting hoops. The opportunity to play

basketball seems to be the most magnetic pull the clubhouses can have on

teens; thus it would be prudent to invest in having sufficient gymnasium

facilities to host such activities. Basketball courts can also expect to host a

fourth or a third of its users.

Though the pool was mentioned in several children's answers, during

my visits, there were never more than three youth in the water. Two

clubhouses had the pool closed because of a lack of a trained staffperson for

that season or just that day. I have seen the Blue Hill Clubhouse's outdoor

pool and seen how busy it can be in the summer; however, in the month of

April, during which I did most of my visits, the pool does not seem to see

much use, though it is popular and imprinted in the minds of users. Perhaps I

was visiting during the wrong hours to witness pool use.

With all the hype about "bridging the digital divide", one would have

expected the computer rooms to be used at maximum capacity, meaning, if

a room has twenty computers, one would expect at least 20 students in that

space. However, this was the not case throughout the clubhouses. My

visitation hours were between 4PM to 5:30PM. What I did notice was a

correlation with computer use and computer room programming.

In computer rooms that were holding specific training sessions for

internet or software use or homework-use only sessions, computers were used

at best half-capacity. However, in clubhouses where computers could be

used for games and internet surfing, every computer had a user; in rooms

where it was allowed, a number had two users sharing one computer. The

Salesian Clubhouse & Blue Hill Clubhouse, which allow the computers to be

used for games, had computer rooms that always had a child seated in front

of a screen. Thus, the conclusion is that computer rooms are more attractive

to youth, in particular pre-teen youth, as a means of recreation than one of

learning.

Homework and education rooms were not often used at maximum

capacity; since this is also linked to the number of staff and their abilities, it

is difficult to pinpoint the reason for this. However, they were often used; in

particular, those that had developed homework-help programs held many

children in education rooms. The Chelsea Clubhouse in particular had about

20-25% of its youth in its homework and education rooms. These rooms

were not limited to homework, and often, games and computer usage were

allowed. It seems that allowing some amount of recreation in the education

rooms was common practice in the South Boston, Chelsea, and Charlestown

Clubhouses, which held the highest numbers of students doing homework in

their rooms. "I come here to do my homework" was also a common answer

that youth gave when asked why they use the clubhouse.

Though these were the most popular answers and the rooms that saw

the most use, there were children that used the art rooms, the kitchen for

cooking classes, and the music rooms. However, these were often much
smaller numbers of youth that were there because of a specific interest. The

only art room that was maxed out was in the Roxbury clubhouse, where 25

students were all creating swirls of glue and glitter in the art room. Roxbury,

however, had the highest number of students using the clubhouse from 4-

5PM, at 190 youth.

A number of these clubhouses did not have outdoor facilities, as

many are in denser urban areas without much open space. The Salesian East

Boston Clubhouse's outdoor courts were well-used, but this is also likely

because the interior gym is very small. A number of the staff-persons

interviewed expressed a desire to have outdoor facilities or be closer to

outdoor spaces. The Chelsea Clubhouse faces basketball and tennis courts;

however, Kraft stated that he keeps away from those courts because of the

drug activity and drunken persons that frequent the property. I wonder if the

Salesian courts are a safer, no-danger zone for its users because it is on

private property. Father Crager pointed across the street and candidly

remarked that there was a gang-house nearby. The answer may not be being

near public parks, but having outdoor spaces that are part of the clubhouse

structure. The Dan Marr Clubhouse had two playground areas that were

being used by 6-8 year olds in the day-care program.

Implications

Due to the high frequency use and response associated with recreation-related

facilities, youth centers should be created with adequate facilities for athletic

and social recreation. Full size basketball courts, game rooms, and pools
should be key facilities that are included in all youth centers, as they seem to

be guaranteed youth attractors. Adequate facilities again are constrained by

building size, and an inappropriate response of the initial conditions of a

clubhouse-to-be may lead to a recreation facility capacity that is inadequate

and in need of expansion much sooner than desired, such as the Blue Hill

Clubhouse. Adequate outdoor facilities, if a feasible luxury, should be

pursued as well so that a clubhouse may provide a range of services both

indoors and outdoors that is under the surveillance and protection of the

youth center. In summary, facilities should be created as close as possible to

maximum capacity and use in order to avoid frequent and early expansion

and to serve youth needs.

5.6 The relationship between age-sensitive interior design & opportunity

Age-appropriate interior design and circulation are features that

both architects and clubhouse directors consider when renovations and

designs are drafted. When both the Architectural Team and Leers

Weinzapfel Associates, who are the two architects the BGCB use in

renovation, were interviewed, bright colors and durable materials were both

mentioned as important elements.

While discussing the materials used, Mark Rosenschein of the

Architectural Team remarked "I was amazed at how destructive the kids can

be." Before you get images of children running around with bats, understand

that this his way of emphasizing the need for durable materials that could
bear rigorous activity. Lisa Lewis commented similarly on the need for

durable, easily replaceable building materials. This should also be common

practice for youth centers in the future.

I have specified interior design versus overall design for a number of

reasons. There is not a great difference in how many children use the center

based on its exterior fagade. Some of the most bland-looking clubhouses that

have had very little artistic interventions with exterior facades seem to hold

the same attractive power as those that have been brightly colored and

festively designed on the outside, such as the Chelsea Clubhouse. Aesthetic

beauty did not affect staff or children's responses, as it was never mentioned

in interviews.

However the look or feel of the building exterior, the clubhouses

consistently spent money and energy into renovating interior spaces. The

areas where this is most appropriate are rooms for teens. Though most

building architectural plans are reviewed primarily by staff, when renovating

rooms many clubhouses have involved teens in the look and feel of their

spaces. This is where most clubhouses have had "community input". They

have held focus groups and rigorously involved teens in not only stating what

they want but also gaining a sense of ownership of their space. Several teen

centers use variations of the overall clubhouse design; couches are often

black leather, and large, wide-screen TV's almost always are in these rooms.

These items add more appeal to the teen centers and add to the clubhouse's
 ability to draw teens, whom overall all clubhouses seem to want to attract and

retain within their system.

Another design element that has without question been standard

through the clubs has been the separation of teens from non-teens. Often,

they are in separate rooms, and teens are not held to the same rotation

schedule that the younger children are. If the building plans allowed for it,

the teen rooms are even further removed from the rest of the clubhouses'

activities and may even be in

Figure 5n:
The entrance different buildings. Several
to the teen
center is clubhouses have separate entrances
below grade at
the bottom
floor of the for teens into their specific spaces,
gymnasium
building even if they are in the same
adjacent to the
main
clubhouse. building as the others, which may

facilitate the feeling of exclusive ownership. The BGCB project manager,

Lisa Lewis, stated that this is a policy and design concept that they stand by.

Both teens and non-teens do not like to be associated with the other. The

non-BGCB clubhouses have also created separated spaces for teens. The

East Boston Clubhouse is in the middle of finishing up renovations for its

teen rooms. Father Crager expressed both the teens' and non-teens' delight at

this separation, which would enable both parties to enjoy their activities

without feeling encroached upon. Separate space, and even separate identity,

is needed for older age groups of youth.

Implications

The age appropriate interior design is important but holds lower priority than

the aforementioned variables. Age-sensitive design and circulation was

pursued in several of the clubhouses. Though it is ideal, it is not absolutely

necessary. Teens will always be given a room, even in the buildings that

were not expressly designed for separation between teens and non-teens. In

observing the clubhouses, many teens that were present during peak hours

mingled with the others in the computer rooms, basketball courts, and

education centers. Non-teen presence did not stop the usage of such spaces.

Also, teens happen to use the clubhouses at later hours; thus, even time acts

as a separator. It is valuable to give teens their own space, and this practice

should be pursued. However, even clubhouses that do not completely

delineated teen buildings will have teen rooms, fancy or not, that will be

used.

Also, age-appropriate interior design and coloring are often pursued

by designers to provide a cheery and vibrant atmosphere. Though this is

valuable, I did not see a difference in the numbers of children that use a

clubhouse or how they use the clubhouse, based on clubhouse interior design

and coloration. Age-appropriate interior design is also ideal, but should not

take priority over providing proper facilities and maximizing surveillance.

More important than coloration is material durability, which is needed for an

age group that is particularly unforgiving to delicate building materials.

Youth centers should take care to install materials that will stand wear and be

easily replaced.

5.7 The effect of good design

Design that matters seems to be linked mainly to appropriate initial

responses to building conditions, a future-oriented building owner

perspective, and surveillance maximization. A design that follows these

elements seems to lead to low maintenance, adequate facilities, and budgets

that can take dollars from capital improvements and apply them to programs

and people instead.

Chapter 6: Design Elements That Do Not Make a Difference

It was stated in the previous chapter that age-appropriate interior

design is an important element that affects how welcoming a youth center is,

particularly to teens. What seems to have no effect on use is the exterior

design of the clubhouse. Whether a clubhouse is brightly colored with

interesting faqade details or retains the exterior of old buildings that have not

been retouched since their construction, youth do not seem to hold such

variables into account when using a clubhouses. Either way, there is no

difference in the appeal of the clubhouse. In the survey of different

clubhouse staff, "inviting building architecture" scored a 3.16 out of 5 for its

importance in the clubhouses working well, the lowest ranking out of many

variables including safety and programs. Even those staff-persons who were

a part of clubhouses whose architects had won prizes for design did not view

the architecture to have a highly significant role in the clubhouse functioning

well. In addition, when interviewed, children never mentioned the look or

feel of the place.

The chart below lists the number of users that were found during peak

hours. There are some time differences; note that 4-5PM had the largest

number of youth recorded, which could affect the smaller numbers during

3PM.
 number of kids

200
180
160
140
120
100 U number of kids
Figure 6a: 80
The number of 60
kids using 40
each
20
clubhouse
during the time 0
of observation

Blue Hill Charlestown Chelsea Dan Marr Roxbury Salesian South Boston
time (PM) 4:30 5:45 5:00 4:00 4:00 3:30

Compare this user observation with the facades of clubhouses:

Clubhouse Exterior descriptions

Blue Hill The sole building visible on a large field
Located on a major road
One story
Grey masonry units, bright yellow and red entrance
Quasi-transparent hallway entrance fagade
Won the Halston Parker Prize for the most beautiful building
in Boston
Charlestown Building on a incline off of side streets
Banner stating BGCB uses visible from far away
Three story
Old, ornate building fagade on main clubhouse
Red brick on both buildings
An underground tunnel connects the two
Chelsea Building in a residential area near tennis courts
Colored blue, purple, orange, green
Has curved and non-rectilinear outside shapes
One and two story
Daniel Marr Located on a street parallel to a main road
Main building has no windows to the outside; concrete
Three story
Teen center colors: salmon, brown, fairly non-descript
Roxbury Located on major road
Brown brick, doors are blue; no transparency
Two story
Salesian Located in residential area
Old schoolhouse building; red brick
Poor building condition
Two and a half story
South Boston Located in residential area
Red brick and grey masonry units
Two story

The most colorful and playful clubhouse exterior did not correspond

with the highest number of peak-hour users. In fact, the clubhouse that had

the highest use during peak hours had very little relationship to the outside

other than its low-key entrance marked by the sign "Roxbury Boys & Girls

Club". Charlestown also had a high amount of use during peak hours.

Though its building fagade has an ornate stone portion to it, the only truly

visible part of the club is the banner with the clubhouse name emblazoned

across it. This sign is visible from many streets away and asserts a presence

of a BGC, even if the fagade itself is not very visible, as is the case with the

Blue Hill BGC.

Implications

This leads me to advise designers to spend the bulk of their

innovation and energy on the interior design of youth centers. Exterior

design does not seem to have much effect on how clubhouses are used;

facades are never mentioned by users, and staff themselves do not value
exterior architecture. Renovations have been for expansion and internal

facility repair. Regardless of the exterior building, youth will use the

clubhouse. Thus, designers should allocate appropriately the energy and

budget that is needed for interiors. Colors and shapes do not seem to make a

difference in use. Visibility of some sort, just knowing that the club is there

seems to be all that is needed at times. Thus, designers should not prioritize

exterior design above other variables.

 Chapter 7: Non-design Elements That Make a Difference

Good design is important, but design alone cannot create maximum

opportunity for youth center success. Programs, staff, and clubhouse policies

all affect how youth centers operate and how they take advantage of good

design or are hindered by inadequate design provisions. The variables in this

chapter are elements that I have observed to affect youth center opportunity.

Youth center organizers should take this observations into account as they

plan about how to make youth centers serve well their intended populations.

7.1 The relationship between staff and opportunity

Not a single clubhouse staff-person interviewed failed to mention the

staff and the relationships they have with youth as one of the most important

assets of the club and one of the main draws for the kids. Positive

relationships with adults, interaction with role models, learning from people

that care: these were all mentioned repeatedly in every interview. This in line

with the BGCA missions statement of helping youth to become better

citizens. Six out of the seven clubhouses voted a 5 out of 5 for the

importance of staff in their clubhouses working well, the seventh giving it a

4.
 The staff-persons interviewed, whether they were executive directors

or operations directors or in any other position, all had an uncanny ability to

remember kids' names as they walked around the clubhouse. I witnessed

little children running up to staff and junior staff, hugging them along their

legs. Older teens would nod once as a sign of acknowledgement and respect.

Admonishments about running, wearing headphones, or inappropriate

activity would be listened to quietly and with little questioning.

What Makes Your Clubhouse Work

Well?

3 -

Figure 7a: 2-
The number of
responses per 1
clubhouse
characteristic 0
when staff
were asked
"what makes .0i
your 6 4Z,
clubhouse '>
work well?"

Father Crager mentioned that the youth, if asked the question, would

"vote for staff with their feet". Several directors mentioned that treating the
youth, particularly the teens, with care and respect was crucial in keeping

them at the clubhouse and differentiating themselves from other places for

youth. Many of the youth interviewed, however, talked more about the

programs, opportunities to play sports or do homework, and avoiding street

danger before mentioning staff-persons when asked why they like it at the

clubhouses. It's very possible that they take that element as a given, tied so

much with the club that it does not occur to them to mention it as a separate

factor. Some teens, however, did mention that "they're very user-friendly

here" and "they (are) cool here".

There is an inextricable link between staff and programs. Teaching

backgrounds, experiences in working with youth, licenses, and flexible hours

are all needed for those in staff-positions, as many programs are dependent

on their planning and execution. Technology directors and staff, athletics

coordinators, art and music teachers, social workers, chefs, etc, all have their

set of activities to plan and a schedule to follow depending on the rigor of the

programming in the club. The average term for a full-time person is around 5

years. Many, though, have been there for over a decade. They know the

clubhouse; they have watched many youth grow into adulthood. This is

likely why interviewees so strongly advocated staff. Programs rely upon the

staff-person that runs them; without staff, a program dies. Two of the

clubhouses interviewed with large pools did not have them open because the

aquatics staff-person had left, and a search for a new teacher was in process.

If clubs had any discontinued activities, it was because they were specific
 programs such as a boxing club or an outdoors club that was reliant on staff

interests and abilities. Strong, committed staff are important to a youth

center working well.

More staff, more resources for staff, more funding for staff: almost all

the clubhouses interviewed mentioned some sort of resource addition to their

staff team as an item they would place on their wish list. "I wish we could

pay them more" or "I would give them better space and equipment to carry

out their activities" were common statements. Staff that left often did so

with major life changes such as marriage or the birth of a child, which creates

greater consumption and a demand for higher income the clubhouse cannot

Wish Lists

2 --

Figure 7b:
Frequency of
mentioned 4_,Z P)

wish list 0%
unlimited by -41 A
funding and -5 0
budgets 4? --

00
0(
 afford. Understaffing was a common perceived problem, regardless of how

busy the clubhouse seemed at the time of the interview.

Implications

Overall, staff support is the single most important element to budget for when

creating a place for youth. Having experienced, friendly, capable staff

operating at capacity is important for building relationships with youth, as

many of these clubhouses serve over a hundred children a day. What results

from having capable staff are strong programs, as they are only as effective

as the people that organize and lead them. While strong programs are

unequivocally important in youth centers functioning well, they cannot

survive without staff-persons running them effectively. Thus, youth centers

should invest energy into staff and providing staff with resources to run

programs.

7.2 The relationship between programs and opportunity

The difference between programmatic implementation across

clubhouses has been discussed in the previous sections. Thus, I will not enter

that part of the discussion again. What is important about programs is their

ability to draw youth to the center, regardless of how developed those

programs are.

"It's fun here" or "you get to do (activity X) here" were the two most

common answers that youth gave when asked why they like it at their

specific clubhouse. Many times, specific activities such as swimming,

 Why Do You Come Here? / Why Do
You Like It Here?
25

20

15 -

10 -

Figure 7c:
Responses '9 0
of youth o0

basketball, and fields trips were mentioned. Getting help with homework

was also a common response, though not nearly as popular as those having to

do with fitness recreation. The most common response among teens was "I

come to play ball" (meaning basketball). None of these reflect the specific

nature of programs other than that they are there.

When staff were asked how important they believed their programs

were to the success of their center, all responded with either a 4 or a 5 out of

5. Program resourcefulness, creativity, making it fun for the kids, keeping

interest in the clubhouse: these were all listed also as things that the

clubhouses did well.

The answers of staff and youth do not match up word for word;

however, they both show heavy value in the programs that are existent.

Whether or not those programs are highly developed seems to make no

difference in kids attending the clubhouses. The simple fact of the matter

seems to be that they are there, accessible. They stick out in the minds of

users. A common response among the youth was "I got nowhere else to go."

Thus, it seems that having a basic program involving various types of

recreation, games, and educational help is all that is needed to draw youth in.

Keeping them there, particularly the older teens, may be more of a challenge,

which is where program creativity and resourcefulness come in. Comments

about learning things that are not taught in the schools were also given.

Some clubhouses have junior staffing programs; other have college visitation

trips, and one even managed to organize a cultural exchange program to

Japan for thirteen girls. In addition to this, SAT preparatory classes,

substantial scholarships, and leadership-fostering forums are offered for

teens. These things should be considered as a youth center prioritizes

programs and their development.

Implications

Strong programs and fun activities seem to make heavy impacts on youth.

These programs seem to be dependent on staff abilities and availability.

 Thus, while having well-functioning programs are important, it is more

important to make sure that the staff who will run activities are provided.

7.3 The relationship between seasonal adaptability and opportunity

This is an important element of the clubhouses, but it is not clear how

to judge this capability without bias. The changing seasons come with

temperature differences and vacations, all which influence clubhouse activity.

The common shared statement from staff about youth activity was that "when

the weather gets nicer, you see less kids." They seem to find other places to

socialize, to have fun, as the warmer weather, longer days, and vacation times

permit. However, I think there are a number of factors to consider as

clubhouses think about how to adapt to seasonal differences; if youth being

on the streets means more trouble, this bodes poorly for the summer. In fact,

the BGCB responded to Mayor Menino's call and decreased its pre-summer

break period in order to open its doors earlier to youth. There are two aspects

to my recommendations: the physical and the programmatic. First, the

physical:

Many of the clubhouses do not have outdoor facilities. It makes sense

that brighter days causes one to crave more sunlight and outdoor activities;

teens in particular have a weaker showing

Figure 7d: during warmer weather. However, having
The pool at
the Blue Hill
BGC outdoor basketball courts and fields in

t Iwhich to engage in other types of

recreation or socialize outside might provide a safe space for youth to enjoy

the outdoors. As stated before, the asphalt courts surrounding the Salesian

Clubhouse, as visually unappealing as it might seem, were well-used because

of the basketball hoops and balls that the clubhouse provided. The weather

was beautiful that day. The Blue Hill Boys & Girls Club also has a covered

outdoor basketball court, as well as the outdoor swimming pool, which are

popular in the summer. Though outdoor playgrounds would also be a great

asset, the biggest concern seems to be in retaining teens during the warmer

weather.

The caveat is that due to the fact that the BGCA is held accountable

for all actions, youth are not allowed to use the facilities outside of clubhouse

hours. The Salesian clubhouse director told of how they used to leave a hole

in the fence for youth to climb through if they wanted to play basketball;

however, this was ill-received by the BGCA lawyers, and they have

discontinued that policy. Anita Sutton of the Roxbury Clubhouse remarked,

"No, they're not allowed to use the courts after hours. But they climb the

fence anyway." As it is impossible to be held accountable when are not

present, one resourceful policy may be to bring in the basketball hoops when

the clubhouses closes, a practice that the Daniel Marr Clubhouse follows.

It will be useful to think about what kind of appeal an indoor space

has, not in the mild weathers of spring and fall, but in the sweltering heat of

summer. Air conditioning and shade are both appealing characteristics that

clubhouses can have, particularly the newly renovated buildings.

 However, these physical recommendations must be accompanied by

some programmatic changes. As it stands, all the BGCB clubhouses change

their hours once the summer hits; they hold day camps that run from 8AM to

5PM, and the prices are much higher and charged per week or for two weeks.

The regularity of the clubhouse schedule is interrupted, and the prices, though

they can be subsidized by scholarships, becomes expensive, particularly for

low-income families.

clubhouse School year fee / year Summer fee

Blue Hill Clubhouse $25 $125/2 wks
Figure 7e:
Membership Charlestown Clubhouse $25 $140/2 wks
fees for Boys Chelsea Clubhouse $25 $240/7 wks
& Girls Clubs Daniel Marr Clubhouse $5 none
East Boston Clubhouse $10 $125/wk
Roxbury Clubhouse $25 $75/wk, teens free
South Boston Clubhouse $25 $100/wk

clubhouse School year hours Summer hours

Blue Hill Clubhouse 1-8PM, MF 8:30AM-6PM
Figure 7f:
Operation Charlestown Clubhouse 1-8PM, MF 9AM-4PM
hours of Boys Chelsea Clubhouse 2:30-9PM, MF 9AM-4PM
& Girls Clubs Daniel Marr Clubhouse 3-8:45PM, MF; 9AM- 9AM-11PM
5PM, S

East Boston Clubhouse 2:30-8:30PM, MF 7AM-6PM

Roxbury Clubhouse 12:30-8PM, MF 8:30AM-4:30PM
South Boston Clubhouse 2-9PM, MF 12-6PM

Of all the clubhouses interviewed, the Daniel Marr BGC was the only

one that did not charge a summer-specific fee overall, and the Roxbury

Clubhouse kept its summer programs free for teens. The Dan Marr

Clubhouse, as well as the Salesian Clubhouse, also doubled the amount of

time it was open in a day. This was unusual; all other clubs transferred their

100
7-8 hours of open school-year time into an earlier range of open hours. The

other aspect that the Daniel Marr Clubhouse differs in is that it does not

switch functions from a clubhouse into a day camp in the summer. Though it

has summer-specific programs and activities, it does not have a summer-day-

camp-identity into which almost all the BGCB clubhouses change. Of all the

clubhouses interviewed, the Roxbury Clubhouse was the only one that

reported having more kids use the clubhouse during the summer than during

the school year. It was interesting hearing Anita Sutton comment on the

composition of clubhouse users: "They're different kids. They're visiting

their grandparents, their parents; they're only here in the summer. And

there's a lot of more them. When the school year comes, it's all different

kids again." The majority of other clubhouses reported seeing the same kids,

but less of them. It should be explored how much of the neighborhood

family structure (grandfamilies, divorce rates, etc.) affects Roxbury's summer

influx, and similar summer admission fee waivers should be implemented for

teens to see what effect it has in attendance. Such study may yield better

answers for why Roxbury has higher attendance rates.

I question the statement that warmer weather creates minimal

attendance. Warm weather might, but hot, uncomfortable weather may draw

users. The clubhouses should study use during comfortable and

uncomfortable outdoor temperatures, particularly those that have centralized

air conditioning. Pricing, programmatic changes, and changed hours also

make me question whether it's just the warmer weather or the programmatic

101
changes that occur in the summer that change user patterns. Longer summer

hours translates into a need for more staff; many of the clubhouses expressed

a need for more staff. Staffing capacity, particularly in the summer, may

affect how youth value the center.

Another variable to explore is the role of transportation in decreased

summer hours. Many students reach the clubhouses by school-bus; these

buses stop running from their schools to the clubhouses in the summer. The

clubhouses that are reached by walking mostly also stated a decrease in

summer use; however, it would be valuable to see what percent of youth can

no longer access the clubhouse because of the discontinuation of a school bus

service during the summer. Thus, it can be expected that less youth will use

clubhouses during the summers, but the exact reasons remain to be explored

more in depth. Trial runs should be made as little variables as possible to test

whether or not youth really decrease their summer attendance based on warm

weather alone.

Implications

Seasonal adaptability is also ideal for a youth center, a Boys & Girls Club, to

serve its youth as a constant public space throughout the year. Having

outdoor facilities, affordable summer programs, and consistent summer hours

are key components of seasonal adaptability. However, outdoor facilities

should take a back-seat to indoor facilities, as it is the indoor facilities that

youth will be using for most of the year due to Boston's colder precipitous

climate. Outdoor facilities and programs and hours that are inviting to youth

102
 in the summer as well during the school are ideal, but they are luxuries

compared to what is most needed; a well-functioning, youth-friendly space

that operates well for most of the school-year. In addition, extensive summer

activity is reliant on summer staff; as it stands, many clubhouses report being

understaffed and are not at a point where they can think about additional

staffing concerns in the summer. Thus, unless a youth center is at a point

where it can afford to address such concerns, it should prioritize having full

staff capacity, good programs, maximum building surveillance, and best

possible facilities to provide a space for youth.

7.4 The relationship between accessibility and opportunity

Accessibility mostly means the physical aspect of the word; most

clubhouses did not rely on publicity to attract more club members, though

excellent public relations has helped the BGCB with raising support.

However, word of mouth and the clubhouses' general good repute seem to be

enough to draw a quorum of youth that will bring their friends to the

clubhouse.

Most youth walk to the clubhouses. When asked how the children get

to the clubhouses, the most common response was that they reach the places

by foot. Many are in close proximity to residences, such as the South Boston,

East Boston, and Daniel Marr clubhouses, which have residential buildings as

next-door neighbors. Thus, it is valuable to place a youth or community

oriented building within walkable distance to residences.

103
 The second most common answer was school-bus drop-offs. A

number of the clubhouses were special designated after-school destinations;

this was an arrangement that partnered with the public schools, executable

upon written parental consent. The South Boston Clubhouse and the Blue

Hill Clubhouse, for example, seemed to rely mostly on school-buses as mode

of arrival. The director of a clubhouse that did not have such a partnership

expressed frustration with the lack of coordination with the public schools in

the neighborhood; afternoon bus schedules were not allowed to deviate from

their norm, so that if the clubhouse were closed for a certain holiday, the

schoolchildren would still be dropped off in front of a building with closed

doors. Strong partnerships should exist with public schools concerning

transportation from schools to clubhouses. The public schools' busing

systems should also accommodate holiday schedule interventions.

It was interesting to note that a majority of the clubhouses served

mostly residents, even with the proximity of MBTA buses and subway

stations nearby. The Roxbury Clubhouse is located near a bus station, where

over twenty different lines converge at Dudley Station, and the Blue Hill

Clubhouse has a bus stop that runs frequently and stops right in front of the

clubhouse. These two clubhouses, along with the East Boston Clubhouse,

reported having a significant minority of non-residents use the clubhouses.

The Roxbury Clubhouse was the only one that mentioned the MBTA as a

significant mode of transportation. However, the Charlestown, Chelsea,

Daniel Marr, and South Boston Clubhouses reported mostly resident youth to

104
be its users, though all have either or both MBTA stations or bus stops

nearby.

However, the Chelsea clubhouse director stated as one of his wish list

items a desire to move the clubhouse to a location closer to the heart of the

neighborhood (if costs were not a limiting factor). As a visitor, I had the

most difficulty getting to this clubhouse. The bus that runs from the nearest

subway station to the bus stop closest to the clubhouse runs every 30-40

minutes, which is more than double the amount of time needed to wait at bus-

stops near other clubhouses. The clubhouse is not located near subway

stations, and an infrequent bus line is not conducive to patronage from non-

residents. All clubhouses, or community-oriented buildings, for that matter,

should be located near a mode of public transportation that runs on a frequent

and regular basis.

A number of the clubhouses have special shuttles or have tried a

clubhouse-supported transportation service. All of the BGCB clubhouses

have vans with the clubhouse insignias painted on the side. However, of

these, the Charlestown clubhouse is the only one that mentioned an active

drop-off service that is still in place. The other clubhouses had tried, but it

was too costly an expense to keep up with regularly. Regardless, a transport

system was another item that came up several times on directors' wish lists.

It seems to be a worthy investment, but only if several other programmatic

priorities within the clubhouse are met.

105
 Transportation means accessibility, and with a young patronage that

cannot drive, it becomes important that clubhouses are reachable by foot or

public transit. Parents cannot simply take off of work to drop their kids off

after-school one day; this is a costly demand to have on households that have

lower income averages. Thus, coordination with public schools, careful

planning of the location of buildings, and possible shuttle systems should be

pursued.

Implications

Accessibility is no doubt an important element to a clubhouse. Many of the

clubhouses placed in residential districts were walked to; those that weren't

were serviced heavily by school-buses and at times by public transportation.

Thus, though it is valuable to place a clubhouse near residential areas,

clubhouses do not necessarily rely on walking members to fill their facilities.

Partnerships with the public school busing systems are equally as important

for many of the clubhouses as the proximity of the physical clubhouse

buildings. These transport agreements can be made regardless of location.

Clubhouse directors should actively pursue agreements with the public

schools. Maximized accessibility will be fruitless, however, without a

facility that can hold the youth the school-buses bring.

7.5 The relationship between bureaucracy and opportunity

Bureaucracy seems like such a heavy, often disliked word. Yet, it is

interesting to compare the five clubhouses under one bureaucratic structure

106
versus the two that are more independent. There exist significant differences

in program and function between the two types.

The Boys & Girls Clubs of Boston is the umbrella organization that

encompasses the Charlestown, Chelsea, Blue Hill, Roxbury, and South

Boston Clubhouses. These clubhouses rely upon the funding raised by its

main Boston office, which draws upon support from federal, state, and

municipal grants and private donor contributions. Fundraisings galas and

dinners are organized by the office. Significant design projects and

renovations are handled at the BGCB level, though the individual clubhouses

have input, and special staff are dedicated to overseeing such projects to

completion. The burden of fundraising and distributing budget items is

shared between the main office and the clubhouse personnel.

Contrast this to the Daniel Marr Clubhouse and the East Boston

Clubhouse. They have different bureaucracies, but the difference is that they

lie outside of the BGCA. The Daniel Marr Clubhouse is associated with the

Marr Family, which set up the clubhouse in memory of the deceased colonel.

The daycare program within the clubhouse is virtually a full-fledged school;

none of the other clubhouses are anywhere close to serving 100 pre-schoolers

a day, nor do they have the trained personnel for such an endeavor. The day-

care program has earned considerable respect and is a major responsibility of

the clubhouse. Thus, the club functions in part as a business. The East

Boston Clubhouse is also different in that it is answerable to a religious

overseeing body, the Catholic order of Salesians in New York. The Salesians

107
provide two staff and their salaries, as well as significant funding for the

budget. Both Clubhouses receive the federal BGCA grants and United Way

support; as for other grants from private donors and city awards, they need to

research such things themselves.

The BGCB clubhouses share similar programs and interest-specific

groups within each clubhouse. Each clubhouse lists an expansive list of

programs offered in similarly colored green bulletins. The Daniel Marr

clubhouse has a number of the same facilities, but not as many smaller

groups such as a leadership forum, a step team, and an outdoors club. The

East Boston Clubhouse did not have a listing of its programs; it followed its

activities by what was going on each room designated for a specific activity.

It has a noticeably smaller number of programs.

Upon visitation, I noticed that the primary draw of the non-BGCB

clubs was based around social and athletic recreation. I did not see many

youth in the computer rooms or the education rooms. In the BGCB

clubhouses, there were always significant numbers of youth, approximately

20-30% of the total users, in the education facilities. This may be the result of

more rigorous programming and staffing priority of tutors and teachers, all of

which is likely to be emphasized more by the BGCB. Since educational aid

is desired in enhancing the lives and future potential of youth, it will be

valuable to view how the BGCB budgets for and provides educational

programs.

1OR
 BGCB-based bureaucracy also seems to yield programs such as

opportunities for junior staff (teens who enter into positions for

responsibility), a program followed more informally by the other clubhouses.

The BGCB has entered into a number of partnerships with nearby institutions

such as the Museum of Fine Arts, Massachusetts Institute of Technology's

Media Lab. CityYear, Boston Community Learning Centers, and Boston

Centers for Youth and Families. This has translated into fields trips,

partnerships with community-oriented events, and access to institutional art

and technology. The coordination of one body with these many groups most

likely facilitated the ease with which the five clubhouses could benefit from

these partnerships. Thus, the responsibility of such coordination is again

lifted upon individual clubhouse personnel and transferred to a main office,

allowing clubhouse staff to worry other things, such as investing in the youth.

However, bureaucracy isn't necessarily the ideal in all respects. One

distinction to notice is that the two clubhouses that are open on Saturdays as

well as during the week are the two non-BGCB clubhouses. This is not a

factor of budget, as some of the other clubhouses have individual budgets that

are two or three times as large. The Saturday clubhouses are the ones that

also have significantly lower membership fees. The reasoning has been that

membership fees generate fairly insignificant revenue compared to what is

needed for clubhouse budgets. It is not necessarily a factor of staff either, for

the Daniel Marr Clubhouse has an abundance of staff-people while the East

Boston Clubhouse has a staff body that is much lower than the average. In

109
particular, the Daniel Marr clubhouse does not deviate to summer day-camp

costs that all the other six clubhouses follow. This may be because of a

greater staff capacity. Overall, however, it seems to be a programmatic

priority. If youth are to be "kept off the streets", how do consistently empty

Saturdays without access to a clubhouse work to fulfill that goal? Some of

the clubhouses in the BGCB have tried Saturday openings with limited

attendance; others have not and want to give it a try. As with my warning

about summer attendance being linked to transportation, this too may be the

case on Saturdays for some that cannot reach the clubhouse by foot. It

requires more investigation into the link between transportation and

attendance on Saturdays. The goal also may not be to have the same number

of kids as during the weekday, but to have a steady quorum of youth that

come and would have no place to go otherwise.

Nonetheless, there are trade-offs to consider. A centralized

bureaucratic system seems to lead to more developed programs at a higher

cost, resulting in higher membership fees and limited days of availability. A

more independent clubhouse seems to have less developed programs at lower

cost and greater availability. Thus, youth or community centers should keep

this in mind in planning for a new building.

Implications

Bureaucracy is not a neccessity. A completely independent youth center may

open its doors in a neighborhood and be responsible, from top-to-bottom, for

funding, program, staffing, etc. What is beneficial from a bureaucratic entity

110
 is a organization of funding efforts that an office, not individual clubhouse

personnel, is responsible for. This allows clubhouse to focus on youth and

programs. In the case of a bureaucratic body that is responsible for the

construction of several youth centers, it may have a wealth of knowledge and

precedents that will equip it better to converse with designers and contractors

as buildings are created or renovated. However, bureaucracy is expensive;

higher membership fees and staff budget costs may occur. A youth center

may or may not choose to be part of a bureaucratic entity; in the case of the

BGCB, it is experienced and practiced in its field, so it may seem a worthy

investment.

7.6 The relationship between neighborhood risk and opportunity

This might seem a strange relationship to follow. Neighborhood risk

and crime are not desirable things; yet, they are all consistent conditions that

each of the clubhouses face. The previous neighborhood background chapter

showed high likelihood of crime in each of these neighborhoods that the

clubhouses call home.

When teens were asked why they come to the clubhouse, here were a

couple responses:

"To stay out of trouble."

"To stay off the streets."

"I don't want to be out there on the streets."

111
 One teen in the Roxbury clubhouse, when asked why she comes to the

clubhouse, looked at me and started methodically reciting, "I come here to

enrich myself...", at which the junior staff-person showing me around

sharply remarked, "Be real (insert name). Don't tell her what you think she

wants to hear. Tell her why you're here." At this, the girl paused, looked at

me again, laughed and said, "Alright, so I come here because I don't want to

be out there on the streets. And you know when I'm on the streets, it's no

good." She also mentioned basketball, future opportunities, and hanging out

with friends as additional factors.

The frequency of these responses leads me to believe that the risk

associated with a neighborhood, of being out there on the streets, drives

many to find a safe haven away from the streets. The Boys & Girls Clubs

provide just that. Some of the teen responses were hesitant; others were

immediately volunteered. Regardless, many gave answers that valued the

safety and distance they have from out there. This, coupled with other

variables of caring staff, facilities, and programs, seem to be important in

keeping youth in the clubhouses.

Safety received the highest marks from staff: all seven voted a 5 out

of 5 for the importance of safety in a clubhouse working well. When asked

what they do well, many replied "we're a safe-haven". They'd point to the

crack-house or gang-house down the street and imply that the bounds of the

safe-haven are sharply within their property only. Violence and poor

behavior is not tolerated in the clubhouses. Sometimes temporary

112
suspensions are exercised on those that bully other youth or act out of line;

other clubs have a three-strikes-you're-out policy.

It seems that neighborhood risk and crime creates an ideal situation

where youth centers may function well because it drives youth who wish for

a different pastime and environment away from the streets into the

clubhouses. It is this environment in which the BGCA wishes to engage and

make a difference. They are putting themselves in the right places.

Implications

Neighborhood risk is not a necessary ingredient for a successful youth center.

Youth centers may exist in neighborhoods that do not have high risk

associated with them; it is more the specific mission of the BGCA that

requires clubhouses to serve at-risk, lower-income youth. It seems that when

a clubhouse is located in high-risk neighborhood, it becomes a safe-haven as

well as a recreation and education center, which is an attractive element for

those who wish to stay away from trouble. Thus, coupled with other

elements of friendly staff, good programs, etc., neighborhood risk acts as a

catalyst for youth center use. One can predict then, that a youth center in a

high-risk area is likely to have youth visit its facilities for the safe

environment it provides.

113
114
 Chapter 8: Recommendations

8.1 Design that matters

The findings regarding the importance of programmatic elements of

youth centers, such as activities, staff, and accessibility, are not surprising.

Programs are dependent on the people who run them and often times can only

be as good as their managers. Accessibility as a variable also seems to be an

intuitively obvious characteristic of importance. A beautifully designed

clubhouse without capable management and programs will never succeed as

a magnet for youth activity without ensuring that youth can enter the

clubhouses as safe havens of enjoyable activity and memorable relationships.

What is interesting is that in the quest to discover if design truly

makes a difference, a multi-faceted approach to interior design was found to

significantly impact the usability and management of a clubhouse, while

architectural elements involving the exterior seem to have no effect on youth

centers. In a nutshell, this seems to indicate that the inside, not the outside,

matters.

This is strange to conclude in light of the fact that many of the newest

clubhouses, such as the Blue Hill Clubhouse and the Chelsea Clubhouse,

have substantial material and coloration to make the exteriors as visually

pleasing as possible. The Chelsea Clubhouse stands out as a brightly colored

blue, purple, orange and green mass of curved and angular shapes in the

middle of a grey and brick neighborhoods. The Blue Hill Clubhouse's bright
yellow and red entrance hail all as they approach the sole building that

occupies a large field.

Yet, these clubhouses do not vary in user frequency from those that

have brown or red brick non-descript buildings with limited transparencies.

In fact, the clubhouse with the highest recorded use during peak hours was

the Roxbury Clubhouse, which has been part of an expansion or renovation

project in the past four decades. Both the Roxbury and Daniel Marr

buildings are large, rectangular buildings who exterior solidness of materials

and limited interaction with the outside strike in viewer on approach.

What is the difference? The Roxbury and Daniel Marr clubhouse

were built during eras when the city was considered the worst of social evils.

White flight, a rise in crime, and ethnic minority concentration were all

associated with both Roxbury and Dorchester. Housing depreciation and the

lack of public funds that come with a lower income tax base all had a part in

decreasing the value of these neighborhoods' public services. If anything, the

limited interaction that these two clubhouses have with the outside indicates

that these clubhouses were built to be safe havens, tiny community centers

for youth tucked away from the "mess" of the city. The Daniel Marr main

building is solid concrete, no windows. Its entrance is hardly inviting; one

gets the impression that once entered, nothing from the outside, including a

stray bullet, can pierce through those walls.

The Chelsea and Blue Hill Clubhouses were built very recently.

Community meetings were held, and significant processes were undertaken

116
 to ensure that the clubhouses could serve their youth well and also at times

serve the community for different meeting functions. There is something

about the clubhouses that suggest that they are flagship buildings, particularly

the monolithic Blue Hill Clubhouse. The pressures behind designing a

clubhouse, a youth center, may be very different today that they were decades

ago. What used to be enclosed, deaf-and-blind-to-the-world safe-haven

buildings are now community markers; symbolism, community meaning, and

other such design pressures are behind designers and owners as such

buildings are being established. Though this is another thesis topic that

cannot be answered in this paper, have such design requirements for internal

community spaces really helped to increase the opportunities present in

facilities? Within this paper, such design developments that have

increasingly involved the exterior seem to make no difference.

8.2 Designing future youth centers: the Roxbury Clubhouse model

If there were to exist such a thing as the most valuable player award

for clubhouse buildings, I would give it to the Roxbury Clubhouse. This is

not to undervalue the work and success of all other clubhouses; they all are

part of a team of youth centers working towards the same purpose. In terms

of a clubhouse that distinguishes itself, especially in the categories previously

discussed, I propose following the model of the Roxbury Clubhouse.

Maintenance has been low and expansions non-existent in the

Roxbury Clubhouse. Considering that more recent clubhouses have

117
expanded or are undergoing plans of expansion, this difference is striking.

Though it is likely tied to the executive director's priorities, the clubhouse is

under the same BGCB bureaucracy of which the expanded clubhouses are a

part. Thus something beyond the program and budgeting, something in the

design of the space, has helped to keep capital improvement costs low and

thus free up more budget space for programs and staff. This is valuable and

such be emulated.

The ease of surveillance in the clubhouse is also one of the best. The

open atrium and glass interior walls allow staff to view multiple rooms and

activities at once. During rotations, the bustle of users gives the atrium

hallway an ambience of intense activity, contributing to a feeling of

community. Staff offices look into rooms through glass walls on both sides,

and youth are hard pressed to find spaces to cause trouble unsupervised.

The clubhouse was also built with pool and gym facilities that meet

today's standards, even after nearly forty years. This indicated a designer

and owner perspective that allowed for large, future-oriented spaces. The

expansion that the Roxbury Clubhouse is slated for is not due to small pool or

gym size, as was the case with the South Boston and Charlestown

expansions. It is because the clubhouses simply needs more space in general

to serve its intense use overall. This clubhouse had the highest peak hour use

and all of its rooms were well used during times of observation.

11 R
 The Roxbury Clubhouse also is located near frequently running public

transportation and has many school buses drop off youth after school. The

physical and programmatic accessibility of this clubhouse should be imitated.

As for seasonal adaptability, this clubhouse was also the sole

clubhouse that saw more use in the summer. Particularly in neighborhoods

were crime is high, youth centers should be creative in attracting users during

summer hours. Further studies should be done to determine what about the

Roxbury Clubhouse has enabled it to keep its appeal during summer hours.

Overall, the Roxbury Clubhouse is a youth center that maximizes

surveillance, minimizes maintenance and expansion needs, and attracts users

continually successfully. It has been able to offer a variety of innovative and

appealing programs to its youth. This example is valuable in future designs

of youth centers.

8.3 Relevance to community centers

This paper began with a discussion of current debate about the

relevance and importance of public spaces. It introduced community centers

as privatized, indoor public spaces and youth centers as a specialized form of

community meeting space. What I hoped to gain from this research were

recommendations from observations about youth centers that could then be

applied to the more general category of community facilities.

Chapters five through seven discussed the applications that designers

and youth center organizers can pursue from these findings. However, are

119
these conclusions still relevant to other centers of communal activity, for

public space even? The analyses of the previous chapters are still applicable,

but may have different degrees of relevance.

What is necessary in a tightly controlled, high-surveillance,

extensively programmed youth center may not be needed in community

facilities. Community centers require less surveillance than what is exerted

in watching over youth; outdoor public spaces require even less control and

surveillance other than the natural, informal ones formed by friends, family,

and neighbors that use the outdoor spaces. Community centers and outdoor

public spaces may actually require some private, less transparent spaces that

allow intimate, low visibility meetings to happen. Thus, this variable does

not have the same weight it held before.

Also, since it is possible that community centers are less dependent on

programs led by trained supervisors and more open to peer management and

elected or volunteered personnel, the emphasis on capable staff may also be

to a lesser degree. In the case of outdoor spaces, it may be more important to

establish a consistent maintenance crew and system to ensure the constant

visual beauty of the public space. Staff-persons are still important, but they

may be responsible for different things.

Appropriate facilities and spaces are always necessary, though it may

be more unpredictable to determine exactly what is appropriate, as some

community centers may desire recreation spaces, while others will advocate

for health facilities, or others may ask for meeting spaces. Outdoor spaces

120
may contain gardens, tot-lots, or plazas, but they may not be used for a

number of reasons, such as an unforgiving climate, dangerous neighborhood

conditions, or litter. Thus, it is more difficult to determine what is needed in

such spaces because no set formula is the answer.

Programs are also important for places such as community centers;

however, they may not be dependent on rigorous programming, and those

programs may be less dependent on facilities and staff. Senior citizens can

play bridge and bingo in a variety of rooms; informal health clinics can

happen in gyms or meetings spaces. Community centers have the potential to

serve a wider audience; this widening of a target population makes the

facilities and programming needed more flexible and open-ended.

In terms of buildings, it seems wise for community centers to be

unrestricted by their initial conditions. They may face expansion needs in

ways that I am not equipped to answer in this document; however, it is likely

that an understanding and friendly building owner perspective is desirable,

since it may be possible to plan for a community center that will be less likely

to be hindered by maintenance and expansion issues with the support of the

building owner.

It is also questionable whether or not age-appropriate design and

circulation are applicable to community centers and public spaces. It seems

wise to separate children from adults in community centers, and those places

can go even further to separate teens from non-teens. Outdoors spaces can

follow natural delineation by the use of playgrounds and tot-lots.

121
 Accessibility is an important aspect that all facilities and spaces

should have. Community centers should also look into having school-bus

drop-offs if they have the capacity to hold so many children. Placing parks,

plazas, and neighborhood-use buildings within residential walking distance or

near frequently running transit systems is a desirable practice to follow.

Seasonal adaptability is a characteristic that very few open spaces,

with the exception of a few such as Rockefeller Plaza, have. However,

designers of both indoor and outdoor neighborhood spaces should consider

how seasonal changes will affect use and what programs and policies should

accompany the use of such spaces. Ice-skating and sledding could happen in

a park. Community centers may have to understand, like youth centers, what

they can do in the warmer weathers to serve its constituents. However, since

a drop in visits is not necessarily a negative indication as it can be for the

clubhouses interviewed here, seasonal adaptability may not be as important a

consideration to follow.

Bureaucracy is again an element that does not need to exist in

community centers, though it is probably necessary in public outdoor spaces.

The same observations of the pros and cons of bureaucracy involving youth

centers apply here.

Neighborhood risk may make a beautiful open space an undesirable

place. The tennis courts across from the Chelsea Clubhouse were not used

because of illegal activity that occurs there. For open spaces, high

neighborhood risk may make such places unusable and unfriendly to

122
neighborhood residents. The same risk that drives youth to youth centers

may also spur residents to use a community center. That also remains to be

explored.

Conclusion

Design makes a tangible difference. I have found this satisfying answer, the

opposite of my hypothesis, as I studied these clubhouses. This conclusion is

also welcome because it suggests that good design is also valuable to lower

income communities, something I had been doubtful of at the start of this

thesis. I invite the reader to explore how else design makes a difference in

spaces for community activity.

123
124
 Works Cited

Bolotnick et all. Recreation Facilities. Publications in Architecture & Urban

Planning. University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee: Milwaukee 1984.

Childs, Mark C. Squares: A Public Place Design Guide for Urbanists.

University of Mexico Press: Albuquerque. 2004

Grant, Jill. The drama of democracy: contention & dispute in community

planning. CanadianJournalof Urban Research. Winnipeg: Dec
1995. Vol. 4, Iss. 2; p. 334.

Grant, Jill. Next generation neighborhoods: finding a focus for planning

residential environments. CanadianJournalof Urban Research.
Winnipeg: Dec 1997. Vol. 6, Iss. 2; p. 111.

Hajer, Maarten and Reijndorp, Arnold. "In search of New Public Domain."
NAi Publishers: Rotterdam, 2001

Harper, Jonathan. Community Center. Lambda Book Report. Washington:

Oct 2002. Vol. 11, Iss. 3; p. 43

Hester, Randolph T. Neighborhood Space. Stroudsburg: Dowden,

Hutchinson & Ross, Inc. 1975.

Hester, Randolph T. Planning Neighborhood Space with People. Van

Nostrand Renhold Company: New York. 1984.

Kuo, Frances, William Sullivan, Rebekah Levine Coley, and Liesette

Brunson. 1998. Fertile ground for community: Inner-city
neighborhood common spaces. American Journalof Community
Psychology. 26, 6: 823-5 1.

Lackney, Jeffrey A. and Moore, Gary T. Educational Facilities for the

Twenty-First Century: Research Anaylsis and Design Patterns.
Publicationsin Architecture and Urban PlanningResearch. R94-1,
1994.

Madanipour, Ali. Public and Private Spaces of the City. Routledge: New
York. 2003.

MEXICAN COMMUNITY CENTER. All Things Considered.Washington,

D.C.: Nov 24, 1997. p. 1.

125
Moore, Gary T. et al. Recommendations for Child Care Centers. Children's
Environment Project: Milwaukee. 1979

Talen, Emily. The Problem with Community in Planning. Journalof

PlanningLiterature. Columbus: Nov 2000. Vol. 15, Iss. 2; p. 171-
175.

Whyte, William. The Essential William H. Whyte. Fordham University

Press: New York 2000.

Whyte, William. City. Doubleday: New York 1988.

126
Asian 44280 761 1626 3788 6066 355 1553 1166

other 9732 46 999 1931 2360 1964 511 120

white 42.24% 1 38.27% 1 35.59% 1 30.02' 4.84 49.67 1 84.52%-o

Appendix A: Race Statistics for Boys & Girls Club Neighborhoods

 Appendix B: Population Statistics for Boys & Girls Club Neighborhoods

spalding data

national 2.6 36.5 $38,353 $126,047 63.40% 3 3.2 36.5

61.00% ?7 3.3 36.7
Charlestown 2 33.9 $57,287 $297,400 29.40% 7 7 33.9
Chelsea 2.6 31.4 .$41,220 $157,700 26.90% 7 7 31.4
Dorchester 2.8 29.6 $36,853 $135,500 21.00% 8 7 29.6
2.3

IRoxbury 2 33 $40,488 $204,100 17.10% 77 1 6 1 33 1

Tuncuion

What facilities does your center have?

pool X x x

wour%-out rUUm1

art room x x
education roomabX X x x

science room/ lab x

auai1orium

musc room

teen room

ea center x
x X x x
ncng sproes
snack/kitchen room x X x x

sociai worKer

chapel

Appendix C: Existing facilities

 Appendix D: Hours and Terms of Use

i ne center is usea more in...

s- field trips different kids

2-3PM

6-PM

6-7PM*
x x X

............................................

When are your "quiet" hours? How many kids are there during those hours?

x x
6-7PM

8-9PM
teen center is
unpredictable
How many staffpersons work at the center?
paid staffpersons (full) 15 15 13 40 30 4 16
paid staffpersons (part) 10 3 80 20 6
some of the
junior 10 above 96-7 j
volunteer staffpersons: 20-25 30 tutors 20-22 42530-40 150
more than half 20 senior
70-80 volunteers special events citizens umpires, etc
15 of them are steady weekly presence
How long does the average staffperson work at the center?
full time 3-5 years 10+ yrs 5-6yrs 16 yrs 5 years 3 yrs 16 yrs
volunteer 1 year
subscribe to
Salesian
What qualifications must a staffperson have in order to work dept head- BA prventive depends on
with youth? check interview exp with kids alums come in- needed system position
CORI-checked degrees-certs good sense of what's going on
depends on dep't connect with kids
people in comm- often don't have degrees
Do you have a board? y y y
local
how many 30businesspeople
in the past, had
5-6, including lawyers,
boston police, construction, biz, teachers,
CEO's from accountants, former club
community expertise, community, insurance members,
Who makes up the board? centers influence no parents business community agents-- parents
don't raise money that well, but
parents on board? commissioner O'toole parents exert pol. Influence
good board- very active

Appendix E: Staff Capacities

 Appendix F: Capacity & Assets

under x x X x x
at x x x
over
1 yr- for kids, 400 kids?
is there a wait list? 2 months no ione for teens jVVait list

accepted kids at niqht always could take more kids5

How does your youth center work well?

strong programs 112

Resourcefulness, creativity 1 1
staff relationship with kids, role models 1 1 1 1 1 5
safe haven 1113
it's a home, welcoming 112
keeps kids interested 1 1

average
enough space for programs 5 4 4 4 1 5 4 3.86
inviting building architecture 3 4 3 3 2 3 4 3.14
accessibility (transportation) 4 5 5 4 5 4 4 4.43
safety 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5.00
technology resources 4 4 2 4 5 4 4 3.86
programs 5 5 4 5 5 4 4 4.57
ample funding & support 5 5 5 5 4.5 3.5 4 4.57
good publicity 4 4 2.5 4 3.5 3 3 3.43
staff 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 4.86
other:
What are three items you would put on a wish list for the center? total

bigger budget 1 1

more space/bigger building 1 1 2

better location 1 1

transportation for kids 1 1 2

fully staffed 1 1 1 1 4

more resources for staff 1 1 1 1 4

outdoor facilities 1 1 1 3

more resources for kids 1 1 2

renovations 1 1

Appendix G: Wish Lists

 Appendix H: Interviews with Youth

Blue Hill Charlestown Chelsea Dan Marr Koxbury 6alesian southi boston
User-friendly 1 1
learn how to do things 1 2 1 4
facilities 3 3 1 1 8
fun activities 3 4 3 5 1 3 19
don't want to be on streets/in trouble 3 3 1 7
have nothing else to do 5 5
like a home, been here since xxxx 1 1 2
fun with friends 2 2 1 4 3 5 17
like to do activity X 2 3 10 1 2 4 22
can do homework 1 1 1 1 5 9
staf 1 2 1 2 6
parent tells her she has to 1 1
don'tknow 1 1 2

Blue Hill Charlestown Chelsea Dan Marr Roxbury Salesian South Boston
number of kids 161 129 100 190 91 55
time of note 4:30 PM 5:45 PM 5:00 PM 4:00 PM 4:00 PM 3:30 PM