The words you are searching are inside this book. To get more targeted content, please make full-text search by clicking here.
Discover the best professional documents and content resources in AnyFlip Document Base.
Search
Published by marcbmorgan, 2020-01-14 19:58:49

2017 November Boost Final Report

Boost Report Final November 2017

BOOST! Bridging Youth
Enrichment Programs
from the Community to
Waterbury Public
Schools, a pilot

2017

Kris R. Noam, Ph.D.
Chemay Morales-James, Ed.M

© Bridge to Success, November 2017

B T S - Boost! A pilot in four Waterbury public schools P a g e ii

B T S - Boost! A pilot in four Waterbury public schools P a g e iii

Boost!

Bridging Youth Enrichment Programs from the Community to
Waterbury Public Schools, a pilot

Bridge to Success Community Partnership (BTS)

With special gratitude to the principals and parent liaisons in each of the four Boost! pilot schools for all
their collaboration, cooperation, and hours of support.

Prepared by:
Kris R. Noam, Ph.D.

© BTS, 2017

B T S - Boost! A pilot in four Waterbury public schools P a g e iv

CONTENTS

CONTENTS .............................................................................................................................................................................IV

TABLES AND FIGURES ..........................................................................................................................................................VI
Figures ........................................................................................................................................................................... vi
Tables ............................................................................................................................................................................ vii

1. BACKGROUND................................................................................................................................................................1
1.1 Bridge to Success ..................................................................................................................................................1
1.2. The Boost! Model.................................................................................................................................................1
1.3 This Report .............................................................................................................................................................2

2. STUDENTS IN WATERBURY..........................................................................................................................................3
2.1 Demographics ........................................................................................................................................................3
2.2 Academic Achievement......................................................................................................................................4
2.3 Chronic Absenteeism ..........................................................................................................................................6
2.4 Absenteeism and Grades ...................................................................................................................................6

3. THE BOOST! SCHOOLS ..................................................................................................................................................8
3.1 The Schools .............................................................................................................................................................8
3.2 School Populations...............................................................................................................................................8
3.3 Academic Achievement in the Four Schools ..............................................................................................9
3.4 Absenteeism in the Schools ...........................................................................................................................11

4. THE BENEFITS OF AFTER-SCHOOL PROGRAMS ......................................................................................................12
4.1 The Evidence .......................................................................................................................................................12
4.2 School Engagement...........................................................................................................................................12
4.3 Improving Behavior..........................................................................................................................................13
4.4 Academics Improvement................................................................................................................................13
4.5 Benefits for Caregivers ....................................................................................................................................14

5. BRINGING BOOST! TO WATERBURY.........................................................................................................................15
5.1 What is Boost!?...................................................................................................................................................15
5.2 Asset Maps ...........................................................................................................................................................16
5.3 Outcomes of the Asset Mapping Process..................................................................................................17

6. STUDENTS’ SURVEYS .................................................................................................................................................19
6.1. Students’ Background and Demographics..............................................................................................19
6.2 Currently Attending After-school Program.............................................................................................20
6.3 Hanging Out with Friends ..............................................................................................................................21
6.4 Going Home or Somewhere Else .................................................................................................................21

7. CAREGIVERS’ SURVEYS ..............................................................................................................................................24
7.1. Caregivers’ Background & Demographics ..............................................................................................24

B T S - Boost! A pilot in four Waterbury public schools Page v

7.2. Household Situation ........................................................................................................................................25

8. INTEREST IN AFTER-SCHOOL PROGRAMS................................................................................................................30
8.1 Students’ Interest in After-school Programming ..................................................................................30
8.2 Students’ Specific Interests............................................................................................................................30
8.3 Students Estimating their Caregivers Interests.....................................................................................32
8.4 Caregivers’ Interests in After-school Programming ............................................................................33
8.5 Caregivers’ Specific Interests........................................................................................................................34

9. BENEFITS OF AFTER-SCHOOL PROGRAMS...............................................................................................................36
9.1 Benefits for Caregivers ....................................................................................................................................36
9.2 Benefits for Child, Caregiver Identified.....................................................................................................36
9.3 Scientifically Proven Benefits of After-school Programs ...................................................................37
9.4 Family Participation in After-school Programs .....................................................................................38

10. CONCLUSION ..........................................................................................................................................................39
10.1 Summary.....................................................................................................................................................39
10.2 Conclusion..................................................................................................................................................40
10.3 Next Steps...................................................................................................................................................41

SOURCES ..............................................................................................................................................................................43
Cited Sources ..............................................................................................................................................................43
Additional Resources ..............................................................................................................................................45

APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................................................................46
Appendix I: Student Survey Questions .............................................................................................................46
Appendix III: Caregiver Survey Questions ......................................................................................................50

B T S - Boost! A pilot in four Waterbury public schools P a g e vi

TABLES AND FIGURES

Figures

Figure 1 Indicators of academic achievements ....................................................................................................5
Figure 2 Chronic absenteeism by ethnicity and race, SY2016-17.................................................................6
Figure 3 Correlations between chronic absenteeism and Smarter Balanced tests, by grade ............7
Figure 4 Ethnic/racial background of students and teachers/staff in the four schools.......................9
Figure 5 ELA, % students at or above proficiency level, SY15-16 .............................................................10
Figure 6 Percent chronic absent students, Schools and state trend .........................................................11
Figure 7 Scientifically proven benefits of attending an afterschool program .......................................12
Figure 8 Phases of the Boost! process...................................................................................................................16
Figure 9 Number of programs offered by time of day ....................................................................................18
Figure 10 Students’ ethnic/racial identity ..........................................................................................................19
Figure 11 Activities after school is over...............................................................................................................20
Figure 12 Who hang out with friends and where do they go? ....................................................................21
Figure 13 Others present at the location students go after school............................................................22
Figure 14 After school activities more than half of the students engage in at home..........................23
Figure 15 Ethnic/racial identity of caregivers...................................................................................................24
Figure 16 Language(s) spoken at home ...............................................................................................................25
Figure 17 Household members ...............................................................................................................................26
Figure 18 House status ...............................................................................................................................................26
Figure 19 Number of identified basic needs.......................................................................................................27
Figure 20 Basic needs that caregivers identified..............................................................................................28
Figure 21 Hours worked ............................................................................................................................................29
Figure 22 Students' interest in after-school programs, by race/ethnicity .............................................30
Figure 23 Students' estimation of their caregivers’ interest in afterschool programs......................32
Figure 24 Days of the week kids attend after-school program ...................................................................33
Figure 25 Reasons for not being interested in after-school programs ....................................................34
Figure 26 Caregiver identified benefits for child when attending afterschool .....................................36
Figure 27 Caregivers’ preferred academic outcomes impacted by afterschool programs ..............37
Figure 28 Caregiver would volunteer at afterschool program....................................................................38

B T S - Boost! A pilot in four Waterbury public schools P a g e vii

Tables

Table 1 Demographics of the four pilot schools and district1 ........................................................................8
Table 2 Average number of current services and potential students served........................................17
Table 3 Surveyed students, by school...................................................................................................................19
Table 4 Attending an after-school program at least once a week..............................................................20
Table 5 Differences between students and who they are with ...................................................................22
Table 6 After-school program interests by race/ethnicity and gender ...................................................31

1. BACKGROUND

1.1 Bridge to Success

Bridge to Success (BTS) formed in 2010 as the state’s first cradle to career community

partnership. The partnership includes over 200 community members representing 97 public

and private organizations. BTS does not provide direct The mission of Bridge to
services but offers its partners backbone support to build Success is to ensure all
community capacity. BTS helps develop and direct Waterbury youth succeed
strategic direction to ensure all Waterbury youth succeed in school, work, and life.
in school, work and life.

In 2015, BTS published a Community Report Card to identify academic disparities between
Waterbury and the rest of Connecticut, and between ethnic and racial groups within Waterbury
Public School (WPS). WPS teachers and administrators, as well as Waterbury community
leaders, requested BTS to find a solution that could enhance children’s school experiences and
academic outcomes by providing complementary and targeted enrichment programs.

1.2. The Boost! Model

After securing funding and reviewing several models, BTS and WPS sought community input and
settled on the Boost! framework. Boost! is a collective effort model that addresses students’
social, emotional, and academic needs; engages parents and families in children’s education; and
motivates business and community leaders to become more involved (Mamis, 2012). Boost! was
developed by the United Way of Greater New Haven, Conn., where it has been implemented in 16
New Haven Public schools since 2011-12. Because Boost! was developed locally, BTS and WPS
could confer with its developer to learn directly about experiences, successes, and pitfalls.

In the fall of 2016, BTS hired a Boost! coordinator and, together with WPS, identified four pilot
schools to implement the model. The Boost! coordinator, worked with the schools to assess
needs and preferences of principals, students, and families. The focus lied on identifying, and

B T S - Boost! A pilot in four Waterbury public schools Page 2

ultimately reducing, ethnic and racial discrepancies within the schools and reducing gaps in
academic outcomes between Waterbury and the rest of the state.

1.3 This Report

This report, produced by BTS, outlines the first year in which Boost! was implemented in the
four pilot schools and provides an overview of needs and desires for afterschool programs.
Findings are based on data from the State Department of Education and data collected by BTS
within the four schools. The State data are dis-aggregate by school, ethnicity, race, and
socioeconomic background. The data collected from the schools come from Asset Maps compiled
by the schools and from surveys conducted among students and caregivers1.

The next chapter provides a detailed overview of students in Waterbury: their demographics,
achievement levels, and attendance.2 Chapter 3 examines the four Boost! pilot schools by
presenting their populations and shedding light on academics and absenteeism.3 Chapter 4 is an
overview of the literature describing the importance of after-school programs. This chapter,
which draws on several scientific studies, focuses on the specific benefits of attending quality
after-school programs, such as school engagement, academic outcomes, and behavior. Chapter 5
provides details on the implementation of Boost! in Waterbury and the process of identifying the
services that offered in the four pilot schools. The next four chapters present findings from the
students and caregiver surveys: Chapter 6 looks at students, chapter 7 examines caregivers,
chapter 8 looks at the interest they expressed in after-school programs, and chapter 9 gauges the
benefits that caregivers anticipate. The last chapter provides a conclusion and recommendations
for next steps.

1 In this report, caregivers refer to adults taking care of the student, such as (step/foster) parents, older siblings,
grandparents, and staff of a living facility.

2 For the afterschool survey, ethnicity and race, as well as gender, are based on self-identity. Ethnic and racial
categories are: Non-Hispanic Black/African American, non-Hispanic White, Hispanic (of any race), and “other”. The
last category includes any child identifying as another race or ethnicity (e.g. Asian or native American) as well as
children identifying with multiple races. Gender categories are: male and female. The survey included an “other”
gender option but this was not marked by any of the students.

3 For privacy reasons, the names of the four school are not provided

B T S - Boost! A pilot in four Waterbury public schools Page 3

2. STUDENTS IN WATERBURY

2.1 Demographics

Bridge to Success (BTS)
serves the city of Waterbury
which has a population of
110,000. Approximately
22,000 of the city’s
population are between the
ages of 0 and 21. According
to US Census data (2015),
less than a third of the city’s
population identifies as non-
Hispanic white (26%). Forty-
two percent (42%) identifies as Hispanic, 28% as non-Hispanic Black, and 4% as Asian or
another race. The percentages of black and brown individuals are higher within Waterbury
Public Schools (WPS): 51% are Hispanic, 21% Black, and 8% of students identify with multiple
ethnicities and races or with another race or ethnicity. The remaining 20% is non-Hispanic
White. Waterbury has a relatively large foreign-born population: 12% of Waterbury residents
were born in Puerto Rico, U.S. Island areas or abroad to American parent(s).

People of color are more likely to grow up in poverty. One in three (33%) Waterbury citizens
lives in poverty and one in two (50%) young children do; 13% of children under five grow up in
extreme poverty. Women and girls are more likely to live in poverty, and children in poverty are
more likely to live with a single mother (CityData, 2017).

According to the National Child Traumatic Stress Network, urban poverty is strongly related to
childhood trauma and family stress systems (Collins et al., 2010). The Kids Count Data Center,
established by the Annie E. Casey Foundation (2017), reports that about 4% of Connecticut’s
children have been subject to investigative reports for child abuse, a similar percentage children
grow up in foster care. Moreover, in the Child Health and Development Institute estimated that

B T S - Boost! A pilot in four Waterbury public schools Page 4

about 62,454 children in Connecticut have or had incarcerated parents (Lang and Bory, 2012).
Childhood trauma is likely to be more pervasive in Waterbury, where the percentage of children
growing up in poverty is nearly three times higher than the rest of the state, according to a CT
Voices for Children news release (2014). There is ample evidence that ethnic and racial
background, poverty, and trauma cannot be seen separate from each other and all influence
academic outcomes. In fact, “According to Ruteere (2013), poverty does not result only from an
unequal sharing of resources. 'Discrimination against groups and persons based on their
ethnicity, race, religion or other characteristics or factors has been known to encourage
exclusion and impoverish certain groups of the population who suffer from unequal access to
basic needs and services.

2.2 Academic Achievement

The academic achievement of Waterbury students lags the rest of Connecticut. Moreover, within
WPS there are substantial gaps between students of different ethnic and racial backgrounds.
Figure 1 highlights three of BTS’ main indicators4: third-grade reading scores, high school
graduations, and post-secondary enrollment. Statewide, more than half of all students are at or
above their required level for third grade English Literature Arts (ELA). Within Waterbury,
however, even the highest performing group (white students) lag ten percentage points behind
the statewide percentage reaching proficiency. Waterbury’s Black and Hispanic third-graders
are even less likely to perform at or above the required ELA level.

4 These indicators are set by the Strive Together Network. This Network focuses on a collective action approach to
better student outcomes. The four indicators are scientifically proven predictors of each other (e.g. 3rd grade
reading levels predict High school graduation), and of a child’s overall success in life.

B T S - Boost! A pilot in four Waterbury public schools Page 5

There is also a ten percentage point gap between Connecticut and Waterbury students who
graduate high school (87% and 77% respectively. Within Waterbury, the gap between white,
Black, and Hispanic students is slightly smaller (71% of Black students graduate high school and
64% of Hispanic students).

Figure 1 Indicators of academic achievements

87%

80% 77% 73%
66%
68%
54% 55%
52%
40%

24% 23%

% at or above Graduation College
proficiency ELA (16-17) rates (15-16) entrance (13-14)

White Black/African American Hispanic Statewide

Note: school years are based on the year for which the data was collected. Data were extracted from
the Connecticut State Department of Education

For students enrolling in postsecondary education, the gaps are smallest between the state and
white Waterbury students (73% and 66%, respectively). Within Waterbury, there are large
discrepancies between White students and students of color but not between Black and Hispanic
students (55% and 45%, respectively).

B T S - Boost! A pilot in four Waterbury public schools Page 6

2.3 Chronic Absenteeism

Chronic absent students have fewer opportunities to learn.
Children are chronically absent when they fail to attend 10% of
their school days or more. A school day counts as absent when a
student fails to be on school grounds for at least half the school
day, regardless if the absence is excused or unexcused. In other
words, a child who is out of school for 18 days due to illness is still chronically absent.

Chronically absent students miss 18 school days or more. Statewide, about nine percent of
students are chronically absent. In Waterbury, this percentage is more than 16%. There is
discrepancy by ethnicity and race, as is shown in figure 2. The graph shows that at Waterbury
public schools, Black students and Hispanic students are most likely to be chronically absent
(17% and 18%, respectively) and that white student are least likely (10%) to be chronically
absent.

Figure 2 Chronic absenteeism by ethnicity and race, SY2016-17

All CT 10%
Waterbury 16%

White 10%
Black/… 17%
Hispanic 18%
Other*
10%

* Other is the average of the “Asian” and the “two or more races” categories.

2.4 Absenteeism and Grades

Absenteeism and academic achievement are related. This correlation applies to individual
students, but also to schools as a whole. Analysis of data on all Waterbury public schools reveals
that schools’ percentage of chronically absent students is correlated to the schools’ percentage of
students reaching achievement level.5

5 Analyses used schools as the unit level.

B T S - Boost! A pilot in four Waterbury public schools Page 7

Figure 3 Correlations between chronic absenteeism and Smarter Balanced tests, by
grade

Notes:
Significance levels are based on a two-tailed test.
Sample sizes in the higher grades are small, which may influence the correlation coefficients.

The analyses show a negative correlation between schools’ absenteeism rates and students’
achievement levels; the greater the percentage of chronically absent students a school has, the
lower the percentage of adequately performing students the school has. The same is the case for
the reverse: the lower a school’s absenteeism rate, the higher the school’s percentage of students
scoring at or above achievement level. Data were separated by grade and ran for English
Literature Arts (ELA) and Math. These correlations were statistically significant in all grades for
ELA. They were statistically significant in Math in all but fifth grade. The correlation between
attendance and academic outcomes is intuitive: the more time a child spends at school, the more
time she has to learn.

B T S - Boost! A pilot in four Waterbury public schools Page 8

3. THE BOOST! SCHOOLS

3.1 The Schools

In the fall of 2016, four Waterbury public schools were selected to pilot the Boost! model. The
schools are located throughout the city and collectively serve a population of more than eighteen
hundred students. All are preK-8 schools, some also including pre-schools. Schools remain
unspecified to maintain the privacy of students and staff.

3.2 School Populations

The populations at the schools are diverse, as table 1 below shows. In each of the schools, there
are about the same percentage of boys and girls. The majority of students receive either free or
reduced lunches; this percentage is highest in school D. In each of the schools, the largest student
population is Hispanic. For two of the schools, they make up the majority of the population, as is
the case district-wide. School B has the largest Hispanic and also the largest population of Black
and African American students. School C has the largest student population who identify as
white.

Table 1 Demographics of the four pilot schools and district1

GENDER2 SES ETHNICITY/RACE3

Population Female Male Free/ Hispanic Black White Other4
8%
Reduced Meals

School A 479 49% 51% 71% 49% 19% 25%

School B 434 45% 55% 79% 62% 27% 6% 4%

School C 504 51% 49% 69% 42% 23% 29% 3%

School D 463 50% 50% 86% 56% 23% 15% 5%

District 18,862 48% 52% 73% 53% 23% 19% 5%

Notes:

1. Data are based on enrollment as of October 1, 2015.

2. Students were only categorized as male or female no other gender options were provided

3. The percentages of ethnicity and race do not always add up to 100% because not always an ethnicity and

race identity was provided by the student or school

4. Other ethnicity/race included: Asian, American Indian/Alaskan Native, Pacific Islander, and two or more

races.

B T S - Boost! A pilot in four Waterbury public schools Page 9

The above table shows that most students identify as non-white. This identity is in stark contrast
with most of the teachers within each of the schools. As figure 4 below illustrates, most of the
teachers identify as non-Hispanic white. Figure 4 highlights the contrasts between the ethnic
and racial backgrounds of teachers and students; while nearly all students are Hispanic/Latino
or Black (around 50% and 20% respectively), only a handful of teachers are (around 7% and 4%
respectively). The vast majority of teachers are white (around 90%). One objective of Boost! is to
reduce ethnic and racial inequality in academic outcomes; positive role models (i.e., teachers
with whom youth can identify) can support this objective (Klopfenstein, 2005).

Figure 4 Ethnic/racial background of students and teachers/staff in the four
schools

3.3 Academic Achievement in the Four Schools

As is the case in the entire district (see figure 1, p. 4), the four schools in which Boost! is being
implemented have ethnic and racial disparities in their academic outcomes too.

There are disparities for English Language Arts (ELA) scores as well as math scores. Figure 5
shows the percentage of students who were at or above the ELA achievement level across
grades. The figure shows data for two of the schools (school C and school D), as well as for the

B T S - Boost! A pilot in four Waterbury public schools P a g e 10

entire Waterbury Public School district and the state.6 Both the state and WPS district have a
rather stable line across the grades. School C and D, on the other hand, show more variability
across grades.7

Across the schools, students score lowest in fourth grade (only 20% of students in school D and
16% of students in school C are at or above proficiency level). The percentages at or above
proficiency increased in fifth grade. This trend continues for school D, but the percentage drops
again for school C as well as district and state-wide.

Figure 5 ELA, % students at or above proficiency level, SY15-16

% at or above proficiency level 54% 56% 59% 55%

29% 27% 42% 35%
29% 20% 29% 30%
21% 16% 29% 24%

3rd 4th 5th 6th
Grade All Wb

all CT School C School D

Note: Data for the 15-16 school year is used because the data for the 16-17 school year
were still not complete when broken down by grade

6 There was no data available on this for school A and school B.

7 These are not cohort data. These data are the percentages for different grades within the same year (2015-16).
Variability in data is more likely to happen in smaller sample sizes, as is the case for the school-specific data.

B T S - Boost! A pilot in four Waterbury public schools P a g e 11

3.4 Absenteeism in the Schools

Over the last few years, the chronic absenteeism within each of the four pilot schools has greatly
improved. During the 2011-12 school year, the percentage of students who were chronically
absent ranged from 10% in school A to 14% in school D. In the school year 2015-16, these
percentages ranged from 6% in school C (which was half of what it was in 2011-12) to 10% in
school B and school D (down from 16% and 14%).

Figure 6 Percent chronic absent students, Schools and state trend

16% 18% 15% 10% 11% School A
12% 10% 10% School B
12% 11% School C
11% 11% 9% School D
All CT
9%

12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17

The connections between after-school programming and absenteeism and between after-school
programming and grades have been subject of interest for the last fifteen years or so. There is a
growing wealth of research that shows the positive impact that attending quality after-school
programs has on children (Afterschool Alliance, 2014, Goldstein et al., 2003; Schinke, et al.,
2000). The next chapter outlines some of these benefits.

B T S - Boost! A pilot in four Waterbury public schools P a g e 12

4. THE BENEFITS OF AFTER-SCHOOL PROGRAMS

4.1 The Evidence

The evidence is overwhelming: high-quality after-school programs bring children to school, keep
youth in school, and make sure children are safe and cared for. Figure 7 illustrates the benefit of
attending an after-school program. Research shows that quality after-school programs can
increase students’ sense of connection to their schools, reduce absenteeism and truancy,
decrease negative behavior, and improve academic achievements. Not all after-school programs
are the same, however, and not all are able to reach the same objective(s), but most programs
that were evaluated by the Afterschool Alliance (2014) showed at least one benefit. Benefits can
be categorized as 1) school engagement, 2) improved behavior, and 3) academic improvement.
Figure 7 summarizes the benefits of attending a quality after-school program that are backed by
scientific evidence.

Figure 7 Scientifically proven benefits of attending an afterschool program

4.2 School Engagement

Overall, after-school programs are fun. They challenge young minds, get bodies moving, and
expand developing psyches. Participating in fun and high-quality after-school programs can
draw children to school and keep them in school once they are there. Finding enjoyment in going
to school increases children’s identification with their school and makes children more

B T S - Boost! A pilot in four Waterbury public schools P a g e 13

connected to it. Having children, and especially teenagers, feel more connected to school keeps
them in the school and off the streets (Durlak, Weissberg, and Pachan, 2010), which is a nice
“side effect” of quality –and enjoyable—after-school programs.

4.3 Improving Behavior

Students who attend after-school programs regularly are less likely to engage in negative school
behavior: they reduce their truancy, are less tardy, behave better at school, and are less likely to
get suspended. Not only do high-quality after-school programs have a positive impact on
students’ behavior at school, but students also have less opportunity to engage in negative
behavior out of school. Indeed, research has shown that teenagers who attend an after-school
program are less likely to drink, use or sell drugs, and engage in other criminal activities (Sexton,
2003). Attending quality after-school programs that teach children how to navigate various
cultural norms—within and outside their own--can help students learn how to effectively
negotiate behaviors depending on their setting.

4.4 Academics Improvement

Many after-school programs
involve some form of
homework support or
tutoring. However, even after-
school programs that do not
have a primarily academic
focus can still contribute to
students’ educational
achievements. Some studies
show that the personal face-
to-face interactions that
students encounter during

B T S - Boost! A pilot in four Waterbury public schools P a g e 14

their time in after-school programs are the main contributor to improved academic outcomes
(Shernoff, 2010). Other research focuses directly on the impact that specific academic oriented
after-school programs have on academic outcomes (e.g., how does tutoring influence math
grades). Still other studies compare academic outcomes of students attending organized after-
school programs to non-participants (Posner et al., 1994).

4.5 Benefits for Caregivers

Between 1970 and 1998 the percentage of children with mothers in the workforce rose from
39% to 78% (Vandell and Shumow, 1999). Seventy-five percent of the children (ages 5 to 14)
whose mothers are employed are in school for most of the hours their mothers are at work.
However, because school days are typically shorter than workdays, logistical challenges may
arise.

Children coming home to an empty house is not a new phenomenon, and so-called latchkey
children became especially common during and after World War Two (Cauthorn-Wade, 1993).
Currently, approximately 12% (3.7 million as of 1995) of children between the ages three and
fifteen were home alone at least once a week (Kerrebrock & Lewit, 1999). In their 1999 study,
Smith and Casper show that children who grow up in single-parent households are almost three
times more likely be home alone when the parent works full time than when the parent does not
work. Children growing up with two parents working full time are five times more likely to be
home alone compared to children growing up in a household where neither parent is employed.
There is not much research on parents’ (employment) benefits of having children in an after-
school program. These data suggest, however, that such benefits may be very tangible.
Moreover, in the recent years, there has been a surge of critique on caregivers leaving their
children unattended, both in the public and social media as well as by policymakers who are of
the opinion it should be a punishable offense.

B T S - Boost! A pilot in four Waterbury public schools P a g e 15

5. BRINGING BOOST! TO WATERBURY

5.1 What is Boost!?

Boost! is a model that brings after-school programs together to support youth with their social,

academic, emotional, and physical needs. Unlike “regular” after-school programs, Boost! also

includes caregivers, community partners, and local businesses. As such, the Boost! model is

similar to a community school model, which provides basic services (e.g., medical services,

dentist, childcare, food pantry) on school grounds for the entire community. The Boost! model

differs from the community school model in that it can be implemented not only in

neighborhood schools but also in magnet and charter schools. The Boost! model adopted in

Waterbury is based on a similar initiative in New Haven. Implementation of Boost! in Waterbury

has several phases, as is illustrated in Figure 5. After securing funding to implement the

The Boost! model is similar to a program, the first step was to connect to
community school model, which WPS and identify a champion partner who

provides basic services (e.g. would support the model and the
medical services, dentist, childcare, initiative. Having a supporter high up the
food pantry) on school grounds for ranks proved crucial, as this person
the entire community. safeguards buy-in from principals and

helps move the initiative forward. This partner helps identify suitable (pilot) schools, which is

the second step. Once schools are identified, partnerships are built with the principal, vice

principal, teachers, parent liaisons, and so forth. This phase can take time, depending on

individual school principals.

The third phase, Asset Mapping, is to identify the gaps between the resources already available
at schools and schools’ potential needs. The fourth phase is like the third but rather than
focusing on the resources available; it examines the needs and preferences that students and
their caregivers may have for specific programs. The last step of implementing Boost! is bringing
all the information together to identify suitable community partners who can implement after-
school programs. The last step of the implementation is not the last step of the program; data
collection, program evaluation, and continuous quality improvement are paramount to a

B T S - Boost! A pilot in four Waterbury public schools P a g e 16

successful operation of Boost! and, more importantly, to generate successful (measurable)
outcomes among the students.

Figure 8 Phases of the Boost! process

5.2 Asset Maps

During the winter of 2017, the BTS Boost! coordinator worked with the four pilot schools to
conduct their Asset Maps. The Asset Map is an online program that allows school administrators
to create an overview of the programs they have currently available in their schools and as such
identify gaps. Gaps in after-school programs can be 1) regarding the specific services (e.g., only
programs focusing on academics or only on sports). 2) Regarding specific target populations
(e.g., only programs for students in 6th, 7th, and 8th grade, and nothing for K-5th-grade students);

B T S - Boost! A pilot in four Waterbury public schools P a g e 17

And 3) regarding the logistics of offerings (e.g., only offering programs on Thursdays or only
offering programs in the afternoon).

Completing the Asset Maps was a cumbersome process and required more than inputting data; it
required relationship and trust building between the Boost! Coordinator and principals and
staff. It required school principals to critically and honestly look into their current enrichment
program offerings. Building these relationships within the school proved crucial. Once school
staff recognized the benefits of obtaining the knowledge on their school, their students, and their
after-school programs, the principals and school staff came on board and began to support the
initiative even more.

5.3 Outcomes of the Asset Mapping Process

Analysis of the Asset Maps showed that most schools offer at least one or two after-school
programs.

Table 2 Average number of current services and potential students served

Average number students enrolled per school: 495

Domain Average number of Average number potential #
students served
programs* 3,640
2,430
Parent/family engagement 11.5 4,151
5,136
physical health and wellness 7.75
15,357
social, emotional, and behavioral 14.5

Student/ academic engagement 17.8

Total 51.5

*Programs could cover more than one domain

The Asset Map focuses on after-school programs in four domains:
1) Parent and family engagement (e.g., CT food bank backpack program, PBIS Celebration).
2) Physical health and wellness (e.g., nurse aid, breakfast in-class program).
3) Social, emotional, and behavioral (e.g., “girl you got it in you” program, social worker);

Student engagement/academic enrichment (e.g., reading tutor, reading A-Z).

While schools indicated that a potential of 15,000 students could be served, this was not the
case. The number, in fact, is the number of theoretically potential spots. Take, for example, a

B T S - Boost! A pilot in four Waterbury public schools P a g e 18

soccer team. The sport is offered to all 355 students in the school. (which is the number the
school would give as their number of potential spots). However, a soccer team includes only 11
players; leaving 344 students on the bench. A program may decide to have more than one team,
but it is unlikely that one school would be able to house as many as 57 teams. Thus, while a
program may offer services to all students in a school, it is unlikely that any program can
accommodate all students. To examine the details on these discrepancies and to gauge students’
and caregivers’ interests in after-school programs, students and their caregivers in the four
schools were surveyed.8

Schools were asked during what time of the day they offered their enrichment program. As the
figure bellow shows, most programs were offered during school hours. None of the schools
offered programs during the weekend. While it may seem counter intuitive for a school to be
open during the weekend, a true community school in fact thrives during the weekend. During
the weekend families have more free time and, thus, are potentially able to participate in school
activities.

Figure 9 Number of programs offered by time of day

35 30
30

25

20 17
13
15 10

10 3 2 53 0100 0000
5 1301

0

Before During After Evening Weekend

school school school

School A School B School C School D

8 Student surveys were collected during school hours. Except for one, all schools surveyed all students. Caregiver
surveys were collected during the schools’ open house evenings. A total of 182 caregiver surveys were collected.

B T S - Boost! A pilot in four Waterbury public schools P a g e 19

6. STUDENTS’ SURVEYS

6.1. Students’ Background and Demographics

To obtain information about the students’ preferences, their current activities, and their interest

in attending an after-school program, BTS set out to survey most students in each of the four

pilot schools. BTS developed the survey and

administered it via computer on each of the Table 3 Surveyed students, by school
four sites. The survey was anonymous, and
students only provided their date of birth, School n
gender, and ethnic/racial identification.
School A 261

School B 335

School C 116

School D 339

Half (50%) of the students surveyed identified

as female, 49% identified as male. A handful (1%) did not provide a gender identity. Of the 1,051

students surveyed, 116 did not provide a birthdate. Of those who did, the mean and median age

Figure 10 Students’ ethnic/racial was 11 years old (St. Dev. 2.55). All
identity students identified with one or more races.
As figure 8 shows, nearly a quarter (24%)
3% of students self-identified as Black or
African American, about half (47%) as
8% Hispanic, 18% of students as white. Eight
24% percent (8%) of the students identified

18%

with more than one ethnicity or race and a

47% few students (3%) identified with another
race/ethnicity, such as Native American or

black Hispanic white mixed other Asian.9

n=1051

9 Students could identify with as many races or ethnic groups as they wanted. Students identifying as Hispanic
(also) were categorized as Hispanic, regardless of the race they provided (e.g. black or white). This race/ethnicity
categorization is in line with the US. Census bureau. As a result, the above graph can also be read as 24% of students
identifying as non-Hispanic Black and 18% as non-Hispanic White.

B T S - Boost! A pilot in four Waterbury public schools P a g e 20

Of all the students surveyed, a third Figure 11 Activities after school is over
attend an after-school program at
least once a week, 15% indicates to 17%
meet friends sometimes, often, or
always, and 83% of students say they 70% 85%
go somewhere else, such as their own 83%
home, someone else’s home, or an
institutional living facility.10 30% 15% Goes to own or
Meet with friends somone else's
Attends
afterschool home

program

at least once a week never

n=1015

6.2 Currently Attending After-school Program

A third of the students (30%) attends an after-school program at least once a week. Table 4
below shows differences by race and grade and the likelihood students were to attend after-
school. Students who identify with more than one race or ethnicity were slightly less likely to
attend an after-school program, as were students in second grade. Students who identify as
Black were most likely to attend an after-school program and compare to students from other
grades, students in first or fourth grade were more likely to attend an after-school program too.

Table 4 Attending an after-school program at least once a week

attends an after-school program at least

once a week

Race Hispanic (n=496) 30%

Black (n=249) 33%

White (n=188) 29%

Mixed (n=84) 23%

Other (n=27) 26%

Grade 1 (n=44) 36% 5 (n=136) 27%
2 (n=61) 26% 6 (n=153) 32%
3 (n=137) 28% 7 (n=131) 27%
4 (n=177) 36% 8 (n=148) 30%

10 The percentages of the activities do not add up to 100% because students could provide more than one answer
because they were asked about each of the questions if the engage the activity at least once a week.

B T S - Boost! A pilot in four Waterbury public schools P a g e 21

6.3 Hanging Out with Friends

Of all the students surveyed, 15% (154 students) indicated that they met friends after school at
least once a week (rather than going home or to an after-school program). Boys were more likely
to do so than girls (18% and 12% respectively).

As figure 12 shows, students with an “other” ethnic or racial identity were most likely to indicate
that they would hang out with friends at least once a week. Students who identified as non-
Hispanic White were the least likely to hang out with friends (11%). Students who indicated that
they hang out with friends after school elaborated on the places they go with their friends. The
majority (60%) of students who hang out with friends go to the park. A similar number of
students go to their friends’ house (57%). Slightly fewer students visit the mall (40%).

Figure 12 Who hang out with friends and where do they go?

Hangs out with friends Places visited with friends
(n=88, multiple answers possible)

mixed (n=85) 18%

white (n=192) 11% 57% 60%
17% 40%
Black/
African American 14% 12%
5%
(n=251)

Hispanic (n=496)

Someones Mall Park Sports club Other
home
other (n=27) 30%

(n=154; students could give more than one answer)

(Percentages based on sample size
of each race or ethnic group)

6.4 Going Home or Somewhere Else

Eighty-three percent of the children go home or to someone else’s house at least once a week.
Sixty-eight percent (68%) of all students surveyed goes home to be with a (step) parent. Almost

B T S - Boost! A pilot in four Waterbury public schools P a g e 22

half of the children are (also) with siblings, which can be older siblings who look after them or
younger siblings that are at home at the same time. The percentages are smaller for children
who are cared for by other grownups. As Figure 13 shows, many grown family members, such as
grandparents (14%), aunts or uncles (12%), or even cousins (12%), supervise children. About
one in six children (17%) is in the presence of family friends, and 8% of children are supervised
by someone else, such as staff members. Very few kids (2%) indicate that there is nobody with
them after coming back from school.

Figure 13 Others present at the location students go after school

nobody 2%
Other 8%
12%
Aunt/uncle 12%
Cousins 17%
14%
Family friends
Grandparents 42%

Sibling(s) 68%
Parents

n=880

There are no stark differences in childcare arrangements between the different ethnic and racial
groups. Compare to other students, Hispanic and White students were slightly most likely to be
with their parents after school (both 70%). Students of Hispanic descent were also most likely
(48%) to be with siblings. Students within the “other” race/ethnicity category were most likely
to be with grandparents (19%) or without any other adults (4%).

Table 5 Differences between students and who they are with Other None
Parents Siblings Grandparents Siblings 9% 2%

Hispanic 70% 48% 14% 48% 5% 3%
9% 2%
(n=496) 11% 1%
4% 4%
Black (n=251) 66% 36% 14% 36%

White (n=192) 70% 32% 16% 32%

Mixed(n=85) 67% 46% 11% 46%

Other (n=27) 56% 33% 19% 33%

B T S - Boost! A pilot in four Waterbury public schools P a g e 23

Students indicating to go home or to someone else’s home were asked about their activities.
Students could give multiple answers, and the most popular one was eating a snack; 65% of
students going home say they eat something when they come home. Nearly as many students
(60%) indicate to watch TV. More than half (58%) of the students do homework after coming
home. Slightly more than half (53%) of students says they attend personal hygiene, such as
taking a shower once they get home. Slightly less popular activities were gaming, (48%), going
online (42%), playing with friends (38%), taking a nap (37%), and playing sports (34%). The
least favorite activity was reading a book, which was done by less than a quarter (22%) of the
students. The type of activity that students engage it, studies show, influences their academic
achievement. Structured activities are generally found to have better academic outcomes than
watching television (Cooper, et al., 1999).

Figure 14 After school activities more than half of the students engage in at home

65% 60% 58% 53%

(n=880, multiple answers possible)

B T S - Boost! A pilot in four Waterbury public schools P a g e 24

7. CAREGIVERS’ SURVEYS

7.1. Caregivers’ Background & Demographics

One hundred eighty-one caregivers completed the survey. Most of the caregivers (81%) were
mothers. Ten percent (10%) were fathers, and 2% were grandmothers (no grandfathers
completed the survey). Three percent (3%) of the surveys were completed by a stepparent, and
another 3% by other caregivers, such as older siblings or an uncle or aunt.

The ethnic and racial composition of the caregivers was very similar to that of the students.
About a fifth (21%) of the caregivers identified as black or African American, half (52%)
identified as Hispanic, and slightly less than a quarter (23%) identified as white. Five percent
(5%) of the caregivers identified with multiple races or ethnicities and none of the caregivers
identified with another race or ethnic group.11

Figure 15 Ethnic/racial identity of caregivers

0% 21%
5%

23%

52%

black Hispanic white mixed other

n=181

Most caregivers (62%) spoke only English at home. A fairly large portion, over a quarter (28%)
also spoke Spanish and a smaller percentage (7%) spoke only Spanish at home; thus, more than

11 As was the case with the students, non-Hispanic Black/African American and non-Hispanic White \ caregivers are
categorized as Black and White respectively.

B T S - Boost! A pilot in four Waterbury public schools P a g e 25

a third of the students (35%) grow up speaking Spanish at home (too). 12 An additional 4% of
the caregivers indicated that they speak another language in addition to English at home (e.g.,
Portuguese).

Figure 16 Language(s) spoken at home

n=180

7.2. Household Situation

Caregivers were asked questions about their household situation to get a sense of the home in
which the students served through Boost! grow up. The majority of caregivers indicated to live
with their children, only 3% said they did not. A quarter (26%) of the caregivers lived only with
one child, and nearly two fifths (39%) lived with two children. One fifth (21%) lived with three
children, and the rest of the caregivers (12%) indicated to be living with four or more children.
Caregivers also provided information on other members of their household. This was helpful
because they also provided the number of bedrooms in their house, thus allowing us to get a
sense of how crowdy the homes were in which the students grow up. It turns out that many
families live not only with their children or partner (be it a husband/wife or a
boyfriend/girlfriend), but also with other family members and or a (grand)mother or father.

12 A Spanish language survey was available for caregivers but not utilized by schools. Perhaps these percentages
would have been higher if that survey would have been collected.

B T S - Boost! A pilot in four Waterbury public schools P a g e 26

As is shown in figure 17, half (51%) of all the households included at least a married couple and

19% included a non-married couple. In a relatively large portion of households, other family

Figure 17 Household members members (15%) or a
(grand)parent (12%) was present,

very few households (4%)

included only the caregiver and

children. A fair number of families

also had pets living with them.

51%

19% 18%
15% 12%

4%

husband/ boyfriend/ other (grand) only pets
wife girlfriend family parent kids

n=181 (caregivers could give multiple answers)

On average, the families’ homes had 2.9 (st. dev. 0.807) bedrooms. On average there were 1.5

children per bedroom (st. dev. 0.973).13 Most homes

(55%) had three bedrooms, and another 13% had five or Figure 18 House status
more bedrooms. A quarter (28%) of homes had two
bedrooms, and only 1% had only one bedroom. 3%
20%

The vast majority of caregivers indicated that they rent 77%
their home (77%), a fifth says they bought their house,
and three percent (3%) say that they currently live with rent own w friends family
family, friends, or in a shelter.
n=176

13 This ratio is calculated by the following formula: # −1 ( )−1( ℎ )

# ℎ

B T S - Boost! A pilot in four Waterbury public schools P a g e 27

7.3 Basic Needs Figure 19 Number of identified basic needs

Caregivers were asked about some 8%
structural challenges they face on a day- 15% 27%
to-day basis. If caregivers, for example,

do not have reliable transportation they 14%

may not be able to pick their children none 36% 2 needs
up from an after-school program and if 3 or 4 needs
they worry about having enough to eat 1 need
5 or 6 needs

they make not be mentally available to n=181

invest time in finding appropriate extracurricular activities for their children. On average,

caregivers identified 1.6 so-called basic needs (st.dev. 1.721). A quarter did not identify any and

over a third identified one need. Fourteen percent (14%) identified two needs, 15% identified

three or four and 8% identified five or six basic needs.

Figure 20 on the next page shows the specific basic needs that caregivers identified. As is shown,
about a quarter (27%) of caregivers indicates not to struggle with any of the basic needs they
were asked about. The figure shows both the percentages caregivers struggling with a need out
of all caregivers, whether they had a need or not (green bars) and the percentage caregivers who
identified a need out of those caregivers with at least one need (gray bars). Naturally, the later
percentages are higher. Nearly half (48%) of all caregivers struggle to pay their utility bills.
Nearly a quarter (23%) of the caregivers with at least on need indicates to have challenges in
finding healthy food to eat, and the same proportion of caregivers (23%) do not have reliable
access to a laundry machine. One in seven (14%) of all caregivers do not have consistent
transportation to work or feels unsafe in their neighborhood. Twelve percent (12%) of all
caregivers say they have been unemployed long-term, and about one in 12 caregivers (8%) say
they have no food to eat every day. Of the caregivers with a need, 10% says to have no access to
healthcare, and half that indicated to have mental health issues. About five percent (5%) of
households has a problem with pests (e.g., rodents, bedbugs), and around 4% struggles with
medical issues. Nine percent (9%) of caregivers identifying a need focuses on another need, such
as a caregiver’s sexual orientation, domestic violence, or religion.

Figure 20 Basic needs that caregivers identified

66%
48%

23% 23% 20% 20% 16%
17% 17% 14% 14% 12%

8

n=181 for all caregivers and n=132 for only caregivers who identified at least one n

27%

8% 11% 7% 10% 6% 8% 4% 5% 4% 5% 12%
9%

3% 4%

need

7.4 Employment Status

Caregivers were asked how many hours a week they worked. Figure 21 shows that a fifth is
unemployed and 7% identifies as a homemaker. Half of the caregivers (49%) works full-time,
and another 17% works over 40 hours a week. A very small percentage (7%) works part-time.

Figure 21 Hours worked

49%

20% 17%
7%
7%

Unemployed Homemaker Part time Full time Full time plus
(1-24 h/w)
(25-40 h/w) (>41 h/w )

n=175

B T S - Boost! A pilot in four Waterbury public schools P a g e 30

8. INTEREST IN AFTER-SCHOOL PROGRAMS

8.1 Students’ Interest in After-school Programming

The goal of Boost! is to increase academic outcomes for WPS students and reduce the ethnic and
racial inequalities through interactive, creative, and intellectual after-school programs. In line
with the mission of BTS, the Boost! program aims at helping Waterbury succeed in school, work,
and life.

After-school programs cannot have any impact when students do not show up. It was, therefore,
important to gauge the interest of students in addition to identifying the gaps with the schools
and principals. In the after-school survey, students expressed their interest in attending an
after-school program. Interests in after-school programs were more or less equally divided by
three: slightly more than a third (37%) of the students was surely interested, a third (33%) said
to be maybe interested and slightly less than a third (29%) indicated not to be interested.
BTS broke the data down by ethnicity and race to see any trends: Black students were most
likely to say that they were interested in after-school programs (43%), White students were
least likely (24%) to express an interest in attending an after-school program.

8.2 Students’ Specific Interests

Figure 22 Students' interest in after-school programs, by race/ethnicity

37%

33% 41% 43% 41%

29% 33%

Self 24%
No Maybe Yes
Hisp Black White Mixed Other

n=1051

B T S - Boost! A pilot in four Waterbury public schools P a g e 31

Students were not only asked if they
were interested in after-school
programs in general but also about
their interests in specific subjects. The
specific after-school programs fell into
five categories: sports, behavioral
health, arts/music, practical skills, and
academic enhancement. Quality after-
school programs can help students
improve their grades, reduce their
absenteeism, and keep them out of (legal) trouble. They can also cultivate healthy behavior by
playing sports or cultivate meaningful relationships with peers or adults. When asked about
their preferences for after-school programs, 94% of the students expressed an interested in
playing sports as an after-school program. An equally high percentage of students (94%) were
interested in programs focusing on academics—students are especially interested in after-
school programs that could help them improve their math or science skills. Ninety-two percent
(92%) of students were interested in arts or music programs. Slightly fewer students expressed
interest in learning behavioral health skills (85%), such as making (more) friends, creating a
team spirit within the school, and developing further in general. Eighty-three percent (83%) of
the students indicate to have an interest in learning practical skills, such as cooking and
photography. It should be noted, that the questions on after-school preferences were not
mandatory items in the survey.

Table 6 After-school program interests by race/ethnicity and gender

Sport Behavioral health Arts Skills Academic

Hispanic (n=496) 95% 85% 92% 85% 94%

Black (n=251) 93% 85% 92% 78% 93%

White (n=192) 93% 81% 90% 81% 92%

Mixed (n=85) 95% 88% 91% 91% 96%

Other (n=27) 93% 93% 93% 89% 93%

Boy (n=520) 97% 84% 87% 97% 94%

Girl (n=522) 92% 85% 96% 88% 93%

B T S - Boost! A pilot in four Waterbury public schools P a g e 32

Table 6 below shows that there were no large differences in the specific after-school subjects
between the ethnic and racial groups or between boys and girls. The largest gap is regarding the
interest in Behavioral health skills. Here we see that 81% of non-Hispanic White students
expressed an interest vs. 93% of the students who identified with another race/ethnicity. The
largest gap between boys and girls is in their interest in Arts (87% of the boys shows an interest
vs. 96% of the girls), the opposite is the case for learning more specific skills (97% and 88%,
respectively).

8.3 Students Estimating their Caregivers Interests

Students estimated their caregivers were interested in them attending an after-school program.
—46% of students thought their caregiver would be interested, and 34% said that their
caregiver would “maybe” be interested. One in five students (20%) indicated their caregiver(s)
would probably not be interested in them attending an after-school program. As was the case
with students themselves, students identifying as Hispanic or Black were most likely to indicate
their parents would be interested in an after-school program. Students identifying with another
race were less likely to think their parents would be interested in an after-school program than
they were of positive about it themselves. The reverse was the case for students identifying with
multiple ethnicities or racial groups.

Figure 23 Students' estimation of their caregivers’ interest in afterschool
programs

46% 50% 49% 46%

34% 33%

34%

20% Hisp Black White Mixed Other

No Caregiver Yes
Maybe
n=1051

B T S - Boost! A pilot in four Waterbury public schools P a g e 33

8.4 Caregivers’ Interests in After-school Programming

Of the 76 caregivers who answered the question on whether or not their children attended after-
school programs, 14% said “yes,” and an additional 4% said that their child does so “sometimes.”
The majority (82%) of caregivers answered negatively though. Fifty-one (51) caregivers also
gave more detailed information about the number of days their child attended an after-school
program and which specific day(s) of the week they did. The middle of the week was most
popular, and the fewest number of students attended on Fridays. About a quarter of caregivers
(24%) indicated their child attended an after-school program once a week, similar percentages
said their child attended either four or five days a week. Fourteen percent (14%) mentioned
their child attending twice a week and 16% said that there were three days in which their child
attended after-school programs. Most of the students who attend an after-school program do so
at least three days a week.

Figure 24 Days of the week kids attend after-school program

75% 71% 73%
63%

29%

Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday
n=51

In addition to asking caregivers about their child(ren)’s current after-school program
participation, caregivers were asked if they would be interested in their child attending an after-
school program in the future. The majority (62%) was surely interested, 27% was hesitant, and
12% indicated not to be interested. Next caregivers who answered “maybe” or “no” were asked

B T S - Boost! A pilot in four Waterbury public schools P a g e 34

about the obstacle(s) they foresaw for their child attending after-school programs. Caregivers
gave a range of reasons, including not having transportation (37%), after-school programming
being too expensive (27%), their preference for their child doing his/her homework (20%), the
child not being interested in after-school programs (14%), and wanting the child being home
(12%). Other reasons were given too (13%) such as scheduling challenges.

Figure 25 Reasons for not being interested in after-school programs

Child not Too No
interested expensive transportation

(24%) (20%) (37%)

Child needs
to do

homework
(20%)

Other I want my
(13%) child home

with me
(12%)

Total n=180, for caregivers not or maybe interested in afterschool n= 130 (multiple answers possible)

8.5 Caregivers’ Specific Interests

As were students, caregivers were asked about their specific interest regarding the potential
after-school program for their children. Moreover, as was the case with the students, the
caregivers gave a range of subject. Caregivers were most (94%) interested in after-school
programs that would enhance their children’s academic skills, such as math and science, nearly

B T S - Boost! A pilot in four Waterbury public schools P a g e 35

an equal percentage of caregivers (92%) was interested in their child attending an art or music
program. Fewer caregivers (87%) would like to see their child learn a practical skill, such as
learning to speak Spanish or to cook. Eighty-five percent (85%) of caregivers were either
interested in the organized sport or in a program that would help children develop their socio-

emotional skills (anti-bullying,
teamwork, and so forth).

B T S - Boost! A pilot in four Waterbury public schools P a g e 36

9. BENEFITS OF AFTER-SCHOOL PROGRAMS

9.1 Benefits for Caregivers

The benefits of after-school programs are hardly disputable. However, while the outcomes for
children and youth are well documented, the advantages for caregivers are not. We asked
caregivers how their child attending an after-school program could help them. Most of the
caregivers who answered the question (n=166) “What will be the impact on your work if your
child will attend an after-school program until 5-6pm?” mentioned that it would not impact
them (77%). Of those who did feel it would impact them (n=38), half (50%) indicated that they
would be able to work (more).

9.2 Benefits for Child, Caregiver Identified

Caregivers realized that attending an after-school program could have benefits for their children
and identified multiple. The most popular answer, by far, was their children learning new things.
Eight-six percent (86%) of caregivers saw this as the foremost benefit of after-school. Half
(50%) of the caregivers identified after-school programs as a place where their child would be
able to do their homework, and 39% of caregivers felt that after-school program could provide
their child with a safe place to stay after school. A few caregivers (5%) gave other reasons, such
as their child learning social skills.

Figure 26 Caregiver identified benefits for child when attending
afterschool

86%

50%
39%

Child can learn new Child can do 5%
things homework
Child at a safe place Other (e.g. social
skills)

n=169 (caregiver could provide multiple answers)

B T S - Boost! A pilot in four Waterbury public schools P a g e 37

9.3 Scientifically Proven Benefits of After-school Programs

In addition to caregivers perceived benefits of after-school programs, there are several
scientifically proven benefits to attending an after-school program. Caregivers about the
academic outcomes that they hoped would increase as a result of their child attending an after-
school program. Most (63%) caregivers focused on an increase in their child’s grades. A slightly
lower percentage focused on their child’s social connections, 59% hoped it would make their
child more engaged at school, and 55% hoped it would increase the connections between their
child and her peers. Slightly less than half (46%) of caregivers identified an increase in college
attendance and a third (34%) an increased chance of high school graduation, as for the benefit of
attending an after-school program. A fifth of caregivers (20%) hoped that after-school
participation would increase their child’s school attendance.

Figure 27 Caregivers’ preferred academic outcomes impacted by afterschool
programs

63%
59%
55%
46%

34%

20%

Grades School Social College Chance for HS Attendance
graduation
engagement connection with attendance

other students

n=170 (caregiver could provide multiple answers)

B T S - Boost! A pilot in four Waterbury public schools P a g e 38

9.4 Family Participation in After-school Programs

Caregivers were asked if they would be “interested in volunteering at an after-school program?”
More than a quarter said “yes,” and an additional third (31%) said “maybe.” Of these potential
volunteers, 86 (78%) left theimail address.

Figure 28 Caregiver would volunteer at afterschool program

28%
41%

31%
yes maybe no

n=180

B T S - Boost! A pilot in four Waterbury public schools P a g e 39

10. CONCLUSION

10.1 Summary

Quality after-school programs can increase grades, reduce absenteeism, enhance the connection
to the school, and decrease suspensions. They are also beneficiary to students’ behavior,
reducing crime and delinquent behavior, and strengthening social connections between
students. This report focuses on four preK-8 schools in Waterbury, Conn. who began the process
of implementing the Boost! model. In Waterbury, the incorporation of the Boost! model is led by
the city’s community impact network Bridge to Success (BTS). BTS strives to have all Waterbury
youth succeed in school, work and life, which is why it chose a school enhancement model based
on a community school framework. As such, Boost! focuses on incorporating after-school
programs that support students, families, and the community at large.

The four schools identified for the pilot are dispersed around the city and represent other
Waterbury schools. They have a mostly brown and black student population, yet a mostly white
teacher force. They have high numbers of students receiving free or reduced lunches. And the
percentage of students achieving at or above the desired levels for English Literature and Arts or
Mathematics is low.

The first and foremost step of Boost! was to identify the resources currently available at each of
the schools. This process showed that while schools already offered some programs to students,
most were accessible during the
school day. On average, the
school offered five programs
over the course of a week.
Schools documented the number
of participants to which
programs were offered rather
than reporting the number of
students in fact enrolled in
programs.

B T S - Boost! A pilot in four Waterbury public schools P a g e 40

The second step was to identify the activities in which students engage after the school day is
over, such attending organized after-school programs, going home, or meeting friends. A survey
conducted among 1,051 preK-8 students in the four schools showed an overwhelming interest
in after-school programs. Currently most likely to go either to their own or someone else’s home,
where they spent time watching tv, eating, doing homework, and playing video games. The
majority of students is interested in a range of afterschool programs and yearns to learn more
regarding academics, sports, and practical skills.

The third step was to survey caregivers (n=181) about their household situation, the basic needs
they struggle with, and their desires for their child’s afterschool programming. This survey
revealed that while most of the caregivers (66%) work at least 25 hours a week, most (73%) has
at least one basic need such as feeding children, neighborhood safety concerns, or have no
reliable access to transportation or a laundry machine. Caregivers too display interest in their
children attending an after-school program and think it will allow their child to learn new skills
and that it will help their child improve grades and feel more connected to school and peers.

10.2 Conclusion

The interest in after-school programs is overwhelming, both the students and caregivers who
were surveyed express more than curiosity toward attending an afterschool. Indeed, it is
intuitive that attending an afterschool keeps children and youth out of trouble and instead
provides them with meaningful supervision, helpful skills, and tangible academic support.

Implementing after-school programs district-wide is a nearly insurmountable undertaking.
However, implementing after-school programs a few schools at the time seems feasible. The four
schools selected for Boost! are the lucky ones in the district to begin execution of the movement
in Waterbury. Nationwide the number of after-school programs is on the rise, the number of
community schools is increasing as well.

Many districts recognize that after-school programs can help increase academic improvement,
family engagement, youth’s connection to school on the one hand while they can reduce deviant
behavior such as skipping school, drug and alcohol usage to shoplifting and more severe juvenile
delinquency on the other. However, engaging students and their caregivers with the school is

B T S - Boost! A pilot in four Waterbury public schools P a g e 41

often not enough; it is important that the school also engages with the community at large.
Whereas children used to go to school to learn math, language, and geography, this no longer is
the case. Modern schools represent and provide community hubs, resource centers for
caregivers, healthcare providers for siblings, and spaces of social connection for youth (Posner
and Lowe Vandell, 1994). Blurring the boundaries between school and community, inviting the
community to utilize school grounds to engage and enrich students allows for this cross-
pollination. It is this process of augmentation, which allows for students to shine, grow, and
achieve.

10.3 Next Steps

The vision that Bridge to success holds is clear: have Waterbury youth succeed in school, work
in life. Through it collective partnership with more than 95 Waterbury organizations it is making
big strives already. There are, however, several steps left to implement, utilize and scale the
Boost! model completely:

1) Identify community partners who could provide high-quality after-school programs to
the students in the four pilot schools. Partners can be caregivers willing to tutor, teachers
interested in teaching students to play soccer, a small business offering training
programs, mindfulness providers branching out, and so forth.

2) Select the right providers for each of the schools. This process will occur collaboratively
with the schools, the providers, and BTS. There will be a strong emphasis on evidence-
based programs and models, to make sure valuable resources (e.g., time, money, energy)
will not get lost in the process and to make sure that students get the absolute highest
quality care they deserve.

3) While rigorous evaluation at the end of a program or the end of the school year will be
required of each of the after-school providers, it will also be important to conduct a
continuous evaluation to improve the quality of the program throughout the school year.
To fully understand if a program works or not, it is important to apply a model of
continuous quality improvement (CQI) to each of the providers. Such a model will not

B T S - Boost! A pilot in four Waterbury public schools P a g e 42

only allow for quality improvement, but it will also allow us to detect any factors that may
play into success or failure of a program.

4) In addition to end-of-the-year satisfaction surveys of students and caregivers, it is
important to keep monitoring students’ progress over time and connect the individual
student outcomes to their specific afterschool participation. Ultimately, we aim at
decreasing students’ absenteeism and suspensions, and increasing academics, high
school graduation, post-secondary enrollment, and of course overall wellbeing.

Moreover, year-wide data collection on students will also allow a deeper dig into
students’ current and past experiences. Understanding more fully where a student comes
from (i.e., adverse childhood experiences/trauma) will allow us to assess if their needs
are met and if there are any deeper lying expectations and desires that are not yet
addressed through the offered selection of after-school programs.

5) In addition to surveying students and caregivers, it is important to take the perspective of
their educators into account. Educators have a profound impact on youth, especially
Black and Brown urban youth (Constantine et al., 1998) it would make sense to unpack
the expectations that Waterbury teachers and leaders of their students.

6) This last step alludes to one of Bridge to Success focus’ points: reduce the inequality
between students of color and white students. Given the high percentage of black and
brown students in Waterbury schools, it is natural to focus on eliminating this gap in
order to increase district-wide averages on standardized test scores, high school
graduation rates, and post-secondary enrollment.


Click to View FlipBook Version