Summary Report
Ad hoc Grove Committee
April 6, 2004

Over the course of five meetings, the ad hoc Grove Committee identified the needs of youth in the community, identified possible providers to meet the identified needs and identified four options to provide services and programs in the Grove that meet the identified needs of Ashland youth.

The common thread throughout the meetings was the importance of teens having a "voice" in the programs and services that will be offered in the Grove.

Identify the needs of youth in the community
• Provide services to all teens
• Provide services to teens exclusively
• Provide basic social needs for teens
• Provide recreational services to teens
• A teen advisory board to review/evaluate programming/management
• A place where teens can connect with healthy adult mentors
• Create something we don't have, unique to Ashland

Other
• Teen shelter
• Food bank
• Basic services for homeless teens

Identify Providers
The following organization names were identified but there was not consensus with the group that these providers could meet the needs listed above.
• YMCA
• Youth for Christ
• Kids Unlimited (or similar model)
• Community Organization as yet unformed to provide a collage of services for a custom designed teen center.

Identify a Range of Options
1) One organization assumes responsibility for entire program.
0000Pros
0000• Turnkey operation
0000• Quick timeline
0000Cons
0000• May not completely meet the needs as identified by the committee.

2) City hires staff to coordinate partnerships and programs
0000Pros
0000• Staff is on-site during facility hours to coordinate and facilitate services
0000and programs
0000• Allows time for another the Community Organization to form
0000Cons
0000• It is expensive to hire staff

3) Community organization/agencies coordinate a program.
0000Pros
0000• Thorough evaluation of teen needs in Ashland
0000•Establishes buy-in and partnerships
0000Cons
0000• Potentially long timeline
0000• Building remains unused during the planning stages

4) City uses the senior center model and permanently runs the Grove.
0000Pros
0000• Allows City control of building activities
0000• Long term funding source for the facility
0000Cons
0000• The City has no expertise in this field.
0000• Likely more expensive to run than by a non-profit (higher wages,
0000benefits etc.)

Final Recommendation
The recommendation of the committee is a combination of option #2 (modified to include parks rather than the city) and option #3 to be implemented in two phases.

End of Document - Back to Top