LOYD: Boston Inclusion Roundtable

The BOSTnet Inclusion Roundtable brought together a small number of program directors, direct care staff, and Inclusion specialists. The presentation initiated a great deal of conversation around the sorts of supports that Out-of-School Time can offer children and youth with disabilities and the need for increased funding of staff development to ensure that programs can provide a quality environment.

What was interesting was that unlike the last roundtable, this group did not say that they lacked the same supports as the school day because they questioned the supports of the school day itself. One support was the "one-to-one aide." It is common to hear many Out-of-School professionals mention that children they include in their programs are done so without the support of these aides and this reduces the quality of their program both for the individual who requires the support by day and for the other program participants. At the Roundtable, many questioned whether the aide model was good for the child in school or whether it set that child apart and allowed teachers and students to remove themselves from care-giving. One OST program staff said that it was a good thing that they did not have aides and that these children who were provided aides or sent to special programs within the school for the majority of the academic day were included in an authentic way during their program time (some mentioned that severe mobility impairment or intense mental or cognitive disabilities that lead to aggressive behavior may need additional supports). This was an interesting to hear since it is very common to hear lists of program challenges around Inclusion rather than a confident point of view that said "schools should learn from us about what we do" rather than "we are deficient in this area without funding."

There was a great deal of talk about how many schools continue to exclude children and youth with disabilities - and that these programs while they may not take place during the entire day are often in re-purposed areas of the school facility; basements, former bathrooms, former closets, former mechanical rooms. While many said that their programs operated in less-than-optimal facility environments, many programs felt that their program did a better job of including children or youth with special needs so that the physical space did not move these members of the community "out of sight." Some of the attendees had personal experiences with the Special Education system and spoke directly of being in a "closet classroom." One staff member said that he was diagnosed with a learning disability while the school support staff never questioned why he had missed so much school in the previous years. So the issue treated was the inability to read "on grade level" not the social issue of truancy. He claimed that this experience of being in Special Education classes increased his difficulties with school rather than elevating them - the primary reason being social/emotional not whether the mechanics of reading were being taught in a different way. His ability to be excepted by peers was impacted as well as self esteem. Another attendee picked up this thread and asked how it was that schools seem to teach exclusion during the day and then leave it to programs to "un-teach" what they have done. "We have to much to do in just a few short hours... We got to show them a different point of view than their school... maybe their family... has on children with special needs" a staff from an arts program exclaimed. "Well, all children have special needs" another staff chimed in. "We have to see that the modifications we make benefit all the children in the program.... I mean, we do this for everyone, not to accommodate only a few."

In all, the Roundtable only briefly touched on the formal presentation. One highlight of the presentation was a short discussion of Dr. Gary Siperstein's work on Inclusion and his thoughts that Out-of-School Time programs actually are bridging the social barriers between children of different abilities and do so because the environments of these programs are focused on relationships first, activities second, and have a flexibility that many formal settings do not have (one example was a program that was in an old building so that mobility impaired children could only attend the basement. The program did not have money to get in an elevator, so they moved the most popular activities - media and computers - to the basement. This created a situation where youth who wanted to access the resources needed to confront the Inclusive nature of the program. One girl was so unfamiliar with interacting with others in wheelchairs that she refused to come in but would stand at the door. By having discussions and allowing interactions to grow organically, this child finally entered the room and got rid of her fears while the program developed a culture of Inclusion that remains to today).

It appears that while there remain challenges (especially around having funding for quality professional development) there is perhaps an emerging attitude of many program staff that they are able to provide a very high quality of service - even if that service does not look like solutions provided during the school-day. While research and the voices from the field tell us that Out-of-School Time is providing Inclusive environments, these programs in the room felt that they were not recognized for the work that they did or the successes they were having.

LOYD: Inclusion Roundtable

"There seems to be a growing number of kids with special needs" one program coordinator says. "In the [years] I have worked here, I don't know what it is... they just seem to need more and more." What do you do when all your kids have special needs? One site director reported that in the same program were children presenting ADD, OCD, PTSD, and Spectrum Disorders. Another program director asked whether how to practice inclusion when what seems to work is to remove the child from time to time. "If they're not included in gym, then what? If they are just put on the computer because that's the only way not to cause trouble... are we doing a service just babysitting?" What if the funding has remained flat (or vanished) while the needs increased as well as higher standards of quality. These questions are far above the old format of Inclusion that were challenges are posed and then strategies are employed. When people know several strategies but are overwhelmed, what then? "How do typical kids fit in when many children have challenges"

It appears from comments at the Roundtable that Inclusion is still part of the wealth of services that Out-of-School Time programs can provide and researchers such as Gary Siperstein of the Center for Social Development and Education claim that many school environments can learn from the success of Inclusion in Out-of-School. This is in keeping with the strong relationship-base within many programs and the flexibility that programs have in creating activities that instruct about life as well as socialize. Out-of-School staff want an open environment. They want to make accommodations as well as many at the Roundtable knew the basics about most disabilities and some had worked in therapeutic Out-of-School programs for years. There was a healthy feeling of "try and try again" in letting kids come to the program as who they were and to move them into forming new relationships with their peers as well as push out into new experiences. Nevertheless, there was frustration as it seems that many directors are beyond the "basics" of inclusion and are ready for the next level - a level of complexity that no longer allows for solutions on the cheep but a more thoughtful approach and consistent high-level supports to staff and understand the limits of Inclusion.

One limit would be over-representation of children and youth with special needs within a program. The other limit may be resources. A program that takes in a child or youth who otherwise has a one-on-one during the day may not be able to absorb that child or youth. Programs themselves need to have policies in place that structure how program directors can communicate to families the benefits of including their child in the program as well as some of the limitations. However, if there is a language barrier or family members are opposed to discussing a perceived condition, what then? When a parent demands that their child is included but not with a realistic timeframe or perhaps without taking into consideration the needs of other children or youth at the program, what then? A child with Autism may not be able to run into the program and be included in the first day, or three weeks, but may need time as well as the right amounts of inputs from staff. Too much and the staff forces relationships - too little and there is risk of a benign neglect. This time to negotiate with one family or parent may be available, but what if there are a majority of parents and families with similar demands but divergent issues. Again, the "all or nothing" approach to Inclusion may put ideology over practicality.

One interesting observation from this discussion and the many questions was that the majority of issues were with emotional or emotional disabilities. In an on-line survey of participants 82% wanted assistance on children and youth with ADD/ADHD. Emotional disabilities came in second at 73% and trailing that was working with children with undiagnosed disabilities at 55%. Amongst the "traditional" disabilities such as mobility, cognitive only 9% felt they needed support in those areas.

Programs are asking for increased assistance in providing quality training to staff (78%) and assistance in funding to pay for additional services (82%). This later one is such a complex subject it will be addressed in another posting at a later date.

There is good news and many free resources on-line. BOSTnet has some resources available on Inclusion that may help in training staff and funding opportunities are always included in the BUZZ and the website. Resources on the website are divided into different areas, the most predominant being sports and arts inclusion. These areas were central to a series of BOSTnet events in previous years under the LOYD initiative. The idea that sports (physical activity) and arts can serve as a way to include more children and youth with special needs and that these not form the basis of the program but can be engaged as needed. These areas are useful no matter what the program's own content is - such as academics, because with the flexibility that programs have, setting up time to work on an arts project or engage in physical activity may serve to get children to work together. BOSTnet is also working on the 5th All Means All Conference for 2009 which will be shaped in part by conversations in the field.

While there was a good deal of information covered in the presentation, this Roundtable seems to have raised more complex questions than answered them. We hope that we can work on these issues and find solutions that reinvigorate the field to reach out to children and youth with special needs and not be overwhelmed.

LOYD Guest Blogger: Donna Folan

As part of our ongoing Lead to Opportunities for Youth with Disabilities (LOYD) and quality discussion, we are posting guest authors who are contributing to the Out-of-School Time Field. As an artist, director, and teacher, Donna Folan, Director of Until Tomorrow Productions, embraces both the nontraditional and unconventional. She believes that the outcome of creative work should never be known in advance, so something new is always shared and learned. The process of exploration in all activities is always changing, engaging all the participants in new and unexpected ways.

There is not one central place that provides support for OST participants with disabilities. While economic times are difficult, not all solutions are financial.

Some important considerations are:
o What is your current organizations level of physical and programmatic access?
o What are the needs of all your participants.
What supports or accommodations needed for participants with disabilities?
o Does your organization have a line item in the budget dedicated to accommodations in grants? This is a clear indication of commitment to inclusion to funders and may provide a way to pay for some needed accommodations.

Many people can have the same disability that does not mean they all have the same assistance. Disability is not one size fits all. Accommodations need to be individually designed.

All people connect to learning in a variety of ways, when designing activities have as many ways "in" as possible for all participants. Think about a flexible model that grows up around your groups. Provide information in a variety of formats and Multi-Modal Approaches gives much support. Everyone can and will achieve goals and will do so in a different way. A lot of creativity and coloring outside the lines.


Donna has extensive experience in acting, directing, and knowledge of most other areas of performing arts. She utilizes this experience to assist group members to identify their areas of interest and passion. Donna has a personal understanding of how creativity and theater enable individuals to decide how large or small a part they want their disability to play in their artistic work. Donna is able to help youth with disabilities and those without gain a realization that regardless of the challenges, or obstacles they face, no one factor can solely decide who they are. Participating in creating theater teaches this valuable lesson. It is imperative to provide fully inclusive and accessible settings where all people can learn from each other in a positive and equal environment.

LOYD: Building Our Community

Many people in the field of out-of-school time programs are grappling with the realities of working with an expanding definition of "disability" and with fewer and fewer resources. At a recent training on Inclusion, the staff were aware of what strategies they needed, but did not have the time to provide these supports. They asked, if children with special needs are included in our programs without supports, is this a service to any of us?

For many programs, this is not a theoretical issue. Many programs are identifying larger percentages of children and youth with what they consider emotional or cognitive disabilities. Many of these children are on vouchers as DSS prioritizes children in the system, many of whom OST practitioners feel have untreated or undiagnosed disabilities. As we work on the BOSTnet All Means All Conference, we have to consider what solutions are there in front of us. A leading lawyer said it best about teachers that "[teaching] is not about being brilliant, it is about being a human being" and we so often are told to follow procedures rather than our own common sense. Are there some approaches to inclusion that do not take additional resources (time+money)?

The LOYD community is starting to grapple with large questions as the field goes through a transformation in stressful times. We are not only asking how we do inclusion, we are perhaps having to examine what it means to have an out-of-school community and what is the identity of the field.

LOYD: What is Inclusion?

What is inclusion? In the classroom, inclusion means to put disabled students in typical classrooms rather than special education settings. Broadly speaking, Inclusion means to provide access to all people no matter what their ability. The issues is then, what is Inclusion when it comes to Out-of-School Time? Is it the "inclusion" of the classroom, or the "inclusion" of the wider disability rights movement?

There remains a controversy to Inclusion - there are many camps in this issue. There are those who claim that inclusion strips services and does not provide the needed supports. There are those who argue that inclusion can be more effective in certain environments. Then, there are those who look at inclusion as more than just traditional disabled and view inclusion as expanding to all needs and abilities in attitude and support. As we discuss inclusion, perhaps we will think more about the division on the issue as well as ways that programs can come together and provide quality supports.

If we look at inclusion as a fundamental aspect of a quality Out-of-School Time program, we then have to tackle what this inclusion means. More people are seeing inclusion as that of including the "traditional disabilities" (e.g. physical impairment, mobility, physical trauma, developmental), and the "new" disabilities (e.g. emotional, social, cognitive). Researchers, such as Dr. Siperstein, director of the Center for Social Development and Education at the University of Massachusetts Boston, Out of School programs may be able to offer a version of inclusion that is broad in definition as it is flexible in getting children and youth with disabilities not only to be next to typical children and youth but to become friends and develop meaningful long-term social interactions with their peers.

This growing evidence demonstrates that Out-of-School practitioners are on to something in seeing their programs as a space that is more fitted to using inclusion as a strategy than more formal settings. It may be that Out-of-School Time programs can adapt to the needs of children and youth and offer a wide range of activities for a version of inclusion - that itself is broad and inclusive.

These are, but the first words in what looks like a longer conversation.

Inclusion Series: ALL Means ALL

What do you get when you combine about 150 afterschool and out-of-school time providers, a couple legislators, a specialist in developmental pediatrics, innovative workshop presenters dedicated to inclusion, two Olympians and a real life Olympic Gold Medal? The 4th Annual All Means All Conference!

It is clear from the comments we have received from attendees that this year’s conference once again provided program staff with hands-on strategies and opportunities to network and learn together as a field:

· “Fantastic – keep the information coming!”
· “Very well organized”
· “Excellent”
· “Outstanding!!! So motivational and inspirational”
· “Great energy/thought provoking”
· “It was a great day of learning for me. I have walked away pregnant with ideas!”
· “It was awesome. I really enjoyed myself”
· “Great presenters, tons of useful information/networking!”
· “Excellent new workshops and presenters!”

Typical for BOSTnet’s professional development and networking events, attendees represented the entire span of OST providers, from first year direct service staff to program coordinators and executive directors with over 20 years experience. Of the 50 attendees who reported on how many years they have worked in the field the average was 6.5. This is significant because it reflects the importance of continuing education and peer learning in the field. As one six-year veteran noted, “I got refocused on meeting our kids where they are.” It also highlights the need for BOSTnet to outreach more aggressively to newer staff who are looking to network and need basic training to better prepare them for the school year. Attendees responded positively to new workshops offered on brain development and reading skills by Children's Hospital, Boston; inclusive literacy activities by ReadBoston; children exposed to trauma by Project Joy; and working with physically disabled children by Piers Park, Adaptive Sailing Program. Among the topics that respondents reported they would like to see include, diversity training and cultural competence, activities and curriculum on building the social skills of children with disabilities, and working with children with mental health issues, such as bipolar and obsessive compulsive disorders.

BOSTnet wishes to thank everyone who contributed to the success of this year’s All Means All Conference. It has become clear to us that this is a special and unique event. We are unaware of other ongoing conferences – nationwide – that are dedicated, specifically, to the goal of increasing the capacity of afterschool and out-of-school time programs to include children and youth with physical disabilities, developmental disorders and behavioral problems. We wish to thank our generous supporters who continue to make this event possible: The Boston Foundation; The Damman Boston Fund; Northeastern University’s Center for the Study of Sport in Society; and, The Disability Inclusion Initiative of the Carl and Ruth Shapiro Family Foundation.


BOSTnet would like to thank our opening session speakers, including Eli Wolff, a longtime supporter of All Means All and a leader who always inspires us to think of inclusion as social justice and what it means to be human in society; Senator Thomas McGee and Representative Marie St. Fleur who have emerged as champions of the afterschool and OST field and who are quick to challenge us to be more innovative and collaborative during a time of fiscal uncertainty; and Dr. Alison Schonwald who provided us with very thought provoking information on developmental disorders in a very clear and understandable way. We would also like to thank all the workshop presenters, many of who are veterans of All Means All, who do the important work of teaching program staff new strategies for creating engaging learning environments for ALL children, especially those with special needs.

A very special “shout-out” is due to Michal Shapiro and the BCYF’s Urban Youth Leadership Corps Peace Fellows. These energetic and engaged youth were a huge help with registration and they provided additional insights into the workshops by providing critical reviews of the presentations. The Peace Fellows will be working with the Center for the Study of Sport in Society’s Project Teamwork to be trained in violence prevention and diversity awareness. They will be using these skills to provide peer mediation and conflict resolution in community centers and schools. Thank you and best of luck on this important project. We know you will continue to grow as leaders through your experiences this year.

As always, this is one of the few events we have to see old friends and meet new ones. As we look toward next year we are already considering ideas to improve the 5th Annual All Means All Conference through broader collaborations, new perspectives, and an expanded offering of workshops. Please stay tuned and check www.bostnet.org often. To watch video excerpts from the opening session, click here.

Inclusion Series: Promoting Positive Behavior

To make the work we do in the field more accessible and raise the bar for dialogue and freedom of ideas in the Out-of-School Field, we are posting many notes we use to compile our project reports on this space. We hope that these full reports will bring much needed transparency to not just the product, but the process of a project. Additionally, in this format, we welcome comments (anonymous if need be to protect yourself from your organization's politics and fear of funder opinion) positive and negative, hoping that some comments are critical analysis we can use to further our thinking and do so in a forum where we "think aloud" and "puncture the corporate veil" that blankets many non-for-profit organizations and especially those who work in the high stakes of youth development, academics, and the lightning rod of "education."


Promoting Positive Behavior is a project that is in its second year, having been funded by the Department of Education and Early Childcare the previous pilot year. The previous year's project was to develop research-based supports and tools specific to the Out-of-School Environment. This was achieved by working with Program in Education, Afterschool & Resiliency and contracting several behavioral specialist organizations in the geographic regions in and around Boston. This past year the project was funded by the Department of Education (now Department of Elementary and Secondary Education)to build on the investment of last year and create and refine supports around the tools and take the research and fold it into practice. The goals were to improve services to children with special needs (emotional and physical) and provide staff development. This work was funded in part by the ASOST grants.

In the coming weeks this document may be edited to include more information or fold in other views or to refine the language to better describe the project. Names and identifying remarks have been removed to protect the privacy of the participants and facilitate intellectual freedom. All edits in CAPS are there to cover identifying details the remainder of the report is based on what was submitted to whatever funder/s required it.

Project Overview:
Promoting Positive Behavior continued the work of a previous year of development of tools and supports designed to improve program ability to serve special needs populations and develop highly qualified staff. These supports are intended to get program staff to focus on problem behavior as part of overall management of their groups and an extension of a common programmatic language around how behavior is addressed and a culture of prevention rather than a punitive approach. BOSTnet selected seven programs in and around Boston representing a diversity of programmatic type, neighborhood, and a span of ages from elementary to middle school in which to deploy the tools and develop supports around Promoting Positive Behavior (PPB) as an approach specifically designed for the Out-of-School field. The primary tool developed and used for the 2007-2008 project cycle was Behavior and Emotional Support Assessment Tool. This tool is divided into four areas: Assets, Behavior Support, and Resiliency, Children’s Socio-Emotional, Behavioral & Mental Health, Mental Health Services, and Staff Self Care. Each section gets staff to rate current practices, prevalence of behavioral challenges, and identify common procedures and resources. Staff are then to create a priority list (either individually or as a group). These priorities could serve as the basis of an action plan that is developed as a group, however, as the project progressed, there seemed to be increased value in collecting assessments and identifying and reflecting back trends to staff and site coordinators. Five programs received services as part of the project. None of the programs had received the completed tool before while three of the programs had been part of the original project group (2006-2007). These programs were located in AND AROUND BOSTON. Collaborating organizations were TWO YOUTH SERVICES ORGANIZATIONS. AN ADDITIONAL YOUTH SERVICE ORGANIZATION had been on the original application but were not selected for the project to accommodate the budget changes.

After an initial contact, it was determined that the use of consultants would be excluded from the current project. The previous year of development necessitated the contracting of certain behavioral specialists to work in developing the Behavioral and Emotional Assessment Tool by collecting anecdotal evidence, expulsion data, and interviewing staff and children. Behavioral specialists also collected strategies from programs that contributed to the publication of Promising Practices, a supporting document in the PPB approach. In the process of developing the tool the previous year, several programs in that cohort had developed a reliance on the specialist rather then developing in-house competencies and improving the professional development of their staff. This model would be unsustainable and the Behavior and Emotional Support Assessment Tool was designed to allow site coordinators minimum support to achieve maximum outcomes in staff development and reaching special needs populations. In addition to the monitoring expulsion data, this current year (2007-2008) would use delivery as a way to develop supports that would assist program independence from expensive supports. BOSTnet adjusted the proposal to fit a truncated time line (funding and the hiring of qualified staff) to reach out to sites to make initial observations to serve as a baseline, train the site coordinators and convene them as a cohort, deploy the tool at respective site staffs and collect completed assessments for use as data, design and test supports (formal trainings, coaching, etc), and make adaptations to the tools and supports to reach a larger audience and create a model that could be released at the state or national level.

Initial Observations
BOSTnet staff visited sites individually to meet staff and make observations of the program in action prior to administration and assess the current supports in place at programs. After these initial observations it was determined that one site originally listed on the application should be substituted for another site within the same organization due to a higher reported number of behavioral issues at this alternate site. ONE site was housed in a school that has recently switched to an Extended Day Schedule. The site had several programs working in the school day but it was determined that only one program (a YOUTH SERVING ORGANIZATION) was appropriate for the work since it occurred after the extended day. The YOUTH SERVING ORGANIZATION ran the other LOCATION program although it operated in a mid-sized elementary school and had more space within the school than the LOCAION site. There, the majority of children had mobility issues or other physical impairments while the staff were majority young college students or older high school students. The site coordinator for that site was concerned with the training level of his young staff and their ability to not just care for disabled children but to “involve them and really engage them every day.” Several children with special needs were observed at other programs. The SCHOOL-BASED program had two special needs children. During the first observation these children were disengaged from the activities and it appeared other students too. The site director reported that these children had special services during the day but that they didn’t have access to these services. One child was suspected of having an attention deficit because he was active and often aggressive to other children. He was reported on the verge of expulsion because of behavioral problems and was at the time of the first observation on the verge of a “third strike” that would remove him from the program. Another special needs student at the SCHOOL-BASED program was suspected of being on the autism spectrum because he received supports during the day in an intensive classroom. The Child was a common fixture at the program but did not participate in all the activities with the others in his group and appeared marginalized – standing at the edge of large group activities, not being involved with peers. The SCHOOL-BASED programs were very different from each other even through they were operated by the same organization. All sites visited reported having mild behavioral issues with some severe issues on occasion. All sites reported that there had been no expulsion or suspension due to behavior the previous year although some site directors did mention that many “problem children” had existed. Many of these children left the program due to being removed by parents, moving neighborhoods, or non-attendance.

Foundational Training
The participating site directors were gathered together to meet as a cohort and discuss their expectations for the project as well as issues common to the programs. BOSTnet staff reviewed the past year’s PPB project and developed preliminary expectations and project activities. Some of the challenges of the project were identified such as the truncated time frame as well as getting sites to recognize the importance of building staff competencies over receiving direct assistance from outside Behavioral Specialists. BOSTnet staff convened site directors and discussed the goals of the program as well as the challenges. The site coordinators used the assessments and results were discussed. From these first assessments it seemed that there were no severe mental health issues (there was a discussion as to what information programs were given and what had to be constructed based on parent communication or connections to day school administrators and teachers) even though the directors thought it a pervasive issue in the school age population. One site director thought that there was an over-medicalization of the OST field and related a personal experience with a special needs child and his resistance of medication. Site coordinators tended to discuss specific children rather than identifying programmatic changes or training needs as a whole. Site coordinators believed that they already had behavioral plans and needed instead a few strategies for a very small minority of children.

Building the Action Plan
Using the assessments, observations from initial site visits and interviews with site coordinators and line staff, BOSTnet staff developed an action plan for each site. These action plans synthesized the self-reported goals along with observations and reflected back to the site coordinator gaps in service or areas that needed improvement. It was common that sites needed staff to receive more training on child and youth development as well as group management. Based on the assessments, staff across programs needed opportunities to develop self-awareness and strategies to deal with problem. Site coordinators were presented with action plans for discussion and goal setting. Assessments were gathered from line-staff as part of meetings in order to present additional perspectives for the action plans. Many gaps appeared between understandings of site coordinators and that of the staff (i.e. site coordinators felt that procedures were in place to work with community agencies while line staff thought this was non existent or needed improvement). The assessments provided a pattern on how the program staff viewed the work as well as identifying areas where the staff most or least agreed on challenges, strategies, and the need for mental health services. Most action plans created in the beginning of the project followed a format that was alter refined so as to better step out activities and to identify the responsibilities and expectations of all interested parties.

Refining of Training and Supports
BOSTnet staff reviewed the previous years training with an eye to making the work reflect more on the Out-of-School environment as well as underscoring how PPB fits into an overall strategy for creating a quality environment for youth development. The original training was considered somewhat technical and focused on a few strategies that did not address the key issues around the types of schedules, activities, and group compositions that are widespread in the Out-of-School field. The revised trainings were presented at a Boston Leadership Roundtable and a BEST training where evaluations were collected as well as anecdotes from participants. These trainings were revised and included as part of the sequence of PPB supports.

Trainings and Supports
Each site has a specific action plan as well as sequence of trainings and supports. Many of the sites found it difficult to meet with BOSTnet staff or commit too many staff to the trainings. BOSTnet staff conducted on-site support to direct-service staff, getting them to use the Self Assessment as the lead activity. These assessments were tabulated and their results were shared with the site coordinators. The majority of staff felt that they let their children know they are doing a good job (Q#1) but that other strategies were rated all across the scale from “not at all” to Always.” These first applications of the assessment always revealed a span of opinions. On the second section of “challenges” many of the staff felt that there was a “mild/moderate” amount of social or interpersonal/ family problems (Q#17) while there was “insignificant” issues around gang-related problems (Q#21), suicidal thoughts or behavior (Q#22), alcohol/drug problems (Q#23), and eating problems (Q#24) This may be because elementary school age students were over-represented as well as staff awareness to identify these issues in their populations. When it came to mental health services (section 3), the questions moved staff to think about the procedures of their program as well as get staff to reveal their familiarity with how their program deals with issues. Most program staff reported that there was no outside consultant and often wasn’t clarity on what procedures were in plce to get information (Q#38) or whether there was a referral system (Q#31). The majority of programs did not have consistent resources share among staff (Q27) or have funding for outside consultants (Q#29). There was often a disagreement with procedural questions as to whether the program had these procedures (Q#37, #40). Staff generally reported less frequency to practices of self care with many program staff reporting no or infrequent access to staff building time (Q #41 - #45 see attached). The Action plans looked to training as the primary formal exposure to developing staff competencies with follow-up visits conducted. SCHOOL BASED siteS coordinators combined their staff trainings. This was least effective as the issues at the sites were very different at each site even though the population of staff was similar (teen and college-age). The follow-up visits were also decided to be combined as during certain times both staff were serving their program populations at a single location (SCHOOL-BASED). This presented challenges since there were multiple sites in addition to the aforementioned. In addition, the children were out of their routine and environment making it more difficult to determine what behavioral issues came up during “typical schedules.” The SCHOOL-BASED ELEMENTARY received supports on a regular basis, with the most progress as children who were disengaged were folded into the program yet there was a schedule disruption as the site took on creating “zones” in accordance with common 21st Century Learning Center practices. The SCHOOL-BASED SITE was also going through changes in expanding to fill rooms that were given for use by the school so the program would not have to use as much shared space. The rooms were being designed including the participant’s voices and this program received supports around how to structure use of time as well as creating space where children had common rituals to limit issues with transitions. The STAND ALONE FACILITY site with its own facility had issues in that the local school was in the process of switching to an Extended Learning Time schedule and the program was threatened by being replaced with other vendors, other models within the school itself, and arguments over future access to children in the community. This impacted the operations of the program and many staff left the site. At the site was a student who showed behavior that was difficult for the staff to manage. This child was thought to exhibit behaviors of ADD or ADHD. The site staff were convened to discuss ways of making the entire program supportive in meeting the needs of all students, as well as creating a behavior chart to share with the student and his family. This chart was framed in a positive way and worked with the child to become more self-reflective on their mood. Staff also were to reinforce the concept of getting the child to give himself time outs or let staff know when he felt overwhelmed. All YOUTH SERVING ORGANIZATION "A" sites received a group cross site training and like the YOUTH SERVING ORGANIZATION "B" multi-site training, it is difficult to assess whether it was as effective as specific and customized work.

Post Observations
Site Coordinators were met with and the action plans discussed. Many changes to the format were suggested to make the action plans more “readable” by coordinators. As the initiative was coming to a culmination during the end of the program year, it was difficult to interview staff about their use of the tool but some reflections were gathered. Many staff reported positive experiences, however, it seemed that many staff still wanted more support and had additional questions about specific children. Data was collected on expulsions. Across the programs, there was no expulsion reported for the project year.
Evaluations of the training showed that it was well received, that the child development section was helpful, and that looking at specific behaviors against the Out-of-School environment made it helpful to ground staff in making judgments about what was acceptable for children to engage in within the context of youth development.

Next Steps
PPB Assessment tools were collected from the programs as well as a control group of outside programs and forwarded to Dr. Noam. Pending funding, these will be reviewed and modifications will be made to the tool incorporating insights from this program year. The trainings and supports developed can now be used with greater accuracy to assist other Out-of-School programs in creating a positive approach to behavior. The use of expulsion as a measure of the project, however, may have to be revisited and replaced with a more specific measure of project effectiveness and outcomes.

There were three measures to evaluate the work and monitor outcomes: collection and interpretation of Behavior and Emotional Support Assessment Tool as a pre and post test, collection of expulsion/ withdrawal data for 2006-2007 and 2007 – 2008, and collected observations and anecdotes.

Assessment Tool Measurements and outcomes:
Each program used the tool in two different ways. The first was a cohort of coordinators who used the tool after an initial contact with BOSTnet staff and then discussed what priorities they were going to set for the year. Site coordinators who used the tool as individual managers were more likely to say they had some individual children who cause issues at their program but felt secure that their programs had the capacity to meet children with special needs (defined as cognitive, emotional, behavioral, and mobility). This same tool was administered to staff at each site and a very different picture often came about. Staff were often unsure as to the issues or how to deal with them. Staffs seemed to think their site had “insignificant” challenges around most categories (Q#16 – Q#25) with most “moderate” or “severe” ratings given to “Social, interpersonal or family problems” (Q#17) and “Aggressive/disruptive behavior, bullying” (Q#20). However, staff were usually hesitant to place a priority as far as programmatic goals and when a site staff did set priorities, they seldom matched those of other workers at the same site. This disagreement on challenges, strategies, and identification of the divergent thinking on key issues was identified by the tool and was used for discussion among staff as well as reporting to the site coordinator and developing the action plan. Here, the tool allowed site coordinators to look at their own reactions of the tool, their ability as managers to understand the needs and competencies of their staff, and for the staff to discuss with one another in a non confrontational manner the skills or knowledge they lacked and how to better work as a team. Having identified gaps in understanding of children with special needs, BOSTnet staff was able to refine training in child development as well as offer more specific group management skills.

Expulsion/ withdrawal data for 2006-2007 and 2007 – 2008
In the collection of expulsion/ withdrawal data, BOSTnet staff collected information from 2006-2007 and then at the conclusion of the program for 2007-2008. Form this information it was learned the number of children in the project, demographic information, and the level of expulsion/ withdrawal for each site as well as aggregating the data to get a clearer understanding of the field. Programs in the initiative served 301 children. Of these, 163 received financial assistance form the Department of Early Education and Child Care (EEC). There were 164 males and 137 females. Programs reported between 72% - 100% low income. Within the programs as a whole 45% were Latino/a, 8% African American, 1% Asian, and the remainder multi-racial or European with no reported Native Americans, Cape Verdeans, Africans and 6% as “other.” The leading reported reason of children leaving the program in 2006 – 2007 was moving neighborhoods. This data remained the same for 2007-2008. The second reported reason was “affordability” or “lost voucher” (aged out of program). This remained the second place reported reason for 2007-2008 as well. Of the children who left the program voluntarily, 5 were reported in 2006 –2007 numbers as having IEPs and 3 in 2007 – 2008. There was 1 expulsion in 2006 – 2007 of a student who was reported “caught breaking into school property.” There were no reported expulsions in 2007 – 2008.

Collected observations and anecdotes
Over the course of the project, observations were made with anecdotes collected on observations of children and staff comments that gave insight into their professional development as well as the special needs of children within the program. Several staff were observed during the beginning of the project having difficulty with managing their groups or trouble with certain children. Staffs at one site were having trouble getting the group to follow instructions and staff members rather than solving the issues were bringing children in one by one or requesting the site coordinator solve group management issues. “They’re getting wet out there, jumping in puddles. The group isn’t listening to directions” one staff member pleaded with her coordinator (01/08/08). It was common to see these staff needing such assistance. At another program, the staffs were more confident, yet there were children who they did not have the confidence to engage. “We’re not sure what to do with him [a disengaged child many suspected of being on the Autism spectrum]. We want him to join in more but he is… in his own world” (11/28/07). “These kids need serious help” one site coordinator said, hoping that the project would work with individual children rather than raising the quality of group management and by extension the program (12/4/07). As the project progressed, staff at the programs saw that the tool led to discussions that they would not normally have. Many staff reported on changes in special needs children. “He is so confident now. I was like, where’d you get that walk” one staff member commented on a child that had for much of the year been withdrawn prior to changing the group schedule and reorganizing how activities were sequenced (03/24/08). Staff appeared more confident in their interactions with children and appeared to share and support with other staff more in working with challenges they were presented with. Rather than taking a strict discipline approach, staff worked to prevent problems and get children to communicate more. “Believe me, when they have a real problem, they know me so they come to me…” (04/18/08). Site coordinators in general felt that their staff had improved in working with children with special needs by seeing fewer children brought to them since they had identified self care (second 4 of the tool) as a gap in their program. “The other day [two male staff members] brought in Guitar Hero as an activity. It was a blast. I could see that the kids were having fun because [the staff] were just having a ball!” (5/20/08). Other programs were able to focus on raising the quality of the program in general as staff were able to discuss issues and see that the majority of behavioral challenges were not due to special needs but were the result of a need to improve skills around group management. These comments and observations demonstrated that the tool use created discussion and moved the process of staff development as well as increasing the quality of service to children with special needs.

Inclusion Series: Where is the Fun?

Situated within a conference room in the newer section of the Boston Public Library, the BOSTnet Roundtable series kicked off to a small audience. The date of the meeting happened to fall on the first day of school and of the many programs in the city and surrounding area. The people who attended were from all different types of program from music and arts to academic and legal aid. The majority of the attendees were familiar with BOSTnet events having attended them before. This was good since there was little need to introduce the organization and we could get right to the work at hand.

The presentation was an overview of Out-of-School time looking at how this environment was a unique developmental setting for youth and that programs needed to define themselves more against what they do rather than constantly be working to prove themselves in ares they have no control over (in school performance, family life, economic well being of the community). The key ideas seemed to go over well when we discussed the role of OST in the lives of children, the parameters of this work and the expectations, but one idea seemed to scatter common agreement and could have perhaps run rampant throughout the entire session: that was fun.

"Fun" was proposed as a central aspect of OST programming. Fun was learning academics in engaging ways, using art material, discovering musical talents, or having the much eroded "free time" educators are horrified to see young people have and it seems greatly assumed leads to immoral and depraved acts. (Not sure what these people did growing up two generations ago in the age of a great deal of free time... perhaps these fears are Freudian projections best skipped.) This was not the debut of "fun" but a second try at brining fun to the table. The last resulted in a great deal of wasted time in a training as staff argued that it was not "fun" but "safety" that was the central core of their program.

Safety?!

I mean... we engage in certain activities not to use the safety devices, but to enjoy them or to have fun. When have you gone to dinner and said, gee, I hope this meal I have will be safe? Or, "we went to this little French Bistro. My goodness, the food there was soooooo safe." Seeing fun as such an alien concept is indeed sad, but these times fun is relegated to the dustbin of an unsafe world where children were left to their own devices or just ignored. Fun, in recent times, has gotten a bad reputation. It is considered something negative or immoral. The safety officer looking for the kids smoking in the bathroom because they are in there having fun. To many "fun" is "Hippie talk." It is sex, drugs, and rock-n-roll (good enough for the older generation, but bad for us, and terrible for our children).

Fun need not be a bad word. It should be the foundation of learning and engagement from early childhood on. The laughter of an infant discovering something. Fun need not be immoral activities nor achieving a constant state of "whee" driven by the ID, but that sustained fun of engagement, discovery, and exploration - the sort of fun that drives many scientists during long days and nights of research. The fun may also be enjoyment of socialization. The fun may also be the ability to play with others without the constant proctoring of time that contemporary adults seem to bring.

Seeing how OST works with children, this fun may indeed be "whee!" Children perhaps need more examples of healthy "whee!".