Prepared by the Harlem Health Promotion Center (HHPC) Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health July 31, 2015

Community Needs Assessment

Center for Education and Outreach Mortimer B. Zuckerman Mind Brain Behavior Institute

Jerome L. Green Science Center

2

Executive Summary Background The Center for Education and Outreach (CEO) at the Columbia University Mortimer B. Zuckerman Mind Brain Behavior Institute in the Jerome L. Greene Science Center engaged the Harlem Health Promotion Center (HHPC), at Columbia University, to conduct a Community Needs Assessment (CNA) to assist in determining best strategies for engaging Community Board 9 and 10 consumers in its comprehensive brain science education initiative.

Purpose The Center for Education and Outreach (CEO) at the Columbia University Zuckerman Mind Brain Behavior Institute will provide brain literacy programs for K-12 students and teachers, as well as the community-at-large; and, provide resources for people to learn how the brain functions−in health and in disease. The education space set aside on the first floor of Jerome L. Greene Science Center building will become a first-class public education center dedicated to brain science. When fully operational, the program offerings of the education center will engage four major audiences throughout the year: students, science teachers, adults, and families within the catchment area of Community Boards 9 and 10. The primary objectives of this community needs assessment were to determine and describe adult community members' openness to and likelihood of engaging with the CEO. This included their interest in their own engagement as well as that of their school-age children and other members of their families including adult seniors. Additionally, the aim was to determine best programming times of day and optimal schedules throughout the year. Another aim was to ascertain optimal communications and marketing strategies for promoting CEO programming in the community. This needs assessment aimed to determine what content would be considered relevant to this audience (i.e. brain function, brain diseases, and brain science). In order to understand general interest in the subject matter and likelihood of making use of this resource, the assessment sought to learn more about the community's past exposure to and interest in participating in not only Columbia programming but other science-related educational offerings such as museums throughout New York City. The assessment also sought to find additional types of programming of interest to the community. An additional aim of this study was to build relationships and engage with key community stakeholders and other potential partners in the CEO catchment area.

3

Approach While a detailed review of study methods is covered below, this CNA made use of two- hour focus groups and one-hour in-depth one-on-one interviews to gather information from 60 participants representing four key groups: parents/caregivers of K-12 children, teachers and community educators of K-12 children, stakeholders, and the general adult population. All study participants were from Community Boards 9 and 10 (See Appendix J and K). Parents and adults had to reside within this catchment area, but children grades K-12 associated with this study could attend schools outside of this area. Stakeholders, teachers and community educators were required to focus their professional or leadership efforts within this area, although some also did reside in these neighborhoods as well. Conclusions and Recommendations Based on the substantial data collected for this study, it is clear that a complex set of needs, structural issues, cultural mores, and trends coalesce to create many challenges and opportunities for ZMBBI, our conclusions and related recommendations include the following

1. First and foremost, the Harlem community is very excited to have ZMBBI as an educational resource in its midst. Study participants across all domains expressed their desire to assist in any way to ensure that ZMBBI is available to serve the community for the long run, not just as a short-term endeavor. Participants from all five domains saw science as something special, even magical. As one stakeholder who used to run one of the largest parent organizations in New York City said, “…science is…an interesting topic that would draw students and parents out, ‘cause science is−we don’t fully understand it. There’s something about science that parents and students can gravitate to more than literacy and mathematics. Science is mystical.” One caregiver echoed this sentiment with the notion that science “…would start a spark in [children]. I think science is a good way to reach a lot of children because it can be so magical…a lot of children lose their way because they’re bored, they have no excitement.”

2. Another interesting finding is the community’s interest in optimizing brain health, rather than just focusing on disease, wanting to know how to be smarter, have greater cognitive agility, and therefore improve all aspects of their lives. Related to the idea that science and the brain are fascinating to community members is the idea that there is so much wonder and excitement in learning about the brain specifically, and therefore understanding how to better yourself and your children.

3. ZMBBI will greatly benefit by clearly delineating its goals, including defining the specific population it intends to serve. As Harlem is diversifying through gentrification and as Community Board 9 (CB9) overlaps with the Columbia University campus, it is home to both privileged and underserved populations with distinctly different needs in terms of brain science/STEM education for K-12.

4

Additionally, there is a desire for brain health screening and educational resources for the general community across the lifespan. To enhance opportunities for success, we recommend that ZMBBI: a) communicate its aims clearly to the community, b) define its target audiences, and c) design specific programming tailored to these audiences.

4. ZMBBI will need to place substantial effort on building relationships with the Harlem community in order for it to make full use of CEO programming. Time and again study participants told us that trust is a large issue for this community, both on the part of stakeholders and community leaders, as well as general residents. They urged ZMBBI to create an active presence and bi-directional communications process in the community by attending existing events, becoming members of community organizations and committees, serving as an engaged participant in the community at large, and including community members in an advisory capacity for the CEO as well as in various roles, such as docents, making use of community members across all participant domains in this study to provide ongoing input and advice and to help ensure the cultural relevancy of programming. There are a variety of models that could be employed to gather this input, a community advisory board, project- or topic-specific teams, or groups based on a membership model who meet as needed to provide input and create a sense of ownership and bidirectional engagement in ZMBBI. These advisory teams could be made up of a diversity of members including youth as well as representatives from the five domains included in this study. While ZMBBI has shown an awareness of community needs in conducting this study, given the explicit concerns raised about trust in this CNA highlight our recommendation would be to continue to build strong, positive relationships with the Harlem community through structured engagement.

5. ZMBBI should develop a multi-level promotional campaign in order to reach

the community and get them to engage in programming. A key finding from this study was that while the overwhelming majority of the study participants valued Columbia programming they also found it difficult to learn about events and activities. Some took this to mean that Columbia didn't want them to participate and therefore provided minimal promotion, or sent out notices that did not allow enough time to enroll. This has led to a general sense of distrust that needs to be acknowledged and addressed in substantial and tangible ways.

One of the key ways participants felt that programmatic success would be assured was through the use of the arts and cultural activities to promote programming. They felt this would be possible through engaging community artists, musicians and celebrities, as well as to include the arts in all aspects of programming. This is in alignment with the recent movement to add art to science technology and math (STEM) programming—STEAM. Harlem is unique in its cultural connection to the arts, therefore we strongly recommend including local artists, musicians, and celebrities in ZMBBI programming and events in order to create an educational space that would resonate with the community. For instance,

5

partnering with cultural icons such as Ademola Olugebefola, an HHPC Board Member, or Dr. Olajide Williams of Hip Hop Public Health, would be examples of partnerships with important community cultural icons who would help to promote ZMBBI through culturally-meaningful channels.

6. ZMBBI should create an educational space that is welcoming and inclusive. In

order to bring community members into the CEO space and have them fully engage in programming, the community will need to find this space to be one that is comfortable and also culturally relevant. Highly academic endeavors that don't include practical everyday learning and activities along with opportunities for community members to contribute in some way will not be successful.

7. Partnering will build capacity and allow for greater community engagement.

In addition to engaging with the community by participating in community events, organizations and general culture, ZMBBI will need to begin a substantial partnering effort in order to achieve substantial community participation in its programming. These partnerships should be with Department of Education district leadership (districts 5, 6 and 3 see maps in Appendix I) as well as with specific schools, parent coordinators, school district leadership, community based organizations, churches, and other key community centers not to mention with community dignitaries, artists, thought leaders and celebrities as outlined in the General Report to follow. Another key aspect of this is participant interest in helping ZMBBI and creating ongoing relationships. Participants across all domains expressed a keen interest in wanting to engage with ZMBBI at a variety of levels from volunteering at the CEO to serving as a community representative for its programming.

8. There was substantial focus on the need for hands-on and practical activities in existing and potential future programming. Participants from all five domains were keen on engaging in programming that parents could do with their children either at the ZMBBI facility or at home, that teachers could carry out after a classroom visit, that the general community could feel part of by combining a reading of a local writer’s or artist’s work or a teen “hackathon” (group app development) paired with an activity related to the brain that was a “roll up your sleeves and jump in” sort of activity. These were all specific examples provided by study participants. In line with this finding, HHPC recommends ongoing support for science and health literacy, to ensure that programming is accessible to all members of the community including through providing learning that appeals to varied styles and backgrounds. The need for experiential learning recognizes Harlem’s unique cultural context. The complexity of this issue serves as an example of the need for advisement on cultural relevancy—the most effective mode to obtain this information would be from a community advisory group or project team made up of community members. This recommendation is significant as while ZMBBI is doing groundbreaking work in the realm of brain science, innovative partnerships with the Harlem community

6

could create cutting edge programming that would set it apart as a science education innovator.

9. Finally, there was substantial interest in creating greater focus on early childhood brain development−specifically for infants, as much research shows that by the time children reach kindergarten their academic fate is determined by their developmental capacity at that time. As much evidence-based research has tied disparities in cognitive development for children of color to what has come to be known as the “Cradle to Prison Pipeline” this particular study finding has been covered in substantial detail in the sections that follows. HHPC recommends a partnership with the Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health which is supporting an incarceration prevention effort, including the development of an intercollegiate consortium, the Incarceration Public Health Action Network (IPHAN) focused on addressing this topic. As Harlem is deeply affected by mass incarceration and serves as a key feeder to Rikers Island, New York City’s main jail complex, ZMBBI’s capacity to address early childhood brain development would be a key component in the incarceration prevention efforts being undertaken as a national public health priority.

The following comprehensive report outlines details of this study including demographic background on the community, methodological details, findings, as well as a substantial appendix providing further details on all aspects of this research endeavor.

7

General Report: ZMBBI Community Needs Assessment Study Oversight Originally founded in 1990, the Harlem Health Promotion Center (HHPC), part of the Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, serves the Upper Manhattan community. It strives to serve this area of New York City through partnerships, health communication, training, evaluation, and information technology through collaborations with community, academic and public health stakeholders that use research, education, and service delivery to improve the health and well-being of the community. Its staff and members of this research team have a long history of involvement in community-based participatory research and community engaged research. Because of this experience they are well-situated to serve the Columbia community on research and evaluation-related projects. For information about the research team, see Appendix R. Community Context: An overview of West and Central Harlem In order to most fully contextualize the findings from this community needs assessment (CNA), following is a comprehensive overview of Community Boards 9 and 10 (CB 9/10), the catchment area that the Zuckerman Institute will serve. In this regard we provide information about important aspects of this community area including details that inform the study findings regarding the lives of the parents and caregivers of K-12 students, the students themselves, and the general community—including socio-economic status, race and ethnicity, family make-up, educational performance, and mental health. According to the New York City Department of City Planning (DCP) CB9 and CB10 are different in terms of racial and ethnographic makeup, but are very similar in terms of household makeup, age and socio-economic status. For instance while the CB9 population is the primarily Hispanic, White and Black, CB10 has far fewer White residents. In terms of household make-up, about half of the residents of both Community Boards belong to a family household. Within these family households, a fairly small percentage of both boards are married with school-age children (11.3 percent and 9.1 percent respectively). They both have a large percentage of single parent households (mostly single mothers). The majority of the population is aged 20 and over, with about 22 percent being school age children (New York City Department of City Planning, 2010). Poverty rates for these boards are 27.6 percent and 28.9 percent respectively (NYU Furman Center, 2014). Background on School Districts CB 9 and 10, which the CEO serves, are located within three Community School Districts: 3, 5 and 6 (see Appendix I for District maps). For greater detail on demographics within these three districts see Appendix L.

• Community School District 5 includes the majority of the West and Central Harlem neighborhood. It is made up of 35 public schools and 12 charter schools

8

(NYCDOE, 2013a). Students in these schools have the highest percentage of student disabilities (19.2 percent) of the three districts and the second highest poverty rate (81 percent). Despite these types of challenges, recent Department of Education (DOE) data reveal that graduation rates for this district are at nearly 70 percent and the drop-out rate is 6.5 percent.

• Community School District 3 encompasses the area west of 5th Avenue starting from 59th Street and continuing north to 122nd Street. School District 3 is made up of 44 public schools and 10 charter schools (NYCDOE, 2013a). This district also has not only a high rate of student disabilities, but not as many English Language Learners (ELL) as the other two districts. It also has a lower poverty rate than Districts 5 or 6 largely because this district includes large sections of Manhattan outside of Harlem. It also has the highest graduation rate of the three districts (73.4 percent) and a drop-out rate of 6.7 percent—although there is no available data on schools only within the Harlem neighborhood for this district.

• Community School District 6 covers the Northern Manhattan area with the Hudson River as the western border, the Harlem River as the north and east border, with 135th street making up its southern border. School District 6 is made up of 46 public schools and 4 charter schools (NYCDOE, 2013a). This district has the highest percentage of ELL of the three districts and also the highest poverty rate (87.2 percent). Despite these challenges, the graduation rate within this district was 68.2 percent but the dropout rate was highest of the three districts at 9.1 percent (NYCDOE, 2013b).

Educational performance and attainment The levels of education attained by residents of West and Central Harlem are an important indicator of this community's interest and success in engaging with educational offerings available here. The 2011-2013 American Community Survey (ACS) provides an estimate of the educational attainment of the communities based on Public Use Microdata Areas (PUMA), which represent Census approximations of the Community Districts. In PUMA 3802, which corresponds to Manhattan Community Board 9 (which contains the neighborhoods of Hamilton Heights, Manhattanville, and West Harlem) of residents ages 25 years or older more than 60 percent have attended some college or have an Associate’s degree or higher. However, there is a significant sector of the population with lower educational attainment—approximately 21.4 percent of adults have no diploma, 17.9 percent have achieved a high school degree (includes equivalency) (New York City Department of City Planning, Population Division [NYCDCP], 2015b).

• Of students currently in school in this area, for 2014 19.6 percent performed at grade level in English Language Arts (ELA) and 22.7 percent of students were performing at grade level in math (NYU Furman Center, 2014).

• In Public Use Microdata Areas (PUMA) 3803, which corresponds to Manhattan Community Board 10 and contains Central Harlem, of residents ages 25 years or older a little more than half have attended some college or have an Associate’s degree or higher. Approximately 20 percent do not have a high school diploma,

9

24.1 percent have achieved a high school degree (includes equivalency) (NYCDCP, 2015b).

• Students performing at grade level in ELA and math were both about 22 percent in 2014 (NYU Furman Center, 2014).

Socio-economic Status Statistical data for these Harlem neighborhoods vary based on source. However, the most comprehensive data shows that the Median Household Income in Manhattan Community Board 9 is about $41,736 with 17.8 percent of this population earning less than $10,000 per year. About 21.4 percent of households have had Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits, a federal nutrition assistance program for low-income individuals and families, in the past 12 months, 3.5 percent of the households have cash public assistance income (NYCDCP, 2015a). The Median Household Income in Manhattan Community Board 10 is even lower at about $ 36,468 with a similar percentage of this population (17.3 percent) earning less than $10,000 per year. About 26.2 percent of households have had SNAP benefits in the past 12 months, 6.6 percent of the households have cash public assistance income (NYCDCP, 2015a). Mental Health As our findings showed that the mental health of these Harlem neighborhoods are of keen interest to community educators, stakeholders, parents and the general community, this report attempts to provide some insight into the mental well-being of this population (often identified as levels of stress—here referred to as “distress”). In 2013, the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene developed a report showing the levels of self-reported serious psychological distress in each of its three District Public Health Offices (DPHOs) in Harlem, Brooklyn, and the Bronx. This data was age-adjusted, or standardized, using a technique that allows epidemiologists to compare populations when the age profiles of the populations are quite different. Results from this survey showed that East and Central Harlem had higher percentages of distress (7.2%) than North and Central Brooklyn (4.8%) and all other neighborhoods (5.0%). Harlem’s distress rate was second only to the South Bronx (9.2%). Chronic Disease As HHPC works closely with the Harlem community, it is also significant to note that chronic disease is a substantial stressor and barrier for many community members as they are unable to participate in many community offerings due to health conditions related to cardiovascular disease and other chronic illnesses. For instance, according to Department of Health Community Health Profile for Central Harlem (2006), the heart disease hospitalization rate in this neighborhood has been steadily increasing. With residents experiencing an average annual heart disease hospitalization rate in 2003-2004 that was more than 40% higher than the Manhattan rate and almost 15% higher than the rate in NYC overall. Obesity is a key marker for chronic disease, and according to the Department of Health (2006) in Central Harlem, more than one quarter of adults (27%) are obese, which is nearly double the Manhattan percent (15%) and one-third higher than

10

in New York City overall (20%). Additionally, the American Stroke Association has been promoting the “heart/head connection” for some time indicating that similar leading to heart disease also impact brain health. Summary The above data was provided to serve as a context for and to help inform the analysis of the qualitative data gathered in CB 9 and 10. Overall, West and Central Harlem are neighborhoods with many challenges in terms of poverty, disability, low percentages of students performing at grade level, a high percentage of students who drop out of high school without attaining a high school equivalency certificate. Despite so many obstacles, Harlem residents’ desire to achieve and succeed was a constant thread throughout our data collection process. This is evidenced in the percentage of residents attending college or attaining higher-level degrees as well as the overwhelming interest from our study participants in education and learning opportunities through ZMBBI. Participant Demographics and Characteristics There were 60 study participants made up of 23 parents, 14 teachers/community educators, 13 stakeholders and 10 adults who reside within CB 9 and 10. Of these participants their median age was 46-55. Seventy-three percent were female and 27 percent were male. The majority of the participants lived in three zip codes that fall within an area that encompasses most of Central and West Harlem. Of the 53 people who responded to the specific question about the average amount of time that they have lived in Harlem, 26 years was the average and 23 years was the median. Sixty-six percent of the participants indicated that they were employed, with only 10 percent unemployed, 14 percent were disabled, and 10 percent were retired. Engaging in science was important to most of the survey respondents—they indicated that they sought information about science and technology for themselves and their children. The most prominent methods for obtaining information about science and technology were television, museums, and the Internet. For more information see Appendix P. Characteristics Based on Type Although the participants were grouped into a primary participant domain type based on the recruitment process, some participants held overlapping roles within the community. For instance a recruited stakeholder was also a parent and an adult resident. When accounting for all of the roles, it was found that 52 percent of the participants (N=31) were parents, 25 percent of the participants (N=15) were teachers or community educators, 28 percent of the participants (N=17) were stakeholders and 43 percent of the participants (N=26) indicated that they were adults who resided in West or Central Harlem. For more information see Appendix P. Teachers/Community Educators. The most common grades taught by the teachers and community educators who participated in this study were 6-12. Appendix P Figure P4 shows the distribution of grades taught by teachers and community educators. The average amount of overall years that they have been teaching is 14 years. Within Harlem,

11

the average amount of years that they have been teaching is 10 years. Almost all of these community educators and teachers indicated that they teach in school district 5, which encompasses most of CB 9 and 10. Other school districts that were indicated once were school district 3 (which includes Upper West Side) and 4 (which includes East Harlem) and the broader New York City area. Teachers who participated in this study taught at both public and charter schools. Parents. The most common ages of the children of parent participants were ages 10 and 11. Appendix P Figure 5 provides a chart indicating the distribution of the parent participants’ children. On average, aside from the Summer Youth Employment Program (N=13), only a couple of parents (<5) who reside in West/Central Harlem indicated that they had children who have had involvement with each of the listed Columbia University programming. Appendix P Figure P6 shows the total amount of parents who have children involved in each of the listed Columbia University programming. Stakeholders. The affiliation of stakeholders and community leaders were widely distributed. Study participants who were within this realm play several roles within the community; therefore, some participants held multiple affiliations. There were about 29 percent who indicated affiliation with the Department of Education, 19 percent who were affiliated with private educational programming, 24 percent who were affiliated with faith-based organizations, 10 percent who were affiliated with community centers and 48% who were a part of other types of organizations that were not listed. See Appendix P for more information Approach Qualitative methods Due to the nature and content of the specific information sought by the CEO at ZMBBI, HHPC made use of two widely used qualitative research methods: focus groups and in-depth interviews. These methods are described below and were employed because they allow for:

1. A contextualization of the setting in which the data collection takes place—so that the data will not be isolated from the environment which gives it meaning

2. The ability to reach a diversity of populations, as well as specific types of community member representatives

3. A deeper understanding of specific information that allows for a range of

perspectives and an understanding of why those attitudes or beliefs occur

4. A broader range of rich data to be collected which ensures that important concepts or types of data will not be lost or misconstrued as they might with a singular or quantitative tool (such as a survey)

5. The ability to use an iterative process including probing and restating questions to

gain greater insight into respondent’s ideas and beliefs.

12

• Focus groups Focus groups were convened to obtain information about norms, behaviors, attitudes, cultural domains, innovations, and instrument content relevant to ZMBBI educational offerings related to brain science and STEM. Individuals participating were from the target groups of interest. Transcripts of these group conversations are guided by the interviewer’s questions and the text coded for analysis.

• In-depth interviews In-depth one-on-one interviews with representative individuals and key informants or topic experts were used to gather specific information on selected topics. The interviews for this focused on eliciting answers to open-ended questions or responses to elicitation materials. Transcripts of these conversations were text coded and analyzed.

Recruitment Requirements and Demographic Targets HHPC conducted research with a total of 60 study participants. This included conducting four focus groups made up of between six and 11 participants and 10 in-depth one-on-one interviews. Additionally, in order to achieve the total number of participants designated for focus groups, but who were unable to attend during the designated dates and times, we conducted substantive two hour interviews with an additional 24 participants—the balance of the focus group pool. See Appendices A and B for maps showing outreach/recruitment efforts and Appendices M and N for information about study participants and data collection methods. Recruitment Targets: Five Domains*

1) Parents of K-12 grade students who while living in CB 9 and 10 may have children attending school outside this area.

2) Science/STEM Teachers of K-12 students at schools located within CB 9 or 10 3) Science/STEM Community Educators of K-12 students within CB 9 and 10.

These professionals often worked at community centers and community-based organizations providing after-school programming, college preparatory assistance, STEM-specific programming or tutoring.

4) Stakeholders working in a leadership capacity within CB 9 and 10 coming from realms as diverse as churches, community-based organizations, and school administration

5) Adults living within CB 9 and 10 *See Appendices M and N for more information. Note that while participants may have had multiple roles across the five domains, each is studied according to one primary domain.

13

Outreach Strategy Robust recruitment strategies were devised to capture a diverse representation of the five participant domains within the geographic catchment area. These efforts utilized HHPC's extensive collaboration and partnership networks developed over the past two decades of working in the Upper Manhattan community:

• In-person meetings with HHPC partners and collaborators as well as referrals to important stakeholders

• Face-to-face recruitment handing out palm cards or flyers at key community

venues and explaining what our study was and how interested residents could get involved

• Collaborations with community entities and individuals who agreed to

disseminate information about the ZMBBI study

• Tabling at various community events including the Harlem STEM Fair and District 5 Family Day as well as at ongoing activities held by collaborators such as food pantry distributions and parent teacher meetings at schools

• Posting and distributing flyers generally at key community sites such as libraries,

churches, community centers, and community based organizations

• Distributing customized packets of information to targeted individuals such as science teachers, principals, superintendents, parent coordinators, policymakers, and school district representatives at schools, district offices, borough president’s offices, and community boards.

• Phone calls and email correspondence to determine contacts for specific outreach

efforts

To incentivize community engagement in the study we provided the following gestures of appreciation: Participants in two-hour focus groups/interviews received a $75 gift card and $5 Metrocard and were also given a healthy dinner; Participants in one-hour interviews received a $50 gift card and $5 Metrocard. This information about participant "incentives" was a key component of outreach and recruitment as these gifts were substantial enough to be meaningful to people in all participant domains. Data Collection HHPC had the benefit of offices located in the heart of Harlem, near the famed Apollo Theater, to conduct the majority of data collection efforts. However, the research team followed a flexible approach to meet the needs of study participants in order to reach participant target goals. For instance, some interviews were conducted in the field to

14

accommodate and encourage participant engagement such as at a principal's office or a community-based organization if that was more convenient for a stakeholder.

Audio Recording/Transcription Protocols Each participant was informed that the interviews and focus groups were to be audio recorded. Additionally, participants were provided with information about storage, confidentiality, and purpose of the future use of the audio file. After consent to interview and record was given by the participant, a tape recorder was used to audio record each session. Several measures were implemented in order to protect participants’ privacy. The audio files were identified by participant identification number only. They were then locked in a filing cabinet within HHPC offices, and destroyed after transcription and transfer onto an internal server for safe keeping. Regarding transcription processes, recordings were sent to a private transcription service for audio to text conversions. All components including the audio file and the transcribed document were viewed and accessible only to the researchers involved with this study. And all files will be destroyed once analysis and reporting were completed to ensure the protection of participant privacy. Data Analysis Background: As text-based data is being collected it is constantly being organized, managed, and analyzed. Analyzing text-based data is an ongoing process that begins during data collection as key themes and concepts are noted by researchers and continues through the reporting phase—as writing about findings is generally carried out in tandem with data analysis. Data organization for this CNA began as transcripts were completed, allowing us to begin to search for both specific issues and data that ZMBBI sought to uncover as well as new ideas and concepts that might not have been considered during the planning phase. Qualitative research methods commonly validate certain findings that are expected as well as uncover new and interesting threads of information. Our research team made use of grounded theory (Glaser and Strauss, 1967; Strauss, 1987; Yin, 1981 and 1984; and Miles and Huberman, 1984) that is a general research method not tied to one particular discipline that guides a researcher on matters of data collection and helps to focus data analysis. When using this methodology, the researcher starts with an inductive approach to generate substantive codes from the data, and then as more data is collected and themes and concepts begin to emerge, they add a deductive phase—moving from more general concepts to the specific. Process: In order to analyze participant responses for focus groups and in-depth interviews, our research team started the data analysis process by developing a list of key concepts or themes that were initially inspired by the questions included in the facilitator “guides.” These key concepts/themes were given a correlating “code.” As we began analyzing transcripts from our conversations, we meticulously “coded” areas of the text that focused on the concepts and themes we had recorded, as well as new themes that emerged as we delved deeper into the data. This included concepts/themes that were

15

recurring as well as those that were outliers. Additionally, much of the data was reviewed by multiple team members to ensure that important information was not overlooked. To assist our research team in analyzing data we made use of both tabular displays in Excel as well as the text-based analytical tool, Atlas.ti. The latter allowed us to undertake this text-based analysis process more easily through built-in organizational and analytical features designed specifically for evaluating text-based data. An interesting result of this study was that overall responses were not substantially different between focus groups and interviews. Many of the same themes/concepts were similar between these two data collection formats. Where there were differences we have provided detailed explanations in the findings section below. Survey data: A short quantitative survey was administered prior to the start of the focus groups and interviews to collect demographic information such as age, zip code of residence, and participants’ interest and interaction with science. The questionnaires were then input into Qualtrics, an online survey tool that provides the ability to aggregate data and generate reports to support data analysis. See Appendix P for detailed information relating to this aspect of CNA data collection and analysis.

16

Community Needs Assessment: Findings Responses to existing programming General

Excitement and interest in ZMBBI programming

Overwhelmingly, participants were excited about and interested in ZMBBI programming from all of the five of the domains queried (teachers, community educators, parents, adults, and stakeholders). Community members were excited to have a state-of-the-art brain science facility offering educational programming in their own community. Many participants indicated that they would make use of programming within Harlem especially if it was offered free of charge and involved interesting hands-on activities.

An interesting general comment was that some participants saw ZMBBI's entrée into the community as an opportunity for resources beyond just educational opportunities—but also as a potential resource for jobs. This seems tied to the general need for employment and to boost income as West and Central Harlem have very high rates of unemployment and poverty. For instance, one parent told us, “I’m hoping it’s also gonna generate a lot of jobs in the community too.” When prompted to provide more information on this topic, she said, “You always need somebody to clean first of all. But…it would give people that live in the community a chance at going into a science field…I’m pretty sure a building of that size, there would be a lot of job openings.” See Appendix L for further information on socio-economic status for CB 9/10 as well as more detail on this subject in the "Ideas for Potential Future Programming" section below.

Some participants also wondered if some community members would not see the ZMBBI facility as being available to them. For instance one participant said, "I like [what you describe about ZMBBI] a lot but wonder if people from this community will participate—while I am very familiar with Columbia as I went there, I wonder if some of my neighbors would feel comfortable, if they would feel invited in, if it feels like a space you'd want to join?"

A general concern posed by a parent focus group was the issue of programming sustainability. Several parents/caregivers voiced the concern that exciting offerings or resources often come into the community for the short term and then are gone. They expressed concern that they would get excited about ZMBBI and its offerings and then find that shortly thereafter it would be unavailable. This was tied to issues about trust that were highlighted in the Executive Summary of this report.

Following are detailed responses to specific types of existing programming:

17

• Brain Expo: Overall participant interest in this educational offering was highly positive. Participants from all five domains loved the hands-on aspect, but as no one that we interviewed had heard of it, all wished that it had been more well advertised as they would have liked to have attended along with their families. They did not have a problem with traveling to Washington Heights for the Expo even though it was out of their neighborhood. One suggestion from community educators was to get parents involved through takeaways like projects they could do at home "so they will engage with the kids." One caregiver, a grandmother of two middle school girls, had already raised a family of her own and seen many of them off to successful careers in science—such as engineering, told us about her enjoyment at doing science projects with her children. She found science to be an antidote to the "dropping out" syndrome one educator mentions in the "Increased Programming to Engage Parents" section below, "I think it would start a spark in them. I think science is a good way to reach a lot of children because [it] can be so magical…A lot of children lose their way because they're bored, they have no excitement." Another educator for K-6 children thought the Expo was a great offering, but that it should happen more often—perhaps on a smaller scale: "If there were the resources to do a quarterly expo that would be good as not everyone is going to be able to come to the annual expo unless you really coordinate with the series of schools or District 5. [On a] quarterly basis teachers or principals could choose which of the four dates to come." This would also lead to overall higher attendance rates.

• Classroom Visits: Classroom visits were also considered an important offering by all participant domains. One parent also saw these as an excellent promotional vehicle for ZMBBI to use in alerting schools, teachers, students, parents and others in the community to the breadth of programming available at its new facility: o "[Classroom visits] may serve as a great promotion for visiting ZMBBI… a

way to get schools, students, and parents excited about offerings [at the new facility]. Otherwise people might be like 'why would I go there—I don't even know what it is.'" This caregiver felt it would be especially good for older kids because they can understand a little more than younger kids, "science can be very exciting especially if you're a little more mature," she said.

o One educator also saw the classroom visits as a way to keep teachers up to date, "There's a lot of teachers that even though they're certified science teachers…could be teaching a concept that's two years old…I think [classroom visits] would be really really good." Some teachers also thought

18

that there were many types of classes for which the visits would be appropriate such as health classes that often cover aspects of brain science, "I start my health class about the brain and I talk about the brains of teenagers and 'How can we really blame them for what they do? 'Cause they're not really developed."

o One high school teacher, however, had an interesting perspective on classroom visits regarding the need for instructors from ZMBBI to be respectful and also be someone that students could relate to on cultural levels. She gave the example of working with a Columbia group that visited her classroom last year to provide health education. She said, “Every time they would be coming in, [the students] would be sort of like expressing anger [or] dissatisfaction [about the visitors’] presence. [The instructor’s] health curriculum was very book oriented. It wasn’t …fun for them. Every week it was the same, it was sort of like discussion based….There were times when fights would almost start…because some of the students would feel like the instructors were being disrespectful….They needed to see people they could relate to. If somebody can come in and the student feels like …the instructor is acknowledging them, recognizing them and respecting them, creating that rapport is so important…that’ll make things really, really like smooth.” For this reason, this particular teacher felt she would want to start with a singular visit and if it worked out then consider multiple visits. However, all other participants were in favor of multiple classroom visits as part of a broader curriculum in brain science and STEM.

• BRAINIAC Program: This offering was one that most parents were very much in

awe of and wanted their child to attend. Many teachers indicated that they would support a broader pipeline for applications as even at lower-performing schools there would be children who would be appropriate for this program. One high school teacher said, “I definitely have students…who would be able to conduct her or himself very well….I think from my perspective, every school has, even the…failing schools, have students that would be just fine. I think they need it the most because they don’t have access to these kinds of resources.” o In addition to this program being available to a broader array of schools, most

parents also felt that the BRAINIAC program would serve only a small segment of the population. One parent summed it up in the following way, "[This is] for kids that are motivated and really interested in science. [We] need a program that's for average performers." She also pointed out that in serving this broader audience, ZMBBI would expose students to a broader range of brain science careers, not just bench science. This same parent summarized this point in the following way, "It takes a lot of people to

19

research something... You'd have a whole range of people engaged in science at whatever level."

o One educator also thought that some elements of the BRAINIAC program could be modified to reach a broader population, especially younger children. Perhaps by making use of the mentoring components of the BRAINIAC program in a less direct way—for instance getting young people to observe a scientist in action and then by following up with a classroom activity after seeing that take place, "The observation part is key because there's not enough time spent on that in the classroom to actually think and compose…I think we need to go back to that [observation] if we really want to move forward with innovation…If there weren't enough mentors for one-on-one [interaction] you could still induct [students] into a program where they're doing a lot of observation. Maybe they're going to do work offsite and come back for a 'Junior BRAINIAC' session. I think we always when it comes to STEM students start later in the US. We really should have the junior BRAINIACS where you are going to get more eager beavers ready to go and working together. They could go do a lab with a scientist and then go back to their classroom and they're mirroring what they saw happening."

• Brain Bee: This offering did not capture the interest of participants from any of

the domains in the way that other existing programming did. One parent said, "[It] doesn't seem that many kids [would be] interested in this. It'd have to be those really brainy kids that would want to do it." Interestingly enough, no one made that comment about the BRAINIAC program, and this particular parent thought the BRAINIAC program was an excellent resource.

• Teacher Training: The existing teacher training offerings (including four community lectures and the annual training seminar) were considered very important ways to build school science and STEM capacity, however they felt this needed to be tied directly to structured professional development (PD) for teachers. o One parent expressed the importance of keeping teachers current: "This is a

way to keep teachers up-to-date. After you graduate you're out of touch. Here's a way to update your skills."

o However, community educators and teachers had a concern about getting teachers to engage if there wasn't some official tie to professional development requirements. Participants in the educator/teacher focus group indicated that they would be interested in having ZMBBI workshops serve as part of their professional development offerings especially during the two full

20

days in November and June called "Chancellor Days": "Instead of just sitting in our school talking about whatever, you can send some science teachers [to ZMBBI]," one science teacher said.

o They felt that this programming would serve the dual purpose of updating science teachers on brain science topics, but also promoting ZMBBI offerings. "If people are not taking advantage of something maybe it's because they don't know about it," another science teacher said.

o Another suggestion that these focus group participants offered is modeling ZMBBI programming on existing offerings at other organizations such as the Urban Advantage Program at the Museum of Natural History. This program provides professional development to teachers to give them a more in-depth understanding of science and to have the opportunity to work in tandem with scientists. Students benefit as their teachers are more up-to-date on state of the art science issues and can pass important benefits on to them based on an enhanced relationship with the institution.

o Teacher training could also be tied to formal recognition of teachers who are engaged in professional development offerings at ZMBBI including through certificates and special recognition lunches, local media could also be engaged to cover the importance of teachers engaging in brain science and bringing innovative STEM programming into their classrooms.

Interest in Expanded Existing Programming

All participant domains (parents, teachers/community educators, stakeholders and adults) expressed substantial interest in expanding ZMBBI programming to enhance school-based science programming through a range of formats. Following are specific details about their interests:

Formal school-organized fieldtrips to the Brain Expo and offerings at the new ZMBBI facility.

Designing multi-segment classroom visits that incorporate hands-on student projects that can be worked on in between visits by ZMBBI scientists allowing a deeper level of engagement.

Creating more diverse pipelines for BRAINIAC engagement—including accessing teacher recommendations for high performing students in underperforming schools. Multiple parents mentioned the benefits of using a lottery system to select student participants—a system that the Harlem community it very familiar with in accessing educational programming.

21

Ideas for potential future programming A large portion of the excitement about ZMBBI was the interest in the almost unlimited potential for ZMBBI programming that would meet expressed needs of community members. Following are themes that came up frequently:

• Developing partnerships with schools to allow ZMBBI to become a key resource to the community around science and STEM programming. As noted in the next section of this report, science education is frequently unavailable at Harlem schools, especially for elementary school students as classroom teachers are often uncomfortable teaching science as it is not their area of expertise, and they find it hard to engage students. Additionally, for many schools the focus on math and English is promoted by exam requirements. Parents indicated that they felt science programming at their children’s schools was insufficient or boring (no interactive aspects) and teachers often expressed this as well. The teacher/educator focus group also indicated that these partnerships would provide practical details related to programming: visiting ZMBBI could coincide with when a school is actually [teaching] that subject.

Lack of science classes or teachers in many schools The relevance of partnering with local schools correlated with an important finding: that science education is woefully lacking at many schools throughout West and Central Harlem. Many teachers and school administrators expressed a desire for partnering with ZMBBI to enhance their existing science programming at all grade levels. While science is a subject that teachers, principals and stakeholders keenly support, science programming in New York City public schools varies by school and grade level. According to a study subject, an elementary school teacher for 32 years who has been involved in developing science curricula at local and state levels, a primary reason for this is based on Department of Education standards that science be taught by classroom teachers for elementary school whereas Middle School teachers must be certified in science and High School teachers must have an undergraduate degree in science. While the New York City Department of Education has developed a Science Scope & Sequence for grades K-5, depending on the school's academic priorities (reading literacy and math often rank higher due to Regents exams and teacher discomfort in teaching science). According to a study subject who is a principal of a low-performing high school in District 5 (See Appendix I for district location) while she wants students to learn science, she currently does not have a classroom devoted to science or any lab space.

22

• Hours of operation One of the areas that ZMBBI requested our research team to collect data on, was the times at which the public would be interested in using their facility. Interestingly, most participants felt that they couldn’t determine when the Center should be open if they didn’t know what specific programming would be available then. Because of this, we modified our questions to help them brainstorm what could happen at particular times. See Appendix S for more information on this topic.

23

• Desire for brain health screening and education

Study participants had a keen interest in additional ZMBBI programming that would involve screening, treatment, support, and education on brain health issues across the lifespan (especially emotional/mental health issues related to environmental impacts such as racism, poverty, and violence). However, there was concern about the stigma associated with many proposed types of screening or education topics (especially those related to a disability or mental health) and the need for privacy. For instance, one participant told the story of a relative who went to a clinic to be treated for HIV, while there he ran into a neighbor who was also HIV positive and thereafter that neighbor "outed" him to the rest of their residential community as having HIV. These privacy and stigma issues came up across all domains and in focus groups as well as interviews. Some participants stated that they felt many people in the community would be concerned about being “labeled” as crazy or mentally ill. Several people also mentioned that they would want to ensure that screening took place in a clinical setting and this would be very important to them. “The thing about screening,” one stakeholder focus group member said, “[is that] a lot of times it’s particularly culturally referenced for this type of community. A lot of people are very unwilling to be screened, in terms of your mental health….”

As for the educational component of brain behavior programming, study participants were very interested in learning more about these issues and some felt that this should be the first step in introducing some of these issues into the community before screening took place. For instance, one parent said, “…the education piece has to be out there first. You educate [people] before screening. They need to know what they’re being screened [for]—you want them to volunteer to be screened.” Another interesting concern that some stakeholders raised was that ZMBBI screening programs would infringe upon the work of local community-based organizations already performing screenings for these types of issues. One stakeholder focus group participant said, “I also [would want] to ensure that this is not gonna be something that undermines organizations in the community that have been doing [this type of work] for a long time, and they get undermined or squeezed out.” The group suggested that ZMBBI coordinate with existing CBOs doing brain-related screenings and refer people engaged in educational programming to them. (For more information on screening and education related to brain behavior see Appendix T.)

24

Increased programming to engage parents A key finding of this study was that some parents are not as engaged in their high-school age children's academic lives as they are with their younger children. There are many reasons for this including as one participant who is an educator said that while many parents want to engage with their children, they often have difficulty affording a babysitter for younger siblings in order to attend activities for older children. However, many teachers and community educators commented on the challenges in getting parents of high school students to engage with their students for school-related activities (i.e. homework help, attending parent teacher meetings or other events at the school, and being involved in education generally). We also found this to be the case in recruiting parents of high school age children for this study. We actually broadened our recruitment criteria to accommodate parents of middle school students in order to meet our assessment goals because parents of high schoolers were so difficult to engage. Another angle on this is that cues from adults often trigger children to "drop out" and become disengaged from education. As one STEM/science educator (who has also been a New York City public school teacher) told us:

"[Children] mentally drop out at 4th grade and physically drop out at 9th grade, for the most part…it's about support…Their community is supportive as long as they have potential. If they don't have the potential then they're told they're just gonna stay in the community and be okay with it…if you're a kid who they [the neighborhood/the community] don't see that anything is going to happen to you...then you're just gonna be part of the…you're just gonna be another kid."

Related to this idea of supporting students if parents are unavailable, or if children are not engaged, highlights the significance of ZMBBI as a mentoring resource. While currently ZMBBI's BRAINIAC program serves this role for high-performing high school students, many participants expressed the need for this to be expanded to other (especially younger) students. One stakeholder emphasized this:

"The biggest thing to get out of this programming is exposure [to science and education] and mentoring…I think mentoring is big because you're investing in people and telling them that they can be successful in this and that way…[with current ZMBBI programming] they could get a lot of exposure but not a lot of investment, in terms of mentoring. Is there a way a kid who is real interested could hook up with a researcher in the building [to ask questions about careers in science and to find mentors]?" This is discussed in more detail below.

Some of the ways that our study participants suggested that ZMBBI could create programming to engage parents involved providing:

• Educational offerings that help parents understand what is developmentally appropriate for children at various ages

25

• Practical tips based on brain science for how parents can help their children do better in school and generally enhance brain activity. One parent said that programming could include, "…how you can help your child be smarter, why not have chess institute or something and [brain enhancing] games in your afterschool?"

• Information on how to identify whether your child has a brain-related issue or is affected by some environmental factor. For instance, parents in one focus group suggested using videos or other visuals to show these differences (e.g. a video showing a kid eating an ICEE and what the food coloring does to his brain in comparison to a child who is on the autism spectrum).

Develop programming with practical applications Our research revealed that participants from all five domains were interested in or encouraged programming that was not esoteric, but had obvious practical application.

One parent focus group had a range of specific programming ideas that they felt that both they and their children would be very interested in:

• Programming targeted to specific age groups that show connections between the brain and the body (e.g. how the brain impacts the adolescent body and triggers hormonal changes (e.g. sweating and other sometimes confusing aspects of puberty).

• Another parent who was interviewed said that her 16-year-old son could not be persuaded to engage in programming that did not interest or excite him, and felt that one way to get teenagers involved is to have a teen night similar to programming at the Schomberg Center that would focus on brain issues related to relevant topics in young people's lives like sex and physical attraction. Another way to stimulate and engage young people is through pairing cultural activities—such as music, art, film, and theater with science-related activities and providing insight into how these genres impact the brain.

• Understanding not just the parts of the brain but how they affect your life—especially academically—and how knowing this can help you to learn how to modify behavior to function more optimally.

Parents who were interviewed individually had the following ideas for programming:

• Saturday academies held over four or six week periods that would provide a certificate in a certain area. Parents felt these would be especially appealing to adolescents.

• Take programming out into community. Offer STEM presentations where the public can interact directly, for instance in parks and at street fairs.

26

• Promoting career development and serving as a resource for jobs. Many participants across the five domains expressed that they felt that general employment at the Jerome L. Green Science Center as well as exposure to specific career options within brain science and STEM were key resources they hoped ZMBBI would provide. This was evidenced by the survey that was provided to all participants in which the Summer Youth Employment program was far and away the most successful Columbia programming that participants engaged in and participants indicated that often it was difficult to get high school age youth involved in summer programming as they often needed to work. As far as career exposure, one parent talked about the need to know what brain science careers would look like in real life, and what kinds of diversity there was, " [It would be great to] have real brain scientists come and talk to kids—find out what they do and that these careers actually exist, like a brain surgeon or a neuropsychologist—what would that person do?"

• Ensuring that low-performing populations have realistic expectations. While agreeing that it is important for young people to know about a diversity of career options in brain science and STEM, a stakeholder expressed the need to be honest with young people about what these careers required so there weren't any false expectations: "I run a STEM pipeline program for minorities. One of the things we see is eligible minorities [who are] low socio-economic status, first generation immigrants, people of color, LGBT, we see kids with awful grades, no direction, weak essays—and they wanna be neurosurgeons. There's a disconnect between what they [think they] have to do and what is actually necessary. [They are competing with] people who have six years of internships in neurosurgical practices. We look at those [students] and it's heartbreaking." She went on to discuss solutions for programs that want to provide STEM programming for this type of population: "For people to be successful in the STEM sciences we…have to get them grounded in what actually needs to be done."

• Parents were also interested in programming that would help their children develop critical thinking as "…kids don't learn how to do that now. [They also need to learn about] problem solving and ethical decision-making." These skills were interesting, as they are part and parcel of being able to achieve at high levels academically as well as in professional and academic careers.

The focus group made up of teachers and community educators had the following ideas for additional ZMBBI programming:

• Like many other participant domains, they stressed that they would like to see programming relating to practical things like what your brain looks like after a car accident or under the influence of a certain drug etc. "Part of STEM is that it's hard for a lot of students regardless of what age to find how it relates

27

to everyday life," one educator who is engaged in STEAM said, "If you can…find a way to get them interested, however subliminal it might be, I think that that part is important."

Developing programming for Special Needs Students Our research team was surprised to find such a large number of students within the study catchment area engaged in special needs programming. In following up on this finding, we found that New York City is in the midst of major reform in the arena of Special Needs programming in public schools. According to Special Needs experts in Harlem whom we spoke with, this reform will allow current programming to catch up with federal mandates. One of the types of needs that students may have that could require an Individual Education Program (IEP) is emotional disability. Currently, this is still a gray area in which children with environmental risk factors (i.e. unstable home life due to domestic violence, caregiver incarceration, homelessness, and other factors) often are recommended for an IEP even if they do not have an actual intelligence quotient (IQ) deficiency or learning disability. Other findings about special needs programming included:

o The new goal is for New York City to promote “Least Restrictive Environments” (LRE) that will require all students to be taught in a regular classroom with their non-disabled peers (unless they have a disability that makes that impossible). Currently, most IEP students are taught in a classroom made up solely of IEP students for which graduation rates can fall as low as five percent. Not only do students who receive an IEP often have low graduation rates, they are often unable to access science education as the IEP classroom does not often provide this subject—although some special needs teachers we interviewed did provide science education as part of their regular lesson planning. However, this tends to be inconsistent based on teacher familiarity with and comfort in teaching this subject.

o An example of students with remedial needs receiving IEPs was given by a high school teacher who said that she had students with IEPs who she saw as needing remedial support, who were very interested in science and at her school were able to access these lessons, “I have one student for example he doesn’t like to read…[or] write, but he’s really intelligent. He asks questions about the environment and the world. I know he’s not going to pass the state test. At the same time, I realize that he’s curious.” She went on to explain that many students who were poor performers had lost hope, they had stopped trying because “they feel like why bother.”

28

o Another important finding was that English Language Learners (ELL) are also categorized within the realm of Special Needs within New York City schools and for both CB 9 and 10 make up a significant IEP category. The identification of English Language Learners in New York City public school system begins with a Home Language Identification Survey (HSLI) that is filled out by parents or guardians. If this survey indicates that a language other than English is spoken in the home, the child is given the Language Assessment Battery-Revised (LAB-R) or New York State Identification Test for English Language Learners (NYSITELL) to determine English language proficiency. If a student scores below the state-determined level, they are classified as ELLs and given access to ELL programs. There are three types of ELL programs offered through the New York City public schools: Dual Language, English as a Second Language and Transitional Bilingual Education. Dual Language provides instruction in two languages with the goal of developing bilingualism. ELLs who are enrolled in this program receive English as a Second Language (ESL) instruction as a part of the schedule. ESL is taught in English with the goal of students developing English proficiency. Some schools offer stand-alone ESL classes while other incorporate ESL into subject-area classes. Transitional Bilingual Education (TBE) is instructed in English and the student’s native language. The goal is for students to develop English proficiency by gradually reducing the amount of instruction in their native language.

According to the Department of English Language Learners and Student Support 2013-2014 Demographic Report, ELLs account for 14.3% of the overall NYCDOE student population with roughly half being foreign-born and half U.S.-born, including U.S. territories. During the 2013-2014 school year 155,706 ELLs enrolled in NYC public schools with 21,980, 14.1% of the total ELL population, attending schools in Manhattan.

Spanish is the language spoken most often by ELL students in Districts 3, 5 and 6. For Spanish-Speaking ELLs enrolled in the New York City public schools, 59.9 percent come from the U.S., including its territories, and 27.1 percent come from the Dominican Republic. (See Appendix O for more information on this topic and specific demographics for the CNA catchment area).

o Another area related to Special Needs and brain-related issues was autism. Several parents/caregivers who were study participants had children who were autistic. They all indicated that they found accessing information about autism and assistance in addressing this issue very difficult in Harlem. Several parents suggested the need for parent education/support groups related to autism, and one said that both parents and children need special programming in this area: "Programming should include information on] coping

29

mechanisms, and self regulation especially for children who are on the autism spectrum."

Developing programming for early childhood development Many stakeholders, community educators, and teachers pointed out the need for STEM and science-related programming to reach elementary age children for practical reasons−allowing them time enough to develop the skills and experience to be prepared and qualified for college degree programs and to go on to engage in these types of careers. However, according to Lally (2010), “School readiness interventions that start later than infancy may be too late to be effective.” In keeping with Lally’s research on the need for age 0-3 cognitive development, two study participants who were educational consultants engaged in helping parents throughout New York City and especially in African American neighborhoods with brain development for children ages 0-3, pointed out the significance of providing programming in this area and its relevance for the Harlem population. A growing body of research shows that even by kindergarten low performers are determined to be less likely to succeed academically. One of these consultants told us, "Brain development in young children should be provided as Black and Latino babies are cognitively behind White babies (at 24 months they are three times behind and by kindergarten they are 20 months behind); 0-3 years is critical for social, emotional and cognitive skills; this impacts high rates of special education and the cradle to prison pipeline (the latter begins in 3rd grade)." (For further information see 2012 Children’s Defense Fund report Appendix Q). Edelman (2007) notes that a large percentage of low-income parents (who are often single working mothers) often “have little energy left to provide the stimulation that is critical to a child’s early development….Teen mothers whose own education and personal development have been arrested by early pregnancies are often still learning how to be adults themselves and so are unprepared to raise a child. Children who begin their first critical years in unhealthy starts are likely to begin school not ready to learn.” Additionally, incarceration was a topic that came up across all participant domains as they discussed parents and caregivers being unavailable for students due to juvenile detention or family member incarceration as a source of stress in the community. Given the national focus on mass incarceration including President Obama’s discussion of this issue (See link to remarks in Appendix Q), the cradle to prison pipeline is that much more salient as a significant issue regarding educational endeavors in Harlem. Creative ways to promote engagement in ZMBBI programming Overall a large percentage of both focus group and interview participants brought up partnering as the key to ZMBBI success in engaging West and Central Harlem in brain-

30

related educational programming. Time and again we heard participants from all five participant domains voice their recommendation for a structured framework that would allow ongoing engagement between schools and community through partnerships. The desire for ZMBBI to form solid working relationships with leadership teams at area schools was a common request. Additionally, participants also discussed their interest in free “membership” type affiliations with ZMBBI that would allow parents, families, and the community at large to have special access to programming, including the ability to sign up for certain events or offerings in advance, and have other types of institutional benefits much as they would at other museums or educational centers in New York.

• Many different participant groups encouraged this free membership/school partnership model for engagement with students so that students would form ongoing relationships with ZMBBI that would encourage their participation in programming at ever-deepening levels (from classroom to ZMBBI fieldtrips, to internships) that would include some requirement to give back to the community while building ownership in ZMBBI. For instance, students involved in the BRAINIAC program or other future mentoring programs could be required to provide a certain number of volunteer hours to serve as docents or mentors to younger children.

Conclusions and Final Recommendations This extensive inquiry into community interest in engaging with ZMBBI's brain science and STEM programming has provided many insights into ways that these offerings can be expanded, modified, and new programming added. Additionally, it reveals specific details for how the CEO can promote itself and find ways to partner with the community to ensure its ongoing success. As noted in the Executive Summary at the beginning of this report, there are several primary recommendations that data from this research found most salient. Further details about these recommendations follow: Develop clear audience targets that drive programming

• Community educators and stakeholders expressed the need for ZMBBI to develop clarity about its target audience in order to most effectively develop existing and future programming. For instance, if its charge is to serve as a key resource to high performing students, that is a very different goal than to serve the majority of students in CB 9 and 10. Participants indicated that many high-performing students already have access to important resources that have helped them to perform at high levels (i.e. parental involvement, mentors, engagement in academic enrichment programs, and even enrollment in high performing schools).

31

If, however, ZMBBI wishes to serve a larger cross-section of the Harlem community it would need to a) reach high-preforming students in low-performing schools, and b) optimize programming that would serve average to lower-level performers who could benefit from exposure to ZMBBI's educational offerings and state-of-the-art space. For instance, one community stakeholder who runs STEM programming for low-performing students, expressed the need to be up-front with the community about what exactly ZMBBI will do: "The biggest question for ZMBBI is 'what's your goal?' If they just wanna have a place where the community can have lunch, that's fine as long as…I think they need to say that [they don't have the actual programming to help low-performing students]."

Create a robust marketing and branding campaign • A common report from community members of all participant types was that they

had not heard of most Columbia Programming or any of the existing ZMBBI programming. They stressed the need for robust marketing that draws community members into the ZMBBI space through campaigns that clarified what "was in it for them" such as exposure to information that would provide potential future benefit through improved academic performance, career paths, and access to higher education, high paying jobs, as well as programming that was fun and engaging.

• An overwhelming majority of participants expressed the promotional benefits of programming that is practical, interesting, active, and culturally relevant. For instance, the stakeholder focus group suggested planning events that combined the following elements to bring together diverse elements of the community and retain cultural relevancy when promoting ZMBBI: a) create an event in recognition of former model and celebrity restauranteur, B. Smith, who was recently diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease, b) create a flashmob with local artists performing to raise awareness of Alzheimer’s followed by a brief discussion of the disease by a well-known scientist who would also reference ongoing ZMBBI programming, c) gather a group of teens at a hackathon to create an app for their families to use to learn more about the disease.

• Many participants also suggested simple methods such as flyering to distribute information and then a campaign that saturates the neighborhood with information, suggesting that ZMBBI “get the community involved in the outreach” including using “foot soldiers” (local community members, especially youth) to distribute flyers throughout the neighborhood (See Appendix W for further information on community suggestions for promotion).

32

• Some participants suggested that ZMBBI develop a clear and exciting brand that would not be stodgy and overly academic and then ensure that the brand becomes known in the community. One stakeholder focus group participant suggested, “…take whatever name you’re using, if you’re using Zuckerman, then we need to hear Zuckerman all over Harlem.” Another participant chimed in, “Yeah, so everybody knows what Zuckerman is.”

Create a welcoming environment that establishes ZMBBI's commitment to the community

• One of the key findings of this study that was mentioned in a majority of focus group sessions as well as in-depth interviews was the expressed desire for ZMBBI to provide a welcoming space that supports all community members in order to encourage ongoing engagement. One adult participant said that, “You would need award winning customer service. Helpful all the time. [It would need to be] welcoming to everyone.” This comment, which came from all participant domains and both focus groups and interviews, was generally paired with the sense that Columbia University does not always want Harlem community members on their campus, or that they are not welcome in a space that they are made to feel they don't "belong" in.

• While a large group of participants valued and sought out Columbia programming generally, many teachers and stakeholders felt that a many community members would not attend ZMBBI events unless they went with a school group, or had some other emissary sanctioning a space that they might otherwise perceive as “off limits,” “foreign,” or a place for “white people.” Thus, our recommendation is for ZMBBI to make use of key “ambassadors” from schools, faith-based groups, and other community strongholds to serve as key pipelines to ZMBBI programming.

• Specific ways to provide a welcoming environment would include the friendly and helpful staff or volunteers (as mentioned in the quote above and making use of community members as "docents" to encourage a feeling of community ownership of the facility). A key aspect of this would involve outreach to the community through an ongoing presence at existing community events and activities, ensuring that a diverse cross-section of the community is aware of programming through robust marketing, and specific efforts to draw the community into the building and encourage repeat visits.

Partnering is an essential aspect of program capacity building, community buy-in, and programmatic sustainability

33

• This particular area was of keen interest to all five participant domains. Both focus group and interview participants became very animated when discussing ways that ZMBBI could partner with the West and Central Harlem community in order to achieve success in building capacity and community trust, and in developing a robust and long-term presence in the neighborhood. The wealth of potential partners that were recommended ranged from institutions to individuals. For instance, the stakeholder focus group participants suggested partnering with a diversity of community organizations from the Harlem Arts Alliance to local churches. One participant said, “There’s other stakeholders in the community that rarely get spoken about. African American sororities and fraternities. Huge. They are unlimited resources−they have to [engage] in order to stay chartered….It’s almost like a win-win situation to pair with them.” A fellow focus group participant chimed in, “You have your lodges too. Funeral directors, they have their own association in Harlem. That is a huge resource…because they deal with families. They have institutional memory. They can reach out. They’re connected to the churches, to one another. It’s a huge network.”

• Overall, participants urged ZMBBI to partner as a way to ensure that programming was robust and successful through ongoing programs with partner schools, school district heads, community boards, policymakers, teachers, as well as with community-based organizations, and individuals interested in serving on advisory groups/teams and supporting the organization through ongoing engagement. This partnering they felt would also lead to deepening community trust for ZMBBI and also serve to further promote programming as more people would be aware of it through these connections and deepening community ties. In short, partnering was considered a form of community building that would be necessary to form long-term relationships.

• Another aspect of partnering that was discussed is with individual community

members through employment, volunteering, and other aspects of on-site engagement in the day-to-day functioning of ZMBBI. As noted in the findings section of this report as well as the section on practical applications, community members are interested in opportunities for employment, engaging youth in volunteering as docents and peer educators, involving local artists, musicians and celebrities in all aspects of programming and promotion. In this regard, we recommend another area of potential partnership with the Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, as Dean Linda Fried has substantial experience in developing intergenerational relationships between seniors and youth that could be an important component of this level of community partnering. Dean Fried’s work at Johns Hopkins University on aging, as well as her support for this topic at Columbia would offer opportunities for collaborations to obtain funding for intergenerational programming that would benefit ZMBBI and the Harlem community.

• Other recommendations for partnering include forming partnerships with the

Columbia Office of Government and Community Affairs at both the Medical

34

Center and Morningside campuses. This would ensure that community engagement and collaborations are jointly planned and supportive. Additionally, key community stakeholders such as the Harlem Development Corporation would be helpful in establishing key alliances within Harlem.

Limitations, Challenges, and Lessons Learned While the ZMBBI Community Needs Assessment resulted in a wealth of meaningful and interesting information, there were a few small challenges that required creative problem solving on the part of our research team. Limitations. This study did have some limitations that should be discussed, one being the limitation of the qualitative methods used. As noted during early discussions with ZMBBI, the total sample size for this type of research will be smaller than a larger quantitative study and therefore limit the ability to generalize about findings with a small sample of 60 people. However, we feel that this smaller sample size was balanced by the richness of the data collected and the ability to target key population sectors and types of data collected. In addition to the latter benefit, if ZMBBI wishes to add in a quantitative effort, the data collected qualitatively will allow it to develop a much more targeted and effective survey tool and to strengthen and enhance the recruitment process Challenges. Following are details about how our team resolved an issue with high drop-out or sign up rates for focus groups as compared to the relative ease at which we were able to recruit for and conduct in-depth interviews. Focus groups (N=50)

• Challenges: As noted, it was difficult to offer dates and times for focus groups when all interested study participants could attend. HHPC made special efforts to conduct the focus groups during weekdays Tuesday through Thursday which are known to be the best days for meetings that don't interfere with weekend or work plans. We also offered focus groups on Saturdays at two different times: late morning and mid-afternoon to accommodate a range of scheduling needs. All focus groups provided food—a healthy lunch or dinner depending on the time of the meeting as a further incentive and gesture of appreciation for involvement. However, despite this flexibility certain groups were especially hard to reach: high school age parents, teachers, community educators and stakeholders due to busy schedules.

• Attendance/drop-out rate: These percentages are based on rates of confirmed participants and those who did not show up for the scheduled appointment. See Appendix N for details. Focus Group Drop-Out Rate:

o Stakeholders 0.33 percent o Teachers/Community educators 0.17 percent o Parents 0.30 percent o Adults 0.1 percent

35

• Solutions and responses to challenges: The research team was challenged by focus group participation due to both difficulty in recruiting in certain groups followed by a high drop-out rate despite varied focus group times. In order to reach target goals, the research team offered willing focus group participants who could not meet the focus group date and time requirements the option to do a two-hour interview at HHPC at a time of their choice. This method was successful especially for parents struggling with childcare issues and stakeholders and community educators who had particularly busy schedules. In some cases it was possible to conduct mini-focus groups of two members at one time which allowed us to collect data in a multi-person setting similar to a focus group. Among the participants who did the two-hour interview in place of attending a focus group, there was a 0 percent drop-out rate. As noted, while this was a greater effort and time commitment for HHPC staff than planned, it was fortuitous as it enabled us to gather even more substantive data through careful engagement in one-on-one discussions for a much larger number of participants than was proposed.

Key informant interviews (N=10) • Challenges: Overall, it was fairly easy to attract study participants to the one-on-

one interviews as we made great efforts to accommodate schedules—offering openings in early morning, throughout the day and into the evening.

• Attendance/drop-out rate: Because of this flexibility in scheduling there were no drop-outs among the one-hour interviews for stakeholders, community educators and parents. Only one teacher did not show up for the scheduled one-hour interview.

Lessons learned. It is always helpful to consider research project design and process at the end of a study in order to inform future efforts. After conducting many interviews and focus groups for this CNA it became apparent that certain information about education and screening for community brain behaviors would have been best collected in a survey format. This would have allowed us to have a better sense of community interest during the data collection phase especially if also included in questioning that would allow us to probe more deeply in certain areas thereby retaining the richness of responses on the subject. Additionally, interviews proved to be easier to schedule than focus groups due to challenges of meeting diverse scheduling needs for busy people from all participant domains therefore our study design going forward might be best served to include more interviews or the chance for greater flexibility in this regard (See Appendix N for more information).

36

General References

Strauss, B. (1987). Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

New York City Department of City Planning. Population Division. (2015a). U. S.

Census Bureau, 2011-2013 American community survey – Summary file – Selected economic characteristics [PDF file]. Retrieved from http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/pdf/census/puma_acs_2013_econ.pdf

New York City Department of City Planning. Population Division. (2015b). U. S. Census Bureau, 2011-2013 American community survey – Summary file - Selected social characteristics [PDF file]. Retrieved from http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/pdf/census/puma_acs_2013_soc.pdf

New York City Department of Education. (2015a). 2013-14 School quality reports results for all schools [Data file]. Retrieved from http://schools.nyc.gov/NR/rdonlyres/14B7086D-9EE8-42FB-9D10-2160BE72C1EA/0/2013_2014_All_Schools_SQR_Results_2015_01_20.xlsx

New York City Department of Education. (2015b). Demographic snapshots [Data file]. Retrieved from http://schools.nyc.gov/NR/rdonlyres/77954FB0-FD24-476B-AB81-3E9BBE8655D9/183200/DemographicSnapshot201011to201415 public_FINAL.xlsx

New York City Department of Education. (2014). New York State common core English language arts (ELA) & mathematics tests, grades 3 – 8, New York City results. Retrieved from http://schools.nyc.gov/Accountability/data/TestResults/ELAandMathTestResults

New York City Department of Education. (2013a). Performance reports. Retrieved from http://schools.nyc.gov/community/planning/charters/Schools/Performance+Reports.htm

New York City Department of Education. (2013b). The class of 2013 four-year longitudinal report and 2012-2013 event dropout rates [PDF document]. Retrieved from http://schools.nyc.gov/NR/rdonlyres/C85D52B5-978D-45C1-9F90-CE9E3BFEFAA5/0/The_Class_of_2013_4Yr_Graduation_and_Dropout_Report.pdf

NYU Furman Center. (2014). State of New York City’s housing and neighborhoods in 2014 [PDF document]. Retrieved from http://furmancenter.org/files/sotc/NYUFurmanCenter_SOC2014_HighRes.pdf

New York City Department of Mental Health and Hygiene. Serious psychological distress by high-risk (DPHO) neighborhood, 2013 (Age-adjusted). (2015). Retrieved June 26, 2015, from https://a816-

37

healthpsi.nyc.gov/SASStoredProcess/guest?_PROGRAM=/EpiQuery/CHS/chsX&year=2013&var=nspday2&qtype=strat&strat1=dphonw4&strat2=none&bivar=genhlt4

Miles, M. Huberman, A.M. (1984). Qualitative Data Analysis. Beverly Hills, CA:

Sage Publications. Olsen, EC, Van Wye G, Kerker B, Thorpe L, Frieden TR. Take Care Central

Harlem. NYC Community Health Profiles, Second Edition; 2006; 20 (42): 1-6. Glaser, B., Strauss, A. (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies of

Qualitative Research. London: Wiedenfeld and Nicholson. Yin, R. (1981). The Case Study Crisis: Some Answers. Administrative Science

Quarterly. 26, 58-65. Yin, R. (1984). Case Study Research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. http://www.strokeassociation.org/STROKEORG/AboutStroke/UnderstandingRisk

/Protect-Your-Heart-Protect-Your-Brain_UCM_439306_Article.jsp. Downloaded August 13, 2015.

38

Appendix A

ZMBBI CNA Outreach This map highlights the specific ZMBBI CNA outreach locations where study participants live or work, which are indicated by flags. Each flag represents the different target audiences as indicated in the legend below. Note that outliers in lower Manhattan were to reach key contacts at a teachers union that serves our catchment area and a board member of a faith-based organization in Harlem. Each participant flag represents only their primary association with the CAN (adults and parents by residence; teachers by school, educators and stakeholders by organizational affiliation).

39

Appendix B

ZMBBI CNA Recruits This map highlights the specific ZMBBI CNA locations where recruited study participants live or work, which are indicated by flags. Each flag represents the different target audiences as indicated in the legend below. Each participant flag represents only their primary association with the CAN (adults and parents by residence; teachers by school, educators and stakeholders by organizational affiliation).

40

Appendix C: Outreach Flyer for Interviews

This flyer was used in all aspects of outreach and recruitment to attract potential study participants to in-depth interviews.

41

Appendix D: Outreach Flyer for Focus Groups

This flyer was used in all aspects of outreach and recruitment to attract potential study participants to focus groups.

42

Appendix E: Brochure

This brochure (showing cover only) was used to inform community partners about ZMBBI, in outreach and recruitment settings, as well as during data collection to provide a text-based vehicle for baseline information about ZMBBI that was also provided in a PowerPoint presentation during all interviews and focus groups.

43

Appendix F: Personal Details Questionnaire

This survey (showing first page only) was provided to all study participants to gather basic demographic information. See Appendix P for further details on data collected through this method.

44

Appendix G: Focus Group Facilitator Guide

While all focus groups were designed for discussion with room to probe into new information, the facilitator “guide” (showing first page only) offered direction in leading

the conversation to ensure that all key topics were covered in an orderly way.

45

Appendix H: Interview Facilitator Guide While all interviews were designed for discussion with room to probe into new

information, the facilitator “guide” offered direction in leading the conversation to ensure that all key topics were covered in an orderly way.

46

Appendix I:

Map of Community School Districts within West and Central Harlem

Map of Community School District 3

47

Appendix I: Map of Community School Districts within West and Central Harlem (Continued)

Map of Community School District 5

48

Appendix I: Map of Community School Districts within West and Central Harlem (Continued)

Map of Community School District 6

49

Appendix J: Map of Community Board 9

50

Appendix K: Map of Community Board 10

51

Appendix L: Community Board and School District Details

General overview Community Board 9 According to the New York City Department of City Planning (DCP) the majority of the population is Hispanic, White and Black. Specifically, the distribution of race and ethnicity is as follows: 23 percent White, 24.6 percent Black, 6.9 percent Asian and Pacific Islander, 42.7 percent Hispanic. In terms of household make-up, about half of the residents belong to a family household (51.7 percent). Within these family households, 11.3 percent are a married-couple family with related children under 18 years of old, 12.4 percent are female householders (with no spouse present) with related children under 18 years, and 5.9 percent are male householders (with no spouse present). For age groups, the distribution is as follows: 4.9 percent who are under 5 years, 4.5 percent who are aged 5-9, 4.7 percent who are aged 10-14, 8.3 percent who are aged 15-19, and 77.6 percent who are aged 20 and above (New York City Department of City Planning, 2010). In 2013, the poverty rate for this area was 27.6 percent (NYU Furman Center, 2014). General overview Community Board 10 According to the DCP the majority of the population is Hispanic and Black. Specifically, the distribution of race and ethnicity is as follows: 9.5 percent White, 63.0 percent Black, 2.4 percent Asian and Pacific Islander, 22.2 percent Hispanic. In terms of household make-up, about half of the residents belong to a family household (50.3 percent). Within these family households, 9.1 percent are a married-couple family with related children under 18 years, 16.9 percent are female householders (with no spouse present) with related children under 18 years, and 2.8 percent are male householders (with no spouse present). For age groups, the distribution is as follows: 4.9 percent who are under 5 years, 4.5 percent who are aged 5-9, 4.7 percent who are aged 10-14, 8.3 percent who are aged 15-19, and 77.6 percent who are aged 20 and above (New York City Department of City Planning, 2010). In 2013, the poverty rate for this area was 28.9 percent (NYU Furman Center, 2014). General Overview School Districts Community Board 9 and 10, which the CEO serves, are located within three Community School Districts: 3, 5 and 6 (See Appendices J and K for Community Board maps and Appendix I for school district maps). Community School District 5 includes the majority of the West and Central Harlem neighborhood. It comprises of 35 public schools: These include 11 elementary schools, 10 middle schools, 4 K-8th grade schools and 10 high schools (NYCDOE, 2015a). In addition, there are 12 charter schools in this district (NYCDOE, 2013a). In the most recent school year, 2014-2015, at least 12,943 students were enrolled in public and charter schools within this district. Of this total, 19.2 percent are students with disabilities and 8.9 percent are English Language Learners (ELL). In terms of race and ethnicity the distribution includes: 51.6 percent Black, 39.2 percent Hispanic, 3.9 percent

52

Appendix L Community Boards and School Districts Details (Continued)

White, 3.3 percent Asian and 1.9 percent Other. For the same school year, the poverty rate in this district was 81.0 percent, based on free/reduced lunch enrollments (New York City Department of Education [NYCDOE], 2015b). In a four-year longitudinal report, NYCDOE tracked the graduation and dropout rates for all school districts for the class of 2013. The graduation rate within district 5 was 69.9 percent and the dropout rate was 6.5 percent. Students who did not graduate or dropout remained enrolled. This district had 1.5 percent fewer graduates and 2.3 percent fewer dropouts than the New York City rates (NYCDOE, 2013b). (See Appendix I for District map). Community School District 3 encompasses the area west of 5th Avenue starting from 59th Street and continuing north to 122nd Street. It is comprised of of 44 public schools: These include 11 elementary schools, 11 middle schools, 8 K-8th grade schools and 14 high schools (NYCDOE, 2015a). In addition, there are 10 charter schools in this district (NYCDOE, 2013a). In the most recent school year, 2014-2015, at least 22,920 students were enrolled in public and charter schools within this district. Of this total, 15.7 percent are students with disabilities and 5.6 percent are ELL. In terms of race and ethnicity the distribution includes: 34.7 percent Hispanic, 30.0 percent White, 23.9 percent Black, 7.8 percent Asian, and 3.7 percent Other. For the same school year, the poverty rate in this district was 52.8 percent, based on free/reduced lunch enrollments (NYCDOE, 2015b). Based on the longitudinal report by NYCDOE, the graduation rate within district 5 was 73.4 percent and the dropout rate was 6.7 percent. Students who did not graduate or dropout remained enrolled. This district had 2 percent more graduates and 2.1 percent less dropouts than the New York City rates overall (NYCDOE, 2013b). However, note that a large area of district 3 includes the Upper West Side neighborhood, many areas of which are economically advantaged (See Appendix I for District map). Community School District 6 covers the Northern Manhattan area in which the Hudson River serves as its western border, the Harlem River as the northern and eastern borders, with 135th street serving as the southern border. It is made up of 46 public schools: Thsee include 18 elementary schools, 14 middle schools, 5 K-8th grade schools and 9 high schools (NYCDOE, 2015a). In addition, there are 4 charter schools in this district (NYCDOE, 2013a). In the most recent school year, 2014-2015, at least 24,817 students were enrolled in public and charter schools within this district. Of this total, 16 percent are students with disabilities and 28.6 percent are ELL. In terms of race and ethnicity the distribution includes: 86.5 percent Hispanic, 7.5 percent Black, 4.2 percent White, 1.2 percent Asian, and 0.7 percent Other. For the same school year, the poverty rate in this district was 87.2 percent, based on free/reduced lunch enrollments (NYCDOE, 2015b). Based on the longitudinal report by NYCDOE, the graduation rate within this district was 68.2 percent and the dropout rate was 9.1 percent. Students who did not graduate or dropout remained

53

enrolled. This district had 2.8 percent less graduates and 0.3 percent more dropouts than the New York City rates overall (NYCDOE, 2013b). (See Appendix I for District map). Educational performance and attainment CB 9 and 10 The levels of education attained by residents of West and Central Harlem are an important indicator of this community's interest and success in engaging with educational offerings available in this catchment area. The 2011-2013 American Community Survey (ACS) provides an estimate of the educational attainment of the communities based on Public Use Microdata Areas (PUMA), which represent Census approximations of the Community Districts. In PUMA 3802, which corresponds to Manhattan Community Board 9 (which contains Hamilton Heights, Manhattanville, and West Harlem) of those aged 25 years or older, approximately 21.4 percent of adults have no diploma, 17.9 percent have achieved only a high school degree (includes equivalency), 13.8 percent of adults have attended some college, and 46.8 percent have an Associate’s degree or higher (New York City Department of City Planning, Population Division [NYCDCP], 2015b). 19.6 percent of students in this area are performing at grade level in English Language Arts (ELA) in 2014 and 22.7 percent of students were performing at grade level in math (NYU Furman Center, 2014). In PUMA 3803, which corresponds to Manhattan Community Board 10 and contains Central Harlem, of those aged 25 years or older, approximately 20.0 percent of adults have no diploma, 24.1 percent have achieved only a high school degree (includes equivalency), 16.6 percent of adults have attended some college, and 39.3 percent have an Associate’s degree or higher (NYCDCP, 2015b). Students performing at grade level in ELA, in this area in 2014 were 22.1 and percent. 22.0 percent of students were performing at grade level in math (NYU Furman Center, 2014). Student performance results are based on New York State’s assessment test of the Common Core for Grades 3-8. The Common Core curriculum is a newly implemented educational standard in New York City to help ensure that students are learning the appropriate skills and knowledge to achieve success in college or to attain careers after high school graduation. These tests have been more difficult than tests given in the past year so the scores will differ from the results in the past. However, it is important to note the difference in percentage of student’s performance on the district level and the citywide level. Citywide, students performing at grade level in ELA were 28.4 percent. Students performing at grade level in Math were 28.4 percent (NYCDOE, 2014). Socio-economic Status CB 9 and 10 According to data collected in the 2011-2013 American Community Survey, based on PUMA, the Median Household Income in Manhattan Community Board 9 is

54

Appendix L Community Boards and School Districts Details (Continued)

approximately $41,736. The household income distribution is as follows: 17.8 percent earn less than $10,000 per year, 38.3 percent earn $10,000-$49,999 per year, 23.9 percent earn $50,000-$99.999 per year and 10.6 percent earn over $100,000 per year.* Approximately 21.4 percent of households have had Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits, a federal nutrition assistance program for low-income individuals and families, in the past 12 months, 3.5 percent of the households have cash public assistance income (NYCDCP, 2015a). * Note that CB9 includes the Columbia campus and the Morningside Heights neighborhood which include a larger number of economically advantaged residents. The Median Household Income in Manhattan Community Board 10 is approximately $ 36,468. The household income distribution is as follows: 17.3 percent earn less than $10,000 per year, 43.5 percent earn $10,000-$49,999 per year, 24.2 percent earn $50,000-$99.999 per year and 7.3 percent earn over $100,000 per year. Approximately 26.2 percent of households have had SNAP benefits in the past 12 months, 6.6 percent of the households have cash public assistance income (NYCDCP, 2015a).

55

Appendix M:

Recruitment Demographics Focus Groups Constituency Groups

Sub-groups Number of People Recruited

Parents Residing in CB9 with a child in K-6th Grade 4 Residing in CB9 with a child in 6th-12th Grade 6 Residing in CB10 with a child in K-6th Grade 4 Residing in CB10 with a child in 6th-12th

Grade 6

Stakeholders Stakeholders who serve in CB9 5 Stakeholders who serve in CB10 5 Teachers/Community Educators

Science teachers from a school located in CB 9/CB10 and teaches students in grades 6th-12th

5

Educators that serve students in CB9/CB10 who attend grades 6th-12th

5

Adults Adults who reside in CB9/10 made up of varying age groups

10

TOTAL 50 In-Depth One-on-One Interviews Constituency Groups

Sub-groups Number of People Recruited

Parents Residing in CB 9/CB10 with child in grades

K-8th 1

Residing in CB 9/CB10 with child in grades 6th-12th

2

Stakeholders 3 Teachers Teach students in grades K-8th 1 Teach students in grades 9-12th 1 Educators Serve students in grades 6th-12th 2 TOTAL 10

56

Appendix N: Summary of Interview and Focus Groups Conducted

57

Appendix O: Special Needs Under New York State mandates, the New York City’s Department of Education (NYCDOE) has implemented a reform of its educational services to children with disabilities to ensure the full implementation of the federal regulation: Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 2004 (C. Downton, personal communication, July 07, 2015). Under the NYCDOE, when a student is identified to be a student with disabilities, they are provided with an Individualized Educational Program (IEP). An IEP is a tailored educational plan that will help to identify the appropriate supports and services that are needed for the child. These plans are decided upon by a team that includes, but is not limited to, parents, teachers, school social workers, and doctors (NYCDOE, 2015b). Disability Classification Students with disabilities can be classified under eight types of disabilities including: Autism, Emotional Disability/Emotional Disturbance, Intellectual Disability, Multiple Disabilities, Other Health Impairment, Speech Impairment, Learning Disability, Other (deaf blind, deaf, hard of hearing, orthopedic impairment, traumatic brain injury, and visual impairment). Emotional Disabilities or Emotional Disturbance is one of the more challenging categories of disabilities as it encompasses several potential characteristics and can be influenced by environmental, cultural and economic factors. According to NYCDOE, students can fall under this category if they exhibit one or more specific behaviors over long periods of time to a specific degree that impacts their educational performance. Some of these behaviors include: the inability to learn that is unexplainable by intellectual, sensory or health factors; the inability to develop and maintain interpersonal relationships with peers and teachers; having inappropriate types of behavior or feelings under normal environments; experiencing a general and pervasive unhappy or depressed mood; and having the tendency to develop physical symptoms or fears associated with personal or school problems (NYCDOE, 2015c). Least Restrictive Environments The federal regulation IDEA also requires schools to provide students with disabilities with the least restrictive environments (LRE) as LRE has been found to increase graduation rates among students with disabilities (Goodman et al., 2011). Implementation of LRE means that students with disabilities are provided with the opportunity to learn in an environment with non-disabled peers to the greatest extent when appropriate and given access to the same general educational opportunities of non-disabled peers. However, LRE has not been widely and fully implemented throughout New York City schools, creating a challenge for many students with disabilities in schools and the classroom and limits graduation and educational opportunities.

58

Appendix O: Special Needs (Continued) English Language Learners (ELL) Spanish is the language spoken most often by ELL students in Districts 3, 5 and 6. For Spanish-speaking ELLs enrolled in the New York City public schools, 59.9 percent come from the U.S., including its territories, and 27.1 percent come from the Dominican Republic. See the graph below for the top five countries of birth for Spanish-speaking ELLs.

Two recent reports have identified the top five languages spoken by students within school district. The Office of English Language Learners 2013 Demographic Report found the top five languages for all students by district in 2012 as well as the top five ELL languages by district. In a report by the Department of English Language Learners and Student Support for the 2013-2014 school year, the top ELL home languages by grade group and district were identified. Note that these reports rate language usage slightly differently so both have been provided to show all statistical data available. Source: Office of English Language Learners 2013 Demographic Report Top 5 Languages for all students by district 2012 District 3

1. Spanish: 66.2% 2. Chinese: 5.9% 3. French: 3.9% 4. Russian: 3.6 % 5. Bengali: 2.3% 6. Total: 23119

District 5 1. Spanish: 77.7% 2. French: 4.1% 3. Arabic: 3% 4. Fulani: 2.2 % 5. Bengali 1.9% 6. Total: 13563

District 6 1. Spanish: 96.9% 2. Arabic: 0.8% 3. Chinese: 0.3% 4. Bengali: 0.3% 5. Haitian: 0.2% 6. Total: 25562

59

Appendix O: Special Needs (Continued) Top 5 ELL Languages by District 2012 District 3

1. Spanish: 75.1% 2. French: 5.8% 3. Arabic: 3.5% 4. Haitian: 1.8% 5. Chinese: 1.7% 6. Total: 1738

District 5 1. Spanish: 73.7% 2. French: 7% 3. Arabic: 6.6% 4. Fulani: 3% 5. Wolof: 2.1% 6. Total: 1601

District 6 1. Spanish: 97.3% 2. Arabic: 1% 3. Haitian: 0.2% 4. Chinese: 0.2% 5. French: 0.2% 6. Total: 9263

Source: Department of English Language Learners and Student Support: School Year 2013-2014 Demographic Report

60

1. Appendix O: Special Needs (Continued) Top Five ELL Home Languages by Grade Group, By District Grade group: K-5 6-8 9-12

61

Appendix O: Special Needs (Continued)

REFERENCES Goodman, J. I., Hazelkorn, M., Bucholz, J. L., Duffy, M. L., & Kitta, Y. (2011). Inclusion and Graduation Rates: What Are the Outcomes?Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 21(4), 241–252. New York City Department of Education. (2015b). A Shared Path to Success Special Education in New York City. Retrieved from http://schools.nyc.gov/Academics/SpecialEducation/default.htm New York City Department of Education. (2015c). Eligible Categories of Disability. Retrieved from http://schools.nyc.gov/Academics/SpecialEducation/SEP/determination/eligible-categories-disability.htm Rello-Anselmi, C. (2014). A shared path to success special education reform NYC public schools: Presentation before the NYC Council Committee on Education [PDF document]. Retrieved from: http://schools.nyc.gov/NR/rdonlyres/811101D4-C5B8-481A-9D14-900B3ABC1085/0/DSISSCityCouncil2014final.pdf (2015). 2015 New York City Middle School Directory District 3. Retrieved from http://schools.nyc.gov/NR/rdonlyres/00CD8DB9-CD8A-4562-BFCE-5526EC4B7EC2/0/20132014D3MSD.pdf Date accessed: 27 August 2015 (2014). Department of English Language Learners and Student Support: School Year 2013-2014 Demographic Report. Retrieved from http://schools.nyc.gov/NR/rdonlyres/FC0B4035-00DF-4318-A1F7-6EF23C15B7F6/0/20132014DemographicReportFinalWINTER2015.pdf Date accessed: 27 August 2015 (2013). Office of English Language Learners 2013 Demographic Report. Retrieved from http://schools.nyc.gov/NR/rdonlyres/FD5EB945-5C27-44F8-BE4B-E4C65D7176F8/0/2013DemographicReport_june2013_revised.pdf Date accessed: 27 August 2015

62

Appendix P: Results from Personal Details Questionnaires

Participant Demographics and Characteristics There were 60 total participants. The focus group and interview types were as follows: 23 parents and 10 adults who reside within CB 9 and 10; 14 teachers/community educators and 13 stakeholders who work within CB 9 and 10. General Demographics Age. The median age group of participants was 46-55 years. 40 percent of the participants belonged to this group. For a summary of the age groups, see Figure P1 for the Age Group Summary Chart. Sex. Of the 60 participants, 73 percent were female and 27 percent were male. Residence. The majority of the participants reside under the zip codes: 10030 (37 percent), 10026 (13 percent) and 10027 (13 percent). These zip codes encompass most of Central and West Harlem. The zip codes with none or only one resident belong to zip codes that contain only a few blocks that are within the Community Board 9 and 10 boundaries. See Figure P2 for a summary of the distribution of zip codes for participants who reside in West and Central Harlem. Of the 53 who responded the average number of years that participants have lived in Harlem is 26 years. The median is 23 years. Employment. Of the 58 participants who responded, 66 percent of the participants indicated that they were employed, 10 percent were unemployed, 14 percent were disabled and 10 percent were retired. The statuses of two of the participants are unknown as these participants chose to omit this question. Engagement in Science. Almost all respondents reported that they did seek information about science and technology for themselves and their children. Four participants omitted this question. The most prominent methods for obtaining information about science and technology were TV, Museums, and Online. Figure P3 shows a complete list of methods to obtain information about science indicated by participants. Characteristics Based on Type Although the participants were grouped into a main type based on the recruitment processes, some participants held overlapping roles within the community. For instance a recruited stakeholder was also a parent and an adult resident. When accounting for all of the roles, it was found that 52 percent of the participants (N=31) were parents, 25 percent of the participants (N=15) were teachers or community educators, 28 percent of the participants (N=17) were stakeholders and 43 percent of the participants (N=26) indicated that they were adults who resided in West or Central Harlem. Teachers/Community educators. Of the participants, grades 6 - 12 were the most common ones taught by the teachers and community educators. Figure P4 shows the

63

Appendix P: Results from Personal Details Questionnaires (Continued)

distribution of grades taught by teachers and community educators. The average amount of overall years that they have been teaching is 14 years. Within Harlem, the average amount of years that they have been teaching is 10 years. Almost all of these community educators and teachers indicated that they teach in school district 5, which encompasses most of Community Board 9 and 10. Other school districts that were indicated once were school district 3 (which includes the Upper West Side neighborhood) and 4 (which includes East Harlem) and the broader New York City area.

Parents. The most common ages of the children of parent participants was 10 and 11 years. Figure P5 provides a chart indicating the distribution of the parent participants’ children. On average, aside from the Summer Youth Employment Program (N=13), only a couple of parents (<5) who reside in West/Central Harlem indicated that they had children who have been involvement with each of the listed Columbia University programming. Figure P6 shows the total amount of parents who have children involved in each of the listed Columbia University programming. Stakeholders. The affiliations stakeholders and community leaders reported were widely distributed. These stakeholders and community leaders play several roles within the community; therefore, some participants held multiple affiliations. There were about 29 percent who indicated affiliation with the Department of Education, 19 percent who were affiliated with private educational programming, 24 percent who were affiliated with faith-based organizations, 10 percent who were affiliated with community centers and 48 percent who were a part of other types of organizations that were not listed. Categories and associations listed under "Other" included: environmental justice group, health/ wellness, tenant services for low-income housing, consulting, community-based organizations, teachers union, private companies, and community based organizations.

64

Appendix P: Results from Personal Details Questionnaires (Continued)

Figure P1 Percentages by Participant Age Group

21-­‐35  13%  

36-­‐45  25%  

46-­‐55  40%  

56-­‐65  12%   65+  

10%  

Participant  Age  Groups  

65

Appendix P: Results from Personal Details Questionnaires (Continued)

Figure P2 Zip Code Distribution of Participants who Reside in W. or C. Harlem

2%  

13%   13%  

0%  

37%  

11%  6%  

0%  5%  10%  15%  20%  25%  30%  35%  40%  

10025   10026   10027   10029   10030   10031   10032  

Zip  Code  Distribution  

Zip  Code  Distribution  

66

Appendix P:

Results from Personal Details Questionnaires (Continued) Figure P3 Methods for Seeking Science and Technology Information

“Other” responses include: Department of Education and the United Federation of Teachers, Child’s teachers, Libraries, Radios such as NPR’s “Science Friday” and “The Brain,” and development of own company to become a resource for others.

22   24  

32  36  

21  

35  

10  

0  

10  

20  

30  

40  

Groups  on  X-­‐Axis  from  Left  to  Right  

Methods  for  Seeking  Science  and  Tech  Information  

Newspapers  (e.g.  New  York  Times  science  section)  

Magazines  (e.g.  American  Scientist,  Discover,  MIT  Technology  Review,  Popular  Science,  Science  News,  ScientiYic  American,  Seed,  Wired)  

TV  (e.g.  the  Science  Channel,  the  Discovery  Channel)  

Museums  (e.g.  Museum  of  Natural  History,  New  York  Hall  of  Science,  Sony  Wonder  Technology  Lab)  

Lectures  (e.g.  Schomberg  Center,  New  York  Academy  of  Sciences)  

Online  (e.g.  How  Stuff  Works,  NASA,  LiveScience,  ScienceDaily,  Science  Direct)  

67

Appendix P: Results from Personal Details Questionnaires (Continued)

Figure P4 Distribution of Grades Taught by Teachers/Community educators

3   3  4   4  

5   5  

7  8   8  

9  

7  8   8  

9  

0  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  

Pre-­‐K   K   1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12  

Grades  Taught  by  Teachers/Community  educators  

68

Appendix P: Results from Personal Details Questionnaires (Continued)

Figure P5 Distribution of Ages of Parent Participants’ Children

1  

0  

2  

1  

4  

3  

4  

5  

0  

6   6  

5  

4  

1   1  

2  

4  

1  

0  

1  

2  

3  

4  

5  

6  

7  

1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   18  

Ages  of  Parent  Participants'  Children  

69

Appendix P: Results from Personal Details Questionnaires (Continued)

Figure P6 Columbia University Programming Involvement

0  2  4  6  8  10  12  14  

Columbia  University  Programming  Involvement      

70

Appendix Q: Cradle to Prison Pipeline References Children’s Defense Fund. 2012. “Portrait of Inequality 2012: Black Children in America.” http://www.childrensdefense.org/library/data/portrait-of-inequality-2012.pdf Downloaded 8/4/15 Children’s Defense Fund. 2007. “America’s Cradle to Prison Pipeline.” http://www.childrensdefense.org/library/data/cradle-prison-pipeline-report-2007-full-lowres.pdf Downloaded 8/4/15 Edelman, Marian Wright. “Losing the Children, Early and Often: Families, Schools, and the Juvenile Justice System are Failing At-Risk Children, Making them Vulnerable to the Cradle to Prison Pipeline.” The Crisis Magazine, April 2007. Lally, Ronald J. “School Readiness Begins in Infancy.” The Phi Delta Kappan. Vol. 92, No. 3, pp. 17-21. President Obama comments on mass incarceration. 2015. https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/07/14/remarks-president-naacp-conference Downloaded 8/4/15.

71

Appendix R: CNA Research Team Research Team HHPC's research team has a history of collaboration both within the academy and with the Upper Manhattan community. Together the HHPC research team represents more than five decades of experience in engaging Harlem residents and other similar populations in qualitative research that includes expert use of focus groups and in-depth interviews as were used in this needs assessment project. Alwyn Cohall, MD, Principal Investigator and Project Director, is beginning his third decade of service as a physician to the residents of Northern Manhattan, and has served as the HHPC Principal Investigator since 1999. He is a Professor of Sociomedical Sciences, Population and Family Health, and Pediatrics at Columbia University Medical Center. Dr. Cohall received his medical training at the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, underwent his Pediatric Residency at Montefiore Hospital, and completed his Adolescent Medicine Fellowship at Mt. Sinai Hospital. He has extensive connections with schools and community groups serving youth and parents in the community, as well as with the faith community. His specific role was to collaborate on the development of qualitative instruments; facilitate connections with community groups and key informants; and prepare final results and recommendations to ZMBBI. atc1@columbia.edu Joyce Moon-Howard, DrPH, Co-Investigator, is on the faculty of Columbia University's Mailman School of Public where she teaches and conducts research in HIV/AIDS, housing and homelessness, cardiovascular disease and maternal, child and adolescent development. Dr. Moon-Howard received her undergraduate degree in social psychology from the University of California at Berkeley and her graduate degrees in Sociomedical Sciences from the Mailman School of Public Health at Columbia University. Her role in this study made use of her substantial experience and expertise in overseeing complex field-based research including challenges of engagement and recruitment of community participants and translation and dissemination of research findings. jmh7@cumc.columbia.edu

Carly Hutchinson, MA, PhD, Project Director, in addition to overseeing HHPC communications and leading community collaborative and partnering efforts, Dr. Hutchinson is involved in all of HHPC's core research projects. Dr. Hutchinson received her PhD in Anthropology from Columbia University and her MA in Anthropology and Education from Teachers College, Columbia University. Her role in this study will make use of her longstanding collaborations with the Upper Manhattan community as well as her substantial qualitative research experience including data collection efforts with a diversity of key informants focusing on community education and civic engagement as well as sensitive issues within vulnerable populations. Her specific role for this study was to collaborate on the development of qualitative instruments; oversee outreach and recruitment efforts along with the day-to-day operation of the study including focus

72

Appendix R: Research Team (Continued) group and interview facilitation, data analysis, and preparing final results and recommendations to ZMBBI. clh47@columbia.edu Janet Pan, MPH, Research Assistant, received her Masters degree from Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health with a certificate in Health Promotion Research and Practice. Her role in this study included recruiting and coordinating focus group and interview participants, and overseeing administrative functions such as coordinating transcription services and tracking participant data. jp3371@columbia.edu Elizabeth Rich, Research Assistant, is an MPH candidate at Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health. She is in the Sociomedical Sciences Department earning a certificate in Health Promotion Research and Practice. Her role in this study included outreach and recruitment of participants as well as coordination and assistance with focus groups. er2734@columbia.edu Asad Ahmed, Intern, is an MPH candidate at New York Medical College, Valhalla, NY. His role in this study was in outreach and recruitment of participants, conducting literature reviews and data collection for the Appendix of this CNA.

73

Appendix S: ZMBBI Hours of Operation CNA participants were asked about their ability and interest in engaging with ZMBBI programming at varied times. As noted in the Findings section of this report, participants indicated that their engagement ate certain times would be based on the type of programming offered. Time Programming Comments Weekday Daytimes Fieldtrips and partnerships with

schools that serve as an extension of the classroom/school

This was extremely popular with all participant domains. School personnel (teachers and administrators) expressed excitement at being able to access an important science resource in their own community.

Weekday Evenings Afterschool Programming, camps Many participants felt that there were already many existing after school programs and that ideally it would be better to develop partnerships with those programs and provide fieldtrips to ZMBBI at specific times. Many participants also felt that the logistics of getting children to ZMBBI from the school without parental supervision would be difficult for younger children and many older children wouldn’t go if unsupervised.

Weekend Daytimes Family related activities, camps, workshops, community events and seminars

Most participants felt that this was a key time for exciting activities to take place that involved all sectors of the community especially through engaging families around activities that could begin at ZMBBI and then continue in the home.

Academic year Programming associated with school-based partnerships as well as other programming.

Overall most participants felt that the ZMBBI should be open all year round.

Summer Camps, ongoing workshops, special events

Many parents or caregivers who also had older children discussed positive experiences they had had with summer science camps that served as an important impetus for promoting career choice and the practical exposure to pursue science careers. However, some participants voiced the same concerns they had had with after school programming about the large number of existing camps and suggested that perhaps ZMBBI could partner with these camps to offer specialized programming and fieldtrips.

74

Appendix T: Brain Behavior Screening While interest in most behavioral issues for screening was well received across all participant domains, there were different levels of interest. These have been rated as Strong interest, Medium interest, Weak interest based on responses. Screening was also a topic of some contention as many participants across all domains felt that privacy would be a critical issue as the community in general is fearful of stigma around mental health or other issues that can be seen as negative labels. There was also a strong focus on providing both education (perhaps before screening) along with not only referrals to care and insurance (if needed), but ongoing support after a diagnosis was made. Screening as a discrete service was not considered a valuable offering. Screening Behavioral Issue Participant Interest Comments Healthy Aging/Diseases of Aging (Alzheimer’s, dementia etc.)

Strong Participants were generally interested in this type of screening

Brain Diseases Affecting Children (autism, ADHD etc.)

Strong Participants were generally interested in this type of screening

Childhood Anxiety and Depression

Strong Participants were generally interested in this type of screening

Adult Depression Strong Participants were generally interested in this type of screening

Substance Abuse Medium Some participants didn't understand how this related to the brain but rather saw this as a social issue

Schizophrenia Medium While most participants thought this was important, some weren't that knowledgeable about it or its impact on young people

Adult Anxiety Disorders (e.g. Panic and Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, Hoarding)

Strong While interest was strong and many participants said they suffered from anxiety, some participants didn't understand what this was or that it was related to the brain

Bipolar Disorder Strong Participants were generally interested in this type of screening

Learning Disabilities Strong Participants were generally interested in this type of screening

75

Appendix U: Lecture Topics and Educational Formats While interest in most topics was well received across all participant domains, there were different levels of interest. These have been rated as Strong interest, Medium interest, Weak interest based on responses. Lecture Topic Participant Interest Comments Willpower and the Brain Medium Some participants didn't

understand how this related to the brain

Learning and Memory and the Brain

Strong This was a topic participants from all domains could relate to and saw practical application for

Evolution and the Brain Weak Some participants especially from the adult domain felt strongly that they would not be interested in this subject. This may be related to faith-based ideologies held by many Harlem residents.

Genetic Influences on the Brain Strong Participants were generally interested in this topic

Environmental Influences on the Brain

Strong Participants were generally interested in this topic

Art Influences on the Brain Strong Participants were generally interested in this topic

Current Events related to Brain Weak Many participants across all domains had a hard time understanding how this would be relevant especially if topics were policy related

Technology and the Brain Strong Participants were generally interested in this topic

Ethical Issues and Science Strong Participants were generally interested in this topic

76

Appendix U: Lecture Topics and Educational Formats While interest in most venue formats was well received across all participant domains, there were different levels of interest. These have generally been rated as Strong interest, Medium interest, Weak interest based on responses. Educational Format Participant Interest Comments Interactive Booths Medium Some participants didn't understand how

this activity provided in this format would be related to the brain

Lectures Strong This was a topic participants from all domains could relate to and saw practical application for

Panel Discussions Weak Some participants especially from the adult domain felt strongly that they would not be interested in this venue perhaps because it was one they were unfamiliar with and perceived as "academic"

Seminars/Small Group Discussions

Strong Participants were generally interested in this venue

Other Support Groups Strong Participants were very keen on having "affinity groups" or ways to meet with other people in the community to address an issue they were challenged by, they saw these as forms of education and social support.

Health Fairs Strong While participants from all domains showed interest in this format, stakeholders pointed out that this is a familiar venue format in Harlem that often has little impact as people attend and never follow up or do anything about the issue. It is beneficial, however, for general educational information dissemination.

Interactive activities (e.g. Brain Expo)

Strong Participants were generally interested in this venue

Mental Health Affinity Groups (Ethnic groups or LGBTQ)

Medium Some participants felt that they would value being able to participate in groups in which they could relate specifically to other group members. Yet other participants felt that they did not want to be labeled and wanted to learn from a wide range of people who experienced a certain issue.

Lobby Strong Participants were interested in being able to access resources either online/at kiosks, in print form, or at an information booth in the ZMBBI Lobby

Meeting Space Strong Participants were very interested in the possibility of being able to host meetings and other community gatherings in the ZMBBI space.

77

Appendix V: Schools within MBBI Catchment Area Community Board 9 Schools

78

Appendix V: Schools within MBBI Catchment Area (Continued) Community Board 10 Schools

79

Appendix W: Community Suggestions for ZMBBI Promotion and Partnering Promotion and Partnering Comments School-Based Efforts Talk to principals as "they will designate someone" to

serve as a liaison; while participant responses on this were mixed, some schools have engaged principals who would not want to be left out of the planning, others felt school leaders would not respond and in that case, you could work directly with other contacts such as science teachers, parent teacher coordinators, union representatives, school district heads. For all groups promotion could involve flyers targeted to parents or teachers. Also groups such as teacher associations, STEM Teachers NYC Group on LinkedIn, National Science Teachers Association https://www.nsta.org/

Videos on YouTube This could be information provided to the community through an email blast with a link to a video that promotes ZMBBI and what it does for the community

Mini Brain Expos Use as ways to showcase ZMBBI and get more people aware of offerings

Community Engagement Create a presence at community events such as STEM Expo at Harlem Armory, Family Day at Riverbank State Park, committees and other regular networks within Harlem

Black Sororities and Fraternities Historically Black Sororities and Fraternities are important sources for partnership and promotion as they are charged with serving their communities. http://www.blackgreek.com/divinenine/

Churches and other Religious Organizations Participants across all domains mentioned the significance of churches as key community partners. Suggestions were to invite church leaders to a tour of ZMBBI, partner with them to offer STEM programming to congregants. Other religious organizations mentioned were the United Missionary Baptist Association that would be able to reach all Baptist churches in Harlem and promote partnering with ZMBBI. http://www.umbachurches.org/ Another important church based consortium is the Communities of Harlem Health Revival (CHHR) that promotes health education and is run by leaders from a variety of faith-based organizations. http://www.chhrinfo.org/

Hospitals Partnering with hospitals especially Harlem Hospital would be critical as these organizations are key community centers.

Bilingual Outreach Participants suggested directing some promotional activities to target groups, such as families for whom English is not their first language. Key partners in this endeavor would be: African Services Committee, Gale Brewer, Manhattan Borough President who is working in Harlem with diverse groups

80

Appendix W: Community Suggestions for ZMBBI Promotion and Partnering (Continued)

Promotion and Partnering Comments Flyering Participants across all domains suggested the old

fashioned method of flyering as one that has been successful in Harlem. Targeted flyering at schools, to be sent home with students, placed in teacher and administration mailboxes, as well as flyers anywhere a bulletin board exists, such as libraries, community centers, residential sites, schools, supermarkets, and even on the street.

Outdoor activities and events Based on input from educators and stakeholders many community members will not enter a building until they see activity taking place outside. This draws attention to the site and helps people to be aware of what is offered within. This could be in the form of outdoor activities at a table set up in front, something to draw attention such as banners, or even murals and artwork like sculpture that attract people and draw them in.

Social Media Participants from all domains were in favor of using social media to promote ZMBBI. Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Groups were all SM forms that were suggested. Also some participants suggested Tweeting photos during events and reaching out to other groups with a similar focus to draw them in and get followers.

Harlem Children's Zone Another key potential partner engaged in STEM activity

Newspapers Response to this mode of promotion was mixed as some people said they never read newspapers except online, and generally not local papers, other participants were regular readers of Amsterdam News, Harlem Times, NY Post, NY Daily News, Metro.

Radio Participants across all domains were fans of radio as a key form of promotion. The station that was most popular was WBLS (107.5) but participants also mentioned EmpireRadio.net, WBAI AfroBEAT (99.5), WHCR (90.3). Some participants suggested having ZMBBI personnel be a guest on key radio programs to promote the CEO activity.

Television Some participants thought TV could be a good format for promoting ZMBBI. Suggested venues were NY1 (Calendar of Events), Channel 7 Eyewitness News and the community calendar http://abc7ny.com/community/calendar/.

Email Many people said they would like to get information about ZMBBI via email. They would like to sign up to receive notices, newsletters (monthly or weekly), and general information promoting ZMBBI.

81

Appendix W: Community Suggestions for ZMBBI Promotion and Partnering Promotion and Partnering Comments Ambassadors

Develop an ambassador program in which students engaged in ZMBBI programming are required to commit to serving as ambassadors for the center in their personal networks or within the community. This could also be a requirement for adults and general community members who engage in programming or teachers and school administrators.

Text Messaging This promotional suggestion was not one that was promoted by everyone as some people felt it was too personal or invasive, but some people who used their phones more than computers were interested in this format.

Print Collateral Materials Many participants thought that ZMBBI should have print materials (postcards, calendars, posters) that would be available in the lobby of the building, mailed out to key community sites or others that were on a mailing list. Many participants mentioned the desire for an annual calendar that would notify them of events well in advance similar to other organizations like museums and botanic gardens.

Meeting Center Some participants suggested ZMBBI make use of its space as a way to attract community leaders and groups to learn more about ZMBBI, some said that in order to use the space, they might need to first receive a tour and learn more about the programming. As good spaces for meetings are at a premium, this would be a way to partner with the community and gain entry into important community networks.

Careful Branding Ensuring that the community is aware of what programming is available and how ZMBBI can benefit the community. Many people are afraid of anything suggesting the brain, research, or mental health.