1. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 37
healthpsi.nyc.gov/SASStoredProcess/guest?_PROGRAM=/EpiQuery/CHS/chsX&year=2
013&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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 46
Appendix I:
Map of Community School Districts within West and Central Harlem
Map of Community School District 3

47. 47
Appendix I:
Map of Community School Districts within West and Central Harlem (Continued)
Map of Community School District 5

48. 48
Appendix I:
Map of Community School Districts within West and Central Harlem (Continued)
Map of Community School District 6

49. 49
Appendix J: Map of Community Board 9

50. 50
Appendix K: Map of Community Board 10

51. 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