Success Boston 

Coaching for Completion

2015-16 Implementation Report

Prepared by

Abt Associates

for Success Boston
About Success Boston

Success Boston is Boston’s citywide college completion initiative. Together, the Boston Foundation, the Boston 

Public Schools (BPS), the City of Boston, the Boston Private Industry Council, 37 area institutions of higher 

education, led by UMass Boston and Bunker Hill Community College, and local nonprofit partners are working 

to double the college completion rate for students from the BPS. Success Boston was launched in 2008 in response 

to a longitudinal study by Northeastern University’s Center for Labor Market Studies, which showed that only 

35% of those BPS graduates who had enrolled in college ever completed a postsecondary certificate, Associate’s 

or Bachelor’s degree within seven years of graduation from high school. Together, the partner organizations 

implemented a three part strategy: getting ready, getting in, and getting through—to ensure Boston’s young 

people are prepared to meet the challenges of higher education and achieve a degree that will allow them to thrive 

in the workplace. Recently, Success Boston has expanded its mission to include “getting connected” to the labor 

market upon graduation from college. In 2014, the Boston Foundation received a grant from the Corporation 

for National and Community Service to expand this effort. This $6 million Social Innovation Fund award gives 

the Foundation the resources necessary to expand Success Boston’s transition coaching model from serving 300 to 

1,000 students from each of the Boston Public Schools classes of 2015, 2016 and 2017.

About Abt Associates

Founded in Cambridge, Massachusetts in 1965, Abt provides applied research and consulting services to 

government agencies, philanthropic, nonprofit, and commercial organizations around the world. Abt’s mission is 

to improve the quality of life and economic well-being of people worldwide. It applies its exceptional subject matter 

expertise, outstanding technical capabilities in applied research, and strategic planning to help local, national and 

international clients make better decisions and deliver better services.

About the Social Innovation Fund

This report is based upon work supported by the Social Innovation Fund (SIF) which unites public and private 

resources to evaluate and grow innovative community-based solutions with evidence of results. The Social 

Innovation Fund is a program of the Corporation for National and Community Service, a federal agency that 

engages millions of Americans in service through its AmeriCorps, Senior Corps, Social Innovation Fund, and 

Volunteer Generation Fund programs, and leads the President’s national call to service initiative, United We Serve.
Boston Coaching 

for Completion 

(BosC4C) 

2015–16 

Implementation 

Report 

March 23, 2017 

Prepared for: 

Elizabeth Pauley 

Antoniya Owens 

Eric Esteves 

John Griffin 

The Boston Foundation 

75 Arlington Street, 10th Floor 

Boston, MA 02116 

Written by: 

Tamara Linkow 

Hayley Didriksen 

Beth Gamse 

Erin Bumgarner 

Melissa Velez 

Samuel Dastrup 

Sarah Ballinger 

Samantha Burke 

Michael Meneses 

RJ de la Cruz 

Abt Associates 

55 Wheeler Street 

Cambridge, MA 02138 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. i

Acknowledgements

The Success Boston Study Team would like to thank the students, coaches, non-profit organizational 

leaders and staff, higher education partners and staff, and the Boston Foundation staff. Their many 

contributions to the study are deeply appreciated. We are the beneficiaries of their generosity of time 

and spirit, which were instrumental in the preparation of this report.

CONTENTS 

Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. iii

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................. 1

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 7

1.1 About Boston Coaching for Completion (BosC4C) ........................................................ 7

1.2 Evaluation Research Questions ....................................................................................... 8

1.3 About This Report ........................................................................................................... 8

2. Improving College Enrollment and Completion ................................................................ 10

2.1 How Coaching Can Address Challenges in the Transition to College ............................... 11

2.2 Research on Impact of Transition Coaching .................................................................... 12

2.3 Research on Success Boston Coaching Intervention ........................................................ 13

3. Evaluation Design .................................................................................................................. 15

3.1 Data Sources .................................................................................................................. 15

3.1.1 Nonprofit Organization Leader Interviews ....................................................... 15

3.1.2 Coach Interviews .............................................................................................. 15

3.1.3 Program Database ............................................................................................. 16

3.1.4 Student Survey .................................................................................................. 17

3.1.5 Support Staff and College Leaders Interviews ................................................. 18

3.1.6 Student Focus Groups ....................................................................................... 18

3.1.7 Administrative Cost Records and Quarterly Invoices ...................................... 18

3.2 Analytic Approach ......................................................................................................... 19

3.2.1 Qualitative Data Analysis ................................................................................. 19

3.2.2 Quantitative Data Analysis ............................................................................... 19

3.2.3 Implementation Index ....................................................................................... 20

3.2.4 Cost Analysis .................................................................................................... 21

4. Who Participates in Coaching .............................................................................................. 22

4.1 Whom Does BosC4C Serve? ......................................................................................... 22

4.2 Where Do BosC4C Students Attend College? .............................................................. 24

4.3 Academic Aspirations, Expectations, and Perceptions of Preparation .......................... 26

4.3.1 Educational Futures .......................................................................................... 26

4.3.2 Academic Preparation....................................................................................... 28

4.4 Learning Points .............................................................................................................. 30

5. Supportive Structures ........................................................................................................... 31

5.1 How Is Coaching Organized and Provided? .................................................................. 31

5.1.1 BosC4C’s Coaching Model .............................................................................. 31

5.1.2 Key Structures Supporting Coaching ............................................................... 32

5.2 Nonprofit Coaching Organizations ................................................................................ 34
5.2.1 Who Are the Coaches? ..................................................................................... 34

5.2.2 Coach Caseload ................................................................................................ 35

5.2.3 Identifying Students for BosC4C ..................................................................... 36

5.2.4 Training for Coaches........................................................................................ 37

5.2.5 Cross-Organization Collaboration and Relationships ...................................... 42

5.2.6 Pressures on Implementation of BosC4C Coaching......................................... 43

5.3 Relationships with Partner Colleges.............................................................................. 43

5.3.1 Resources Available on College Campuses ..................................................... 44

5.3.2 Coach Coordination and Integration at Partner Colleges................................. 45

5.4 Learning Points.............................................................................................................. 48

6. Coaching in Practice ............................................................................................................. 49

6.1 BosC4C Coaching Throughout the Year: What Coaches Do and When....................... 50

6.2 What Are Coaches’ Interactions with Students? ........................................................... 52

6.2.1 Recruitment ...................................................................................................... 52

6.2.2 Start of Coaching.............................................................................................. 53

6.2.3 Modes of Communication ................................................................................ 54

6.2.4 Frequency of BosC4C Coach-Student Interactions.......................................... 55

6.2.5 Topics of Support ............................................................................................. 57

6.3 Student Perceptions of Coaching................................................................................... 62

6.4 Learning Points.............................................................................................................. 65

7. Resources Used to Implement Coaching ............................................................................. 66

7.1 Data Collection and Analysis Approach........................................................................ 66

7.2 Costs of BosC4C ........................................................................................................... 70

7.3 Sources of Funds and In-Kind Contributions................................................................ 74

7.4 Learning Points.............................................................................................................. 76

8. Implementation Index........................................................................................................... 78

8.1 Structure ........................................................................................................................ 79

8.2 Constructing and Scoring the Index .............................................................................. 82

8.3 Findings......................................................................................................................... 82

8.3.1 Overall Index Scores by Construct and Nonprofit Organization...................... 82

8.3.2 Operations Construct........................................................................................ 83

8.4 Learning Points.............................................................................................................. 93

9. Discussion............................................................................................................................... 95

9.1 Key Findings and Lessons Learned............................................................................... 95

9.2 Looking Forward ........................................................................................................... 99
CONTENTS

Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. v

10. Case Studies......................................................................................................................... 101

10.1 Roxbury Community College...................................................................................... 102

10.2 University of Massachusetts Boston............................................................................ 106

10.3 Bunker Hill Community College................................................................................. 107

10.4 Massachusetts Bay Community College ..................................................................... 115

Appendix A. Logic Model................................................................................................................ 120

Appendix B. Nonprofit Organization Leaders Interview Protocol.............................................. 122

Appendix C. Coach Interview Protocol ............................................................................................ 125

Appendix D. Coach Pre-Interview Questionnaire......................................................................... 127

Appendix E. Student Survey ........................................................................................................... 130

Appendix F. Selected Quotes from Student Survey ...................................................................... 144

Appendix G. College Support Staff/Leader Interview Protocol .................................................. 147

Appendix H. Student Focus Group Protocol ................................................................................. 149

Appendix I. Cost Data Collection Template .................................................................................. 150

Appendix J. Implementation Index Map ....................................................................................... 151

Appendix K. Full Implementation Index Scores ........................................................................... 157

References......................................................................................................................................... 159
List of Exhibits 

Exhibit 3.1. BosC4C Coach Interviews, by Nonprofit Coaching Organization ................................... 16

Exhibit 3.2. BosC4C Cohort 1 Survey Respondents, by College Type ............................................... 18

Exhibit 3.3. Implementation Index Constructs, Components, and Indicators ...................................... 20

Exhibit 4.1. Characteristics of Students: BosC4C2015-16 College Entrance, Boston Public 

Schools Class of 2015, and Massachusetts Class of 2015 .................................................................... 23

Exhibit 4.2. BosC4C Students Enrolled in Two-Year vs. Four-Year Colleges .................................... 24

Exhibit 4.3. Characteristics of Colleges Serving the Majority of BosC4C Students, 2015-16 ............ 25

Exhibit 4.4. BosC4C Students’ Degree Aspirations, by College Enrollment Type ............................. 27

Exhibit 4.5. BosC4C Students’ Expectations for Degree Attainment, by College Enrollment 

Type ...................................................................................................................................................... 27

Exhibit 4.6. BosC4C Students’ Perceptions of Preparedness for College ............................................ 28

Exhibit 4.7. BosC4C Students’ Perceptions of Preparedness for College vs. National Sample .......... 29

Exhibit 4.8. BosC4C Students’ Assessment of Academic Abilities Relative to Other Students ......... 29

Exhibit 4.9. BosC4C Students’ Confidence in Abilities to Succeed Academically ............................. 30

Exhibit 5.1. BosC4C Coaching Model ................................................................................................. 32

Exhibit 5.2. BosC4C Coaches’ Years Working with Coaching Organization ..................................... 35

Exhibit 5.3. BosC4C Coaches’ Race/Ethnicity .................................................................................... 35

Exhibit 5.4. Average BosC4C Student Caseloads, by Nonprofit Organization ................................... 36

Exhibit 5.5. Types of Initial Coach Training, by Nonprofit Organization ........................................... 38

Exhibit 5.6 Example Topics Discussed in On-Going Coach Trainings ............................................... 39

Exhibit 6.1. Topic Focus of All BosC4C Coaching Interactions, by Month ........................................ 50

Exhibit 6.2. Percentage of 2015 vs. 2014 Students Connecting with Coach, by Month ...................... 51

Exhibit 6.3. Percentage of BosC4C Students Connecting with Coach, by Mode and Month .............. 51

Exhibit 6.4. How Students Learned about BosC4C ............................................................................. 53

Exhibit 6.5. Timing of BosC4C Students’ First Coaching Interaction ................................................. 53

Exhibit 6.6. Modes of BosC4C Coach Transition Supports ................................................................. 54

Exhibit 6.7. Modes of BosC4C Coach Transition Supports, by Nonprofit Organization .................... 55

Exhibit 6.8. Frequency of BosC4C Coach-Student Interactions per Student ....................................... 56

Exhibit 6.9. One-on-One Coach-Student Interactions in 2015-16 ....................................................... 56

Exhibit 6.10. Frequency of Outreach, according to BosC4C Students (Student vs. Coach) ................ 57

Exhibit 6.11. Topics Covered during BosC4C Coaching Interactions (Coach-Reported) ................... 58

Exhibit 6.12. Topics Most Commonly Discussed with Coach (Student-Reported) ............................. 59

Exhibit 6.13. Frequency of BosC4C Coach Referrals to Campus Services (Student-Reported) ......... 60
CONTENTS

Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. vii

Exhibit 6.14. Student Perceptions of Relationships with BosC4C Coaches ........................................ 62

Exhibit 6.15. Comfort Reaching Out to BosC4C Coach, by Topic (Student-Reported)...................... 63

Exhibit 6.16. Topics on which Coach Was “Very Helpful,” by Topic (Student-Reported)................. 64

Exhibit 7.1. Cost Categories and Resource Examples.......................................................................... 68

Exhibit 7.2. Importance of Resource Types in Costs of Transition Coaching ..................................... 71

Exhibit 7.3. Per-Student Costs Vary across Nonprofit Organizations.................................................. 72

Exhibit 7.4. Share of Total Program Costs Allocated to Direct Services to Students.......................... 73

Exhibit 7.5. Resources Provided, by Source ........................................................................................ 75

Exhibit 8.1. BosC4C Implementation Index Structure......................................................................... 79

Exhibit 8.2. Overall Index Scores, by Construct and Nonprofit Organization..................................... 83

Exhibit 8.3. Coach Capacity Building: Average Indicator Scores ....................................................... 84

Exhibit 8.4. Coach Capacity Building: Indicator and Component Scores, by Organization................ 85

Exhibit 8.5. Integration with College: Average Indicator Scores......................................................... 86

Exhibit 8.6. Integration with College: Indicator and Component Scores, by Organization ................. 87

Exhibit 8.7. Structure of Coach-Student Engagement: Average Indicator Scores............................... 88

Exhibit 8.8. Structure of Coach-Student Engagement: Indicator and Component Scores, by 

Organization ......................................................................................................................................... 89

Exhibit 8.9. Nature of Coach-Student Engagement: Average Indicator Scores................................... 90

Exhibit 8.10. Nature of Coach-Student Engagement: Indicator and Component Scores, by 

Organization ......................................................................................................................................... 91

Exhibit 8.11. Nature of Support Activities: Average Indicator Scores ................................................ 92

Exhibit 8.12. Nature of Support Activities: Indicator and Component Scores, by Organization......... 93

Exhibit A-1. Boston Coaching for Completion (BosC4C) Logic Model ........................................... 121

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 1

Executive Summary

Access to jobs—and to the middle class—increasingly requires postsecondary credentials. College 

graduates earn more, are less likely to suffer job losses in a recession, and are projected to have 

superior long-term labor market prospects (U.S. Census Bureau 2014). Nationally, more than three of 

ten jobs already require postsecondary education (BLS 2017) and more than six of ten current jobs 

are filled by candidates with postsecondary education (Carnevale, Smith, and Strohl 2013a). These 

figures reflect the competitive advantage of postse

explicitly require a degree, a candidate with a degr

candidate without one. By 2020, over 70 percent 

of Massachusetts jobs are projected to be filled 

by workers with postsecondary credentials 

(Carnevale, Smith, and Strohl 2013b), a 

proportion higher than the state’s likely supply 

of college graduates, creating additional 

competitive pressure on Massachusetts residents 

in the labor market. In Boston, the six-year 

college graduation rate for the city’s 2009 public 

high school graduates who enrolled in college 

was 51 percent (McLaughlin et al. 2016). This 

rate improves upon the 39 percent seven-year 

rate for 2000 graduates, yet is not sufficient to 

meet the predicted demand for a collegeeducated workforce. 1

Students from low-income backgrounds and 

racial/ethnic minority groups may fail to enroll 

in, persist in, and graduate from college because 

of social, academic, and logistical barriers. 

Specifically, students face a lack of support both 

socially and academically (Arnold et al. 2009; 

Roderick et al. 2008; Scott-Clayton 2011), and 

they may also be unfamiliar with how to manage 

key deadlines (Castleman and Page 2015; Avery 

and Kane 2004). 

One strategy proven effective in helping 

students meet these challenges is one-to-one coaching from experienced counselors (Castleman, 

Arnold, and Wartman 2012; Castleman, Page, and Schooley 2014; Carrell and Sacerdote 2013; 

condary education: even when a job does not 

ee will tend to be hired over an equally qualified 

 

1

 A 2008 report, Getting to the Finish Line: College Enrollment and Graduation, A Seven-year 

Postsecondary Longitudinal Study of the Boston Public Schools Class of 2000 Graduates, found that 64% 

of nearly 3,000 BPS Class of 2000 graduates enrolled in a postsecondary institution within the first seven 

years of high school graduation, yet only 35.5% of college enrollees had earned a certificate, a two-year 

degree, or a four-year degree (Sum et al. 2008). That figure was later revised to 39%. 

Boston Coaching for Completion 

(BosC4C) 

 Launched in 2015 

 Replicates and expands Success 

Boston Coaching 

 Nine local nonprofit organizations: 

Boston Private Industry Council, 

Bottom Line, College Bound 

Dorchester, Freedom House, Hyde 

Square Task Force, Match Beyond, 

Sociedad Latina, The Steppingstone 

Foundation, and West End House 

 College partners include Benjamin 

Franklin Institute of Technology, 

Bridgewater State University, Bunker 

Hill Community College, College for 

America, Massachusetts Bay 

Community College, Northeastern 

University, Roxbury Community 

College, Salem State University, 

Suffolk University, and University of 

Massachusetts Boston 

 Evaluation of the predecessor 

program, Success Boston Coaching, 

found that students’ college 

persistence and achievement 

increased (Sum et al. 2013).
Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 2

Scrivener and Weiss 2009; Sum et al. 2013; Stephan and Rosenbaum 2013). Such coaching can start 

as early as students’ senior year of high school and continue through their first two years in college.

The connection between college completion and future economic stability—at individual, family, and 

community levels—is at the heart of a city-wide collaboration. In 2008, the Success Boston initiative 

began with an ambitious goal: to improve the college completion rates of Boston high school 

graduates, many of whom are members of groups traditionally underrepresented in college, and 

thereby increase these students’ access to employment in Boston’s industries that require advanced 

training, such as technology, financial services, higher education, and medical sectors.

Partners in the Success Boston initiative include the Boston Foundation, City of Boston, Boston 

Public Schools, the Boston Private Industry Council, University of Massachusetts Boston, Bunker 

Hill Community College, other institutions of higher education, and local nonprofits. The Boston 

Foundation (TBF) funds coaching and other activities, and is the convening backbone organization 

for one of the initiative’s core components: transition coaching.

Beginning with the Class of 2009, Success Boston provided transition coaching to Boston high school 

graduates to help reduce barriers to college success, particularly for students from groups traditionally 

underrepresented in college. Since the fall of 2015, and funded in part through a Social Innovation 

Fund (SIF) grant from the Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS), Boston 

Coaching for Completion (BosC4C) has broadened the reach of its predecessor program, Success 

Boston Coaching, from several hundred to 1,000 Boston young adults per cohort. The transition

coaching model offers students sustained, proactive, and responsive support provided by nonprofit 

organizations. Importantly, BosC4C prioritizes serving students who enroll in two-year colleges; it 

also supports students who initially enroll in four-year institutions.

TBF contracted with Abt Associates to design and conduct an evaluation of the BosC4C program. 

Building on Abt’s ongoing evaluation of Success Boston Coaching, the BosC4C evaluation will, over 

its duration, examine program implementation, short- and long-term impacts, and cost-effectiveness. 

This report represents the first of three that will be released over the course of the study. It answers 

two primary questions:

 How has BosC4C been implemented?

 What was the cost to implement the program?

Over the 2015-16 academic year, the study collected data, including by conducting intensive 

interviews with staff from the nonprofit organizations and from 10 partner colleges; administering an 

online survey to participating students; conducting focus groups with non-participating students; and 

analyzing information from the program’s records of coaches’ interactions with students.

This report is designed to help develop a common standard of practice by describing the nonprofit 

coaching organizations’ and colleges’ activities, students’ experiences, commonalities and differences 

across the organizations, and costs of implementing the BosC4C program. It also outlines the 

elements of transition coaching that appear to be consistent across the nine nonprofit organizations—

as well as idiosyncratic to individual organizations—and describes challenges faced by organizations 

and their staff and by students. Based on what we learned, several themes have emerged.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 3

BosC4C is reaching its target population—students from groups traditionally underrepresented in

college—and it has nearly reached its target number of students served. Almost three-quarters of 

the 928 BosC4C students served in 2015-16 are Black or Hispanic, and 61 percent self-identify as the 

first generation in their family to attend college. These students attended 56 different colleges during 

the 2015-16 academic year, and more than half (55 percent) attended four-year colleges. In 2015-16, 

BosC4C served a greater proportion of students enrolled in two-year colleges than in the prior 

academic year (41 percent versus 36 percent in 2014-15). BosC4C students have high aspirations 

about their educational futures; more than three-quarters expect to earn a bachelor’s degree (78 

percent), but a majority also aspire to a graduate degree (62 percent). Two-thirds of the students (67 

percent) work for pay while in college, either full- or part-time, an average of 22 hours per week.

Coaches benefit from similar kinds of preparation. Network-wide monthly coaches’ meetings offer 

coaches opportunities for continuing professional development, above and beyond what had been 

offered by their respective nonprofit organizations; coaches can (and do) request specific types of 

training during the meetings. The nonprofit organizations also provide trainings to their coaches, 

although such training sessions vary in focus, frequency, and formality. Coaches consistently 

described trainings (program wide and organization-specific) on the following topics as the most 

helpful: financial aid and financial literacy, coaching styles, building relationships with students, and 

bolstering student engagement. On the whole, coaches reported satisfaction with their training 

opportunities and experiences; however, numerous coaches were interested in continuing to receive 

trainings on specialized topic areas.

The majority of transition supports were provided to students in-person. The modes by which 

coaches communicate with students vary across coaching organizations, coaches, and students, as 

well as by time of year. Nonetheless, the majority of transition supports over the 2015-16 year 

occurred in-person (60 percent).

Coach-student communications occur throughout the academic year. The average number of oneon-one interactions (phone or in-person) a student had with his or her coach was six, and about onequarter of students had seven or more one-on-one interactions annually. Across the nine nonprofits, 

the average number of one-on-one student interactions ranged from three to 15 per year (at the 

organization level). On average, interactions lasted between 25 and 40 minutes. For the typical 

student, who interacts with a coach six times during the academic year for an average of 34 minutes 

per interaction, this translates into about 3.5 hours of one-on-one coaching per year. The majority of 

students (85 percent) met with their coach at least once during each semester. It is important to note 

that students also interacted with coaches via text messages, emails, and social media; these 

interactions, plus the one-on-one interactions, totaled an average of nine times per year.

Coaching interactions address diverse and often multiple topics. The topics addressed by coaches 

during coaching interactions fall into four main categories: academics, financial aid, career planning, 

and managing life responsibilities. On the whole, academic topics—such as course registration or 

checking in about how classes are going—represent the topics coaches most commonly discussed 

with their students; nearly two-thirds of the 8,322 coaching interactions logged in the program 

database in 2015-16 had an academic focus. Another one-third of coaching interactions focused on 

helping students manage life responsibilities, and one-quarter addressed topics related to financial aid. 

Fewer interactions addressed career planning or “other” topics (15 percent and 8 percent, 

respectively). According to students, the five most commonly discussed topics were checking in 
Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 4

about how classes are going; completing or renewing FAFSA forms; balancing school, work, and 

home; registering for courses; and time management. Importantly, nearly one-third (29 percent) of 

coaching interactions covered two or more topic areas.

Coaching is connected to college campuses. Nonprofit organization coaches and college staff alike 

acknowledged the importance of fostering coach-college communication, both to help coaches better 

understand campus support services available to their students and to connect BosC4C students to the 

appropriate supports more easily. Coaches learned of campus supports through ad hoc means, as well 

as through more formal channels. Those channels differed widely across the coaches, their 

organizations, and the colleges, which also used multiple means to communicate information about 

their support services available. For example, three colleges hold ongoing monthly or biweekly 

meetings for all BosC4C coaches on their campuses, about one-third of coaches participate in formal 

orientation(s) to a college campus, and some rely on more experienced colleagues for knowledge 

about a specific college.

Coaches communicate with one another to build their knowledge of the college campus(es) where 

they serve students. Many coaches leverage the knowledge and experience of their fellow coaches—

from both their own organization and other organizations in the Success Boston Coaching network—

to learn about the campus(es) on which they provide support. More than one-third (39 percent) of the 

coaches, across six organizations, reported that they learned about campus support services through 

their peer network. Ten coaches also reported relying on more experienced colleagues who were more 

familiar with the college(s) where their students enrolled, as an important information source about 

campus services.

Costs of transition coaching are almost evenly split between costs of providing direct services to 

students and administrative costs. The estimated total cost to implement BosC4C in 2015-16 was 

$5,301,423, or $5,713 per student. That cost represents multiple inputs, including both direct services 

to students and program administration. Because 2015-16 was the program’s launch year, start-up 

expenses are reflected in this total cost; future per student costs may be lower. Given that the BosC4C 

coaching model hinges on one-on-one support provided by coaches to students, the cost of employing

the personnel who provide that support represents the largest input, or more than 40 percent of total 

costs. In monetary terms, this translates into an investment in staff supporting BosC4C students’ 

academic success of nearly $2,342 per student.

Students had overwhelmingly positive experiences with BosC4C transition coaching. Student-coach 

relationships are a key ingredient in the overall success of the BosC4C model. When students 

perceive their coach more favorably, this in turn can increase student engagement and enhance a 

coach’s ability to help the student access needed resources. Overall, students expressed favorable 

perceptions of their coaches and the services they offered. The majority of students reported that it 

was easy for them to get in touch with their coach and that the coach was generally a helpful resource 

(91 percent and 90 percent, respectively). Two-thirds or more students reported their coach was very 

helpful, across 11 different support topics. Most students also noted that they planned to stay in touch 

with their coach the following year, and that coaching had taught them how to access the resources 

they needed (88 percent and 87 percent, respectively).

Recruitment for BosC4C in 2015-16 started later and spanned a longer period than in previous 

years. The substantial increase in the number of students served in 2015-16 (as compared to 2014-15) 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 5

meant more recruitment and a longer recruitment period, which had implications for the start of active 

transition coaching. The vast majority of students (87 percent) experienced their first coaching 

interaction in the fall college semester, three percent had worked with a coach before the start of the 

academic year, and 10 percent first experienced coaching during the spring college semester. The 

months of August and September were characterized by low numbers of coach-student meetings, 

significantly fewer than in the prior year. Specifically, 63 percent of 2014 BPS graduates had coach 

interactions during September 2014, compared with 29 percent of 2015 BPS graduates, although the 

lower number of September interactions may well reflect scale-up challenges.

Taken together, the first-year implementation findings and these themes suggest some potential 

opportunities for development at the coach, organization, and program levels. In particular, BosC4C 

could improve its implementation (and potentially, its impact on student outcomes) in several ways:

 Develop processes and communication channels to coordinate student recruitment as early 

as possible. Starting recruitment in the late summer or early fall pushes back the start of 

transition coaching with students to mid-fall, or later. Instead, additional programmatic support to 

nonprofit organizations, including coordination across them, to begin recruitment activities at the 

end of high school and over the summer could allow coaching to begin at the start of the college 

academic year. Early development of processes through which coaches and college partners could 

work together to identify potential BosC4C participants could also expedite the startup of 

coaching.

 Foster increased communication and coordination between nonprofit coaches and the 

partner colleges. Certain colleges have put strategies in place to facilitate effective 

communication and coordination with the nonprofit coaches working on their campuses. These 

strategies include a point of contact at each partner college with knowledge of the coaches and 

nonprofit organizations serving students on campus; campus-specific orientation sessions for 

BosC4C coaches at partner colleges once a year or more that introduce them to key campus 

support staff, support services available on campus, and other BosC4C coaches; and regularly 

scheduled coaches’ meetings on campus to improve communication and coordination between 

BosC4C coaches and college support staff.

 Continue to expand and enhance the training and professional development opportunities

provided by the Boston Foundation and nonprofit organizations to create and maintain common 

standards of practice and efficient delivery of supports. Topics for future coaches’ meetings could 

include how to support students with emotional needs and/or mental health issues, transferring 

from two- to four-year colleges, and managing life-work balance. Topics for future transition 

meetings for nonprofit organization leaders could include setting specific expectations of coaches, 

cost management techniques, and defining the role of a coach to allow for assessing coaching 

delivery, giving targeted feedback, and measuring coach progress.

This report explains the institutions and organizations that make up the BosC4C program, 

summarizes the transition supports BosC4C provides to students, describes how students use these 

supports, summarizes the costs of resources used to implement BosC4C, and identifies areas for 

improvement. Based on a thorough investigation of BosC4C during the 2015-16 academic year, this 

report offers a comprehensive picture of 2015-16 BosC4C coaching.
Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 6

This report does not yet describe the implications of these coaching activities for student outcomes, 

which will be described in an interim report (scheduled for 2019), once the team has obtained and 

analyzed data on short-term student outcomes such as persistence, grade point average, and renewal 

of the Free Application for Federal Student Aid. The interim report will also link key features of 

implementation to short-term outcomes. In the meantime, short-term outcomes for the cohorts prior to 

the BosC4C will be released in early 2017, and they will provide some insight about the observed 

impact of transition coaching on student outcomes.

As BosC4C continues, the findings and recommendations presented here may inform ongoing 

improvements for transition coaching in Boston. 
INTRODUCTION 

Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 7

1. Introduction

Success Boston is a city-wide collaborative initiative focused on improving college completion rates 

for Boston’s public school graduates through program, policy, and practice-based activities. Partners 

include the Boston Foundation, City of Boston, Boston Public Schools, the Boston Private Industry 

Council, University of Massachusetts Boston, Bunker Hill Community College, other institutions of 

higher education, and local nonprofits. The Boston Foundation (TBF) funds transition coaching and 

other activities, and is the convening backbone organization for the transition coaching program, 

Boston Coaching for Completion (BosC4C). 

BosC4C represents an expansion of the Success Boston Coaching initiative, which provided coaching 

to graduates of the Boston Public Schools (BPS) from the classes of 2009 through 2014 to reduce 

barriers to college success, particularly for students from groups traditionally underrepresented in 

college.2

1.1 About Boston Coaching for Completion (BosC4C) 

In 2014, TBF received a Social Innovation Fund (SIF) grant from the Corporation for National and 

Community Service (CNCS) to broaden the reach of Success Boston Coaching from several hundred 

students per cohort to a transition coaching program serving 1,000 Boston young adults per cohort, 

with a priority on serving students enrolling in two-year colleges. 

BosC4C is designed to support those students entering college in 2015, 2016, and 2017 who are most 

likely to leave before completion—that is, first-generation college and low-income students of color. 

Through this program, students can access one-on-one coaching at the start of the fall semester or 

shortly thereafter and continue through their first two years of college. Coaching is provided by staff 

from partnering nonprofit organizations, supported by competitive subgrant awards from TBF.

Similar to Success Boston Coaching, BosC4C targets non-academic issues affecting college access 

and persistence (e.g., financial need, personal and emotional support, career and life planning, and 

better utilization of existing academic supports). Coaches work with students on life skills, study 

skills, help-seeking skills, and academic skills; they help students develop meaningful relationships, 

clarify goals, access networks, understand college culture, and make college life feasible. 

Raising the college completion rate of Boston high school students to at least 70 percent is the 

ultimate goal of the coaching (see Appendix A for a detailed logic model of the program). 

Students are generally recruited into BosC4C through several channels, including high school 

counselors, college counselors, and prior participation in the nonprofit organizations’ programming.

In 2015-16, nine subgrantee organizations provided direct student service delivery and referral 

services to 928 students through BosC4C. Coaching models vary from organization to organization; 

 

2

 This report generally uses college as shorthand to reference participating colleges and universities. 
Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 8

however, all subgrantees employ full-time coaches and work in partnership with one or more colleges 

that are typically located in Boston.3

1.2 Evaluation Research Questions 

TBF contracted with Abt Associates to design and conduct an evaluation of the BosC4C program. 

Building from Abt’s current evaluation of Success Boston Coaching, the BosC4C evaluation will 

carefully examine implementation, short- and long-term impacts, and cost-effectiveness. In particular, 

the evaluation is designed to answer four main research questions about implementation and impact: 

1. What is the effect of BosC4C coaching—above and beyond the services received by students 

in the comparison group—on the following key outcomes: annual persistence, grade point 

average (GPA), academic standing, Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) 

completion, and postsecondary completion? 

2. What is the nature of variation in the impacts of BosC4C coaching for student outcomes, and 

how is observed variation associated with student characteristics, such as gender and 

race/ethnicity, and with features of the coaching, including dosage and topics covered? 

3. How is BosC4C implemented across partner organizations (i.e., what is the dosage, caseload, 

method of delivery, etc.) and partner colleges (i.e., how is coaching integrated into campus 

support service delivery, what coordination exists between coaches and campus staff)? How 

do the coaching models vary across partner organizations? How do the coaching and support 

services provided vary by college? 

4. What resources are necessary to implement BosC4C and to achieve desired student 

outcomes? 

1.3 About This Report 

This report is the first of three reports to be produced as part of the BosC4C evaluation. It focuses on 

two topics: how the partner nonprofit organizations implemented coaching across colleges during the 

2015-16 academic year, and what the costs of implementing the SIF-funded expansion are. The report 

integrates information from multiple data sources to summarize variation in that implementation for 

the first BosC4C cohort (students entering college in 2015-16, primarily 2015 high school 

graduates4). These sources included interviews with staff from the nine nonprofits and 10 colleges; an 

online survey of participating students; focus groups with non-participating students; and a program 

database, which stores records of coaches’ interactions with the participating students. 

The second report, to be released in early 2019, will examine outcomes after the first two cohorts of 

BosC4C students have been out of high school for at least two years. The final report, to be released 

 

3

 Some 76 percent of students served by BosC4C in the 2015-16 academic year enrolled at one of the 

following colleges: Benjamin Franklin Institute of Technology, Bridgewater State University, Bunker Hill. 

Community College, Massachusetts Bay Community College, Northeastern University, Roxbury 

Community College, Salem State University, Suffolk University, or University of Massachusetts Boston. 

4

 The majority of students in the first BosC4C cohort graduated from high school in 2015; 11 percent of 

students in this cohort graduated in previous years. 
INTRODUCTION

Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 9

in the spring of 2022, will combine measures of implementation with the impact results to explore 

long-term outcomes and variation in impacts.

In the chapters that follow, we first present the relevant literature related to improving college 

enrollment and completion. Next, we review the evaluation design, describing the study’s data 

sources and approach to conducting analyses. Chapter 4 summarizes characteristics of the BosC4C 

students. Chapters 5 and 6 describe BosC4C’s coaching structures and activities, drawn from the staff 

interviews, student survey, and coaches’ records from the program database. The costs associated 

with implementing BosC4C in 2015-16 are estimated in Chapter 7. The implementation index and 

analyses are described in Chapter 8. Chapter 9 presents the discussion and recommendations. 
Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 10

2. Improving College Enrollment and Completion

In Boston, as elsewhere across the nation, it has become increasingly essential that students pursue—and 

complete—postsecondary degrees to have access to middle class wages and be competitive in today’s job 

market. College graduates earn more, are less likely to suffer job losses in a recession, and are 

projected to have superior long-term labor market prospects (U.S. Census Bureau 2014). Nationally, 

more than three of ten jobs already require postsecondary education (BLS 2017) and more than six of 

ten current jobs are filled by candidates with postsecondary education (Carnevale, Smith, and Strohl 

2013a). These figures reflect the competitive advantage of postsecondary education: even when a job 

does not explicitly require a degree, a candidate with a degree will tend to be hired over an equally 

qualified candidate without one. By 2020, over 70 percent of Massachusetts jobs are projected to be 

filled by workers with postsecondary credentials (Carnevale, Smith, and Strohl 2013b), a proportion 

higher than the state’s likely supply of college graduates, creating additional competitive pressure on 

Massachusetts residents in the labor market. In Boston, the six-year college graduation rate for the 

city’s 2009 public high school graduates who enrolled in college was 51 percent (McLaughlin et al. 

2016). This rate improves upon the 39 percent seven-year rate for 2000 graduates, yet is not sufficient 

to meet the predicted demand for a college-educated workforce. 5

Despite an overall increase both nationally and locally in college-going rates in recent decades, students 

from low-income backgrounds and racial/ethnic minority groups are less likely to attend, persist, and 

complete college than their peers (e.g., U.S. Department of Education 2016; Haskins 2008; Bailey and 

Dynarski 2011). Low-income students, in particular, along with first-generation college students, ethnic 

minorities, and males have all been found to be underrepresented in postsecondary education (Arnold, Lu, 

and Armstrong 2012; Harper 2006; Harper and Griffen 2011; Tym et al. 2004). In the early 2000s, across 

the income distribution, only 29 percent of those from the lowest income quartile attended a postsecondary 

institution, compared with 80 percent of those from the top income quartile (Bailey and Dynarski 2011).

College completion rates among low-income students paint an even bleaker picture: only 9 percent of 

youth from the lowest income quartile attain a college degree, compared with 54 percent of those from the 

top income quartile. 

Success Boston’s recent Reaching for the Cap and Gown report highlights similar trends for Boston; 

college access and success cut along both racial/ethnic and gender lines among Boston high school 

graduates. Boston’s White and Asian students are more likely than their Black and Hispanic peers to enroll 

in college and to earn a college credential, and its female students across all racial groups graduate from 

college at higher rates than male students do (McLaughlin et al. 2016). 

Previous research attributes low college enrollment and completion rates among students from lowincome backgrounds and racial/ethnic minority groups in part to informational and support gaps for these 

students both before and once they enroll in college (Avery, Howell, and Page 2014; Avery and Kane 

2004; Bozick and DeLuca 2011; Roderick et al. 2008). Gaps in services can affect college-intending 

 

5

 A 2008 report, Getting to the Finish Line: College Enrollment and Graduation, A Seven-year 

Postsecondary Longitudinal Study of the Boston Public Schools Class of 2000 Graduates, found that 64% 

of nearly 3,000 BPS Class of 2000 graduates enrolled in a postsecondary institution within the first seven 

years of high school graduation, yet only 35.5% of college enrollees had earned a certificate, a two-year 

degree, or a four-year degree (Sum et al. 2008). That figure was later revised to 39%. 
LITERATURE ON COLLEGE OUTCOMES 

Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 11

students the summer following their senior year of high school, when they do not have access to high 

school services. In particular, researchers have documented the phenomenon of summer melt, whereby 

low-income college-intending high school graduates fail to matriculate to the college of their choice 

during the summer following their senior year of high school (Arnold et al. 2009; Cooper et al. 1996; 

Hossler and Gallagher 1987). Summer melt has been attributed to several factors. One is the difficulty 

students have with making sense of their financial aid package and determining how they will acquire the 

funds needed to bridge the gap between their financial aid package and the cost of college. Another is the 

number of administrative tasks students are required to complete on time, such as course registration and 

FAFSA completion (Arnold et al. 2009; Castleman, Arnold, and Wartman 2012; Castleman and Page 

2015; Castleman, Page, and Schooley 2014).

Students from groups traditionally underrepresented in college, in particular, may lack opportunities for 

professional guidance on understanding the financial aid process and options (Arnold et al. 2009; Bettinger 

et al. 2012; Roderick et al. 2008), including reminders about completing these tasks (Hoxby and Turner 

2013; Ross et al. 2013). Students may struggle socially and emotionally with the adjustment to college–

particularly around fitting in and whether they belong in college–which, in turn, has been found to affect 

students’ overall college engagement, achievement, and adjustment (Walton and Cohen 2011). 

In addition to these challenges, many students enter higher education underprepared for college-level 

academic demands, which can further impede them from successfully persisting in and completing a 

degree (Greene and Winters 2005). A 2013 study that examined the relationship between academic 

advising and retention of first-generation college students found that academic advising can consistently 

and effectively connect these students to academic resources on campus. In fact, this analysis found that 

the odds of a first-generation college student being retained at a college increased 13 percent for every 

meeting with an advisor (Swecker, Fifolt, and Searby 2013). 

Moreover, though college advisor systems have been found to be beneficial for students in need of 

academic remediation (Bahr 2008; Swecker, Fifolt, and Searby 2013), academic advisors may have 

limited time to provide the level of support students need, particularly students attending two-year and 

four-year public institutions. A survey of college academic advisors found that the median caseload of a 

full-time academic advisor is 441 advisees at community colleges and 260 advisees at public four-year 

colleges (Carlstrom and Miller 2013). A separate study, which conducted a national survey of college 

counseling center directors, found that at 55 percent of community colleges, the ratio of counselor to 

advisees is 1 to 1,500 (Gallagher 2010). 

One promising intervention to help address student financial, administrative, and academic obstacles is 

transition coaching, in which coaches follow high school graduates as they enter and adjust to college. In 

particular, BosC4C aims to bridge the gap for students who may not have sufficient resources and supports 

during this transitional time. 

2.1 How Coaching Can Address Challenges in the Transition to College 

Transition coaches can help students navigate the financial aid process to reduce the gap between the cost 

of college and what students can actually afford. In their qualitative study of why students who enrolled in 

college failed to actually attend, Arnold and colleagues (2009) found that many students believed it was 

too expensive and did not know how to acquire additional aid in order to pay for it. Coaches can help 

students complete lengthy and complex financial aid forms and remind students of key due dates 

(Bettinger et al. 2012; Roderick et al. 2008). 
Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 12

Students from low-income backgrounds and racial/ethnic minority groups are more likely to be firstgeneration college students (Aud et al. 2012) whose parents and peers are unfamiliar with the range of 

academic, financial, and social-emotional challenges students face when matriculating to college 

(Castleman and Page 2013; Stephens et al. 2015). As a result, students may lack support from their 

families as they deal with stress related to the social and academic demands of college. Coaching 

programs offer a promising solution to help provide information, guidance, and general support to students 

who lack these resources in their familial and social networks (Avery and Kane 2004; Bettinger, Boatman, 

and Long 2013; Deming and Dynarski 2009; Roderick et al. 2008).

Coaching can also support students encountering social-emotional challenges as they transition to college, 

such as fitting in or responding to academic challenges and setbacks. Research suggests that opportunities 

for adolescents to have meaningful engagements and supportive relationships with adults can influence a 

range of outcomes, including educational performance, mental health, and problem behavior (DuBois and 

Silverthorn 2005; Eby et al. 2008; Rhodes and DuBois 2008). 

Finally, as students navigate through their first years in college, they may experience academic challenges 

such as struggles with a difficult class, appropriate course selection for degree completion and chosen 

major, and time management. Coaching supports can promote persistence and completion when they are 

directed at helping students make informed course and internship choices based on students’ skills, 

interests, and career goals, and assisting students who are struggling to stay on task in their courses, 

including through locating additional supports (Bettinger, Boatman, and Long 2013; Castleman and Page 

2015; Johnson and Rochkind 2009; Karp 2011; Oreopoulos and Petronijevic 2016).

2.2 Research on Impact of Transition Coaching 

Much of the recent rigorous research on transition coaching focuses on the summer between students’ 

senior year of high school and freshman year of college—whereas most BosC4C services begin during the 

fall of students’ first year in college. The research nonetheless yields important insights on the potential 

effects of coaching, as the types of summer activities examined are often very similar to BosC4C 

academic-year activities. 

Multiple recent studies—including several randomized controlled trials (RCTs), viewed as the gold 

standard in education research—find that coaching interventions significantly increase college 

matriculation and college persistence among students. Those same studies provide particularly strong 

evidence regarding the impact of coaching on students’ college outcomes:

 In a study of the Beacon Mentoring Program at South Texas College, students in mathematics 

classes were randomly assigned either to no mentor or to a mentor who encouraged then to use 

tutoring and other campus services and who offered one-on-one support if needed. The program 

increased students’ use of the campus tutoring center and reduced the likelihood that they would 

withdraw from the course (Visher, Butcher, and Cerna 2011).

 In a study conducted at the urban Big Picture high schools, students were randomly assigned 

either to receive systematic outreach and assistance from transition coaches over the summer or to 

a business-as-usual condition. Students assigned to coaches were significantly more likely to 

follow through with their postsecondary plans and enroll in four-year colleges than those who did 

not receive such services (Castleman, Arnold, and Wartman 2012). 
LITERATURE ON COLLEGE OUTCOMES 

Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 13

 A 2014 study replicated the Big Picture schools pilot study design under different conditions. 

Castleman, Page, and Schooley (2014) randomly assigned students in two districts, Boston and 

Fulton County, Georgia, to summer outreach and coaching. Coaching increased college 

enrollment among students in the treatment group compared with students in the control group, 

who did not receive coaching, across both districts. 

 Bettinger and Baker (2014) examined the effect of another coaching program, Inside Track, that 

provides one-on-one coaching targeting students currently attending college. The study found that 

freshman students who received targeted coaching were more likely to have persisted in college, 

compared with those who did not receive the coaching. 

 Oreopoulos and Petronijevic (2016) evaluated the effects of a coaching program in which firstyear students are matched with upper-year undergraduate coaches. The study randomly assigned 

students to a coach who provided one-on-one support (either in-person or via Skype) to students 

on a variety of college-related topics. Students who received coaching had significantly higher 

average grades and GPAs as compared to those who did not receive these services. 

2.3 Research on Success Boston Coaching Intervention 

Prior research focused specifically on BosC4C’s predecessor, Success Boston Coaching, provides further 

promising evidence of the benefits of coaching. In 2014, the Center for Labor Market Studies (CLMS) at 

Northeastern University directly investigated the effect of the Success Boston Coaching initiative using a 

matched comparison group design. The study compared outcomes of students from BPS who graduated in 

2009 and participated in Success Boston Coaching versus other similar BPS 2009 graduates who attended 

the same colleges but did not receive Success Boston Coaching (Sum, Khatiwada and Palma 2014).

Examining outcomes of students at the seven top-enrolling colleges and universities, the study found 

preliminary evidence of a positive and statistically significant effect on college persistence. Success 

Boston Coaching students had larger one-, two-, three-, and four-year college persistence rates than did 

their non-coached peers. Persistence rates varied slightly by gender and ethnicity and were generally 

greater for Black students. The study also found preliminary evidence of a positive and statistically 

significant effect on college graduation rates (Sum et al. 2014).

Success Boston’s 2016 report Reaching for the Cap and Gown provides a descriptive examination of 

college enrollment and completion for participants in the Success Boston Coaching initiative from the 

BPS class of 2009, comparing them with non-participating students. The report found that the coached and 

non-coached students who initially enrolled in four-year colleges generally completed college at similar 

rates of about 60 percent, which is also similar to the national six-year completion rate of 62 percent for 

students entering college in fall 2009 (Shapiro et al. 2015). Success Boston coached students have an edge 

when they attend two-year colleges, however: 35 percent of coached students and 24 percent of noncoached students completed a degree or credential within six years. At the seven colleges and 

universities enrolling the largest share of SBC students (roughly 70 percent), nearly half (49 percent) 

of the SBC students completed a degree, compared with 38.5 percent of non-coached students. 

Further, the overall completion rates for Black SBC students—who represented over one-third (35.6 

percent) of SBC students—were higher than the completion rates of students who did not participate 

in coaching through Success Boston: 53.2 percent versus 40.6 percent (McLaughlin et al. 2016). 
Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 14

The impact analysis portion of the current evaluation builds on the CLMS study and the 2016 Success 

Boston report by applying a more rigorous design involving local and focal matching, using a more 

extensive set of baseline characteristics in the matching process, and including a larger pool of students 

comprising several cohorts of students. Further, the current study builds on the persistence and completion 

outcomes to include academic achievement, FAFSA renewal, and college graduation rates, and it 

investigates how differences in key programmatic features affect those outcomes. 

The potential benefits of coaching, and BosC4C transition coaching specifically, make a more thorough 

understanding of how it is implemented in practice, an important avenue of research. In particular, given 

that Castleman, Page, and Schooley (2014) found that factors related to the amount of contact coaches had 

with students may have affected the impact of the intervention, much can be learned from purposeful 

research about how coaching is administered by different nonprofit organizations and across different 

populations of students, as well as how such variation might affect program results. 
EVALUATION DESIGN 

Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 15

3. Evaluation Design

To understand how BosC4C was implemented, the study team evaluated data from a variety of 

sources: interviews with leaders and coaches at the nonprofit coaching organizations, records from 

the program database, surveys of participating students, interviews with college leaders and support 

staff, focus groups with students not participating in BosC4C, and invoices and other administrative 

records. Collectively, these data sources allow for a comprehensive depiction of how the program was 

implemented by coaches, nonprofit coaching organizations, and colleges; how students perceive 

program services; what services non-participating students access; and a summary of the full cost of 

implementing the BosC4C program. This chapter provides a detailed description of each data source 

and then describes the approach used to analyze these various data. 

3.1 Data Sources 

3.1.1 Nonprofit Organization Leader Interviews 

At the nine nonprofit organizations delivering BosC4C coaching, a leader from each organization was 

interviewed by the Abt team to gather information about participation in the program. The interviews 

took place in late March through May 2016 and each lasted approximately one hour. With 

permission, each interview was audiotaped, and the notes were analyzed in NVivo by the Abt team.6

The interview questions captured information about both the mission and coaching model of the 

nonprofit organization, as well as its leaders’ roles in BosC4C. Coaching model questions focused on 

understanding the resources and supports available to coaches, coach caseload size, and management. 

The interviews honed in on the leaders’ experiences participating in BosC4C, their relationships with 

other organizations, and the benefits and challenges of the expanded scope of the program during the 

2015-16 year. (See Appendix B for the interview protocol.) 

3.1.2 Coach Interviews 

Coaches at each of the nine nonprofit organizations were invited to participate in a 30-minute 

interview that used a standardized semi-structured interview protocol (see Appendix C). Thirty-one 

(31) coaches whose caseloads were predominately filled with BosC4C students were selected for 

interviews. Each of the coach interviews was conducted in April 2016. With permission, each 

interview was audiotaped, and the notes were analyzed in NVivo by the Abt team. 

Prior to the interview, coaches completed a pre-interview questionnaire that asked about their 

educational, professional, and demographic backgrounds and collected information about their 

BosC4C caseload (see Appendix D). The topics discussed during the interviews themselves included 

coaching activities, relationship(s) with specific colleges involved in BosC4C, trainings provided to 

coaches, coaches’ connection to the program, and their accomplishments and challenges as a coach. 

Exhibit 3.1 summarizes the number of completed interviews across the nine nonprofit organizations. 

 

6

 NVivoTM is a qualitative data analysis software program. 
Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 16

Exhibit 3.1. BosC4C Coach Interviews, by Nonprofit Coaching Organization

Nonprofit Organization Number of Interviews

Boston Private Industry Council (PIC) 5

Bottom Line 14

College Bound Dorchester 2

Freedom House 3

Hyde Square Task Force 1

Match Beyond 2

Sociedad Latina 2

Steppingstone Foundation 1

West End House 1

Total 31

3.1.3 Program Database

The program data is stored in SalesforceTM, a cloud-based client relationship management (CRM) 

database widely used in the nonprofit sector to track participant-level data. The BosC4C program

database houses information on student demographics, educational background, and college academic 

progress and achievement, as well as real-time details about each coach-student interaction for all 

students served by each coaching organization. Data from the BosC4C program database identifies 

the students who received BosC4C support during the 2015-16 academic year, and it records student 

exposure to BosC4C (amount of time).

Coaches are responsible for entering student information and the details of students’ interactions on 

an ongoing basis. TBF has set 12 data deadlines throughout the year to ensure data are captured in 

real time. Within the Transition Supports section of the database, coaches enter data related to the 

following fields:

 date of the interaction

 duration (in minutes)

 type of support provided (Academic, Personal and Emotional, Financial, or Career and Future 

Plans)

 direct support or a referral

 method of communication

 location

 group or individual support

 coach name

 notes

Because the program database records can be edited and information updated at any time 

simultaneously, the data for the study were downloaded at two specific time points: March 2016 and 

June 2016. Students belonging to BosC4C Cohort 1 (i.e., college entrants during 2015-16 academic 
EVALUATION DESIGN

Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 17

year) were identified based on records in the program database on March 23, 2016; final data for the 

implementation analysis were pulled on June 20, 2016.

3.1.4 Student Survey

An online survey of students participating in BosC4C was administered over a seven-week period in 

March and April 2016. The survey was designed to learn how the students perceived the activities and 

services provided by BosC4C coaches during the 2015-16 academic year. The survey asked students 

about the specific topic areas they discussed with their coach(es) and how they interacted with them

and with other campus support services. Specifically, the survey asked questions about:

 frequency, mode, and content of communications between the student and coach(es)

 perceptions about the helpfulness of coaching

 topics where additional support would be useful

 student’s relationship with the coach(es).

The survey also included a series of student background questions, many of which were drawn from 

existing national surveys, which allows the study to benchmark BosC4C students against a national 

sample of their peers. These questions focused on important student background information not 

available in the program database or BPS’s administrative datasets, such as current employment 

status and whether or not students have their own children. Additionally, the survey asked about 

students’ academic experiences and preparation and their educational aspirations. (See Appendix E

for the complete survey and Appendix F for a selection of survey comments.)

The program database identified 928 students as 2015-16 BosC4C program entrants as of March 23, 

2016.7 These students were sent a survey invitation via email on March 28, 2016. During the sevenweek period the survey was live, we sent students weekly reminders via both email and text to 

encourage survey completion. Students who completed the survey received a $10 electronic gift card 

(Dunkin’ Donuts, CVS, or Target) and were entered into raffles for a chance to win one of three $100 

prizes. BosC4C coaches also encouraged their students to complete the survey.

The final survey response rate was 73 percent (n=676).

8 Exhibit 3.2 shows the distribution of student 

survey responses rates by college type. The proportions of survey respondents enrolled in two-year

and four-year colleges (40 percent and 57 percent, respectively) are similar to the proportions of all 

BosC4C students enrolled in two-year and four-year colleges (41 percent and 55 percent,

respectively).

 

7 A student was considered to be a program entrant if there was an intake form submitted into the program 

database for the student by March 23, 2016, regardless of whether or not transition support records were 

associated with the student.

8

Seven students opened the survey but declined to participate; they are not counted as respondents.
Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 18

Exhibit 3.2. BosC4C Cohort 1 Survey Respondents, by College Type

Respondents BosC4C Cohort 1

N Percent N Percent

Enrolled in two-year college* 272 40 383 41

Enrolled in four-year college 383 57 508 55

Not enrolled in a college 21 3 37 4

Total 676 100 928 100

* Two students whose colleges were noted as "Other" in the program database are included in the two year college counts.

3.1.5 College Support Staff and Leaders Interviews

Support staff were interviewed by the Abt team at 10 partner colleges selected based on high 

expected numbers of BosC4C students and connection to the overarching Success Boston initiative. 

The interviews took place in April and May 2016. Support staff were interviewed regarding how their 

support service departments work alongside or collaborate with BosC4C coaches to serve their 

institution’s student population (see Appendix G for the interview protocol). With staff permission, 

each interview was audiotaped, and the notes were analyzed in NVivo.

In collaboration with TBF, the Abt team selected four of the colleges for an in-depth examination of 

BosC4C on college campuses, paying particular attention to the availability and delivery of regular 

support services there (i.e., the “business as usual” condition). The four were chosen for case studies 

because of their substantial or growing numbers of BosC4C students and a priority for two-year

colleges. In April and May 2016, college administrators familiar with BosC4C at the four colleges

were interviewed about the support services provided to all students, integration of BosC4C on 

campus, and how BosC4C fits into broader institutional goals, policies, and practices (see Appendix E

for the full protocol). With administrators’ permission, each interview was audiotaped, and the notes 

were analyzed in NVivo.

3.1.6 Student Focus Groups

Students not receiving BosC4C coaching at the four case study campuses were invited to participate 

in 45-minute focus groups during April 2016. Using a semi-structured focus group protocol, the 

questions focused on their college’s academic, financial, career, personal, and other support services 

and their experiences accessing and using such resources (see Appendix H for the protocol). 

Information from these non-participating students helps to identify what supports students typically 

receive in college, providing an understanding of how BosC4C supports replicate or supplement 

them. With students’ permission, each focus group was audiotaped, and the notes were analyzed in 

NVivo.

3.1.7 Administrative Cost Records and Quarterly Invoices

Each of the nine nonprofit organizations submitted quarterly invoices to TBF covering the time 

period of April 1, 2015, to March 31, 2016. The invoices, provided to Abt staff by TBF, detail their 

BosC4C budgets, match budgets, and expenditures for personnel, contractual, and partnership 

services. The study team extracted key data elements from the invoices to calculate totals, and it 

examined differences in spending across organizations (see Appendix I for cost worksheet). In 

addition, nonprofit organization staff with knowledge of BosC4C finances participated in phone 
EVALUATION DESIGN 

Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 19

interviews with the study team to clarify the information provided in their organization’s invoices and 

to estimate the value of any other program inputs not listed in the invoices. 

In addition to cost data provided by the nine nonprofit organizations, TBF staff participated in phone 

interviews with the study team to provide information on all of the various costs associated with 

managing the BosC4C program, such as personnel, information technology, federal regulation 

compliance, student recruitment, strategic planning, events, outreach, and facilities. TBF also 

provided documentation describing the funding it provided to five colleges to support college 

liaisons. 

uAspire, a program partner that provides trainings to BosC4C coaches and offers financial aid support 

to students, shared its proposed budget, describing the timing and cost for the services it provides to 

support the BosC4C program. 

3.2 Analytic Approach 

Abt collected both qualitative and quantitative data, which required correspondingly diverse 

approaches to analyzing descriptive and cost data, as well as the creation of an implementation index, 

which summarizes the variation in the implementation of BosC4C coaching. This section provides an 

overview of the qualitative methods used to analyze focus group and interview data and the 

quantitative analyses used to assess survey and administrative data. It then provides an overview of 

the steps taken to create the implementation index and concludes with an overview of the approaches 

used to analyze the administrative cost data. 

3.2.1 Qualitative Data Analysis 

At the conclusion of the data collection period, the study team met several times to review the focus 

group and interview notes and discuss themes that had emerged. During these conversations, the team 

developed a coding scheme, through consensus, that incorporated a priori topics of interest, as well as 

patterns that emerged from the data. Using the initial coding scheme, team members conducted 

preliminary analysis using NVivo. The coding process was iterative; the study team held regular 

analytic meetings to review the coding, discuss questions, and revise the coding strategies as needed. 

To ensure quality and consistency in qualitative data, all interviewers had been trained on interview 

protocols and attended weekly meetings throughout the data collection period. Later, a portion of 

focus group and interview notes were double-coded by the analysis team to establish coding 

reliability. 

3.2.2 Quantitative Data Analysis 

Student survey data and the program data were analyzed using quantitative data analysis techniques. 

First, student survey data were cleaned and analyzed to generate descriptive statistics (i.e., counts, 

ranges, frequencies, means, and standard deviations) regarding the experiences of students who 

participated in BosC4C. A total of 676 of 928 students completed the survey (73 percent). 

Additionally, the program data were analyzed to summarize the types and frequencies of services 

provided by coaches and nonprofit coaching organizations. The program data include real-time 

records of coach-student interactions, so the study team often began analyses by aggregating multiple 

records to create a single summary or average score per student. It is worth noting that when 

analyzing the program data, it was necessary for the study team to assume that coaches recorded all 
Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 20

substantive interactions with students to the fullest extent possible, and the absence of data in the 

program database indicates that no activity occurred. Though it is possible that some coaches did not 

enter activity information into the program database, there is no way for the study team to know 

whether this happened.

3.2.3 Implementation Index

The program data were integrated with the student survey data and coach interviews into an 

implementation index. The implementation index serves two purposes: (1) it integrates information 

from multiple data sources into one measure that summarizes variation in nonprofit coaching 

organizations’ BosC4C implementation efforts; and (2) it represents a measure that could later be 

used to explore relationships between the level of BosC4C implementation and student outcomes.

Building from the implementation index that Abt developed for the Success Boston Coaching

implementation analysis (Linkow et al. 2015), the index is organized according to two primary 

constructs: (1) Operations and (2) Coaching Processes and Activities (see Exhibit 3.3). Each of these 

constructs in turn consists of two or three components. The Operations construct comprises (a) 

Coach Capacity Building and (b) Integration with College components. The Coaching Processes and 

Activities construct comprises (a) Structure of Coach-Student Engagement, (b) Nature of CoachStudent Engagement, and (c) Nature of Support Activities components. Lastly, each component 

comprises three or four indicators.

Exhibit 3.3. Implementation Index Constructs, Components, and Indicators

Construct Component Indicator

Operations Coach Capacity Building Coach on-boarding

Ongoing coach training 

Encourages participation in BosC4C meetings/events

Integration with College Campus meeting space

Access to student data

Coach knowledge of college

Coaching Processes 

and Activities

Structure of Coach-Student 

Engagement

Mode of communication

Frequency of interactions

Intensity of one-on-one interactions

Nature of Coach-Student Engagement Provides support for re-engagement

Coach helpfulness

Coach-student connection

Number of coaches with whom students have worked

Nature of Support Activities Sustained variety of support

Exposure to support 

Transition supports

To create the implementation index, student surveys, program data, and coach interviews were coded

and then aggregated to the nonprofit organization level in order to assign indicator scores; indicator

scores were summed to create each of five component scores. Finally, component scores were 

summed to create construct scores, and construct scores were summed to create a total index score.
EVALUATION DESIGN

Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 21

3.2.4 Cost Analysis

To understand the resources required to generate student benefits from coaching, the evaluation 

includes a cost-effectiveness analysis. This report includes a cost analysis that will feed into the costeffectiveness analysis connecting costs to the primary outcome of coaching—college completion—in 

the final report to be released in 2022. The cost analysis relies on the ingredients method to 

understand actual costs.

9 The “ingredients” (e.g., coaching staff time, facilities, and materials)

required to implement BosC4C across nonprofit coaching organizations were quantified to dollar 

amounts to estimate the full cost of BosC4C implementation. Costs were estimated on an annual basis 

for the full program and on a per student basis. Access to financial records of the program and the 

nonprofit coaching organizations, coupled with in-depth interviews with coaching organization staff, 

provides information on the administrative, labor, and supplies costs, as well as in-kind donations 

needed for the cost analysis. Additional detail on the study team’s cost data collection and analysis 

approach is presented in Section 7.1.

 

9 The method draws from an approach outlined by Levin and McEwan (2002).
Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 22

4. Who Participates in Coaching

In this chapter, we describe the BosC4C students themselves and provide contextual information 

through comparisons with their peers, both locally and statewide. The chapter draws primarily from a 

survey of BosC4C students, augmented by extant data from relevant state and national sources (e.g., 

Boston Public Schools, Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (MA 

DESE), and the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS). The student survey asked 

students about their experiences with coaches, their educational expectations and experiences, and 

demographic characteristics. 

In the first section, we summarize BosC4C students’ demographic characteristics. Next, we describe

where BosC4C students attend college. Lastly, the third section provides detail on students’ 

expectations for their educational futures and perceptions of their academic preparation. 

Key Findings 

 BosC4C students attended 56 different colleges during the 2015-16 academic year, and more than 

half (55 percent) attended four-year colleges. In 2015-16, BosC4C served a greater proportion of 

students enrolled in two-year colleges as compared with 2014-15 (41 percent versus 36 percent). 

 Most BosC4C students did not live on campus (77 percent) and attended colleges where the 

majority of students are also commuters. 

 BosC4C students have high aspirations about their educational futures. While the majority of 

students enrolled at both two-year and four-year colleges reported that they aspire to obtain a 

graduate degree (53 percent and 69 percent, respectively, and taken together 62 percent), they 

simultaneously acknowledged that they expected to earn a bachelor’s degree.

 The majority (67 percent) of BosC4C students were working for pay either full- or part-time 

while in college, with students working an average of 22 hours per week. Of the students who 

reported working while in school, most worked off-campus. 

4.1 Whom Does BosC4C Serve? 

Through the 2015-16 academic year, the Success Boston initiative has provided coaching to more 

than 3,000 students. BosC4C served students in the target demographic, including first generation 

college-goers (61 percent) and nearly three-quarters under-represented minorities in college; 72 

percent were Black or Hispanic.10 

Exhibit 4.1 presents key demographic characteristics of the BosC4C Cohort 1 students (those entering 

college during the 2015-16 academic year), as well as all their BPS and statewide counterparts. The 

majority of BosC4C students in the sample were 19 years old (58 percent), and more BosC4C 

students were female (59 percent) than male. The BosC4C students were a racially and ethnically 

diverse population: 41 percent Black, 31 percent Hispanic, 14 percent Asian or Pacific Islander, and 4 

 

10 First generation status is available for BosC4C students from the program database; it is not available for 

students in BPS or MA DESE databases. Therefore, no comparable data on first generation status of BPS 

students or MA students are reported. 
WHO PARTICIPATES IN COACHING

Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 23

percent White, Non-Hispanic. In fact, BosC4C served a proportionally greater percentage of nonWhite students (96 percent) compared with all BPS and Massachusetts high school graduates from 

the class of 2015 (85 and 29 percent, respectively). 

Exhibit 4.1. Characteristics of Students: BosC4C 2015-16 College Entrance, Boston Public 

Schools Class of 2015, and Massachusetts Class of 2015

Class of 2015

BosC4C Students BPS Students Massachusetts

Gender

Female 59% 52% 51%

Male 41% 48% 49%

Age as of July 2016

Younger than 18 0%

Not available Not available

18 10%

19 58%

20 18%

21 and older 14%

Race/ethnicity

Black 41% 39% 8%

Hispanic 31% 30% 13%

Asian/Pacific Islander 14% 14% 6%

White 4% 15% 71%

Native Americana 0% 0% 0%

Other/Multiracial 9% 2% 2%

a Percentage rounds to zero.

NOTES: N=928 BosC4C students; BosC4C gender data: Missing = 1. BosC4C age data: Missing = 5. BosC4C 

race/ethnicity data: Missing = 107. N=2,843 BPS students. N=63,270 MA students. Percentages may not sum to 100 due to 

rounding.

SOURCES: Program Database, BPS, MA DESE

The student survey collected in-depth information about BosC4C students’ non-academic life 

responsibilities, including commitments to jobs and caring for family members. Two-thirds of 

BosC4C students (67 percent) were employed, working on average 22 hours each week during the 

academic year at jobs that were primarily off campus (84 percent of those employed). A much smaller 

proportion worked on campus (21 percent, although 5 percent reported working both on and off

campus). A small proportion of students reported other responsibilities, such as taking care of a sick 

family member (7 percent) or taking care of a child (3 percent). Among students who reported life 

responsibilities, such as work or caring for family members, 55 percent reported that these 

responsibilities interfered with their ability to attend college classes or finish assignments.
Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 24

4.2 Where Do BosC4C Students Attend College? 

Students graduating from high schools in Massachusetts, and the Boston area in particular, have an 

unusually rich set of higher education institutions from which to choose, including community 

colleges, state universities, and technical and specialized colleges, as well as comprehensive research 

institutions. The students participating in the BosC4C do, in fact, attend a large number of colleges 

(56), although the majority (89 percent) of BosC4C students is concentrated in 16 colleges. 

In the 2015-16 academic year, the majority of BosC4C students (54 percent) attended four-year 

colleges (noted in Exhibit 4.2).11 Though the initiative did not reach its goal of 70 percent of students 

served being enrolled at two-year colleges in 2015-16, the proportion of two-year college students 

receiving coaching did increase from the previous year (41percent in 2015-16 versus 36 percent in 

2014-15). Another 4 percent of students assigned to BosC4C coaches were not enrolled in college.12

Exhibit 4.2. BosC4C Students Enrolled in Two-Year vs. Four-Year Colleges 

41%

55%

4%

2-year*

4-year

Not Enrolled

* Two students whose colleges were noted as "Other" in the program database are included in the two-year college counts.

Three students who participated in the Year Up program in 2015-16 are also included in the two-year college counts. 

NOTES: N=928 students. 

SOURCE: Program Database 

BosC4C students were enrolled in 56 different colleges during the 2015-16 academic year. However, 

the overwhelming majority of BosC4C students (89 percent) were concentrated within 16 schools. 

Roughly half of the students attended two colleges: Bunker Hill Community College (297 students, or 

32 percent) or University of Massachusetts Boston (179 students, or 19 percent). The remaining 

 

11 Two-year versus four-year designations for colleges based on IPEDS 2014. Benjamin Franklin Institution 

of Technology is identified as a four-year institution in IPEDS, as it does grant four-year degrees; however, 

the majority of its degrees granted are two-year degrees, and therefore we have classified it as a two-year 

institution for purposes of reporting.

12 Students were not enrolled when the program database was pulled in June, 2016. These students may have 

intended to enroll in college in 2015-16 or were enrolled at the time they were assigned to a coach’s 

caseload. 
WHO PARTICIPATES IN COACHING

Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 25

students were enrolled at another 14 schools, with the number of BosC4C students ranging from 10 to 

46. Exhibit 4.3 shows characteristics of the colleges serving the majority of BosC4C students.

Exhibit 4.3. Characteristics of Colleges Serving the Majority of BosC4C Students, 2015-16

Institution

College 

Type

BosC4C Students Total Undergraduate Population

BosC4C 

Students 

Enrolled

Percent of 

all BosC4C 

Students

Full-Time 

Studentsa

Full-Time 

Student 

Retention 

Rateb

Dorm 

Capacityc

Bunker Hill Community 

College

Two-year 297 32% 32% 67% 0%

University of Massachusetts 

Boston

Four-year 179 19% 72% 80% 0%

University of Massachusetts 

Dartmouth

Four-year 46 5% 85% 79% 64%

Bridgewater State University Four-year 42 5% 83% 81% 39%

Benjamin Franklin Institute of 

Technologyd

Two-year 32 3% 85% Not 

Available

7%

Framingham State University Four-year 30 3% 85% 75% 48%

Suffolk University Four-year 27 3% 93% 76% 19%

Boston University Four-year 26 3% 92% 93% 48%

College for America @ SNHU Four-year 24 3% 48% 68% 11%

Massachusetts Bay 

Community College

Two-year 24 3% 35% 62% 0%

Northeastern University Four-year 20 2% 100% 96% 49%

Roxbury Community College Two-year 20 2% 32% 55% 0%

Salem State University Four-year 20 2% 78% 81% 31%

Wentworth Institute of 

Technology

Four-year 18 2% 89% 84% 58%

Lesley University Four-year 10 1% 72% 76% 38%

University of Massachusetts 

Amherst

Four-year 10 1% 93% 90% 58%

a Percentage of college’s total undergraduate student population.

b A measure of the rate at which full-time students persist in their educational program at an institution, expressed as a 

percentage. For four-year colleges, this is the percentage of first-time bachelor’s (or equivalent) degree-seeking full-time 

undergraduates from the prior fall enrolled in the current fall. For all other colleges, this is the percentage of full-time firsttime degree/certificate-seeking students from the previous fall who either re-enrolled or successfully completed their 

program by the current fall.

c Ratio of dorm capacity to total full-time enrollment. This variable is the closest proxy available to deem a college a 

commuter or residential campus.

d Benjamin Franklin Institution of Technology (BFIT) does grant four-year degrees; however, the majority of its degrees 

granted are two-year degrees, and therefore we have classified BFIT as a two-year institution for purposes of reporting.

NOTES: N=928, Missing=0. Collectively these colleges enrolled 89 percent of the BosC4C students in 2015-16.

SOURCES: Program Database, IPEDS 2014

The types of colleges BosC4C students attend vary not only by college type (two year vs. four year), 

but also in the types of students served. For example, for most of the four-year colleges serving 

BosC4C students, at least two-thirds of their student bodies are enrolled full-time; in contrast, the 

two-year colleges where BosC4C students enrolled serve primarily part-time students.
Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 26

Additionally, the majority of BosC4C students (67 percent) attended predominately commuter 

schools.13 Consequently, the large majority of BosC4C students reported living off campus with their 

parents/guardians (70 percent) or in another off-campus situation (7 percent). This characteristic is 

noteworthy, as in general, commuter students are more likely to be present at the college only when 

attending classes, which may limit students’ efforts to engage with their college community outside 

the classroom. 

4.3 Academic Aspirations, Expectations, and Perceptions of Preparation 

BosC4C served students with varied educational aspirations and experiences. In this section, we 

examine BosC4C students’ aspirations and expectations for their educational futures, as well as their 

own perceptions of their academic preparation for college. 

4.3.1 Educational Futures 

Overall, BosC4C students reported having high aspirations and expectations about their educational 

futures. The survey asked two different, yet related questions about students’ educational futures.

First, it asked what kind of degree(s) students would like to earn if there were no obstacles in their 

way. The overwhelming majority of BosC4C students (79 percent of students enrolled in two-year 

colleges and 90 percent of students enrolled in four-year colleges) reported that they aspire to obtain 

at least a bachelor’s degree. The majority of BosC4C students, whether enrolled in four- or two-year 

colleges, also aspire to obtain a graduate degree (i.e., master’s degree or higher), with 69 percent of 

four-year college students and 53 percent of two-year students aspiring to a graduate degree (62 

percent across two- and four-year colleges) (see Exhibit 4.4). 

These high aspirations are particularly noteworthy for students enrolled at two-year colleges, as 

national data show that only about one-quarter of students who start at a two-year community college 

transfer to a four-year institution within six years (Shapiro et al., 2015).

 

13 To define commuter school, we use IPEDs ratio of dorm capacity to total full-time enrollment. This 

variable is the closest proxy available to determine whether a campus is primarily residential or commuter. 

In this report, we define commuter campuses as institutions with dorm capacity for one-third of students or 

less (33 percent). 
WHO PARTICIPATES IN COACHING 

Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 27

Exhibit 4.4. BosC4C Students’ Highest Degree Aspirations, by College Enrollment Type 

5% 8%

27% 25% 28%

7% 2% 1%

21% 25%

44%

7%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Certificate

program

Associate's

degree

Bachelor's

degree

Master’s degree Doctorate, MD

or Law Degree

I don’t know

2-Year 4-Year

NOTES: N=928, Missing=301. 

SOURCE: Student Survey, Question 34

The second question asked students about the type of degree they expect to actually earn. As Exhibit 

4.5 illustrates, students were most likely to say they expect to complete a bachelor’s degree (46

percent of students enrolled in four-year colleges and 41 percent of students in two-year colleges) as 

their highest degree. These findings are noteworthy in a few ways. First, these percentages suggest 

that many of the students who aspired to completing a master’s degree or higher expect to earn a 

bachelor’s degree. Students’ aspirations are more ambitious than their current expectations of what 

they will be able to accomplish. Expectations still remain high, with about two-thirds of students 

attending two-year colleges and more than four-fifths of those attending four-year colleges expecting 

to earn at least a bachelor’s degree.

Exhibit 4.5. BosC4C Students’ Expectations for Highest Degree Attainment, by College 

Enrollment Type 

4%

19%

41%

17%

8% 11%

3% 2%

46%

29%

13%

7%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Certificate

program

Associate's

degree

Bachelor's

degree

Master’s degree Doctorate, MD

or Law Degree

I don’t know

2 Year 4 Year

NOTES: N=928, Missing=303. 

SOURCE: Student Survey, Question 35 
Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 28

4.3.2 Academic Preparation 

Exhibit 4.6 illustrates BosC4C students’ perceptions of how well their high school experiences helped 

prepare them academically for college. In general, many BosC4C students believe their core high 

school coursework prepared them “a great deal” for college. Almost half (47 percent) of BosC4C 

survey respondents reported that their high school math courses prepared them “a great deal” for 

college, and two-thirds (66 percent) reported the same for their high school English or writing 

courses. 

Exhibit 4.6. BosC4C Students’ Perceptions of Preparedness for College 

1% 1%

10%

3%

43%

31%

47%

66%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

High School Math Courses High School English or Writing Courses

Did not take in high school Not at all Somewhat helpful A great deal

NOTES: N=928. For math courses data, Missing=301. For English or writing courses data, Missing=304. 

SOURCE: Student Survey, Question 31 

Despite many students’ positive views of their academic preparation, there remained a sizeable 

portion of students who believed that their core high school coursework prepared them only 

“somewhat” or “not at all” for college. Thirty-one percent said that their high school English or 

writing courses “somewhat” prepared them for college, and 3 percent said that these courses did “not 

at all” prepare them for college. More students said their high school math courses did not fully 

prepare them for college; 43 percent reported math courses “somewhat” prepared them, and 10 

percent reported math course did “not at all” prepare them for college. 

As shown in Exhibit 4.7, BosC4C students’ reports of whether their high school courses prepared 

them for college align closely with responses from a national sample of their peers. Nationally, 60 

percent of students reported their English or writing courses prepared them “a great deal” for college, 

and 46 percent reported their mathematics courses also prepared them “a great deal.”14

 

14 The national sample of peers includes students who entered college in 2003-04 and were included in the 

Beginning Postsecondary Students (BPS) Longitudinal Study survey. The BPS Longitudinal Study of 

2004/09 included a nationally representative sample of first-time, beginning students who were first 

enrolled in postsecondary education between July 1, 2003, and June 30, 2004. 
WHO PARTICIPATES IN COACHING 

Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 29

Exhibit 4.7. BosC4C Students’ Perceptions of Preparedness for College vs. National Sample 

47%

66%

46%

60%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Math Courses English or Writing Courses

BosC4C Students National sample of college-going students

NOTES: N=928. For math courses data, Missing=301. For English or writing courses data, Missing=304. Student reported 

course prepared them “a great deal” for college.

SOURCES: National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Education Longitudinal Study of 2002 (ELS:2002) and 

BosC4C Student Survey, Question 31

BosC4C students reported positive perceptions of their own academic abilities. The survey asked 

students to recall the most difficult course they took during the previous semester of college and then 

assess their academic abilities relative to other students in that specific class. As illustrated in Exhibit 

4.8, the majority (57 percent) of students reported having average academic ability when compared 

with their peers, and about one-third (32 percent) reported being “above average” or “very much 

above average.” In total, nearly 90 percent of BosC4C students perceive their academic abilities to be 

average or above. 

Exhibit 4.8. BosC4C Students’ Assessment of Academic Abilities Relative to Other Students 

2%

10%

57%

22%

10%

Very Much Below Average

Below Average

Average

Above Average

Very Much Above Average

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

NOTES: N=928, Missing=304. 

SOURCE: Student Survey, Question 32 

Similarly, BosC4C students are confident in their academic abilities. When asked about a time they 

worked on a challenging task in their most difficult class, two-thirds (66 percent) of BosC4C students 

reported being “confident,” “very confident,” or “extremely confident” that they would succeed (see 

Exhibit 4.9). Nevertheless, one-third of BosC4C students reported feeling only “somewhat confident”

or “not at all confident” in their ability to succeed academically. 
Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 30

Exhibit 4.9. BosC4C Students’ Confidence in Their Own Abilities to Succeed Academically 

6%

28%

36%

19%

11%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Not at all confident

Somewhat confident

Confident

Very confident

Extremely confident

NOTES: N=928, Missing=306. 

SOURCE: Student Survey, Question 33

4.4 Learning Points 

The demographic characteristics of BosC4C students highlight the continued commitments made by 

the Success Boston initiative and the nonprofit organizations to serve a population who have 

historically been less likely to enroll, persist, and complete college than their peers. BosC4C students’ 

demographic characteristics indicate that the program has met its goals to engage a diverse and 

traditionally underserved population from Boston Public Schools. 

Results from the student survey show that many BosC4C students navigate balancing school with 

other life responsibilities, primarily work. Given the large number of BosC4C students juggling class 

and work responsibilities, coaches may serve as a resource for students trying to balance nonacademic commitments as they pursue their education. In fact, as discussed later in Chapter 6, 

students identified balancing school, work, and life responsibilities as one of the most commonly 

discussed topics with their coach. 

Most BosC4C students did not live on campus (77 percent) and attended colleges where the majority 

of students are also commuters. In addition to helping BosC4C students with possible time-balancing 

challenges associated with commuting to campus, coaches also help students get to campus by 

offering discounted public transit cards. In fact, nearly half of students reported having discussed the 

topic of transportation to school with their coach. 

Consistent with the previous implementation report (Linkow et al., 2015), BosC4C students across 

four- and two-year colleges reported high aspirations for degree attainment. The overwhelming 

majority of all BosC4C students (79 percent of students enrolled in two-year colleges and 90 percent 

of students enrolled in four-year colleges) reported that they aspire to obtain at least a bachelor’s 

degree, with many of these students aspiring to a graduate degree. Interestingly, national transfer rates 

among two-year college students show that only about one-quarter of students who started at a twoyear community college transferred to a four-year institution within six years (Shapiro et al., 2015). 

The high level of interest in obtaining a bachelor’s degree among BosC4C students who started at a 

two-year college suggests that the transfer process may be an area in which coaches could provide 

targeted support and resources to students. 
SUPPORTIVE STRUCTURES 

Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 31

5. Supportive Structures

This chapter describes the structures within which transition coaching occurs, setting the stage for a 

closer look at coaching activities (see Chapter 6). It draws from interviews with leaders of the nine 

nonprofit organizations, all 31 BosC4C coaches from the 2015-16 academic year, and college support 

staff from 10 partner colleges. 

In the first section, we provide an overview of how coaching is organized and offered and describe 

key structures that support coaching. In the second section, we describe the nonprofit organizations 

and their approaches to training, conceptualizing coaching, caseloads, and their relationships with the 

Success Boston Coaching network. This section also examines perceived challenges to the 

implementation of BosC4C, particularly related to recruitment and program scale-up. The last section 

describes partner colleges’ roles in supporting coaching on their campuses, the college contexts in 

which coaching is implemented, and the perspectives of coaches and college staff on how coaching is 

integrated into their respective campuses. 

Key Findings 

 Coaches rely on three primary student recruitment methods to identify their BosC4C caseloads: 

(1) their respective organization’s existing high school-to-college pipeline programs, (2) 

presentations and information sessions at Boston public schools, and (3) recruitment events at 

partner colleges. 

 During the 2015-16 academic year, only about half of organizations (four of nine) met their scaleup student caseload targets. Organizational capacity and timing of coach hiring, in particular, 

posed the biggest challenges to reaching the goals. 

 Coaches and nonprofit organization leaders rely primarily on the monthly coaches’ 

meetingcoaches’ meetings—provided by the Success Boston Coaching network—for training; 

they would appreciate additional trainings in the future. 

 Coaches and college staff value regular communication between coaches and partner colleges, 

especially as a mechanism for integrating coaching with existing campus services more 

effectively. It also is a way to ensure coaches can direct students to appropriate campus-based 

services. The degree of communication varies substantially across colleges, however. Some 

colleges have well-established channels for connecting with coaches and other colleges have 

minimal or no direct communication. 

5.1 How Is Coaching Organized and Provided? 

Nine nonprofit organizations participated in BosC4C during the 2015-16 academic year, six of which 

TBF previously funded as part of the Success Boston Coaching program. 

5.1.1 BosC4C’s Coaching Model 

Exhibit 5.1 highlights the core components of the BosC4C coaching model, shared across the nine 

nonprofit organizations. Though the organizations share a common model for providing coaching, 

they also vary both in approaches to coaching and in processes established to support transition 

coaching. Each nonprofit organization identifies and recruits Boston high school graduates—whether 
Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 32

through their own organization’s pipelines or through partnerships with local colleges—to participate 

in the BosC4C transition coaching program. Local colleges partner with the nonprofits and coaches 

to coordinate coaching activities on their campuses. Once confirmed as coaching participants, 

coaches connect with students through multiple modes—in-person or via text, email, or phone—to 

help students navigate the college-going process. Through one-on-one meetings, coaches provide 

ongoing support to students across a range of topics and refer students to supports on their campuses. 

Success Boston Coaching network, overseen by TBF, facilitates communication across organizations 

and provides coaches access to ongoing trainings. Coaches make themselves available to students as 

needed throughout the academic year, offering on-demand guidance to students to help them stay on 

track toward graduation. 

Exhibit 5.1. BosC4C Coaching Model 

5.1.2 Key Structures Supporting Coaching 

The transition coaching operates through several key structures: the nonprofit organizations, which 

employ and support the coaches serving students; partner colleges, which communicate with coaches 

and help coordinate coaching services on their campuses; and the Success Boston Coaching 

network, overseen by the Boston Foundation, which facilitates communication across organizations 

and provides coaches access to training sessions designed specifically for the BosC4C initiative. 

Together, these structures support transition coaching activities, share resources, and expand the 

initiative’s capacity to serve as many students as possible.
SUPPORTIVE STRUCTURES 

Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 33

Nonprofit Organizations 

The nine Boston-based nonprofits vary in terms of number of coaches and students served.15 The 

largest organization employs 14 coaches, who serve 375 BosC4C students; the smallest organization 

employs one coach and serves 23 BosC4C students. The network average is between three and four 

coaches per nonprofit organization. 

The nonprofit organizations use similar criteria for hiring coaches. A majority of organizations 

reported that a bachelor’s degree, previous experience in urban settings or with similar student 

populations, and strong relationship-building skills were among the most valuable coach attributes. 

Each organization leader also noted seeking out such organization-specific qualities as fluency in both 

English and Spanish, a flexible schedule, specific personality traits (e.g., caring, supportive, 

resourceful), and a driver’s license.

Eight of nine nonprofit organizations offer other programming for local youth beyond coaching 

services, ranging from tutoring and mentoring services to youth leadership and STEM programs. 

Seven organizations reported partnering with Boston high schools to provide programming focused 

on increasing student preparedness and access to college; these organizations’ high school college 

access programs serve as a pipeline for BosC4C. As a result, some BosC4C students had experience 

with one or more of the nonprofit organizations before or during high school. 

The nonprofit organizations support coaches’ day-to-day activities, including providing initial and 

ongoing training, space for coaches to use for meetings with students, and hosting monthly coaches’ 

meetings.

The 2015-16 academic year represented a substantial scaling up of the BosC4C program. The number 

of first year college students served in 2015-16 was more than twice that of the prior year, and the 

number of nonprofit organizations expanded from six to nine. 

Partner Colleges 

The transition coaching is also supported through partnerships with local colleges where students 

enroll. Several of the partner colleges support recruitment efforts by working with nonprofit 

organizations to identify BPS graduates to work with a coach. Through coordination and 

communication with the coaches, partner colleges also help coaches learn about the colleges where 

their students are enrolled, including various campus support services to which coaches can refer 

students. 

BosC4C students are enrolled at both two- and four-year institutions, primarily in and around Boston. 

The great majority of BosC4C students (89 percent) are enrolled at 16 colleges (see Exhibit 4.3 in 

Chapter 4). Among these colleges, seven have formal or informal channels to support the coaching on 

their campus; of the seven, five have designated Success Boston college liaisons (college employees) 

who help coordinate the coaching services. 

Success Boston Coaching Network 

BosC4C brings together community-based nonprofit organizations (and their coaches) from across 

the city. Participating coaches have access to the Success Boston Coaching network, which includes 

 

15 One organization has offices in three other cities in addition to Boston. 
Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 34

monthly meetings for all coaches from the initiative’s nonprofit organizational partners, organized by 

the Boston Foundation and hosted at the nonprofit organizations’ offices. The monthly coaches’ 

meetings focus on professional development topics such as financial aid workshops or trauma 

training, and on administrative topics, including training on using the program database and 

coordinating the use of discounted public transit cards for BosC4C students. The meetings offer 

regular opportunities to collaborate and share resources across the network. Coaches can request 

specific professional development topics to be offered at the monthly meetings. Coaches also 

participate in other Success Boston events organized by TBF, including the annual kickoff event for 

all participating BosC4C students, hosted by one of the partner colleges, which brings together 

coaches, nonprofit leaders, students, college partners, and community representatives. 

Another partner in the network is uAspire, an organization that works with the nonprofits to provide 

financial aid counseling to BosC4C students, as well as hosts FAFSA completion events for students. 

For coaches, uAspire offers up to eight hours of professional training on such college transition topics 

as FAFSA completion and strategies for reducing summer melt. Coaches could attend training 

sessions of their choice (including webinar and in-person options) hosted by uAspire. Additionally, 

uAspire administers a text messaging program, which sends bi-weekly reminders to students on 

topics related to college affordability, with the option to reply back for additional help from a uAspire 

staff person. Two-thirds of BosC4C students received such messages in 2015-16. 

5.2 Nonprofit Coaching Organizations 

Universally, the nonprofit organization leaders reported a common goal, one that is well-aligned to 

Success Boston's central goal of helping students succeed academically to persist and graduate from 

college. . Nonprofit organizations provided varying degrees of specificity about their program model; 

however, six of the nine noted clear goals beyond helping students persist and graduate. For example, 

three organizations emphasize supporting students’ social-emotional and non-academic needs as an 

essential part of their coaching model. Three also focus on preparing students to be career ready and 

promptly connected to employment resources after graduation. Two organizations focus on helping 

students make sound financial decisions, especially about financial aid and loans. 

Program models also reflect individual organizations’ target student populations. Though all nine 

nonprofit organizations serve Boston students, especially students from low-income neighborhoods, 

some also prioritize particular student subpopulations. Three organizations specifically recruit 

students of color from low-income backgrounds, and three prioritize first-generation college-going 

students during recruitment. 

Of the three nonprofit organizations new in 2015-16, two focus on serving non-traditional college 

students. One organization, for example, exclusively serves students enrolled in an online degree 

program offered through the College for America. The other organization serves youth identified as 

“core influencers,” defined as gang-involved or gang-affiliated youth identified as disconnected from 

education, from training, or from work in general. 

5.2.1 Who Are the Coaches? 

During the 2015-16 academic year, 31 coaches supported 928 BosC4C students. Of the 31 coaches, 

14 coaches were continuing from the prior year, and 17 coaches were new to the program. As shown 

in Exhibit 5.2, two-thirds of coaches (20 coaches) have worked for their nonprofit organizations for 
SUPPORTIVE STRUCTURES 

Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 35

more than a year, including five who have been involved for more than three years. One-third of 

coaches (11 coaches) were newly hired to their organizations during the 2015-16 academic year. 

Exhibit 5.2. BosC4C Coaches’ Years Working with Coaching Organization 

11

8 

7 

5 

Less than 1 year 1-2 years 2-3 years 3 or more years

# of 

coaches 

# of years 

NOTES: N=31, Missing=0. 

SOURCE: Coach Pre-Interview Questionnaire 

Five of the nine nonprofit organization leaders spoke about valuing diversity in their coaches, as 

reflected in their efforts to hire coaches who resemble or understand the student population they 

serve. Nearly half of the coaches identify as African American or Black (14 coaches), and one-quarter 

identify as White or Caucasian (eight coaches) (see Exhibit 5.3). 

Exhibit 5.3. BosC4C Coaches’ Race/Ethnicity

14

4 

1 

8 

3 

African American/Black

Hispanic/Latino(a)

Asian/Pacific Islander

Caucasian/White

Mixed

NOTES: N=31, Missing=0. 

SOURCE: Coach Pre-Interview Questionnaire 

5.2.2 Coach Caseload 

Throughout the year, each coach worked with a caseload of BosC4C students; the caseloads ranged 

from 12 to 65 students (see Exhibit 5.4). The majority of coaches have students on their caseloads at 

three or more colleges. Five coaches serve students at just a single college, seven coaches serve 

students at two colleges, and 22 coaches serve students at three or more colleges. 
Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 36

Exhibit 5.4. Average BosC4C Student Caseloads, by Nonprofit Organization 

Nonprofit Organization Average BosC4C Student Caseload

Organization A 27

Organization B 27

Organization C 12

Organization D 25

Organization E 18

Organization F 28

Organization G 38

Organization H 60

Organization I 65

NOTES: Some coaches reported having additional students on their caseloads not included in the BosC4C 2015-16 cohort 

(e.g., students from previous cohorts, students not eligible for BosC4C). These additional students are not reflected in 

average caseloads. N=9 organizations, Missing=0. 

SOURCE: Program Database

The expansion of the transition coaching during the 2015-16 academic year resulted in increases in 

the number of both coaches delivering and students receiving coaching over 2014-15 levels. Nine of 

14 returning coaches reported higher student caseloads in 2015-16, and two each indicated the 

caseloads that were the same or lower.16 Although the numbers of students in their caseloads 

increased, the demographic composition of the caseloads remained stable from 2014-15 to 2015-16.

5.2.3 Identifying Students for BosC4C 

During the spring and summer prior to college enrollment, Boston high school students are identified 

and recruited by organizations to participate in the transition coaching program. Nonprofit 

organizations generally use two primary approaches to student recruitment: pipeline programs and 

partnership with Boston high schools. Coaches also recruit students from partner colleges once the 

academic year has begun, which is discussed in more detail in Section 5.3.2. 

Across the organizations, coaches described the process of identifying and recruiting students not 

only as a means to meet caseload goals, but as a relationship-building process. Several coaches 

pointed to how establishing a relationship with students during recruitment can be valuable for 

keeping students engaged throughout the year. 

Seven of the nine nonprofit organizations offer college pipeline programs, among larger sets of 

services available to students in the community. These organizations recruit younger students—often 

beginning in high school, but sometimes as early as third or fourth grade. The nonprofit 

organizations’ pipeline programs support student progress through elementary and/or secondary 

school through to high school graduation. The pipeline programs are a natural place for these seven 

nonprofit organizations to recruit students into BosC4C. Nonprofit organization staff develop 

relationships with students participating in pipeline programs and then transition these students into 

BosC4C, which allows the organizations to continue to serve them through two years of college. 

 

16 No data available on change in caseload for one coach. 
SUPPORTIVE STRUCTURES 

Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 37

All nine organizations also recruit students from BPS high schools. The recruitment of high school 

seniors generally begins in the spring of each year (around March) after college applications are due, 

as students are deciding which college to attend in the fall. Seven of the nonprofit organizations 

reported having partner high schools with which they work to recruit students. Often, two 

organizations will partner and recruit students from the same high school, and students interested in 

BosC4C indicate their organizational preference before joining. Some coaches visit the partner high 

schools and give presentations on the coaching program, describing what students can expect from 

coaches, as well as the resources available to students through participation. Students then fill out 

intake forms and begin the process of joining with an individual organization. 

As students are recruited, the organizations match them with coaches and officially add them to coach 

caseloads. Organizations approach matching coaches and students in different ways based on the 

organizational structure and capacity. Three organizations match students to coaches based on the 

coaches’ existing caseloads; leaders at these organizations noted the importance of keeping coaches’ 

caseloads balanced and manageable. Two organizations match students to coaches based on the 

recruiting coach, with an understanding that students can shift if they fit better with a different coach. 

Another two organizations that also serve students from the prior Success Boston Coaching cohort 

reported assigning students to coaches based on cohort; for example, one coach works with students 

from the BPS class of 2015 and the other works with second-year students from the BPS class of 

2014. Only one organization matches coaches to students based on the colleges where students enroll 

in the fall.

5.2.4 Training for Coaches 

The nonprofit organizations provide coaches with training both before and throughout the academic 

year to help prepare coaches and build their capacity to support students. Trainings provided through 

the Success Boston network, including professional development offered by uAspire, supplement the 

trainings opportunities available to coaches through their nonprofit organization. 

Initial Training 

The majority of nonprofit organizations offer initial trainings to introduce what it means to be a 

BosC4C coach, how to track interactions with students, and what supports are available to coaches. 

The organizations determine the amount and content of trainings provided to coaches, as well as the 

resources and tools available. 

Four nonprofit organizations offer informal initial trainings such as new coaches shadowing veteran 

coaches as the latter carry out their coaching activities and responsibilities. Another three 

organizations offer a combination of formal and informal trainings. One organization offers a formal 

initial training only, such as an orientation focused on the mission of the organization and the 

structure and progression of coaching. (See Exhibit 5.5.) 
Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 38

Examples of Initial Trainings

 One coach reported engaging 

in mock coaching scenarios to 

practice coaching delivery. 

 A few coaches at three 

organizations described being 

able to shadow a more veteran 

coach. 

 Three coaches (from three 

organizations) characterized 

their trainings as mostly “onthe-job learning.”

Exhibit 5.5. Types of Initial Coach Training, by Nonprofit Organization17

Formal Training Only Informal Training Only

Mix of Formal and 

Informal Training

Organization A 

Organization B 

Organization C 

Organization D 

Organization E 

Organization F 

Organization G

Organization H 

Organization I 

SOURCE: Coach Interviews 

Across the nonprofit organizations, coaches described receiving varying amounts of initial trainings, 

through different methods, and on an assortment of topics. 

More than half of the coaches (16 coaches from four 

nonprofit organizations) described receiving a formal 

training or orientation prior to working with students. 

These four organizations’ trainings focused on 

familiarizing coaches with the organization’s model and 

mission and coaches’ roles and responsibilities. Of these 

four organizations, two organizations’ coaches participated 

in a multi-week on-boarding program, one week of which 

is dedicated specifically to delivering transition coaching 

to college students. A coach from one of these 

organizations described having attended a weeklong 

orientation that kicked off a six-week training period. 

Three organizations offer a mix of formal and informal 

initial training sessions to coaches. Coaches participate in formal training sessions covering topics 

such as how to address student trauma, social-emotional learning, and financial aid, as well as 

informal training opportunities, including spending time shadowing veteran coaches. 

Eleven coaches (across seven nonprofit organizations) had received informal trainings at the 

beginning of the 2015-16 year on supporting students and transition coaching delivery, and two noted 

they had participated in both informal and formal trainings before the academic year began. Two 

coaches (across two nonprofit organizations) reported that they did not receive any form of initial 

training from their nonprofit organization before working with students. It is important to note that 

individual experiences with initial trainings may vary within a nonprofit organization. 

 

17 Pseudonyms are used for each nonprofit organization to protect the identity of individual respondents. 
SUPPORTIVE STRUCTURES 

Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 39

Most Helpful Training Topics

 One-third of coaches (12 coaches 

across eight nonprofit organizations) 

described student financial aid or 

financial literacy trainings as the 

most useful trainings received in 

2015-16.

 Five coaches characterized trainings 

focused on using different coaching 

styles, building relationships with 

students, and bolstering student 

engagement as particularly 

beneficial. 

 Other topics described as useful by 

multiple coaches include supporting 

social and emotional learning, 

addressing student trauma, and

discussing diversity and inclusion. 

Ongoing Trainings 

Of the 31 Success Boston coaches, 29 received ongoing trainings from their organization directly or 

as part of the Success Boston Coaching network throughout the 2015-16 year. Coaches participated in 

periodic network-wide trainings on specific topics of interest, including trainings provided by uAspire 

on financial aid/literacy. Coaches also received individualized support and feedback from nonprofit 

organization leaders and staff and attended monthly coaches’ meetings. Exhibit 5.6 shows the wide 

range of topics covered in ongoing trainings, either from their nonprofit organizations or the Success 

Boston Coaching network, including uAspire. 

Exhibit 5.6 Example Topics Discussed in On-Going Coach Trainings 

Topics Covered

 Transition coaching strategies

 Supporting social and emotional learning

 Addressing student trauma

 Discussing diversity and inclusion

 Youth development

 Study skills for students

 Helping students with housing instability

 Financial aid award letters

 FAFSA completion 

NOTES: List does not include topics for which coaches received training from partner colleges. 

SOURCE: Coach Interviews 

The nonprofit organizations provide targeted workshops, professional development opportunities, and 

group meetings with their own coaches to help improve coaching delivery. Ongoing trainings provide 

opportunities to answer specific questions that have arisen from working with students, as well as 

feedback and growth. Two organizations schedule regular meetings with their coaches to discuss 

organizational updates and provide professional development workshops focused on aspects of 

transition coaching. Coaches from two other 

organizations described organizational trainings 

approximately twice per semester, covering 

trauma and social emotional learning, among other 

topics. 

One organization gives each coach $250 to spend 

on his or her own professional development, 

including attending conferences, purchasing 

supplemental materials, and participating in 

workshops. This allows the coaches to personally 

tailor their own learning and development and 

share information with other coaches across the 

organization. One coach used the $250 to attend a 

trauma training; another coach described using 

some of the funds collaboratively to purchase 

books for the counselor library. 
Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 40

“The resources TBF is able to provide 

(training, networking opportunities) are 

great. The challenges have been around 

the logistics of recruitment, 

communicating with students, and how 

organizations work together. Before, 

they were competing for dollars, and 

after, very specific recruitment goals. 

Now having each other’s success in 

mind is different. Knowledge sharing is 

happening, though at first it was a little 

strange. The need to look after your 

organization’s best interests is still 

there.” 

– Nonprofit organization leader

“I think that Success Boston is doing a 

great job in terms of stretching us as 

coaches and as professional 

individuals and bringing us challenging 

situations that challenge us to grow a 

little bit.”

– BosC4C coach

Coaches across three organizations described receiving 

individual support and guidance from their respective 

organizations, through one-on-one meetings to discuss 

recruitment and student engagement, and training sessions on 

how to answer student-specific questions. For example, a 

coach described meetings during which organizational 

leadership discusses student issues from her caseload and 

provides guidance on how to handle them. She explained, 

If you have a difficult moment in a [student] case, how do 

you deal with that, you know, talking through it with our 

team. So I never have to deal with difficult [student] 

cases by myself, and they make that very clear from the 

beginning that we work as a team to come up with action 

plans and talk through those things. 

Supports Provided by Success Boston Coaching Network 

In addition to the trainings provided by nonprofit organizations, the Success Boston Coaching 

network also offers coaches and leaders a range of professional development opportunities. 

Specifically, the network offers monthly meetings for all coaches from the initiative’s nonprofit 

organizational partners, known as “coaches’ meetings,” and 

monthly “transition meetings” for leadership from the 

nonprofit organizations. 

During the 2015-16 academic year, nonprofit organization 

leaders confirmed that representatives from all nine 

organizations regularly attended the transition meetings. 

Topics discussed included the mission of the BosC4C 

initiative, student recruitment, and planning and use of available resources. 

The monthly coaches’ meetings are organized by TBF and hosted at the nonprofit organizations’ 

offices. These coaches’ meetings serve to disseminate new information and updates and provide 

training on topics that coaches recommend. They also provide a forum for information sharing across 

organizations, especially on issues that require high levels of coordination across organizations, such 

as student recruitment. As part of the monthly coaches’ meetings, TBF provided a program database 

training in the early fall of 2015. 

The majority of coaches (20 of 31 across all nine organizations) consider these meetings mandatory, 

or at least highly advisable to attend. Seven coaches (from one organization) mentioned not having 

attended any Success Boston coaches’ meetings or events during the 2015-16 academic year. This 

organization generally sends a few representatives (staff and selected coaches) to the meetings, who 

then share relevant information within their organization. 

One function of the coaches’ meetings is to support coaches from organizations with limited capacity 

to provide their own regular trainings to coaches. Professional development topics covered included 

time management for coaches and work-life balance, addressing issues related to student housing 
SUPPORTIVE STRUCTURES 

Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 41

“I mean [Organization H] as a whole 

has benefited from, I think, hearing 

people’s best practices, from noticing 

like what’s common place versus what 

feels extraordinary, just as far as the 

practices of these organizations go. 

And I think, to be honest, it also helps 

us to identify our niches within the 

Boston education community because 

it’s a vast community.”

– Nonprofit organization leader

stability, and supporting student FAFSA completion and 

understanding financial aid. One organization leader 

credited TBF trainings with addressing a gap for her 

coaches and providing integral support that her 

organization cannot. 

The coaches’ meetings also serve as a forum for coaches to 

share their experiences working with students and to ask 

questions about specific issues encountered. One coach 

said, 

I actually always find [coaches’ meetings] extremely helpful. ... And so I think it’s really 

great, in that regard, that we all get in the same room and figure out who knows which 

resources are really great from that. And sometimes, you bring in your personal experiences, 

coaches do, and it’s great because, like, oh, I don’t have that team member here, but I have 

that team member at another organization. 

For the three nonprofit organizations newest to the network, both the transition and coaches’ meetings 

facilitate assimilation of staff and coaches and allow staff to learn from one another’s experiences. 

Overall, coaches spoke about the monthly coaches’ meetings positively and discussed the ability to 

share knowledge and resources with one another more fluidly across organizations. 

Returning coaches reported seeing improvements to the structure and content of the coaches’ 

meetings, including more coach training opportunities, from the previous year. Coaches also offered 

suggestions for improving future meetings. For example, a few coaches (from three nonprofit 

organizations) pointed out that because the specific topics covered during a given meeting are not 

necessarily immediately relevant for each coach, some coaches appear to be less connected to the 

conversation. One coach noted that there is not always enough time to cover topics thoroughly during 

coaches’ meetings and that it would be worthwhile to spend more time as a group getting on the same 

page and covering important topics, such as recruitment, in more depth. 

The nonprofit organization leaders also offered recommendations for building on and improving the 

coaches’ meetings, including providing more network-wide guidance on specific coach expectations 

disseminated across organizations. Organization leaders also offered long-term suggestions for 

improving these meetings, including better defining the role of a coach to allow organizations to 

assess coaching delivery, provide targeted feedback, and measure coach progress. Another leader 

recommended working on facilitating more fluid sharing of knowledge, resources, and best practices, 

eventually to be communicated through a coaching handbook distributed to organizations. 

uAspire Trainings 

Partnering with TBF, uAspire provides BosC4C coaches with up to eight training hours that can be 

used for a variety of online webinars and in-person workshops over the course of the year. During a 

December 2015 coaches’ meeting, uAspire staff led a three-hour in-person training on FAFSA 

completion and financial aid. uAspire also grants coaches access to its “Partner Portal,” through 

which coaches can post specific questions for uAspire staff to answer. 
Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 42

Over the 2015-16 academic year, coaches completed numerous uAspire trainings, often related to 

financial aid. Half of all coaches (16 coaches) across all of the nine nonprofit organizations reported 

attending at least one uAspire training or having a content-related conversation with uAspire staff. 

uAspire staff regularly attend the coaches’ meetings, providing a consistent resource for coaches on 

questions and concerns related to financial aid. The “After the FAFSA” in-person uAspire training 

that covers student FAFSA completion support was the most attended by coaches.

The uAspire trainings topics mentioned most frequently included financial aid (e.g., understanding 

changes to the FAFSA, financial aid award letters, verification process) and financial literacy (e.g., 

student budgets, money management); other trainings addressed college affordability, engaging 

parents, and summer melt.

5.2.5 Cross-Organization Collaboration and Relationships

Cross-organization collaboration allows nonprofit organization leaders and coaches to share 

experiences and best practices and fosters network-wide community building. A majority of the 

nonprofit organization leaders discussed developing integral partnerships within the coaching 

network. Many explained that because of the network-wide collaboration, better student recruitment 

processes are in place, including dividing up recruitment presentations across multiple organizations 

delivered at different BPS high schools. Relatedly, another nonprofit organization leader appreciated 

access to other leaders running nonprofit organizations with pipeline programs. These leaders 

described evolving relationships between nonprofits, acknowledging that there is still room to grow, 

especially when collaborating at the coach level.

Some nonprofit organizations shared tools and resources for use by coaches and students served by 

other organizations. For instance, Organization D offers mock interviews for any BosC4C students, 

not only its own program participants. Another, Organization A, hosts a jobs fair relay race staffed by 

coaches from many organizations who conduct mock interviews with students. One organization 

coordinates the transit pass program, although coaches across the initiative volunteered to help 

distribute the monthly passes to students.

Knowledge and best practices are also shared across the nonprofits, through the monthly transition 

meetings and coaches’ meetings. These provide initiative-wide updates and foster conversations and 

relationship building. One coach stated, “Sometimes it seems like we are just getting more and more 

information about like what other organizations are doing, but that’s really good in terms of here’s 

something that my [students] would benefit from or if I could help with something that they’re 

dealing with.” Two coaches also mentioned shadowing coaches from other nonprofit organizations to 

learn more about different coaching styles and what it means to be a BosC4C coach.

One challenge the nonprofit organizations face is ensuring that individual BosC4C students are not 

working with coaches from multiple organizations. Because nonprofit organizations increased the 

number of students they are serving this year from both the same high schools and many of the same 

colleges, organization staff and TBF work together to make sure each student is associated with only 

one coach. This requires open and frequent communication across organizations and with TBF, 

communication that typically occurs during coaches’ meetings or at coaches’ meetings held at 

individual colleges. A few coaches called for even more cross-organization collaboration and reduced 

competition across the nonprofit organizations.
SUPPORTIVE STRUCTURES 

Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 43

5.2.6 Pressures on Implementation of BosC4C Coaching 

Leaders from the nine organizations cited both successes and challenges to scaling up the delivery of 

BosC4C coaching. Six organization leaders mentioned that, above all else, the scale-up allowed them 

to grow their new or existing college coaching programs and reach more students in need of coaching. 

Three leaders also credited the scale-up effort with helping them address their missions and increase 

their impact on the community. 

In order to serve more students, many of the nonprofit organizations grew their coaching capacity by 

hiring new coaches or staff members, identifying new community partners and spaces, and adjusting 

or developing coaching materials and/or trainings. For example, one leader described the challenge of 

simultaneously scaling up organizational systems and student recruitment. Meeting target caseload 

goals led six of the nine organizations to adapt their student recruitment processes. Three organization 

leaders acknowledged having to enroll students later than desired because they were trying to meet 

caseload goals. Three nonprofit organizations noted that the scaling-up meant changes to the timing 

of summer programming and also reduced contact with students before the academic year begins. 

One nonprofit leader lamented that there was less time for relationship building because the 

enrollment process had extended further into the academic year: “We are meeting students in 

September rather than June, and we are able to support those students and improve their outcomes. 

But we could have improved [their outcomes] even more if we had connected with them in June.”

Four nonprofit organizations of nine reported reaching or exceeding their target number of students 

served during the 2015-16 academic year. The five nonprofit organizations not reaching their 

recruitment goals came quite close; four of them were about 10 students short of their recruitment 

goals, and one missed its target by three students. Reasons for not reaching their recruitment goals 

include the timing of hiring and on-boarding of coaches, and struggling to identify SIF-eligible 

students to recruit. 

Individual coach caseloads were also affected by the scale-up year. Of 16 coaches who discussed 

their caseloads, 11 described increases over the prior year, three coaches reported no changes, and 

two reported decreases. 

5.3 Relationships with Partner Colleges 

The Success Boston Coaching model looks to local colleges as partners in the implementation of 

transition coaching. Colleges engage by supporting recruitment efforts, providing space for coaches, 

and supporting and communicating to integrate coaching on campus. Though colleges vary in their 

level of involvement with the program, both the nonprofits and TBF have made efforts to actively 

engage colleges as partners that will recognize and support coaching efforts on their campuses. The 

nonprofit organizations, for example, are required to obtain a letter of partnership from at least one 

college where they intend to serve students, as a contingency of receiving program funding. 

The partner colleges vary in the degree of coordination with the nonprofits and individual coaches. 

Colleges serving the greatest number of BosC4C students, as well as colleges that have been involved 

with the Success Boston initiative for a number of years, tend to have more codified systems for 

integrating BosC4C coaching on their campuses. Two colleges with high proportions of BosC4C 

students and a long history with the initiative have the most clearly established channels of 
Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 44

communication with the coaches and nonprofit organizations of all the college partners. In contrast, 

colleges with smaller numbers of BosC4C students enrolled—which also tend to be newer to the 

initiative—report less direct and routine communication with the coaches working on their campuses. 

Thus, coaches’ relationships with the partner colleges at which they work are subject to influence by 

larger contextual factors—namely how many BosC4C students are enrolled on campus and the 

college’s relationship with the initiative more broadly.

Colleges themselves offer a wide range of support services to all of their students. Communication 

and coordination between partner colleges and coaches help to ensure that coaches are not reinventing 

the wheel, and instead are aware of where to refer students on campus. 

5.3.1 Resources Available on College Campuses 

The partner colleges offer diverse academic, financial, and personal resources to their student 

populations. Staff and leaders at 10 partner colleges described the resources provided to students on 

campus and their respective partnership efforts with BosC4C coaches and nonprofit organizations. All 

10 of these colleges reported offering services to support students’ general academic needs, such as 

academic advisors, tutoring centers, online peer communities, first-year seminars, disability centers, 

retention specialists, and transfer services, as well as a few instances of college-specific coaching 

programs. Financial student support services are also offered at all 10 partner colleges; staff 

referenced their financial aid offices most frequently, as well as supplementary services to help 

students purchase books and other resources necessary for school. Six colleges described career 

services such as internship and job opportunities and resume workshops. An equal number (six) 

described health and/or personal resources made available to students, often including free counseling 

services. One Stop and Single Stop, on-campus resource centers at six partner colleges, also assist 

students with money management, emergency funds, and other life supports. Other types of resources 

described include empowerment groups for both men and women of color and resources for 

international students. 

Partner college staff use multiple strategies to communicate with students about available resources 

and events to keep students engaged and supported in their college communities. The most commonly 

used strategies (reported by six colleges) relied on digital communication methods such as email, 

school website postings, and webinars to disseminate key details. Four colleges reported 

communicating through faculty members, relying on them to refer students to supportive services. 

Three used paper communications, such as flyers and handouts in a public area; another three used 

student orientation as a main way to distribute information at the beginning of the year or semester. 

In-depth examinations of the supports available on four of the partner college campuses are provided 

in case studies in Chapter 10. 

For non-BosC4C students, learning about support services on campus can prove challenging. Some 

students at each of the four focus groups of non-participating students reported that they were either 

generally unaware of such resources or, at times, unable to access school resources due to their busy 

schedules. At one college, a college staff member described the challenge of making students aware 

of college resources as “guerilla warfare” in terms of “get[ting students] to know what’s available.”
SUPPORTIVE STRUCTURES 

Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 45

5.3.2 Coach Coordination and Integration at Partner Colleges 

The extent to which colleges coordinate with and integrate coaches into their support systems varies 

across campuses. Coaches acknowledged using multiple techniques to integrate themselves into 

college campuses and learn about existing student resources, including accessing student data, 

meeting with students at on-campus locations, attending student orientations, conducting regular 

meetings between coaches and college staff, and initiating and maintaining other forms of 

communication. 

Access to Student Data 

Coaches access student data to inform and guide services and supports offered to their students. One 

coaching organization reported using access to student data to assess students’ challenges and 

triumphs at the end of each semester. As a coach from the organization explained, “We’ll log into 

their account, see what their progress was, and we’ll see if there was anything that we may have 

missed that we need to work on next semester or if there was really any huge successes that we want 

to celebrate.” Almost half of coaches (14 of 31) have been granted some level of access to student 

data directly from colleges, such as financial bill information and academic grades and progress, 

although access varies across colleges. 

 Coaches typically work at multiple colleges, and their access to student data differs according to 

the specific college. Nearly all of the coaches (28 of 31) reported receiving access to their 

students’ data from students directly at one or more of the colleges in which their students are 

enrolled, either by students giving coaches with their college portal login information or by sitting 

alongside a student as he/she logged in. 

 About half of the coaches (16 of 31) reported having no direct access to student information at 

one or more of the colleges in which their students are enrolled. These coaches access studentlevel data during interactions with students as students log in. 

 About one-quarter of coaches (seven of 31) obtain relevant student-level data and updates on 

academic progress by asking their students directly via email, phone call, or in-person. 

Support Services Similar to BosC4C’s Available at Partner Colleges 

Staff at four colleges described services similar to BosC4C coaching available campus-wide: 

 Assign coaches to every first-year incoming student. (three colleges) 

o Purposefully do not assign college-provided coaches to BosC4C-coached students, 

which helps reduce the caseloads of the college coaches. (two colleges) 

o Assign coaches to all students enrolled in the college’s learning community 

seminars to provide time management and educational planning support during 

class time; BosC4C students may therefore have two coaches. (one college) 

 Assigns college coaches to a subset of non-BosC4C students identified as needing more 

support, which means that a larger number of students can participate in some coaching. 

Coaching model is similar to the BosC4C model. (one college) 
Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 46

Importantly, about one-third of coaches (11 of 31) reported having very limited or no access to 

student data at one or more colleges, which means these coaches either were unable to view or only 

rarely had access to student data. 

Campus Meeting Space 

Most coaches (22) served students at three or more colleges during 2015-16, and coaches described 

varying access to meeting spaces across the campuses at which they worked. According to college 

support staff, four of 10 partner colleges offer designated space (i.e., office space) for coaches to meet 

with students. Ten coaches mentioned working with students on campus in spaces provided by the 

college, including a departmental office, a tutoring center, and conference rooms. Interestingly, the 

large majority (26 of 31) of coaches reported often meeting with students more opportunistically in 

public locations, including student centers, lobbies, and libraries. Two coaches noted that not having 

access to dedicated meeting space, they were able to find quiet spaces on campus, such as empty 

classrooms, to talk to students privately when needed. 

Most meeting spaces on college campuses (public or otherwise) were available to coaches whenever 

they needed them, and four coaches noted that space was available if they reserved it in advance. 

About half the coaches expressed satisfaction with the meeting spaces available at one or more of the 

colleges attended by their students. Challenges primarily focused on meeting spaces being too loud or 

not private enough for coach-student conversations. Staff from one coaching organization reported 

that at one college, coaches from other nonprofit organizations had access to a dedicated coaching 

space to which they were not privy. Five coaches observed that meeting spaces had changed from the 

prior year; four reported improvements and one reported worse space due to an unexpected 

disruption. 

Learning about Campus Support Services 

An important aspect of a coach’s role is to build relationships with staff at the colleges attended by 

their BosC4C students. Oftentimes coaches do not provide services directly to students but refer and 

introduce students to campus resources. Thus, the more knowledgeable coaches are about campus 

supports and the staff who run the services, the easier it is for coaches to connect students to existing 

resources. For example, some even walk students directly to an office or department to take 

advantage of a college service. As one coach explained, “We really don’t do academic coaching but 

direct them to resources on campus if they’re missing classes or struggling with classes.”

To learn about supports available on campus, about one-third (10 of 31) of coaches reported initially 

meeting with college support staff and introducing themselves to relevant staff members. Another 10 

coaches reported relying on their fellow coaches to orient them to the services colleges provide. Four 

coaches had themselves attended the college now attended by their BosC4C students, which meant 

they had considerably more familiarity with campus services and systems. One coach, a former 

transfer student who currently works with transfer students at the same college, characterized his own 

transfer experience as having provided him an overall understanding of the college’s services and 

nuances. A second coach reported being strategically placed at her alma mater because of her 

knowledge of the campus, and a third reported that her history at the college became beneficial to her 

coaching in terms of coordination and contacts. 

Nine coaches reported having participated in college-organized orientations to campus services, and 

seven coaches reported having no formal introduction to campus services from the colleges. Another 
SUPPORTIVE STRUCTURES

Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 47

seven toured campuses themselves or were shown around by another coach; four had joined collegeorganized campus tours.

Coach-College Communications

Coach coordination with colleges occurs through multiple mechanisms, including direct meetings 

between college staff and coaches. From the college perspective, effective coordination and 

communication practices within the initiative occurred through regular meetings and ongoing open 

communication with coaches, cited as a best practice by staff from five colleges. Other college staff 

(from three colleges) cited coaches actively seeking out and forming relationships with them. Another 

two staff members (from two colleges) discussed organizations ensuring buy-in from college leaders 

as an effective practice to promote coordination.

Three colleges hold regular (monthly or biweekly) BosC4C coaches’ meetings on campus to foster 

coordination. College support staff and BosC4C coaches from across organizations serving students 

at the particular college attend these meetings. Most coaches (23) discussed attending coaches’ 

meetings at one, two, or three colleges; however, at least one coach working at a college with regular 

meetings discussed not being invited to attend the college’s coaches’ meeting.

Professional development is offered at these meetings, institution-specific experiences are shared, and 

in some cases, case management discussions occur about how best to deliver supportive services for 

particular students. Professional development topics at these meetings ranged from learning more 

about financial aid and financial literacy to accessing career services to facilitating conversations 

between college staff and coaches on timely matters such as class registration.

Overall, coaches at the three colleges with coaches’ meetings reported feeling satisfied with and 

supported by the college coaches’ meetings. They also noted that the meetings at the three colleges 

helped them better understand and refer their students to college support services on the college 

campuses. One coach described her experience at a college coaches’ meeting:

I like feeling like we’re part of a bigger network, of an initiative that’s striving towards the 

same goal. I like when we are all in the lobby. It’s a melting pot of information that our 

students benefit from. ... If a student has an issue, I can turn around to another coach not 

from [Organization F] and I’ll ask the student if I can share and I explain the issue and then 

the coach will help.

Coaches also noted that a fourth college would begin implementing regular coach meeting in the near 

future.

Communication between coaches and colleges was not without its challenges in 2015-16. College 

staff reported three challenges: different cultures and expectations between colleges and nonprofit 

organizations, worries about the sustainability of BosC4C funding and thus nonprofit organizations’ 

coaching services disappearing, and coach turnover at select organizations. Staff from six colleges 

reported that BosC4C coaches did not have much visibility or presence on campus. Staff from four 

colleges noted that they generally saw coaches only at regularly scheduled coaches meetings. In 

general, however, college staff described transition coaching as beneficial to their students.

Five nonprofit organization leaders reported that the recent scale-up has helped to deepen 

relationships between partner colleges and the nonprofit organizations. Leaders reported that 
Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 48

coordination with college staff and coach visibility on campuses both increased in 2015-16. One 

organization leader pointed to workshops for students on campus jointly led by the college and the 

coaching organization as an example of greater collaboration between coaches and staff. Another 

leader described a coach’s effort to improve recruitment efficiency by sharing a list of eligible 

students not currently coached and who might benefit from college resources. On some campuses, 

coaches coordinate with college staff to co-lead student events, giving coaches access to eligible 

students. These examples point to a deliberate coordination between a college and coaches to recruit 

and serve students on their campus. 

5.4 Learning Points 

BosC4C unites nine nonprofit organizations, in partnership with local colleges and with the support 

of TBF and uAspire, to help Boston high school graduates persist in and complete college. The 

collaborative nature of the initiative requires that nonprofit organization leaders and coaches 

cooperate across organizations and share resources, knowledge, and best practices. Monthly transition 

meetings (for nonprofit organization leaders) and coaches’ meetings (for coaches) provide the 

opportunity for leaders and coaches to build cooperative relationships and reinforce the mission of the 

program. On the whole, coaches reported satisfaction with their training opportunities and 

experiences; however, multiple coaches expressed interest in continuing to receive trainings in more 

specialized topic areas. 

The key supportive structures—nonprofit organizations, partner colleges, and the Success Boston 

Coaching network—are essential to connecting coaches with students and supporting the day-to-day 

coaching activities. Collaboration across these entities helps to increase the capacity of both 

individual coaches and the broader initiative. Coaches and college staff alike acknowledged the 

importance of fostering communication to help coaches better understand campus support services 

available to their students and to connect BosC4C students to the appropriate supports more easily. 

The scale-up of BosC4C allowed the nonprofits to grow their coaching programs and reach more 

students in need of coaching; however, the expansion also posed some difficult challenges for 

organizations, particularly related to the timing of recruitment. Meeting caseload targets required a 

longer recruitment window, which then led to delayed on-boarding of new students, curtailed summer 

programming, and limited relationship building between coaches and students before the fall semester 

began. 
COACHING IN PRACTICE 

Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 49

6. Coaching in Practice

This chapter describes transition coaching in practice, including what, how, and when coaching 

supports are provided, as well as students’ perceptions of coaching. It draws from three sources,

interviews with coaches, the student survey, and the program database, to provide a comprehensive 

depiction of BosC4C coaching in practice. 

In the first section, we provide an overview of the coaching activities over the course of the academic 

year to understand what coaches do and when. Next, we explore both how students are recruited to 

BosC4C and how coaches interact with students with whom they are connected. Third, we describe 

the modes by which students and coaches communicate, the frequency of interactions, and the topics 

about which coaches provide support. Additionally, we highlight common coaching practices across 

the nine nonprofit organizations. Finally, we describe students’ perceptions of their experiences 

working with a BosC4C coach. 

Key Findings 

 The topic of support provided (e.g., academic, financial aid) and the modes by which coaches 

communicate with their students (e.g., in-person, email) shifted over the course of the semester 

and the year. Academic support was consistently the most common topic addressed during 

coaching interactions, however, regardless of time of year. 

 The proportion of BosC4C students receiving transition supports also varied month to month 

throughout the academic year; for example, the proportion of students who had one or more 

coaching interactions more than doubled from September to October 2015 (29 and 63 percent, 

respectively). A comparison with the 2014-15 academic year, during which 63 percent of students 

from the class of 2014 interacted with their coach during September 2014, indicates that the 

relatively low proportion of BosC4C students who interacted with their coach in September 2015 

(29 percent) may be unique to the scale-up year. 

 Transition coaching can start at various points in time, including the high school year prior to 

students’ college enrollment, the summer before college, or the beginning of the college academic 

year. The majority of students (87 percent), however, first receive transition support from coaches 

in their first fall semester of college.

 The majority of transition support is provided in-person (60 percent). Text messaging and emails 

combined comprised one-third of coaching interactions. 

 Students had an average of six one-on-one interactions (phone or in-person) with their coach over 

the 2015-16 year; about one-quarter of students had seven or more one-on-one interactions. Oneon-one interactions typically lasted between 25 and 40 minutes. On average, students interacted 

(by any mode) with their coaches nine times during the 2015-16 academic year. 

 Overall, students expressed favorable perceptions of their coach and the services offered. The 

overwhelming majority of students reported that their coach was generally a helpful resource (90 

percent), and their coach had taught them how to access the resources they needed (87 percent). 
Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 50

6.1 BosC4C Coaching Throughout the Year: What Coaches Do and When 

How BosC4C coaches communicate with students, the frequency of meetings, and the focus of 

support provided all vary as a function of when during the semester or year coaches and students 

communicate. Exhibit 6.1 shows month-to-month variation in the focus of coaching activities across 

all nonprofit organizations over the course of the 2015-16 academic year. Academics were 

consistently the most commonly discussed topic, even more frequently recorded in the first month or 

two of each semester. Financial aid and managing life responsibilities were the next most frequently 

discussed topics, albeit in different ways: financial aid was especially evident during the spring 

semester as students prepared FAFSA forms for the following year, whereas managing life 

responsibilities was relatively consistent over the entire academic year. # of coaching interactions

Exhibit 6.1. Topic Focus of All BosC4C Coaching Interactions, by Month 

800

700

600

500 Academics

400 Financial Aid

300 Career Plan

200 Life

100 Other

0

AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY

Month

NOTES: Individual coaching interaction topic areas are not mutually exclusive. N=8,322, Missing=243. 

SOURCE: Program Database 

Students’ interactions with coaches also vary substantially from month to month. Exhibit 6.2 shows, 

for each month, the percentage of students who connected with their coach at least once by any mode 

(e.g., in-person, via email, by text), comparing BosC4C students in 2015-16 with coached students 

from the class of 2014 during the 2014-15 academic year. During the 2015-16 academic year, 

substantially fewer students met their coach during August or September (10 percent and 29 percent, 

respectively) than during October through April, when at least half of the students connected with 

their coach at least once each month. 

Comparing the 2015-16 academic year with the previous year, a substantially smaller proportion of 

BosC4C students interacted with their coach during September 2015 as compared with coached 

students in September 2014 (29 versus 63 percent). This may be related to slower-than-anticipated 

recruitment efforts to meet scale-up caseload goals, which in turn delayed the start of coaching 

interactions with BosC4C students. The drop-off in May, which can be seen in 2014-15 and 2015-16, 

likely coincides with the end of the academic year. 
COACHING IN PRACTICE 

Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 51

Exhibit 6.2. Percentage of 2015 vs. 2014 Students Connecting with Coach, by Month 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY

2015 Cohort 2014 Cohort

NOTES: N=928 students, Missing=34 for 2015 Cohort, and N=467 for 2014 Cohort. N=8,322 Individual coaching 

interactions. 

SOURCE: Program Database 

Coaches interact with students through multiple modes throughout the year; in-person meetings were 

the most common mode. One-on-one support for students—either in-person or by phone—is an 

important component of the transition coaching model. The frequency with which students meet oneon-one with their coach also varies by month (Exhibit 6.3). Students were most likely to have met 

one-on-one with their coach in October, February, and March. 

Exhibit 6.3. Percentage of BosC4C Students Connecting with Coach, by Mode and Month

NOTES: Mode categories are not mutually exclusive. N=928 students, Missing=34. 

SOURCE: Program Database 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY

One-on-one

Text

Email

Other
Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 52

6.2 What Are Coaches’ Interactions with Students? 

How and when students interact with coaches differ across individual students and across nonprofit 

organizations. This section describes interactions in more detail, examining the same indicators (e.g., 

time of initial interaction, frequency of one-on-one meetings, modes of communications, and topics) 

from the coach and organizational perspectives. 

6.2.1 Recruitment 

The ways students learn about and connect to the Success Boston initiative varies across individual 

students and nonprofit organizations, which in turn, affects

with their BosC4C coach. The nonprofit organizations 

used the following three methods to recruit students to 

their organizations: (1) high school-to-college pipeline 

programs, (2) recruitment at Boston public high schools, 

and (3) recruitment at partner colleges. 

All nine nonprofit organizations began actively recruiting 

students during high school, usually during the spring 

semester, and continued recruitment efforts into the 

college fall semester. Eight organizations have highly 

structured high school programs that serve as a key 

pipeline for BosC4C. Seven nonprofits reported that they 

also rely on visiting high schools, participating in college f

to identify students for BosC4C while they are still enrolle

reported collaborating with both partner college staff and other BosC4C nonprofits to identify and 

recruit eligible students. 

BosC4C students reported learning about the BosC4C from different, and sometimes multiple, 

sources (see Exhibit 6.4). The three most common sources of information were high school faculty or 

staff (33 percent), someone from their college (24 percent), and someone from a Success Boston 

Coaching organization (20 percent). More than one-quarter of BosC4C students (28 percent) first 

learned about Success Boston Coaching at their college or university, either through college or 

nonprofit organization staff and activities on campus (24 percent) or through friends from the college 

(4 percent). About 20 percent of students first learned about BosC4C from some other source, such as 

directly from a coach, online, or from neighborhood friends. 

 when students begin to interact directly 

airs, and working with guidance counselors 

d in high school. Several organizations also 

“What I say to students when I’m doing 

recruitment, both for pipeline [students] 

and for [college name] recruits, is that 

being a part of Success Boston means 

that your city is behind you. It means, 

like, you know, there’s all of these 

nonprofits in your city that says, ‘I 

believe in you and I want to see you 

succeed.”

– BosC4C coach 
COACHING IN PRACTICE 

Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 53

Exhibit 6.4. How Students Learned about BosC4C 

2%

3%

4%

5%

9%

11%

20%

24%

33%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Someone they knew from their neighborhood

Online

A friend from their college

During an after-school or summer program

A friend from their high school

Directly from a coach

Someone from BosC4C nonprofit organization came to their

high school

College/university

Their high school guidance counselor, teacher, or other staff

member

NOTES: N=928, Missing=252. Response categories not mutually exclusive; 119 students reported learning about BosC4C 

from multiple sources. 

SOURCE: Student Survey, Question 1 

6.2.2 Start of Coaching 

Transition coaching can start during students’ senior year in high school, the summer between high 

school and college, or at the beginning of the college academic year. Exhibit 6.5 shows that the 

majority of students (87 percent) first interacted with coaches in their first fall semester of college; 

and 10 percent had their first transition support during the spring semester of college. A very small 

proportion (3 percent) first interacted with coaches prior to the start of college (before August 1, 

2015).

Exhibit 6.5. Timing of BosC4C Students’ First Coaching Interaction 

3%

87%

10%

Before College

Fall Semester

Spring Semester

NOTES: N=928 students, Missing=33. 57 students (6%) started college in spring 2016, and therefore were unlikely to have 

met with a coach prior to the spring semester. 

SOURCE: Program Database 

Interestingly, though relatively few students initially received transition support from coaches prior to 

the start of college (as recorded in the program database), seven nonprofit organizations offered
Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 54

summer activities and programs explicitly for students transitioning to college in the fall. Activities 

included orientations, welcome sessions for students (and their families), team building, and 

checklists of activities to prepare for college attendance. This summer programming, though open to 

BosC4C students at their respective nonprofit organizations (where available), was not offered 

exclusively to BosC4C students. As such, summer programming is generally not considered part of 

transition coaching, and perhaps that is why summer participation was not systematically recorded in 

the program database. 

6.2.3 Modes of Communication 

During the 2015-16 academic year, coaches regularly communicated with students through multiple 

modes: in-person, email, phone calls, text messages, and sometimes through Facebook or online chat 

conversations (social media). All 31 coaches reported using at least two modes of communication, 

and the majority reported using at least three modes, to provide transition supports to their students 

throughout the academic year. Exhibit 6.6 shows how coaches communicated with their students 

across various modes. Across the nine organizations, coaches provided the majority of support to 

students in-person (60 percent of all transition supports), and conducted approximately one-third of 

interactions via text or email. 

Exhibit 6.6. Modes of BosC4C Coach Transition Supports 

60%

7%

19%

13%

1%

In Person

Phone

Text

Email

Other

NOTES: N=8,322 individual coaching interactions, Missing=333. 

SOURCE: Program Database 

The modes by which coaches reached out to students varied substantially across nonprofit 

organizations. As illustrated in Exhibit 6.7, four nonprofit organizations supported students primarily 

in-person (three-quarters of coaching interactions or more); another four organizations relied more 

heavily on text and email communications. One organization had roughly equivalent proportions of 

in-person and text communications. 
COACHING IN PRACTICE 

Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 55

Exhibit 6.7. Modes of BosC4C Coach Transition Supports, by Nonprofit Organization 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

F B A E G D I C H

Nonprofit Organization 

In Person Phone Text Email Other

NOTES: N = 8,322 individual coaching interactions, Missing = 333. 

SOURCE: Program Database 

Several coaches noted that using different modes may allow them to communicate with students more 

effectively than relying primarily on modes to which students have not responded. One coach 

explained that varying modes can be particularly important for reaching students who have withdrawn 

from college or have stopped communicating with their coach. Several coaches also observed that 

they tailor the modes of communication according to students’ schedules. For example, one coach 

explained that she has a group of students who take mostly early morning or online courses, and 

therefore she tends to meet with these students via phone rather than in-person because they are not 

on campus when she is in the afternoons. 

When coaches meet in-person with students, the majority of students reported meeting with their 

coach on campus (78 percent), and about two-thirds of students (63 percent) reported meeting their 

coach specifically in a public area on campus, such as a lobby or student center. Off-campus meetings 

(for the 20 percent of students who meet with their coach off campus) generally occurred at the local 

nonprofit organization office where their coach works. Two percent of students reported meeting with 

their coach in some other location. 

6.2.4 Frequency of BosC4C Coach-Student Interactions 

Coaches documented the frequency of their interactions with students in the program database (see 

Exhibit 6.8). On average, coaches reported students interacted (by any mode) with them nine times 

during the 2015-16 academic year. However, those average numbers may obscure the fact that more 

than one-third of students interacted with their coach five or fewer times, and one-quarter did so 12 or 

more times. 
Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 56

Exhibit 6.8. Frequency of BosC4C Coach-Student Interactions per Student 

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

# of Students 

Total # of Coaching Interactions per Student 

 

NOTES: N=8,322 individual coaching interactions; N=928 students. 

SOURCE: Program Database 

The average number of one-on-one interactions (phone or in-person) students had with their coach 

was six, and about one-quarter of students had seven or more one-on-one interactions annually. 

Across the nine nonprofits, the average number of one-on-one student interactions by organization 

ranged from three to 15 per year. Students working with four of the nine organizations had an average 

of seven or more one-on-one interactions annually. On average, students across all organizations 

interacted one-on-one with their coach six times. 

Interactions generally lasted between 25 and 40 minutes. As illustrated in Exhibit 6.9, for the typical 

student interacting with a coach six times during the academic year averaging 34 minutes per 

interaction, this translates into about 3.5 hours of one-on-one coaching per year. 

Exhibit 6.9. One-on-One Coach-Student Interactions in 2015-16

Exhibit 6.10 presents information, from the student survey, on how often students initiated contact 

with their coach and vice versa. The majority of students (85 percent) reported that their coach 

Average number: 6

Number of interactions varies by student, with about one-quarter of 

students having 7 or more one-on-one interactions per year

Typical length: 34 minutes

One-on-one interactions tended to last between 25 and 40 minutes

3.5 hours average of one-onone coaching per year
COACHING IN PRACTICE 

Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 57

reached out to them at least once per month; among those students, almost half reported that their 

coach reached out at least once per week. Students reached out to their coach with similar, but slightly 

less, frequency. Students were less likely to reach out once or multiple times per week than their 

coach was. 

Exhibit 6.10. Frequency of Outreach, According to BosC4C Students (Student vs. Coach) 

9%

20%

42%

21%

8% 2%

12%

42%

29%

14%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Never Once per semester Once per month Once per week Multiple times per

week

Student outreach to coach Coach outreach to students

NOTES: N=928 students, Missing=263 for Question 4 and Missing=269 for Question 9. 

SOURCE: Student Survey, Questions 4, 9 

Student reports of frequency of coach-student communications were generally higher than coach 

reports documented in the program database. Coaches reported that they recorded only coaching 

interactions of substance in the program database (i.e., discussing something related to one of the four 

main topic areas of academics, financial aid and planning, career planning, and managing life 

responsibilities). Students, in contrast, may not separate out interactions of substance from casual 

encounters (e.g., seeing their coach in passing at their college student center), and therefore their 

reported frequency of interaction may not be directly comparable to interactions recorded by coaches 

in the program database. Alternatively, because the student survey was optional, its respondents may 

have been more engaged than non-respondents with transition coaching in general, and thus more 

inclined to respond to the survey, which may account for their higher reported frequency of 

communications.

6.2.5 Topics of Support 

As noted earlier (see Exhibit 6.1), coaches worked with students on a range of topic areas. Exhibit 

6.11 summarizes, across all modes of support (in-person, phone, email, and text) the topics discussed 

in 2015-16 coach-student interactions. Not surprisingly, academic support (e.g., reviewing course 

syllabi, course selection and degree planning, connecting students to on-campus tutoring services) is 

by far the most prevalent topic; 63 percent of all 8,322 coaching interactions. The next most 

frequently addressed topics were managing life responsibilities (e.g., time management, balancing 

work and school) and financial aid and planning (33 and 23 percent, respectively). Fewer interactions 

addressed career planning (15 percent). 

Importantly, nearly three in ten (29 percent) of coaching interactions covered two or more topic areas. 
Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 58

Exhibit 6.11. Topics Covered during BosC4C Coaching Interactions (Coach-Reported) 

63%

23%

15%

33%

8%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Academic Financial Aid Career Plan Life Other

NOTES: N=8,322 individual coaching interactions, Missing=243. 

SOURCE: Program Database 

The student survey also solicited information about the specific topics discussed between coaches and 

students. Exhibit 6.12 shows which specific topics students most commonly discussed. The top two 

topics included checking in about how classes were going and completing or renewing their FAFSA 

(86 and 85 percent, respectively). In general, topics related to academics, financial aid, and managing 

life responsibilities were more commonly discussed than topics related to career planning were. 
COACH

Abt Associates BosC4C Implem

Exhibit 6.12. Topics Most Commonly Discussed with Coach (Student-Reported) 

34%

38%

41%

46%

45%

46%

46%

49%

49%

52%

55%

54%

54%

57%

64%

6

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70

Preparing for job interviews

Resolving personal matters

Understanding the process to transfer to a 4-year institution

Managing stress

Developing my resume

Figuring out transportation

Understanding my student loan options

Finding and applying for scholarships or grants

Exploring career options

Developing a plan for how I will complete my degree

Applying for internships and jobs

Communicating and connecting with my professors

Exploring college major options

Understanding the financial aid I am eligible for

Understanding how to maintain my financial aid

Strategies for studying and being successful in my courses

Managing my time effectively

Registering for classes and course selection

Balancing school, work, and home life

Completing or renewing my FAFSA

Checking in about how my classes are going

 Academic 

 Financial Aid 

 Career Planning 

 Managing Life 

 Responsibilities 

NOTES: N=928 students, Missing=270 academic, Missing=271 financial aid, Missing=274 career planning, Missing=277 life. 

SOURCE: Student Survey, Questions 10, 12, 14, 16 
Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 60

Coaches also connect students with supports available on their campus. Exhibit 6.13 shows how often 

students reported that coaches had referred them to various campus support services. For example, 

more than 80 percent of students had been referred to a tutoring or academic support center or to the 

financial aid office at least once per semester. Students were less likely to be referred to health 

services on campus than to other campus supports; two-fifths reported ever being referred to campus 

health services. 

Exhibit 6.13. Frequency of BosC4C Coach Referrals to Campus Services (Student-Reported) 

17% 20%

37%

29% 60%

40%

26%

23% 54%

41% 37%

17%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Tutoring or academic

center

Financial aid or bursar’s 

office 

Career center Health services

Never Once per semester Multiple times per semester

NOTES: N=928 students, Missing=366 tutoring or academic center, Missing=358 financial aid, Missing=383 career center, 

Missing=434 health services. 

SOURCE: Student Survey, Question 19 
COACHING IN PRACTICE 

Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 61

Common Coaching Practices 

Despite some variation across individual students, coaches, and coaching activities 

throughout the academic year, the nine nonprofit organizations and their coaches share 

many coaching practices. 

Majority of transition support provided in-person 

 The mode by which coaches communicate with students varies across coaching 

organization, coaches, and individual students, as well as by time of year. 

 The majority of transition supports provided over the course of the 2015-16 year took 

place in-person (60 percent).

Coaches and students communicate throughout the academic year 

 The average number of one-on-one interactions (phone or in-person) a student had with 

his/her coach was six, and interactions generally lasted between 25 and 40 minutes. 

 For the typical student interacting with a coach six times during the academic year 

averaging 34 minutes per interaction, this translates into about 3.5 hours of one-on-one 

coaching per year. 

 The majority of students (85 percent) met with their coach at least once during both the 

fall and spring semesters. 

Coach-student interactions address diverse and often multiple topics 

 According to coaches, academics was the most commonly discussed topic (about twothirds of all interactions). Another one-third of coaching interactions discussed 

managing life responsibilities, and one-quarter addressed financial aid topics. Fewer 

interactions addressed career planning or other topics (15 and 8 percent, respectively). 

 According to students, the five most commonly discussed topics were checking in about 

how classes are going; completing or renewing FAFSA forms; balancing school, work, 

and home; registering for courses; and time management. 

 Nearly three in ten (29 percent) coaching interactions reported by coaches covered two 

or more topic areas. 

Coaches communicate with one another to build their knowledge of the college campuses 

where they serve students 

 Many coaches leverage the knowledge and experience of their fellow coaches—both 

from their own organizations and from other organizations in the Success Boston 

network—to learn about the campuses on which they provide support. In fact, more 

than one-third of the coaches, across six of the nine organizations, reported that they 

learned about campus support services through their peer coach network. 

 A third of coaches reported looking to more-experienced coaches, who were more 

familiar with the colleges where their students enrolled, as an important information 

source about campus services. 
Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 62

6.3 Student Perceptions of Coaching 

Coach-student relationships are a key ingredient in the overall success of the BosC4C model. When 

students perceive their coach more favorably, this in turn can increase student engagement and 

enhance coaches’ ability to help them access needed resources. The student survey included several 

questions that help us to better understand how students perceive their BosC4C coaches. 

Overall, students expressed favorable perceptions of their coach and the services the coach offered. 

As presented in Exhibit 6.14, the majority of students reported that it was easy for them to get in 

touch with their designated coach and that the coach was generally a helpful resource (91 and 90 

percent, respectively). Similarly large majorities also reported that they planned to stay in touch with 

their coach the following year, and that coaching had taught them how to access the resources they 

needed (88 and 87 percent, respectively). A slight majority reported that they would have liked to 

have had more one-on-one time with their coach (57 percent). 

Exhibit 6.14. Student Perceptions of Relationships with BosC4C Coaches 

90%

57%

91% 88% 87%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Coach was helpful Wanted more time

with coach

Was easy to get in

touch with coach

Plan to stay in

touch with coach

Coach taught

student how to

access resources

NOTES: N=928 students, Missing=309. Student agreed or strongly agreed with statement. 

SOURCE: Student Survey, Question 22 

Further, Exhibit 6.15 below illustrates that the large majority of students (three-quarters or more) 

were comfortable reaching out to their coach regardless of topic area. Somewhat larger proportions of 

students reported they were more comfortable discussing academic, financial, and career planning 

issues with their coach (89 percent, 90 percent, and 85 percent, respectively) than they were 

discussing issues related to managing life responsibilities (77 percent). 
COACHING IN PRACTICE 

Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 63

“It was time for me to pay off tuition, but 

I wasn't sure about the current balance 

for which I had to pay. My coach helped 

my investigating, through the school 

office, whether what it was stated online 

was accurate or not. Because of his help 

I was able to complete the monetary 

transaction accurately.” 

– BosC4C student 

Exhibit 6.15. Comfort Reaching Out to BosC4C Coach, by Topic (Student-Reported) 

89% 90%

85%

77%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Academics Financial aid Career planning Managing life

responsibilities

NOTES: N=928 students, Missing N=302 to 305. Student agreed or strongly agreed with statement (“I am comfortable 

reaching out”). 

SOURCE: Student Survey, Question 21 

Students described the helpfulness of their coach in providing different kinds of support within each 

of the four main topic areas, as well as in connecting the

Two-thirds or more students reported that coaches were 

very helpful on 11 different support topics. 

The support topics most often identified as very helpful 

pertained to financial aid: (1) completing or renewing the 

FAFSA, (2) understanding the financial aid the student is 

eligible for, and (3) how to maintain financial aid (e.g., 

by meeting specific grade requirements). Topics with the 

fewest students reporting the coach was very helpful 

tended to concentrate within the broader categories of 

career planning and connecting to campus resources. 

m to campus resources (see Exhibit 6.16). 
Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 64

Exhibit 6.16. Topics on Which Coach Was “Very Helpful,” by Topic (Student-Reported) 

52%

56%

56%

58%

57%

60%

60%

63%

62%

62%

63%

66%

66%

65%

66%

68

68%

7

70

69

7

0% 20% 40% 60% 

Connecting to health services

Connecting to the campus career center

Applying for internships and jobs

Connecting to tutor or academic center

Exploring career options

Exploring college major options

Preparing for job interviews

Connecting to financial aid or bursar’s office

Resolving personal matters

Managing stress

Balancing school, work, and home life

Finding and applying for scholarships or grants

Managing my time effectively

Developing a plan to complete my degree

Understanding the process to transfer to a 4-year institution

Developing my resume

Strategies for studying and being successful in my courses

Understanding my student loan options

Registering for classes and course selection

Figuring out transportation

Understanding the financial aid I am eligible for

Understanding how to maintain my financial aid

Completing or renewing my FAFSA

 Academic

 Financial Aid

 Career Planning

 Managing Life 

 Responsibilities 

 Connecting to 

 Campus Resources 

NOTES: N=928 students, Missing N=388 to 736. 

SOURCE: Student Survey, Question 20 
COACHING IN PRACTICE 

Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 65

“There is no typical meeting. 

Meetings cover different topics during 

the summer, fall, and spring. Also 

each student differs and what support 

that is required to fit the student’s 

needs vary.” 

– BosC4C coach 

6.4 Learning Points 

Though coaches from across the nonprofit organizations generally adhere to a common coaching 

model, day-to-day coaching practices vary across several 

organization, as a function of individual students and their

needs, and by time of year. As described in Chapter 5, the

transition coaching model aims to provide on-demand 

support to help students navigate the college-going proces

This model hinges on coaches’ real-time responsiveness t

students’ individual needs. Coaches from across the 

nonprofit organizations emphasized the importance both 

being responsive to student needs and of customizing 

support provided to students (including how often) becaus

support and contact. The variation in the frequency, mode

may reflect coaches’ efforts to “meet [students] where the

experiences point to a collective coaching philosophy that puts the individual needs of students at the 

forefront. 

An examination of coaching interactions by month points to interesting variation across the academic 

year. During the first scale-up year for BosC4C (2015-16), for example, the months of August and 

September were characterized by fewer coach-student meetings than might have been expected. By 

comparison, 63 percent of students had interacted with their coach during September 2014, whereas 

just 29 percent interacted with their coach in September 2015. This may reflect recruitment 

challenges experienced as part of the scale-up effort, which required nonprofits to recruit a 

substantially greater number students to the 2015-16 cohort, between April and September, than in 

previous years. Nonprofits also received grant award notifications later than in past years, delaying 

the start of recruitment efforts. In fact, recruitment for BosC4C continued well into the Fall 2015 

semester, which in turn may have limited the amount of time coaches had available to conduct 

coaching activities. 

Despite variation in coaching activities across the nonprofit organizations and individual students, 

coaches also shared several important coaching practices. For example, coaches relied on multiple 

modes to connect with students, but the majority (60 percent) of all coaching interactions took place 

in-person. These in-person meetings are an essential component of coach-student relationship 

building. One coach explained, “even though texting is great and people respond, it’s not the best way 

to form a relationship,” and that she has a strong preference for in-person meetings with students. 

Another coach concurred, acknowledging that texting and email provide easy ways to check in with 

students, yet in-person meetings offer an important opportunity to talk about more sensitive topics or 

get to know a student better. 

dimensions, including by nonprofit 

s. 

o 

of 

e individual students need differential 

s of communication, and topics of supports 

y’re at.” Thus, the differences in student 
Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 66

7. Resources Used to Implement Coaching

This chapter describes the costs of implementing BosC4C for the 2015-16 academic year. For the 

purposes of this report, we define costs as the monetized value (in dollar terms) of the resources 

required to implement transition coaching. We purposefully include resources for the nonprofit 

organizations that provided the coaching, as well as the resources provided by TBF and other 

network-wide community partners (i.e., colleges, uAspire, and BPS) whose contributions included 

thought leadership, coordination, and managing the SIF grant and Success Boston Coaching program. 

All of those resources combined represent the actual costs of operating the BosC4C program. 

After collecting information about these resources, we aggregate the monetized value of the collected 

resources used to implement coaching in 2015-16, and then divide the total amount by the number of 

students served. This approach is commonly referred to as a cost analysis (Levin and McEwan 2002), 

and it can be used to come up with an average cost of Success Boston Coaching at the student level. 

Key Findings 

 The combined monetized amount of resources used to implement coaching in 2015-16 totaled 

$5,301,423. 

 BosC4C provided coaching through the federal SIF grant to 928 students in 2015-16, resulting in 

a total cost per student of $5,713. 

 Given that the BosC4C coaching model hinges on one-on-one support provided by coaches to 

students, the cost of hiring employing the personnel who provide that support represents the 

largest input, or more than 40 percent of total costs. In monetary terms, this translates into an 

investment in staff supporting BosC4C students’ academic success of $2,342 per student.

The first section summarizes our approach to cost data collection and analysis. Next, we describe this 

total cost in more detail, by discussing program-level variation in costs, as well as the costs reflected 

in TBF and community partner activities. The third section presents a cost “inventory,” which 

identifies the sources of funds and in-kind contributions that, taken together, comprise the program 

costs. The chapter concludes with lessons learned from the cost analysis. 

7.1 Data Collection and Analysis Approach 

It is important to note that our approach was purposefully designed to produce a comprehensive cost 

measure that includes all the resources used to implement transition coaching. By deliberately casting a 

broad net, we can more accurately characterize the full scope of the program—including costs not 

captured within the framework of SIF grant reporting. We do so in order to describe the full set of 

resources used to implement BosC4C coaching. The cost analysis translates these resources into a 

quantitative metric to complement the BosC4C activities and support summaries in earlier chapters. The 

cost analysis also categorizes the specific types of costs associated with program implementation into two 

primary categories: direct services to students and administration. These two broad categories are then 

further broken into subcategories, including personnel, facilities, organizational overhead, program 

activities, and direct assistance, to show how resources are allocated. 

To implement the approach, the study team first clearly defined all activities that constitute the coaching 

program. We focused specifically on those resources that support coaching, as distinguished from 
RESOURCES USED TO IMPLEMENT COACHING

Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 67

resources used to support other initiatives. For example, some BosC4C coaches are employed in 

organizations that operate multiple programs; by defining the activities specific to BosC4C coaching, we 

can separate out the activities and salaries spent on BosC4C coaching versus those allocated to other 

activities and programs. We do so by prorating such coaches’ salaries to reflect the share of their time 

spent on BosC4C coaching more accurately.

For the purpose of identifying which resources to include in the cost analysis, we considered those 

activities and supports only BosC4C students could access because they were participants in the BosC4C 

coaching program, and not the kinds of resources available to all students at a given campus. For example, 

BosC4C students could be referred by a coach to their college’s advising services. However, that advising 

is generally available to all its students, not just students enrolled in the BosC4C coaching program. We 

distinguish between the BosC4C coach’s time required to make such referrals, which is included as a 

program resource (and is typically recorded as a coaching interaction in the program database), and the 

time spent by college advisors to provide the services, which is not included as a BosC4C resource, even 

though BosC4C coaching may have led to increased use of the college-provided services. Similarly, many 

nonprofit organizations offer high school programming in addition to BosC4C coaching. Although high 

school programs can and do serve as a pipeline for connecting students to BosC4C, the staff 

time/resources for the high school programming is not considered a necessary resource for implementing 

BosC4C coaching, because BosC4C students are not enrolled in the college coaching program when the 

high school programming occurs. However, recruitment efforts for BosC4C specifically—that is, the time 

coaches spend actively recruiting students to participate (e.g., via presentations at high schools, 

coordination with colleges) are captured as a program cost.

Resources are classified into categories both to assist in collecting data and to facilitate cost analysis. 

Breaking out costs by type of resource helps us understand how the coaching program is structured, and it 

helps us appreciate the specific “inputs” that together comprise the coaching program. This is meant to 

complement the information presented in Chapters 5 and 6. Cost categories and examples of resources 

within them are presented in Exhibit 7.1.
Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 68

Exhibit 7.1. Cost Categories and Resource Examples 

Overall Category Subcategory Examples of Resources

Administrative Personnel  Executive director

 Program director

 Finance/accounting staff

 Coach supervisor

Overhead  General overhead

 Technology

 Insurance

 Office materials

Facilities  Rent and rental value of owned space used for 

administrative activities

(Space used for admin functions)  Utilities costs

Direct services to Personnel  Coaches

students  Recruitment staff

 Volunteers

 Dedicated college staff

Facilities  Rent and rental value of owned nonprofit space 

used for providing services

(Space used for program activities)  Dedicated space on campus provided by colleges

 Utilities costs

Activities and assistance  Special events

 Workshops

 Transportation subsidy

To collect cost data, the study team took advantage of existing records with cost information. Data 

collection began with a review of administrative records generated as part of SIF grant reporting. We 

used quarterly invoices to TBF for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2016, for each nonprofit 

organization. Data contained in the invoices allowed the study team to prepopulate a cost summary 

worksheet template (see Appendix I) to generate a preliminary list of each organization’s costs. We 

also reviewed notes from organization leader interviews for each nonprofit organization. The team 

noted relevant activities, events, and program elements on the cost summary template. 
RESOURCES USED TO IMPLEMENT COACHING 

Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 69

Imputing costs of volunteer time

To value volunteer time, we asked 

organizations what it would cost them to 

hire staff to provide the services delivered 

by the volunteers. So, a professional 

giving an overview of career opportunities 

in a particular field has a higher 

associated cost than a college student 

peer tutor. 

Responses were similar across 

organizations for similar types of 

volunteers, and the study team used 

consistent, conservative rates across all 

organizations. 

Imputing occupancy costs 

Imputing a value for occupancy costs of 

owned space is critical for determining 

costs for programs operating in space(s) 

they own. By coming up with a value for 

owned space, we can compare these 

programs’ costs with the costs of leasing 

space for programs that lease their 

space. 

To estimate these costs, the study team 

collected information from the 

organizations about the size of the 

space(s) in the office used for coaching, 

and then identified current market rental 

rates for similar properties nearby. To be 

more conservative, we used a low-end 

value of these rates to impute the 

unobserved occupancy cost. The 

imputed costs for the two programs that 

own their respective spaces were 

comparable with the occupancy costs for

those nonprofit organizations that lease 

facilities.

After this prepopulation exercise, we conducted telephone interviews with nonprofit organization 

staff familiar with coaching activities and with 

BosC4C financial statements and as well as with 

TBF staff.18 During those interviews, we 

reviewed its prepopulated cost worksheet with 

each organization. All nine organizations 

actively engaged in helping the study team 

identify any missing resources, classify resources 

as devoted to either administrative or coaching 

activities, and determine a monetary value of the 

resource. 

Sometimes resources were identified as being 

used both for administrative functions and for 

coaching activities. Such resources were 

typically personnel responsible for managing the 

program as well as interacting with students, 

including program directors and senior coaching 

personnel. Facilities were also used both by 

administrative staff and for coaching activities. 

In these cases, the study team and organization 

staff discussed how these resources were 

generally used, and we collaboratively 

determined how to allocate costs most 

appropriately across the categories. 

As necessary, items were identified for followup so organization staff could confirm figures 

and/or check with colleagues. Finally, the list of 

activities, events, and tasks identified from notes 

of early interviews was reviewed to verify that 

all activities and associated resources had been 

identified. 

After conducting interviews with all 

organizations, data were organized and 

processed and then reviewed for consistency 

across organizations. At this stage, we focused 

on calculating estimated dollar cost values for resources that did not involve direct expenditures such 

as occupancy costs, donated goods, and volunteer time. 

 

18 The study team emphasized that the data were being collected as part of the evaluation, not as part of SIF 

grant reporting, and that the data would not be subject to either an audit or a compliance review. This was 

done to encourage open dialogue that would, we hoped, result in a more complete and accurate picture of 

actual costs as implemented, regardless of funding source. 
Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 70

Seven organizations relied on volunteer time, and two organizations own the facility out of which 

their respective coaching programs operated and therefore do not have lease expenses. As noted in the 

analysis presented below, these resources make up a small fraction of overall costs. However, they do 

represent a tangible input valued by organizations as important resources for providing transition 

coaching activities. Our approach to imputing values for volunteer time and occupancy costs is 

described in the box on previous page. 

To calculate total cost per student, the number of BosC4C students coached at each organization was 

merged to the cost data. After a final quality review of data collected for each organization, the study 

team summed costs across all initiative partners—the nonprofit organizations, TBF, and networkwide partners. These costs were then divided by the total number of students coached and analyzed. 

7.2 Costs of BosC4C 

This section presents the overall cost of transition coaching. Costs are broken out for the two main 

resource categories, administrative functions and direct services to students, as well as into the 

subcategories listed in Exhibit 7.1. Next, we describe variation in costs across the nonprofit 

organizations, and then report costs of resources used by TBF and network-wide partners to support 

BosC4C. Please note that cost figures have been rounded to nearest whole dollar amounts. 

Overall Costs 

The total value of resources used to implement the BosC4C coaching is estimated to be $5,301,423. 

This amount includes the value of all resources used by the nine nonprofit organizations, TBF, and 

network-wide partners to provide BosC4C to 928 students served during the 2015-16 fiscal year 

(from April 2015 through March 2016).19 Exhibit 7.2 presents the overall costs across all funding 

sources broken into the two main categories. Slightly more than half of costs (55 percent) support 

direct services to students, and 46 percent of costs reflect administrative functions. 

 

19 This time period substantially overlaps but does not perfectly align with the academic year over which 

outcome data are collected (August 1, 2015–June 1, 2016). The cost data collection window was driven by 

the SIF grant fiscal year and to facilitate real-time data collection. However, because a full year of costs are 

captured, these costs are representative of the annual cost of the first year of the BosC4C initiative. 
RESOURCES USED TO IMPLEMENT COACHING 

Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 71

Exhibit 7.2. Importance of Resource Types in Costs of Transition Coaching 

Direct 

Services 

Personnel 

41%

Facilities 

9%

Activities 

5%

Facilities 

5%

Overhead 

16%

Admin 

Personnel 

25%

$5.3 million coaching initiative 

$5,713 per student 

Administrative, 

46%

Direct services for 

students, 55%

NOTES: Percentages sum to 101% due to rounding. 

SOURCE: BosC4C cost data 

Within the direct services category, compensation of personnel who provide direct services to 

students (primarily BosC4C coaches) represents the largest cost subcategory (41 percent of total 

costs). The next largest subcategory is the cost of facilities in which coaching interactions occur (9

percent). These facilities costs include space used by coaches onsite at nonprofits, such as offices and 

common space where students can interact with coaches. Most frequently, when coaches interact with 

students on campuses, they make use of available public space—typically common areas or empty 

classrooms—and we do not consider the cost of this space in calculating the cost of the coaching 

program, because the space would not otherwise be used for some other coaching purpose. Coaches 

from three nonprofits used dedicated space on a college campus for coaching, with the space donated 

as an in-kind resource by the college; we do take the value of those in-kind resources into account in 

estimating the direct services facilities cost. The smallest subcategory is activities and assistance (5 

percent). This subcategory includes costs of resources used for workshops and events, for community 

support activities such as tutoring, and for limited direct cash or cash-equivalent assistance to students 

such as transportation subsidies. 

Within the administrative category, again personnel costs represent the largest share of resources, 

comprising 25 percent of total costs. Organizational overhead costs account for 16 percent and 

include staff recruitment costs, technology and insurance costs, and national organization fees. 

Finally, the occupancy cost associated with facilities used by administrative staff and for 

administrative functions represents 5 percent. 

Variation in Costs across Nonprofit Organizations 

Not surprisingly, the costs of coaching vary across organizations for multiple reasons, including 

organization size, number of students with whom coaches work, and differences in the amount of 

time coaches spend with each student and where coaching occurs. In particular, at the organization 
Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 72

level, average per-coach caseloads range from 12 to 65. To some extent, the availability of resources 

also contributes to cost differences. Some organizations are housed in larger facilities with more 

space for both administration and programming, and others rely on their own space, as well as on 

community resources, for activities such as career nights or tutoring and mentoring programs. 

Program size and coaches’ level of experience are also related to costs per student. Organizations 

serving larger numbers of students and that had coaching programs prior to participating in BosC4C 

tended to have lower per-student costs. Differences in administrative cost share also drive costs, as 

discussed in greater detail below. 

Exhibit 7.3 uses a box-and-whisker plot to illustrate variation in the distribution of per-student costs 

across the nine nonprofit organizations. The plot shows that half of the organizations (represented by 

the shaded box) have costs that fall in the range of $3,661 (the 25th percentile, or the left border of the 

box) to $6,857 (the 75th percentile, or the right border of the box), with a median per-student cost of 

$5,381 (represented by the line in the middle of the box). Two programs have relatively high costs—

as shown by the dots—approximately double the highest of the others. The remaining organizations 

have costs that are below but close to the 25th percentile cost, represented by the line extending to the 

left of the box.20

Exhibit 7.3. Per-Student Costs Vary across Nonprofit Organizations 

SOURCE: BosC4C cost data 

The nine nonprofit organizations also differ in the mix of resources used to support coaching 

activities. Exhibit 7.4 depicts the variation in the share of costs associated with providing direct 

services to students versus the share of administrative costs across the nine organizations. Half of the 

nonprofits have direct services cost shares between 49 percent (the 25th percentile) and 65 percent (the 

75th percentile), as represented by the shaded box. The lines extending from either side of the box 

represent the full range of the amount that individual organizations spend on direct services, which 

ranges from 43 to 69 percent of total program costs. 

 

20 Lower costs are not necessarily better than higher costs. Factors that drive variation in costs may also be 

related to program effectiveness. 

25th pctl:

$3,661

Median:

$5,381

75th pctl:

$6,857

$5,000 $10,000 $15,000

Total cost per student
RESOURCES USED TO IMPLEMENT COACHING 

Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 73

Exhibit 7.4. Share of Total Program Costs Allocated to Direct Services to Students 

SOURCE: BosC4C cost data 

Differences in administrative costs are also driven by various factors—the amount of time senior staff 

spend training and monitoring coaches; how much experience the organization has with coaching 

(organizations in their first year of implementing coaching expected decreases in administrative costs 

per-student in future years); and the nonprofit’s organizational structure, including whether other 

programming provided by the organization shares overhead resources, their experience with federal 

grant compliance and whether the organization pays membership fees to a larger or parent 

organization. 

Two additional types of resources that contributed to costs are in-kind contributions from the 

community at large and resources provided by college partners. Although they represent a small share 

of costs (detailed in Section 7.3 below), nonprofit partners considered both of these types of resources 

to be important to their approach, and therefore these contributions are included among costs of direct 

services to students. In-kind contributions are used by all but one program to provide transition 

coaching. Examples of in-kind contributions include community volunteers providing tutoring, 

reduced-fare passes provided by the transit authority, career night presentations or mock job 

interviews by community professionals, space and food for annual events, and AmeriCorps 

volunteers who provide low-cost staffing. 

Three of the nine nonprofit organizations rely on campus space provided by colleges, and we include 

that space as a program cost. Though all nine nonprofits engage with colleges to coordinate coaching 

activities with general college services such as academic advising, in these three instances, colleges 

provide dedicated space—cubicles or scheduled time in offices or classrooms—to the nonprofit 

coaching program, so the value of this resource is included in program costs. TBF also provided 

colleges with funding to support liaisons to the nonprofit organizations. These costs are included, and 

are described below. 

Costs to the Boston Foundation and Network-Wide Community Partners 

TBF and network-wide community partners—colleges, uAspire, and the BPS—support the work of 

BosC4C coaches and the nonprofits both through direct mechanisms, via trainings and supports for 

coaches, and through less direct means, including thought leadership, program management and 

coordination, and strategic direction. The value of the resources used for TBF and network-wide 

25th pctl:

49%

Median:

56%

75th pctl:

65%

40% 50% 60% 70%

% Direct services costs
Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 74

partner efforts was $1.15 million, which represents 22 percent of total program costs, or $1,256 of the 

$5,713 cost per student. These resources are reflected in Exhibit 7.2 above, which shows the 

combined resources that support BosC4C coaching; they are not reflected in the organization costs 

shown in Exhibit 7.3. 

Multiple staff from TBF contributed to the management and administration of the BosC4C program 

and the SIF grant. The Success Boston director, the program director, the program officer, and 

program associate together are responsible for managing BosC4C program implementation and grant 

administration. The Success Boston program director and program associate reported spending 

approximately 50 percent of their time supporting student recruitment efforts. Program finances were 

managed by TBF’s chief financial officer, its finance director, and its finance coordinator. TBF 

employs a communications team of four employees, who allocated a portion of their time to 

publicizing BosC4C and its events, and another staff member whose responsibilities include 

fundraising, who allocated approximately one-third. Taken together, these staff salaries represent 

$430,000 in personnel compensation. 

TBF also used SIF funds to provide $200,000 to fund college liaison positions at five partner 

colleges, positions designed to provide nonprofit organizations with a dedicated point of contact to 

coordinate coaching activities on campus. TBF also allocated $250,000 for program partner uAspire, 

which offered services specifically focused on supporting BosC4C, including training for BosC4C 

coaches, hosting FAFSA completion events for BosC4C students, and mounting a text message 

program for BosC4C students (refer to Chapter 5 for more information on uAspire’s role in BosC4C 

programming). 

In addition to personnel compensation, TBF had other costs; these include overhead ($153,340), 

facilities ($105,858), and materials ($15,000). Overhead costs include space, phones, and information 

technology. For example, TBF considerably reconfigured its program database, which it had earlier 

developed to track students and coach-student interactions, for the BosC4C program. 

Some of the costs borne by TBF represent those associated with launching (or expanding) an 

initiative, and consequently, some of the upfront costs may decline in future years. Revamping the 

program database, learning about the SIF-specific grant reporting requirements, setting up procedures 

to monitor the nonprofit organizations’ spending and grant compliance, and establishing procedures 

for preparing SIF financial reporting are all initial costs that might be expected to decrease over time. 

However, some level of administrative burden is expected to accompany public funding sources, even 

with familiarity gaining from experience with reporting.21

7.3 Sources of Funds and In-Kind Contributions 

This section describes the sources of the $5.3 million used to provide BosC4C coaching in 2015-16, 

which is useful information for thinking about how the initiative functions and for future decision 

making about the initiative. Specifically, some funding sources represent one-time supports during 

2015-16; others may continue in future years. 

 

21 Though this administrative burden contributes to costs, increased accountability and reporting efforts may 

also improve program effectiveness. 
RESOURCES USED TO IMPLEMENT COACHING 

Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 75

Exhibit 7.5 outlines the sources of funds and in-kind contributions that provide the resources to 

implement coaching. It divides the sources into two broad categories: SIF grant-related funds and 

additional non-SIF support. The SIF grant-related amounts are taken directly from grant reports that 

the nonprofit organizations submit to TBF, as well as from interviews with TBF staff. 

Exhibit 7.5. Resources Provided, by Source 

Funding Source

Funding 

Amount Total

SIF grant-related funding

SIF grant-related funds, nonprofits $2,859,163

SIF grant funds to nonprofits $986,027

Local SIF match at nonprofits $1,489,683

TBF SIF match to nonprofits $383,453

SIF grant funding of TBF costs $750,012

SIF grant funding of college liaisons $40,000 

TBF SIF match for college liaisons and uAspire $410,000 

SIF grant support of TBF costs $91,715

TBF SIF match for college liaisons and uAspire $208,297

Subtotal $3,609,175

Additional non-SIF support sources

Colleges in-kind dedicated space $99,000 

Other community in-kind, partner, and volunteer resources $123,417

Balance of nonprofits’ costs not covered by SIF-related funding 

(absorbed by nonprofits’ general operating funds) $1,066,405

Balance of TBF costs not covered by SIF-related funding $403,426

Subtotal $1,692,248

Total support of BosC4C initiative $5,301,423

SOURCES: SIF grant reporting documents; BosC4C cost data

The SIF grant provided nearly $1 million in funding to nonprofit organizations. SIF also requires both 

the nonprofits and TBF to raise additional resources to match their SIF funds dollar for dollar; as 

such, the SIF grant was matched with almost $1.5 million in local funds and $383,453 TBF funds. In 

addition, TBF redirected $40,000 in SIF funds to local colleges to support college liaison positions 

and provided $410,000 in SIF match funding to support the college liaisons and uAspire’s coachingrelated activities. TBF also used $91,715 of SIF funds to cover its own BosC4C-related personnel 

costs and designated $208,000 of personnel costs as SIF matching funds. In total, the SIF grant 

provided more than $1.1 million to support the initiative; an additional $2.5 million was provided in 

matching funds tied to the SIF grant. 

As a share of sources of funds, the SIF grant covered 21 percent of total costs, local matching funds 

accounted for 28 percent, and TBF match funding represented 19 percent. So together, SIF grantrelated funds accounted for 68 percent of the resources used to provide coaching. 

The second source of funding support was separate from the SIF grant. This second category reflects 

the fact that multiple resources—beyond those provided by the SIF grant—were used to implement 

coaching. For example, the nonprofit organizations used $222,000 of volunteer and in-kind support, 
Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 76

including dedicated space provided by colleges ($99,000). Additionally, not all resources used by the 

nonprofit organizations were allowable expenses in the context of the SIF grant (e.g., organizational 

overhead, occupancy costs of owned space, fundraising costs), and some organizations incurred costs 

that may have been allowable but were not recognized as SIF grant expenses due to the timing or 

implementation of the grant process. We determine this amount by subtracting reported SIF grantrelated funding from the total costs reported in earlier in this section. Somewhat more than $1 million 

in nonprofits organizations’ costs and $403,426 of TBF’s costs were not covered by SIF-related 

funds. 

The cost of resources absorbed by the nonprofits and TBF represents approximately 28 percent of all 

funds. The remaining 4 percent of resources are contributed by colleges and other community 

resources. 

7.4 Learning Points 

The study team estimates the cost to implement BosC4C in 2015-16 was $5.3 million, or 

approximately $5,700 per student. Because the BosC4C coaching model hinges on one-on-one 

support provided by coaches to students, expectedly the cost of hiring the personnel who provide 

direct services to students represents the largest input, or more than 40 percent of total costs. In 

monetary terms, this translates into an investment in staff supporting BosC4C students’ academic 

success of nearly $2,342 per student. 

This cost analysis is unique in that it monetizes a complex, collaborative, comprehensive program. 

Given the multifaceted role of coaches and the combined efforts of the higher education community 

and TBF, there are few comparable programs across the country, none of which has assigned 

comprehensive costs to date. Oreopoulos and Petronijevic (2016) include a cost estimate of a peer 

coaching program, which totals approximately $700 per student. However, unlike BosC4C which 

employs full-time coaches, this estimate is based on a coaching program which employs college 

students as coaches who work just seven hours per week. Moreover, the cost estimate includes only 

the cost per student based on the cost of labor (hourly wage of the peer coaches), and does not 

account for additional costs associated with implementing such a coaching program (e.g., facility 

costs, staff trainings and benefits).

Two caveats are important to understanding the overall program costs, particularly administrative 

costs. First, the period measured represents the first fiscal year in which both TBF and participating 

nonprofit organizations operated the Success Boston Coaching initiative using SIF grant funds. The 

SIF funding came with reporting requirements that added to administrative cost, and some 

organizations noted increased demands on staff time to become familiar with the grant management 

process. 

Second, seven of the nonprofit organizations had previously offered coaching (six as part of Success 

Boston initiative, one independent of the initiative); two were implementing coaching programs (of 

any kind) for the first time. For the two organizations new to the provision of coaching, per-student 

costs may decrease in future years, as first-year costs associated with one-time start-up activities and 

making new connections to colleges, high schools, and community resources subsequently decline. 

Initial hiring and training of coaches may also be more expensive than hiring additional or 

replacement coaches into an existing team with some experience. 
RESOURCES USED TO IMPLEMENT COACHING 

Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 77

Another avenue for per-student cost reductions in future years may well be an increase in the number 

of students served. Organization leaders from several nonprofit organizations noted that many 

administrative functions would not be affected by an increase in program scale, and in some cases, 

coaches’ caseloads were below potential capacity. Serving more students with the same resources 

would mean lower per-student costs. 

Per-student costs and the relative importance of different cost categories varied substantially across 

organizations. This is not surprising, as program implementation (e.g., frequency of coach-student 

interactions, average caseloads) also varied substantially across the nonprofit organizations and 

coaches, as did the numbers of students served and the size of the nonprofit organizations. 

Furthermore, the costs to provide BosC4C coaching may decrease as the initiative matures and

organizations become more familiar with the grant administration process and the nonprofit 

organizations new to coaching develop and codify their program practices. 
Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 78

8. Implementation Index

In this section, we present the BosC4C 2015-16 implementation index, which integrates information 

from multiple data sources and highlights the commonalities and variations across the different 

organizations’ implementation efforts. The index helps identify which program components appear to 

be consistently implemented and which components have been conceptualized and implemented 

differently across organizations. To the extent that variation across organizations highlights 

inconsistency of coaching, the index can help inform aspects of program implementation. 

The index also represents a measure that will be used in the final outcomes report to explore 

relationships between the level of implementation across selected indicators and student outcomes. 

Linking the index scores to student outcomes in this way will provide insights into which aspects of 

implementation matter most in achieving desired student outcomes. 

In the 2015 report, Degrees of Coaching: Success Boston’s Transition Coaching Model, the study 

team developed an initial index, with input from the Boston Foundation, to examine variation across 

the nonprofit organizations’ implementation efforts (Linkow et al., 2015). The implementation index 

has been refined to better reflect the expanded scope of BosC4C, to ensure that the coaching activities 

and structures were captured both for the six continuing and three new nonprofit organizational 

partners, and to capitalize on the study’s broader data collection activities.

In the first section, we outline the overall structure of the implementation index and define the 

individual constructs, components, and indicators that comprise it. Next, we describe how we 

operationalized the index to examine implementation levels across individual index components and 

better understand variation in implementation across the nonprofit organizations. Finally, we 

highlight key lessons learned about the commonalities and variation in the implementation of 

BosC4C transition coaching during the 2015-16 academic year. 

Key Findings: 

 The index shows areas where nonprofit organizations are implementing consistently. Across 

organizations, all nonprofit organizations’ scores demonstrate a high level of implementation on 

the Nature of Coach-Student Engagement component. Within organizations, indicator scores are 

most consistent in the Nature of Support component. 

 Scores on the coach-student connection and coach helpfulness indicators (both within the Nature 

of Coach-Student Engagement component) are among the most consistent of any in the index: 

scores for eight of nine organizations demonstrate high implementation on the coach-student 

connection indicator—giving this indicator the highest average score in the index—and eight of 

nine organizations score at moderate levels on the coach helpfulness indicator. 

 The high average score across organization on the ongoing coach training indicator (in the Coach 

Capacity Building component) reflects that the nonprofits are helping to grow coaches’ capacity 

to support students and are committed to providing support to their coaches throughout the 

academic year. 

 Variation is also present across the index. Interestingly, scores on the number of coaches with 

whom students have worked indicator within the Nature of Coach-Student Engagement 
IMPLEMENTATION INDEX 

Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 79

component are among the most variable in the index (two nonprofits score at the low 

implementation level, four at the moderate level, and three at the high level). 

 The Structure of Support component contains the indicator with the lowest average score in the 

index, mode of communication. However, while mode of communication does have the lowest 

average score, the score of 1.9 is still at the moderate level of implementation.

8.1 Structure 

The implementation index is organized into two constructs, five components, and 16 indicators, as 

illustrated in Exhibit 8.1. The index focuses specifically on implementation of BosC4C coaching by 

the nonprofit organizations and coaches, as they are the primary drivers of coaching activities and 

services; it does not incorporate activities and structures that other partners, such as TBF and colleges, 

have in place to support coaching. 

The index draws on interviews with nonprofit organization leaders and coaches, student survey 

responses, and program data. 

Exhibit 8.1. BosC4C Implementation Index Structure 

The implementation index comprises two broad constructs— Operations and Coaching Processes 

and Activities—hypothesized as essential to the BosC4C coaching model. The Operations construct

includes the foundational and structural elements that allow coaches to do their work. This construct 

has two components: (1) Coach Capacity Building, and (2) Integration with College. The Coaching 

Operations

Coach Capacity Building 

Coach on-boarding 

Ongoing coach training 

Encourages participation in BosC4C 

Integration with College 

Campus meeting space 

Access to student data 

Coach knowledge of college 

Coaching Processes 

& Activities

 Structure of Coach-Student Engagement 

 Mode of communication 

 Frequency of interactions 

 Intensity of one-on-one interactions 

Nature of Coach-Student Engagement 

Provides support for re-engagement

Coach helpfulness 

Coach-student connection 

Number of coaches with whom students have worked 

 Nature of Support Activities 

 Sustained variety of support 

 Exposure to support 

 Navigational supports 
Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 80

Processes and Activities construct includes information on how coaches work and the specific actions 

they take in support of students, and it has three components: (3) Structure of Coach-Student 

Engagement, (4) Nature of Coach-Student Engagement, and (5) Nature of Support Activities. 

(Detailed definitions of each indicator are included in Appendix J.) 

Construct 1: Operations 

Component 1: Coach Capacity Building 

The Coach Capacity Building component measures the extent to which nonprofit organizations 

provide structures and resources to build and develop coaches’ capacity to serve and support their 

students. This component consists of three indicators. Interviews with coaches were the data source 

for these indicators, defined as follows: 

 Coach on-boarding reflects provision by the nonprofit organizations of initial training for coaches 

and coach participation in BosC4C-sponsored initial trainings. 

 Ongoing coach training describes ongoing training provided for and participated in by coaches 

throughout the academic year, including training provided by the nonprofit organizations and 

BosC4C. 

 Encourages participation in BosC4C provides information about whether participation at 

program meetings or events is required for all coaches and deemed important by the organization. 

Component 2: Integration with College 

The Integration with College component reflects how coaches embed themselves on college 

campuses to provide transition support to students. This component consists of three indicators. The 

student survey and interviews with coaches were the data sources for these indicators, defined as 

follows: 

 Campus meeting space describes (a) whether coaches meet with students on campus and (b) 

coaches’ satisfaction with the space available to meet with students (e.g., availability of space, 

ability to have private/sensitive conversations with students when needed). 

 Access to student data indicates how academic data are shared with coaches (e.g., coaches are 

granted direct access by the college, coaches log in with students to view their grades or relevant 

information). 

 Coach knowledge of college incorporates coaches’ reports of whether and how often they 

formally communicated with college staff (e.g., on regular basis) and were included in staff 

meetings and functions on college campuses. 

Construct 2: Coaching Processes and Activities 

Component 3: Structure of Coach-Student Engagement 

The Structure of Coach-Student Engagement component measures the extent to which coaches 

maintain consistent, targeted engagement with the students on their caseloads. This component 

consists of three indicators. The program database is the data source for these indicators, defined as 

follows: 
IMPLEMENTATION INDEX

Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 81

 Mode of communication is a measure of how many different ways (modes) coaches with students. 

This measure reflects the number of students on a coach’s caseload to whom coaches reached out 

using three or more modes (text message, email, social media, phone, in-person).

 Frequency of interactions indicates the frequency with which coaches meet one-on-one with 

students throughout the academic year. One-on-one is defined as interactions conducted in-person

or by phone.

 Intensity of one-on-one interactions combines data on the average duration of one-on-one 

interactions between coaches and students with the total number of one-on-one coaching 

interactions per academic year. This indicator captures the frequency with which coaches had 

one-on-one meetings averaging 30 minutes or more with students from their caseloads.

Component 4: Nature of Coach-Student Engagement

The Nature of Coach-Student Engagement component describes the ways in which coaches engage 

and build rapport with students, including student reports of how helpful coaches have been, the ease 

with which students can reach out and communicate with their coach, and the stability of coaching. 

This component consists of four indicators. Interviews with coaches and the student survey were the 

data source for these indicators, defined as follows:

 Provides support for re-engagement describes coaches’ reports of active efforts to re-engage 

students no longer enrolled in college.

 Coach helpfulness incorporates students’ reports of how helpful (rated as “very helpful” on the 

student survey) coaches have been in supporting and connecting students to campus resources in 

various topic areas (i.e., academic support, financial aid, career planning, managing life 

responsibilities).

 Coach-student connection is a measure of the relationship coaches have built with students. It 

includes students’ comfort with their accessibility to their coach; students’ reports of the ease 

with which they can reach out to and communicate with their coach; and students’ intentions to 

stay in touch with their coach during the next academic year.

 Number of coaches with whom students have worked indicates the stability of coaches over the 

course of the academic year.

Component 5: Nature of Support Activities

The Nature of Support Activities component describes the ways in which coaches interact with and 

provide support to students, including the variety and sustained frequency of support activity across 

topics and the extent to which coaches help students navigate campus support services. This 

component consists of three indicators. The program database and the study survey are the data 

sources for these indicators, defined as follows:

 Sustained variety of support describes the extent to which coaches provide transition supports 

across a variety of topic areas multiple times throughout the academic year.

 Exposure to support is a measure of whether a coach provided transition support on the four main 

topic areas (academics, financial aid, career planning, managing life responsibilities) at any point 

during the academic year. This indicator captures the extent to which coaches discussed at least 

three different support topics (at least once in 2015-16) with students on their caseload.
Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 82

 Navigational supports represent students’ report of being referred by their coach to campus 

support services. The metric for this indicator is the proportion of students on a coach’s caseload 

referred to at least two campus resources once or more per semester.

8.2 Constructing and Scoring the Index 

The index incorporates data from student surveys, the program database, and coach interviews, all of 

which were coded and then aggregated to the nonprofit organization level. 

Each indicator is assigned a score ranging from 1 to 3 (see Appendix J for a more detailed description 

of the scoring), corresponding to a level of implementation: low (score of 1 to 1.4), moderate (score 

of 1.5 to 2.4), or high (score of 2.5 to 3). Specific thresholds for each indicator were based on 

BosC4C program goals and determined using an iterative process. 

Next, indicator scores are summed to create a score for each of the five components. Finally, 

component scores are summed to create two construct scores, and construct scores are summed to 

create an overall index score. The overall score for the index can range from 16 to 48. 

8.3 Findings 

8.3.1 Overall Index Scores by Construct and Nonprofit Organization 

Exhibit 8.2 presents the overall index scores, broken out by construct, and displays the average score 

for each nonprofit organization participating in the BosC4C program. Index scores range from 33.2 to 

40.2 (average=36.8), and no nonprofit organization achieves the highest possible score of 48. The 

Operations construct scores range from 12.0 to 16.5 (the highest possible score is 18), and the 

Coaching Processes and Activities construct scores range from 19.4 to 24.8 (the highest possible 

score is 30). (See Appendix K for a complete table of index, construct, component, and indicator 

scores by organization.) 

Low 

Score 1 to 1.4 

Moderate 

Score 1.5 to 2.4 

High 

Score 2.5 to 3 
IMPLEMENTATION INDEX 

Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 83

Exhibit 8.2. Overall Index Scores, by Construct and Nonprofit Organization 

15.7 15.7 14.0 16.5

12.0

15.3 14.7 12.6 13.8

24.5 23.5 24.6 20.7

24.8 20.8 20.9

21.4 19.4

40.2 39.2 38.6 37.2 36.8 36.1 35.6 34.0 33.2

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Index Scores 

Coaching

Processes and

Activities

Operations

Constructs: 

Average Score 

SOURCES: Coach Interviews, Student Survey, Program Database 

Next, we describe indicator scores for each construct across the initiative, followed by a more detailed 

examination of indicator scores at the nonprofit organization level; the latter highlights variability in 

scores within the initiative. 

8.3.2 Operations Construct 

The Operations construct is made up of the Coach Capacity Building and Integration with College

components, each with three indicators. Component scores can range from 3 to 9. 

Coach Capacity Building Component 

The Coach Capacity Building component measures aspects of the nonprofit organizations’ onboarding supports, ongoing training, and encouragement for coach participation in BosC4C 

meetings/events. The box below highlights the key characteristics of high, moderate, and low 

implementation levels. 

High Implementation Moderate Implementation Low Implementation

(score of 7.5 to 9) (score of 5.5 to 7.4) (score of 5.4 or less)

 Coaches within organizations are  Coaches within organizations are  Organizations provide coaches no 

provided with formal on-boarding provided informal on-boarding on-boarding training

training training  Coaches do not attend ongoing 

 Coaches attend ongoing trainings  Coaches attend some ongoing trainings

 Coach participation in BosC4C trainings  Coaches do not attend BosC4C 

meetings/events is mandatory  Coach participation in BosC4C meetings/events

meetings/events is voluntary
Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 84

Exhibit 8.3 presents the average score for each of the three indicators contributing to the Coach 

Capacity Building component. Exhibit 8.4 presents information about each indicator and the overall 

component score for each organization. 

 On average, nonprofit organizations’ scores demonstrate a moderate level of implementation for 

the coach on-boarding indicator (average score of 2.2) and high levels of implementation for the 

ongoing coach training and encourages participation in BosC4C meetings/events indicators 

(average score of 2.7 and 2.5, respectively). 

 On average, nonprofit organizations’ scores are at a moderate level of implementation (7.3 out of 

9). Individually, most nonprofit organizations’ scores demonstrate high levels of implementation 

on this component (six of nine organizations have scores of 7.5 or higher); two score at the 

moderate level of implementation, and one scores at a low level of implementation. 

 Variability in scores within organizations is present for all nine organizations, regardless of the 

overall component score. For example, although Organization I scores among the highest on this 

component, the organization scores at the high level of implementation on two of the three 

indicators. Likewise, Organization G, which scores the lowest on this component, has indicators 

at both the low and moderate levels. 

 Indicator scores for this component indicate that nonprofit organizations are generally 

implementing the ongoing coach training and encourages participation in BosC4C 

meetings/events. Scores on the coach on-boarding indicator, however, indicate this could be an 

area of growth for some organizations. 

Exhibit 8.3. Coach Capacity Building: Average Indicator Scores 

2.2

2.7 2.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Coach on-boarding On-going coach training Encourages participation in

BosC4C meetings/activities

Indicator Scores 

SOURCE: Coach Interviews 
IMPLEMENTATION INDEX 

Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 85

Exhibit 8.4. Coach Capacity Building: Indicator and Component Scores, by Organization 

3.0

2.0 2.5 2.4 2.0 1.5

2.9

2.0

1.0

2.5

3.0 2.5 3.0

3.0

3.0

2.2

3.0

2.0

2.5 3.0 3.0 2.4

2.5 3.0 1.9 2.0

2.0

8.0 8.0 8.0 7.8 7.5 7.5

7.0 7.0

5.0

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Component Scores 

Encourages

participation in

BosC4C

meetings/events

On-going coach

training

Coach onboarding

Average Score 

Indicators: 

 SOURCE: Coach Interviews 

Integration with College Component 

The Integration with College component measures the extent to which coaches have access to and 

knowledge of the colleges they work with. The component is measured by three indicators. The box 

below highlights the key characteristics of high, moderate, and low implementation levels. 

High Implementation Moderate Implementation Low Implementation

(score of 7.5 to 9) (score of 5.5 to 7.4) (score of 5.4 or less)

 Coaches are satisfied with campus  Coaches are neither satisfied nor  Coaches are dissatisfied with 

meeting space and most students dissatisfied with the campus campus meeting space, and few 

meet with their coach on campus22 meeting place, and some students students meet with their coach on 

 Coaches have access from the meet with their coach on campus campus

colleges to student data  Coach access to student data is  No coach access to student data

 Coaches have formal channels of provided using student login  Few coaches have formal 

communication with colleges information (rather than directly communication channels with 

from the college) colleges

 Most coaches have established 

formal lines of communication with 

colleges

 

22

 Or at the nonprofit organization’s office, for those supporting students on virtual campuses.
Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 86

Exhibit 8.5 presents averages on each indicator contributing to the Integration with College

component. Exhibit 8.6 presents information about each indicator and the overall component score for 

each organization. 

 Nonprofit organizations’ scores average a moderate level of implementation on the campus 

meeting space and access to student data indicators (2.2 for each) and a high level of 

implementation on the coach knowledge of college indicator (2.7). 

 On average, nonprofit organizations’ scores demonstrate implementation of this component at a 

moderate level (7.2 of 9). However, fewer nonprofit organizations demonstrate high levels of 

implementation (only three score 7.5 or higher); five organizations’ scores are at the moderate 

level of implementation. 

 All organizations’ scores demonstrate some variation in implementation levels across indicators. 

Organization B, with the lowest component score, has indicators at the low, moderate, and high 

levels. Organization F, with a high component score, has indicator scores that are both moderate 

and high. 

Overall, the findings suggest that though most organizations have formal channels of communication 

with colleges, additional structures and communication channels could potentially improve access to 

campus meeting spaces and student data. These findings echo those highlighted in Chapter 5, which 

summarizes coach perceptions on college integration. 

Exhibit 8.5. Integration with College: Average Indicator Scores 

2.2 2.2

2.7

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Campus meeting space Access to student data Coach knowledge of college

Indicator Scores 

SOURCES: Coach Interviews, Student Survey 
IMPLEMENTATION INDEX 

Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 87

Indicators: 

Exhibit 8.6. Integration with College: Indicator and Component Scores, by Organization 

2.5 2.5 2.8 2.3 1.8 2.0 1.8 2.0

2.6

3.0 2.7 2.1

2.0

2.4 2.0 2.0 2.0

2.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 1.0

8.5

8.2 7.9

7.3 7.2 7.0 6.8

6.0

5.6

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Component Scores 

Coach knowledge of

college

Access to student

data

Campus meeting

space

Average Score 

SOURCES: Coach Interviews, Student Survey 

Coaching Processes and Activities Construct 

The Coaching Processes and Activities construct is made up of three components: Structure of 

Coach-Student Engagement, Nature of Coach-Student Engagement, and Nature of Support Activities.

The first and third components have three indicators each (component scores can range from 3 to 9); 

the second component has four indicators (component scores can range from 4 to 12). 

Structure of Coach-Student Engagement 

The Structure of Coach-Student Engagement component captures information about how coaches 

communicated with students, how often, and for how long. The box below highlights the key 

characteristics of high, moderate, and low implementation levels. 

High Implementation Moderate Implementation Low Implementation

(score of 7.5 to 9) (score of 5.5 to 7.4) (score of 5.4 or less)

 Most students are contacted using  Some students are contacted using  Few students are contacted using 

multiple (three or more) modes of multiple (three or more) modes of multiple (three or more) modes of 

communication communication communication

 Students meet over the phone or  Students meet over the phone or  Students meet with their coach 

in-person with coaches at least in-person with coaches at least four fewer than four times throughout 

eight times during the academic times a year, regardless of meeting the academic year

year length

 There are at least four phone or inperson meetings with coaches 

lasting 30 minutes or longer during 
Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 88

the academic year

Exhibit 8.7 presents averages on each indicator contributing to the Structure of Coach-Student 

Engagement component. Exhibit 8.8 presents information about each indicator and the overall 

component score for each organization. 

 On average, indicator scores are the lowest for this component: nonprofit organizations’ scores 

demonstrate a moderate level of implementation on the mode of communication (1.7) indicator, 

the lowest average score of all indicators in the index. Scores are also moderate, and slightly 

higher, for the frequency of interactions (2.1) and intensity of one-on-one interactions (2.2) 

indicators. 

 No nonprofit organizations scores at a high level of implementation for this component, and the 

average component score across organizations (6 out of 9) is lower than scores on the other 

components of this construct. Most organizations’ (seven of the nine) scores demonstrate a 

moderate level of implementation; two score at a low level of implementation. 

 The indicator scores vary within nonprofit organization. For example, Organization A scores 

among the highest on this component, and its indicators are scored at both the low and high 

levels. 

Overall, the findings suggest that the Structure of Coach-Student Engagement component may 

suggest room for improvement for all nonprofit organizations, and specifically in terms of the number 

of modes of communication used to reach out to students. Typically, students were contacted using an 

average of two modes of communication and, as highlighted in Chapter 6, they interacted primarily 

with their coach in-person and through texting. Prior research suggests that the amount of 

communication and contact coaches have with students may contribute to improved college-related 

outcomes (Castleman, Page, and Schooley 2014). Using a variety of modes to reach out to students 

may offer a means to increase the amount of contact coaches have with students, especially students 

who are difficult to reach or unresponsive to one or more modes of communication. 

Exhibit 8.7. Structure of Coach-Student Engagement: Average Indicator Scores 

1.7

2.1 2.2

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Mode of communication Frequency of interactions Intensity of one-on-one

interactions

Indicator Scores 

SOURCE: Program Database 
IMPLEMENTATION INDEX 

Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 89

Exhibit 8.8. Structure of Coach-Student Engagement: Indicator and Component Scores, by 

Organization 

1.0 1.0

2.0

3.0

2.0

1.0 1.0

2.0 2.0

3.0 3.0

3.0

2.0

2.0

2.0 2.0

1.0 1.0

3.0 3.0

2.0 2.0

2.0

3.0 3.0

1.0 1.0

7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0

6.0 6.0 6.0

4.0 4.0

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Component Scores 

Intensity of one-onone interactions

Frequency of

interactions

Mode of

communication

Average Score 

Indicators: 

SOURCE: Program Database 

Nature of Coach-Student Engagement 

The Nature of Coach-Student Engagement component measures an array of topics with four 

indicators: coach support for re-engagement, coach helpfulness, coach-student connection, and the 

number of coaches a student works with. The box below highlights the key characteristics of high, 

moderate, and low implementation levels. 

High Implementation Moderate Implementation Low Implementation

(score of 9.5 or more) (score of 7.5 to 9.4) (score of 7.4 or less)

 Coaches report active efforts to re-  Some coaches provide active re-  Few coaches provide support for 

engage students no longer enrolled engagement for students no longer re-engagement for students no 

in college enrolled in college longer enrolled in college

 Students report positive  Some students report positive  Few students report positive 

relationships with coaches, whom relationships with coaches and high relationships with coaches or find 

they find to be very helpful across a levels of coach helpfulness coach supports helpful

range of support topics  Some students report working with  Few students report working with 

 Most students work with only one only one coach only one coach 

coach

Exhibit 8.9 presents averages on each indicator contributing to the Nature of Coach-Student 

Engagement component. Exhibit 8.10 presents information about each indicator and the overall 

component score for each organization. 
Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 90

 Overall, scores on this component are at the high level of implementation (9.6 out of 12). 

Individually, five of nine nonprofit organizations’ scores are at the high level of implementation 

(9.5 or higher) and four score at a moderate level (7.5 to 9.4). 

 Nonprofits score at the high implementation level on the provides support for re-engagement

(2.7) and coach-student connection (2.9) indicators and at the moderate implementation level on 

the coach helpfulness (1.9) and number of coaches with whom students have worked (2.1) 

indicators. 

 Scores on the number of coaches with whom students have worked indicator are among the most 

variable in the index (two nonprofits score at the low implementation level, four at the moderate 

level, and three at the high level). At the same time, the coach-student connection and coach 

helpfulness indicators are among the most consistent of any in the index: scores for eight of nine 

organizations demonstrate high implementation on the former, and eight of nine score 

demonstrate moderate levels on the latter. 

The Nature of Coach-Student Engagement is distinct from other components: it is the only 

component on which organizations consistently score at a high level of implementation and for which 

indicators are both the most and the least variable. Note also that implementation levels on the coachstudent connection and coach helpfulness indicators (2.9 and 1.9, respectively) differ by a full point; 

this variation may reflect that they capture, by design, different aspects of the coach-student 

relationship. The coach-student connection indicator focuses on the relationships coaches have 

established with students and students’ perceived accessibility to their coach. The coach helpfulness 

indicator focuses on students’ reports that their coach has been very helpful across a variety of 

support topics. 

Exhibit 8.9. Nature of Coach-Student Engagement: Average Indicator Scores 

2.7

1.9

2.9

2.1

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Provides support for reengagementCoach helpfulness Coach-student

connection

Number of coaches

with whom students

have worked

Indicator Scores 

SOURCES: Student Survey, Coach Interviews 
IMPLEMENTATION INDEX 

Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 91

Exhibit 8.10. Nature of Coach-Student Engagement: Indicator and Component Scores, by 

Organization 

3.0 3.0

2.0

3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

1.0

2.0 2.0

2.0

2.0 2.0 2.0

1.0

2.0

2.0

3.0 3.0

3.0

3.0 3.0 3.0

2.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

2.0

3.0

2.0 2.0

1.0

3.0

1.0

2.0

11.0

10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0

9.0 9.0 9.0

8.0

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

Number of coaches

with whom students

have worked

Coach-student

connection

Coach helpfulness

Provides support for

re-engagement

Average Score 

Indicators: 

SOURCES: Student Survey, Coach Interviews 

Nature of Support Activities 

The Nature of Support Activities component focuses on sustained exposure to a variety of supports. 

The box below highlights the key characteristics of high, moderate, and low implementation levels. 

High Implementation Moderate Implementation Low Implementation

(score of 7.5 to 9) (score of 5.5 to 7.4) (score of 5.4 or less)

 Most students receive frequent  Some students receive frequent  Few students receive frequent 

support on a range of topics support on a range of topics support on a range of topics

 Most students are provided with an  Some students are provided with an  Few students are provided with an 

array of transition supports array of transition supports array of transition supports

Exhibit 8.11 presents averages on each indicator contributing to the Nature of Support Activities 

component. Exhibit 8.12 presents information about each indicator and the overall component score 

for each organization. 
Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 92

 Average indicator scores across organizations are almost identical: the sustained variety of 

support (2.2), exposure to support (2.2), and navigational supports (2.3) scores all reflect a 

moderate level of implementation. 

 As would be expected given the average indicator scores highlighted above, on average, 

organizations implement this component at a moderate level (6.7 out of 9). Individually, four 

nonprofit organizations’ scores are at a high level of implementation on this component (7.5 or 

higher); three organizations’ scores are at a moderate level (5.5 to 7.4); and two are at a low level 

(5.4 or less).

 Variation in implementation levels within organizations is the lowest of all components; that is, 

nonprofit organizations generally scored at the same level for each indicator in this component. 

For example, five of the nine organizations demonstrate the same implementation level across all 

indicators (A and G all high; D, E, and H all moderate). 

Overall, results suggest that some, but not most, students receive frequent support on various topics 

and are provided with an array of transition supports. Results also suggest that this component is 

implemented more consistently within organizations than the other components are. Thus, across the 

board, nonprofit organizations could expand the number of topics and support services they discuss 

with students, and potentially increase the frequency with which these are discussed. 

Exhibit 8.11. Nature of Support Activities: Average Indicator Scores 

2.2 2.2 2.3

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Sustained variety of support Exposure to support Navigational supports

Indicator Scores 

SOURCES: Student Survey, Program Database 
IMPLEMENTATION INDEX 

Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 93

Exhibit 8.12. Nature of Support Activities: Indicator and Component Scores, by Organization 

2.8 2.5 2.6 2.5 2.4 1.9 1.8 1.4 1.7

3.0

3.0 3.0 3.0

2.0

2.0 2.0

1.0

1.0

3.0

3.0

2.0 2.0

2.0

2.0 2.0

3.0 2.0

8.8 8.5

7.6 7.5

6.4

5.9 5.8

5.4

4.7

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Component Scores 

Navigational

supports

Exposure to support

Sustained variety of

support

Average Score 

Indicators: 

SOURCES: Student Survey, Program Database 

8.4 Learning Points 

The implementation index integrates data from multiple sources—coach interviews, student surveys, 

and the program database—to create a measure that describes the implementation of BosC4C. The 

index identifies specific areas in which all or most of the nonprofit organizations consistently 

implemented the BosC4C coaching model and areas in which their implementation varied. 

The two indicators with the lowest average scores suggest moderate implementation in these areas 

across the organizations and so could present opportunities for further development: 

 mode of communication (1.7)23 and 

 coach helpfulness (1.9). 

The mode of communication indicator measures the extent to which coaches are reaching out to 

students using multiple modes; the average score on this indicator may suggest that some coaches are 

relying on only one or two modes to connect with students. Particularly given some coaches’ reports 

of having a difficult time getting in touch with certain students, increasing the number of modes by 

which coaches reach out to students may be an area for growth. Interestingly, though the average 

 

23 In the 2015 Degrees of Coaching report, this indicator was highlighted as being especially high; for the 

current report, however, both the definition and the data source changed. Thus, the indicator is not directly 

comparable across years. 
Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 94

score on the coach-student connection indicator is high, suggesting students feel connected to their 

coach, the average for the coach helpfulness indicator is only just moderate, suggesting that even if 

students perceive their relationship generally with their coach as positive, they may not always find 

that the direct support they receive from their coach as helpful as desired. 

Across all five components in the index, nonprofit organizations’ scores are quite variable. Generally, 

even when a nonprofit organization scores at one end of the implementation spectrum for a particular 

component (whether high or low), that organization’s scores reflect a combination of high, moderate, 

and low implementation levels at the indicator level. The Nature of Support Activities component is 

an exception to that pattern: its variation in indicator scores within organizations is the lowest of all 

components, meaning that nonprofit organizations’ scores for multiple indicators are generally 

similar.

Scores on the number of coaches with whom students have worked indicator in the Nature of CoachStudent Engagement component are among the most variable in the index. At the same time, in this 

same component, scores on the coach-student connection and coach helpfulness indicators are among 

the most consistent of any in the index. 

In summary, the index offers a helpful tool for understanding the BosC4C coaching model, as well as 

the commonalities and variation in how organizations approach program implementation. The index 

provides a metric for assessing whether and how aspects of implementation influence student 

outcomes. As such, the index may help codify our understanding of best practices in transition 

coaching. 
DISCUSSION 

Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 95

9. Discussion

The six-year college graduation rate for Boston’s 2009 high school graduates who enrolled in college 

was 51 percent (McLaughlin et al., 2016). Though this represents a substantial improvement over the 

39 percent seven-year graduation rate of the class of 2000, even more dramatic improvement will be 

necessary to meet the predicted demand for a college-educated workforce. Though Success Boston is 

a multi-faceted initiative, one of its core programs, transition coaching, has documented particular 

potential to boost college graduation rates for Boston Public School graduates. 

In 2015-16, Success Boston’s coaching effort underwent a dramatic expansion, through BosC4C 

broadening its reach from nearly 400 to more than 900 students from each class served by transition 

coaching. The BosC4C continues to serve its target population: students traditionally 

underrepresented in postsecondary education. The diversity of the BosC4C student population 

represents an impressive accomplishment in its own right. 

This report describes the partner nonprofit organizations and colleges that collectively comprise the 

BosC4C program, summarizes the transition supports BosC4C provides to students and how students 

use them, reports on the costs required to implement BosC4C, and identifies areas for improvement, 

based on a thorough investigation of BosC4C during the 2015-16 academic year. Additionally, the 

study’s examination of implementation has identified student characteristics and coaching activities 

that may help us understand variation in student outcomes (to be reported in a future impact-focused 

report). 

9.1 Key Findings and Lessons Learned 

Drawing on key findings and lessons learned from program implementation in 2015-16, we can 

examine the implications for BosC4C practices in the future and offer recommendations for program 

implementation. 

BosC4C students aspire to attain postsecondary and advanced degrees 

The majority of BosC4C students—at both four-year and two-year colleges—expect to earn at least a 

bachelor’s degree (78 percent); 44 percent of students expect to attain a bachelor’s and 35 percent 

expect to attain a graduate degree. Indeed, the majority of students enrolled at two-year colleges 

expect to complete at least a bachelor’s degree (65 percent), suggesting that many current two-year 

college enrollees anticipate transferring to a four-year college, or possibly enrolling in a four-year 

institution after completing their associate’s degree.

Because a sizeable portion of BosC4C students hope to complete a bachelor’s degree (and those at 

two-year colleges will need to transfer to four-year institutions), both the program as a whole and its 

coaches may have an opportunity to focus services and supports specifically on the transfer process, 

and thereby ultimately improve students’ chances of success. In fact, some coaches indicated that 

additional training about the transfer process would be helpful. Transferring to a four-year institution 

and degree completion are among the outcomes that the study will examine in the future. 
Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 96

Coaches support students to successfully navigate college, through both referrals to campus 

resources and direct support 

BosC4C coaches engage in providing supports in areas that research suggests can be helpful in 

improving student outcomes (Bettinger et al. 2012; Bettinger and Baker 2014; Carrell and Sacerdote 

2013; Castleman, Arnold and Wartman 2012; Castleman, Page and Schooley 2014; Stephan and 

Rosenbaum 2013). Connecting students to resources such 

as tutoring and financial aid services, helping them plan 

their coursework and identify a major, working with them 

to understand financial aid processes and options, and 

developing a positive relationship with students have all 

been identified as mechanisms by which supports may 

improve outcomes for community college students in 

particular. College partners, BosC4C coaches, and 

students reported that connecting students to resources on 

and off campus is an important and common component 

of transition coaching. Almost 90 percent of students 

reported that their coach had taught them how to access 

needed resources on their college campus. 

Some partner colleges may offer introductory meetings or 

orientations for coaches to share information about oncampus student support services; however, more than half 

of coaches indicated they identify resources and services 

for their students independently, whether informally from 

fellow coaches or through exploring the college on their 

own. To support coaches’ continued referral efforts, 

coaches may benefit from campus-specific orientation 

sessions at partner colleges. These would introduce them to key campus support staff and to fellow 

BosC4C coaches on campus, to build knowledge of available supports on college campuses for the 

network of coaches and student support personnel. 

In addition to making referrals to specific campus services, coaches provide direct support to 

students, which requires coaches to be knowledgeable about a range of topics. One area that might 

benefit from purposeful attention program wide is college-work-life balance for students. Two-thirds 

of BosC4C students reported that they worked during the 2015-16 academic year, in jobs that were 

primarily off campus; these students’ work commitments claimed an average of 22 hours a week. 

Students indicated that balancing academics and work was challenging; half of the students with life 

and work responsibilities reported that these responsibilities interfered with their ability to attend 

classes or finish assignments. Both students and coaches reported that time management was a 

commonly discussed topic. An avenue that may be worth exploring is whether there may be ways for 

students to request (and receive) additional financial aid, which might alleviate the pressure to work 

additional hours while enrolled in college. 

Continued support in obtaining financial aid has been linked with college persistence and graduation 

(Castleman and Page 2016; Public Agenda 2009). In fact, BosC4C coaches universally reported that 

they supported students in completing financial aid and FAFSA forms. Coached students’ perceptions 

Potential Training Topics

For coaches: 

 how to support students with 

emotional needs and/or 

mental health issues 

 transferring from two- to fouryear colleges 

 managing life-work balance 

For nonprofit coaching 

organization leaders: 

 setting specific expectations 

of coaches 

 cost management techniques 

 defining the role of a coach 

to allow for assessing of 

coaching delivery, providing 

targeted feedback, and 

measuring coach progress 
DISCUSSION 

Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 97

reinforce the importance of such support, as the three topics about which students characterized 

coaches as most helpful are all related to financial aid (i.e., completion, renewal, understanding 

eligibility). 

Given that financial aid renewal is an outcome of interest, and it is related to persistence and 

completion outcomes, nonprofit organizations and TBF may want to continue to encourage coaches 

to provide support about financial aid in general, and enhance the availability of and coaches’ 

participation in uAspire financial aid trainings. 

Coaching models are fairly consistent across nonprofit organizations, yet variation in delivery of 

coaching is present 

Once transition coaching begins, coaches from across the nonprofit organizations emphasized two 

essential features of coaching: being responsive to student needs and customizing support to address 

each student’s individual needs for support and contact. Coaches vary the frequency, modes of 

communication, and focus of supports to “meet [students] where they’re at.” The BosC4C program, 

as a whole, provided support services on precisely those topics consistently found to influence college 

persistence and graduation, including monitoring course progress, financial aid support, course 

selection, time management, connecting students to resources, and study strategies. Though one 

coach may provide support on all of these topics, and more, any individual student may not receive 

support on all topics, depending on that student’s needs and interests.

The amount of coaching students receive also varies. On average, students interact with their coach 

nine times throughout the year. About one-quarter of students interacted with their coach 12 or more 

times during the year, and about one-third of students had five or fewer such interactions. The 

majority of students’ interactions with coaches were one-on-one meetings (in-person or by phone), 

corresponding to an average of six one-on-one meetings. Here, too, there is considerable variation in 

the number of one-on-one interactions: some students had 15 or more, and others had fewer than 

three. Students also interacted with coaches using email and texts, and to a lesser extent through 

phone calls and social media such as Facebook. The differences in student experiences point to a 

collective coaching philosophy that puts the individual needs of students at the forefront. 

Coaches typically use one or two modes of communication, which may reflect coaches’ efforts to 

tailor modes according to students’ responsiveness. Yet, coaches from specific nonprofit 

organizations tended to rely more heavily on certain modes than on others; roughly half of the 

nonprofit organizations supported students primarily in-person, four organizations relied primarily on 

texts and emails, and one organization relied on both in-person meetings and texts. To continue to 

engage students, particularly the hard-to-reach or disengaged students, coaches may consider reaching 

students through multiple modes. 

Prior research suggests that the amount of communication and contact coaches have with students 

may contribute to improved college-related outcomes (Castleman, Page, and Schooley 2014). On 

average, BosC4C coaches and students communicate less than once per month during the academic 

year and meet one-on-one every other month; the most communication occurred during October and 

February. The data also suggest inconsistencies in nonprofit organizations’ expectations about how 

often coaches should engage with students each semester. To ensure that all students receive a 

consistent threshold of coaching support, perhaps stakeholders could consider whether to establish a 

minimum number of interactions coaches should have with their students each semester. 
Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 98

Costs are almost evenly split between providing direct services to students and program 

administration 

The cost to implement BosC4C in 2015-16 totaled $5.3 million. This amount includes the value of all 

resources used by the nine nonprofit organizations, TBF, and network-wide partners (i.e., colleges, 

uAspire, and BPS) to provide BosC4C to 928 students during the 2015-16 fiscal year. The largest 

portion, representing 41 percent of all resources, amounting to $2,340 per student, went to personnel 

supporting BosC4C students’ academic success. Another 45 percent of resources went to 

administrative functions. Per-student costs and the relative prevalence of different cost categories 

varied substantially across organizations, reflecting variation in key aspects of program 

implementation (e.g., frequency of coach-student interactions, average caseloads), as well as variation 

in the numbers of students served and the size of the nonprofit organizations. As organizations 

became more familiar with SIF grant-reporting requirements and, for the three nonprofit 

organizations new to the Success Boston initiative, more familiar with BosC4C, some administrative 

costs may decrease. Moreover, expanding the number of students served by individual nonprofits to 

maximize economies of scale may also help to reduce program costs. 

Increased coordination among stakeholders could yield more efficient and effective program 

delivery 

The substantial increase in the number of students served in 2015-16 (as compared to 2014-15) meant 

more recruitment and a longer recruitment period, which had consequences for the start of active 

transition coaching. The vast majority of students (87 percent) experienced their first coaching 

interaction in the fall college semester, three percent had worked with a coach before the start of the 

academic year, and 10 percent first experienced coaching during the spring college semester. The 

months of August and September were characterized by low numbers of coach-student meetings, 

significantly fewer than in the prior year. Specifically, 63 percent of 2014 BPS graduates had coach 

interactions during September 2014, compared with 29 percent of 2015 BPS graduates, although the 

lower number of September interactions may well reflect scale-up challenges. Perhaps the 

combination of launching recruitment activities sooner after high school graduation and improving 

communication and coordination between nonprofit organizations and partner colleges could increase 

the efficiency of student recruitment; this, in turn, might allow coaching to start for most students in 

the first month of college, or earlier. 

In addition to better communication at the start of the year, coaches and the partner colleges believe 

ongoing communication and coordination throughout the year both helps to establish and maintain 

constructive relationships and allows BosC4C coaching to supplement the support services already 

available on campus. At several colleges, routine communication through regularly scheduled 

meetings between coaches and partner college staff is one mechanism for integrating coaching with 

existing campus services. Coordinated provision of supports means that coaches can more easily 

direct students to pertinent campus-based services, when appropriate. (The case studies of four 

college partners provide more insight into relationships between coaches and partner colleges; see 

Chapter 10 of this report.) 
DISCUSSION 

Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 99

The implementation index highlights the variability in coaching practices, student experiences, and 

costs both within and across nonprofit organizations in how BosC4C is implemented. Generally, 

regardless of whether a nonprofit organization’s overall index score is at the high or low end of the 

implementation continuum for a particular component, that organization’s scores on other 

components may reflect a combination of high, moderate, and low implementation levels. As the 

BosC4C program continues to serve new cohorts of students and engage new coaches, key 

stakeholders could continue to collaborate to identify specific coordination, recruitment and coaching 

practices shown to be effective both on the basis of prior research and the shared experiences of 

earlier years of implementation. Ongoing knowledge sharing and coordinated collaboration could 

result in more efficient provision of transition coaching and reduce costs. 

The findings described above illustrate how the BosC4C program has continued to support collegeentering students to navigate their first year in college, and also point to connections between aspects 

of program implementation and subsequent outcomes to be examined once we have obtained detailed 

9.2 Looking Forward 

Key Recommendations 

Based on the key findings and lessons learned from implementation of BosC4C in 2015-16, 

we offer the following recommendations: 

 Continue to expand and enhance the training and professional development opportunities 

provided by the Boston Foundation and nonprofit organizations to create and maintain 

common standards of practice and efficient delivery of supports. 

 Schedule campus-specific orientation sessions for BosC4C coaches at partner colleges at 

least once each year, possibly once each semester, to introduce nonprofit coaches to key 

campus support staff and to other BosC4C coaches on campus, to build knowledge of 

available supports on college campuses for the network of coaches and student support 

personnel. 

 Clearly define expectations for coach participation at uAspire trainings to encourage 

coaches to better take advantage of their trainings. 

 Encourage coaches to continue current practices of reaching students through multiple 

communication modes and of tailoring support and outreach according to students’ needs 

and academic progress. 

 Establish a minimum number of coach-student interactions required per semester to 

increase the consistency of coaching across the initiative. 

 Expand the number of students served by individual nonprofits to maximize economies of 

scale, potentially reducing program costs. 

 Support nonprofit organizations efforts to begin recruitment activities at the end of high 

school and over the summer to allow sufficient time for transition coaching to take root as 

students enter their first college semester in the fall. 

 Develop processes through which coaches and college partners can work together early to 

identify potential BosC4C participants. 

 Provide a point of contact at each partner college with a list of coaches and nonprofit 

organizations serving students on that campus to facilitate communication and 

coordination between coaches and college staff. 

 Encourage partner colleges to hold regular coaches meetings to improve communication 

and coordination between BoC4C coaches and college support staff. 
Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 100

information about key student outcomes. The findings also suggest that the nonprofit organizations 

have faced some challenges, especially in terms of filling caseloads and coordinating with college 

partners. These challenges hindered coaches’ capacity to support students as effectively as intended. 

As BosC4C continues to add new cohorts of students, helping coaches, their organizations, and the 

college partners manage these hurdles will clearly be important.

The findings reported here document the supportive structures already in place at nonprofit 

organizations, the partner colleges, and the Boston Foundation. These structures represent the 

essential elements of transition coaching. The report describes the what, when, how, and where 

coaching occurs, as well as the level of resources used, and coach and student perceptions about 

coaching, including identification of potential areas for improvement. As such, this report creates a 

comprehensive picture of BosC4C during the 2015-16 academic year. This report does not yet 

describe the implications of these coaching activities for student outcomes—that will occur in the 

interim report (scheduled for 2019), once the team has obtained and analyzed data on short-term 

student outcomes such as persistence, GPA, and FAFSA renewal. The interim report will also link 

key features of implementation to short-term outcomes. In the meantime, short-term outcomes for the 

two earlier cohorts will be released in early 2017, and will provide some insight about possible 

changes in student outcomes. As BosC4C continues with the second year of scale-up, the findings and 

recommendations presented here may inform ongoing improvements for transition coaching in 

Boston.
CASE STUDIES 

Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 101

10. Case Studies

Four colleges serve as case study sites, which 

together provide more information on the college 

campus contexts within which BosC4C is 

implemented. The four case studies describe how 

and when BosC4C, and its predecessor, Success 

Boston Coaching, are integrated on these college 

campuses, the support services available to all 

students, and how BosC4C and Success Boston 

Coaching may influence support service provision 

on college campuses. 

Partner colleges vary in their history of 

collaborating with BosC4C and Success Boston 

Coaching, enroll vastly different numbers of 

BosC4C students, host different nonprofit 

organizations, and vary in whether and how 

coaching has been integrated into the campus. 

However, the colleges also share similarities in their 

perceptions of BosC4C transition coaching as 

supplementing, not replacing, their own support 

services, in common recognition that 

communication is important, and in shared 

understanding of roles and goals. 

College personnel across the four case study sites also expressed concern about the sustainability of 

BosC4C, and whether/how to integrate it fully into college operations given the finite length of grant 

funding. The four colleges offered several recommendations to help the program be as successful as 

possible: 

 Designate a point person to communicate with coaches. This staff person could facilitate 

conversation and coordination with coaches and college staff. 

 Ensure coaches are aware of campus support services, thereby decreasing potential for 

misunderstanding and promulgation of misinformation. 

 Institute monthly meetings for coaches in which experienced college support staff can train 

coaches on valuable skills, communicate campus-specific information, and coordinate activities.

Though these cases studies provide rich detail about this set of four college campuses, these are but 

four of 50-plus colleges attended by BosC4C students. The study team interviewed diverse college 

administrators, staff and students across the four campuses, yet the sample sizes of each respondent 

group (college leadership, college support staff, and non-BosC4C students) were small. As a result, 

findings reported below should be interpreted with caution, and are not representative of the complete 

set of partner colleges. 

Data Sources for the Four Case 

Studies 

College leaders and staff at Bunker 

Hill Community College, 

Massachusetts Bay Community 

College, Roxbury Community College, 

and University of Massachusetts 

Boston who were familiar with BosC4C 

were interviewed about the support 

services provided to all students, 

integration of BosC4C on campus, and 

how BosC4C fits into broader 

institutional goals, policies, and 

practices. See Appendix E for the 

interview protocol. 

Students not receiving BosC4C 

coaching at the four campuses 

participated in focus groups. Questions 

focused on students’ awareness and 

use of their college’s academic, 

financial, career, personal, and other 

support services. See Appendix F for 

the focus group protocol. 
Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 102

10.1 Roxbury Community College 

Roxbury Community College (RCC), located in Boston’s Roxbury neighborhood, is a public 

institution that offers two-year associate degrees and enrolls more than 2,400 students annually. RCC 

serves primarily part-time and adult learners. It began its relationship with Success Boston in 2009. 

Between 2009 and 2015, RCC experienced significant leadership changes and the changing policies 

and practices that often follow; it weathered enrollment declines during this period, as fewer BPS 

graduates enrolled in RCC immediately following high school. 

Despite frequent change at RCC, transition coaching remains a consistent, albeit small, presence on 

campus. Between the 2009-10 and 2015-16 academic years, 82 RCC students participated in 

transition coaching through Success Boston Coaching and BosC4C. Each year, RCC enrolls a 

relatively small number of coached students. During 2015-16, 20 RCC students participated in 

BosC4C; five coaches from four (of nine) nonprofit organizations worked with the students. 

Student Support Services at RCC 

In addition to BosC4C, RCC provides other campus support services available to students. RCC 

leaders (n=1), support staff (n=4), and non-BosC4C students (n=7) described the supports available 

and those commonly used. They also provided ideas for additional supports. 

Staff described the following types of support services as available to students: 

 Academic supports, such as academic advisors assigned to all currently enrolled students; 

tutoring services; and math and writing centers; 

 Financial aid and planning supports, such as a financial aid office and Single Stop, a service that 

connects students to community services and state and federal financial support; 

 Career services, such as a career development coordinator and an internship coordinator. 

Support staff and students were less specific about the health and personal supports available to 

students. 

The RCC student focus group participants expressed general satisfaction with their academic advisors 

and their experiences with both math and writing tutoring centers. One student who struggled with 

writing described how her academic advisor checked in with her regularly about her writing skills, 

and called her if she did not show up for a tutoring session. A second student described visiting the 

math help room every day when she was taking a statistics class, and using the writing center to gain 

“a different perspective” on her writing.

Focus group students, as a group, were less familiar with financial, career, and mental health 

resources available on campus. College staff also reported that it can be difficult to disseminate 

information to students about the different resources available to them on campus, particularly 

because services are spread across multiple offices. However, staff reported that once students knew 

what was available, they generally responded and used the services. 

Given that RCC serves a large population of adult learners and nearly half of RCC students enroll 

part-time, students’ limited availability and time spent on campus might increase the difficulty for 

support staff to engage and support students with campus support services. RCC support staff also 
CASE STUDIES

Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 103

described their own offices as “siloed” from one another; they explained that they do not interact with 

or see other group interview participants frequently. Staff believe this separation to be a challenge to 

community building and collaboration across departments and offices.

Students’ concerns may have reflected lack of knowledge about available support services; they 

expressed concerns and frustrations with the overall organization and quality of the services. For 

example, just one (of seven) focus group students knew of a job fair occurring on campus that same 

day, with the other participants reporting that this was the first they had heard about the event. 

Another said that, when she did seek help, career services staff just pointed her to resources she could 

have found on her own and, as a result, she did not feel like she received the support she was looking 

for.

In terms of academic supports, students explained that the writing and math centers offered students a 

limited amount of tutoring time per week, causing issues for students taking multiple writing and/or 

math courses. As one student elaborated, “Sometimes I would spend my entire day [at the center] and 

you can only have one hour of tutoring and that’s not enough if you’re taking three English classes.” 

Another student expressed concerns about the quality of tutoring provided, explaining that while 

some tutors are very helpful, others are not. Further, students expressed that this variation in quality 

leads them to want to return only to seek support from the specific tutors with whom they have 

developed a relationship.

Students reported challenges accessing Single Stop, which they described as run by one person, 

which they found to be “tough” and a “crazy” amount of responsibility for the amount of services the 

office provides. One student explained, “The one problem with Single Stop is they try to help [too] 

many students and they plan events to go to, but that doesn’t help the individual needs of students.” 

The student elaborated that sometimes when seeking support on a particular topic, instead of holding 

a one-on-one meeting, students are directed by Single Stop to an upcoming event about that same 

topic, which can cause problems for time-sensitive issues.

Integration of BosC4C Coaching on Campus

The college leader described BosC4C coaching as a service that supplements the college’s existing 

support services. The college leader and support staff expressed more limited knowledge, however, 

about how the coaches interact with students and college staff on a day-to-day basis. RCC’s college 

support staff were less aware of BosC4C than the college leader, with two of four support staff 

learning about BosC4C coaching during the group interview. The other two support staff, who knew 

of BosC4C, generally corroborated the college leader’s observation that BosC4C coaches provided 

supplemental services, in particular to support students across RCC’s more specialized, and siloed, 

support offices. One staff member said the coaches were “generalists” and explained that, “It’s hard 

for us as employees here to know everything at the college and to ask [BosC4C] coaches to do that, 

that’s going to take a lot more time to roll out.” 

The two staff members familiar with BosC4C noted that one coach in particular actively collaborated 

with college staff and engaged students, whereas the other BosC4C coaches did not do so. One of

these two staff members works in transfer services, and explained that providing supplemental 

supports can be successful and collaborative by working with one of the BosC4C coaches at RCC 

who also works with students transferring to the University of Massachusetts Boston. She pointed to 

her relationship with this coach as an ideal model for support, explaining that he directs students to 
Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 104

her transfer office when necessary, and will also walk students’ transcripts directly to UMB offices, a 

service her office has neither the time nor the budget to provide. She elaborated, “[The coach] will 

know a lot of specific of things at [a different partner college] but I won’t to that degree that he does. 

So that’s what I mean by working together. It’s really an awareness of how the institution functions.” 

This type of communication and collaboration is something RCC staff expressed an interest in 

increasing in the future.

Staff did not necessarily perceive the BosC4C and college goals as aligned. Staff mentioned two 

challenges with integration of goals and purpose of coaching and college supports: (1) the goals of 

coaching organizations may differ from those of the college, and (2) coaches may not have a strong 

enough handle on the services available, impeding their ability to provide students with accurate 

guidance. The staff member most familiar with BosC4C coaching said the coaches’ own 

organizational goals and objectives were sometimes “superimposed” on the college’s aims. She 

explained, “[Coaches] come in with a clear set of goals to a place that already has goals and 

objectives for students. They have reporting requirements and it’s independent of our reporting 

requirements.” She also stressed the need for coaches to be more aware of the services RCC provides 

so they can see what “the gaps are for students and ... build a bridge to the best of their ability, 

meeting their reporting requirements, but bridging those gaps.” Ultimately, when coaches were less 

aware of college support services, she reported, coaches sometimes provided students with inaccurate, 

conflicting information.

Staff perceived coaches as “generalists” and acknowledged that coaches therefore need to be 

informed across the various areas of support services at RCC. At the same time, staff across offices 

mentioned feeling isolated from one another. That isolation may impede coaches’ abilities to acquire 

the knowledge needed to fill the generalist role at RCC.

RCC staff mentioned communication with coaches as a challenge, which RCC addressed by 

designating a BosC4C college liaison (in 2015). The liaison, who oversees and facilitates BosC4C on 

campus, selected a colleague in the student life office to help coaches schedule office space and to 

facilitate coordination and communication. This BosC4C coordinator held introductory meetings with 

the coaches, but reported limited subsequent interactions with most coaches. Email is the primary 

means of communication between the college liaison and coaches.

RCC’s BosC4C college liaison explained that, in addition to the introductory meeting, one of her first 

steps was to develop a clear understanding of the coaches’ roles and goals. Similar to the RCC 

support staff, the college liaison also acknowledged the need to increase coaches’ awareness of 

campus services; she believed that to date a collaborative relationship with open communication is 

present only with one of the BosC4C coaches. As a result, college staff expressed hopes to convene a 

meeting with BosC4C coaches and college support staff to discuss what is working and what can be 

improved on.

BosC4C coaches, too, see the need for greater communication and coordination with RCC staff, 

particularly related to awareness of campus support services. Two BosC4C coaches who worked at 

RCC described learning about campus services informally, through an initial meeting with college 

leadership, and then walking around and introducing themselves to staff from different departments.
CASE STUDIES

Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 105

Accessing student data is a challenge for coaches at RCC. The college does not have a process in 

place whereby coaches can access student data; moreover, no plans exist for setting up a process—for 

example, through students’ signed Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act waivers.

One staff member described coaches as being particularly active and attending barbeques, student 

fashion shows, and other activities to check in with the students on their caseloads. However, support 

staff also believed coaches are largely unaware of how to engage and target students on campus.

College support staff discussed how to address challenges with integrating coaches on campus. They 

suggested including BosC4C coaches in monthly support staff meetings so that college staff, as one 

staff member described, “could get an update and ... hear an update from us about ways to integrate 

so it’s not so isolated” and to continue to deepen the relationships between the two groups. If not 

monthly meetings, college staff suggested holding a single event for both support staff and BosC4C 

coaches to improve understanding other each other’s roles and open lines of communication.

Influence of Coaching on Practices and Policies

Data from interviews with support staff and the college leader, the BosC4C coaches interviews, and 

the student focus group do not point to any changes at RCC in policies or practices resulting from 

participation in BosC4C and its predecessor, Success Boston Coaching. However, college staff 

suggested it would be valuable for RCC to create its own program, especially given that the BosC4C 

coaching program will likely end at some point in the coming years. One college staff member 

specifically voiced concerns about program sustainability and student success when BosC4C ends. 

She expressed interest in hiring someone part-time to provide coaching services to students once 

BosC4C ends. Staff also expressed interest in expanding coaching services beyond BosC4C to be able 

to provide similar support services to more of its student population.

Lessons Learned

RCC offers a variety of supports to all its students; commonly reported supports include academic, 

financial, and career services. Students reported access to academic supports most commonly, but 

noted that the level of academic support currently available at RCC is not always sufficient. Students 

were less aware of financial, career, and mental health resources. College support staff reported 

difficulty getting the word out to students about the myriad of support services and events available 

on campus.

RCC’s leadership and support staff, as well as BosC4C coaches themselves, also viewed 

communication and collaboration between the college and coaches as a challenge. Communication is 

critical to successful integration of BosC4C coaching on college campuses. Strategies identified in 

interviews to improve communication and collaboration include a larger and more concrete role for 

the point person designated to mediate between the two, and coordinated meetings between college 

staff and coaches to increase the latter’s awareness of available college services and supports.

On the whole, RCC staff view BosC4C coaching as a valuable supplemental support, and they 

discussed the possible creation of a part-time coach position housed at and funded by Roxbury 

Community College.
Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 106

10.2 University of Massachusetts Boston 

University of Massachusetts Boston (UMB) is a public, four-year university that serves just under 

17,000 students. UMB began working with the Success Boston Initiative in 2009. Between the 2009-

10 and 2015-16 academic years, 733 UMB students worked with a coach from a nonprofit 

organization as a part of Success Boston and BosC4C transition coaching. The number of UMB 

enrollees participating in coaching provided by the nonprofit organizations has steadily increased 

each year; 28 participated in 2009-10, and 179 did so in 2015-16. UMB enrolled nearly 20 percent of 

BosC4C students; those students worked with 21 BosC4C coaches from seven (of nine) nonprofit 

organizations in 2015-16. 

BosC4C coaches, however, do not serve all BPS students at UMB. In 2010, UMB launched its own 

coaching program to provide support services, to BPS graduates outside the reach of the BosC4C 

coaches, both to address capacity constraints and as part of efforts by the college to integrate and 

embed the coaching model within the college As a result, since 2010, UMB Success Coaches served 

additional 470 students, ensuring that all incoming first-time BPS graduates are assigned to a coach. 

UMB Success Coaches also support BPS graduates who enter UMB as transfer students and other 

non-BPS graduates who are referred to them by other UMB offices or programs. 

Student Support Services at UMB 

Through interviews and a focus group, UMB leaders (n=2), support staff (n=11), and non-BosC4C 

students (n=6) described a diverse and connected array of support services available to all currently 

enrolled students. The types of support services commonly described as available to students were: 

 Academic, ranging from academic advisors to tutoring services to UMB’s own Success Coaches. 

All new students are assigned an academic advisor when they enroll at UMB; students can either 

drop in to speak with an advisor informally or schedule an appointment. Further, UMB recently 

changed the structure of its academic advising system and hired additional professional advisors 

that are based within the colleges to help reduce faculty advisor caseloads. First-year students are 

typically assigned to one of the professional advisors, who are able to help with non-academic 

topics pertaining to college life and success as well as with academic advising. UMB also 

employs MAP-Works, a student retention and success software package, to which every UMB 

student has an account and is able to log in and track his or her academic progress. 

 Financial, including the financial aid office and One-Stop, an on-campus resource center that 

assists students with services ranging from financial aid to billing inquiries to registrar questions. 

It also offers support in money management and emergency funds.24

 Career, including resume reviews and MyCareerOnline, a jobs database available to students 

looking for jobs and internships. The career services office offers walk-in sessions, during which 

students can meet with a peer advisor, who is UMB-trained by career services to assist students, 

or can schedule an appointment with a career specialist. 

 Health and personal, including counseling services, which include mental health services and 

self-care resources for students. 

 

24

 https://www.umb.edu/campus_center/services/one_stop 
CASE STUDIES

Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 107

UMB staff also discussed offering students other resources outside academic, financial, career, and 

counseling offices. These included community service programs, as well as programs and English 

classes specifically for English Language Learners.

The six students participating in the focus group expressed general satisfaction with the academic, 

financial, career, and personal resources available to them at UMB. Overall, students described most 

frequently accessing:

 advising and tutoring services

 career services

 FAFSA support, and

 mental health counseling.

Two students in the focus group also had access to UMB Success Coaches.

Students reported a mix of experiences and ways in which they were introduced or connected to 

resources. Overall, they agreed that advisors and friends play a substantial role in connecting them to 

support services. One student stressed the importance of working with an advisor to ensure collegiate 

success, recommending, “Get a connection with an advisor as soon as you get into the university. I 

wasn’t getting the right guidance for adding and dropping [classes], so you need to keep in touch with 

[your advisor]. ... Don’t do it on your own.”

Another student who used the mental health services on campus believed the services available were 

beneficial. However, this student noted that a family member had directed him to the mental 

counseling services, and that he had not received any informational materials from UMB directly 

about this support. He explained, “I found it myself. No one helped me find it here.” Another student 

recommended mental health services be “expanded and advertised,” so that on-campus mental health 

professionals could reach more students.

Overall, focus group students reiterated their satisfaction with the availability and quality of services 

UMB provides. One student elaborated: “I think UMass Boston offers a lot and went way above and 

beyond my expectation for those services. I’m trying to use those services as much as I can, but it’s 

time [that is the issue].”

Though generally satisfied with the supports available, students reported challenges actually 

accessing the supports on campus. In particular, they cited their busy schedules. Students 

recommended that UMB increase its offering of tutoring and career services drop-in hours to more 

readily accommodate students’ class schedules, extracurricular activities, and part-time jobs.

Focus group participants reported less satisfaction with MAP-Works, which none of the participants 

had found to be beneficial to his or her college experience. One explained: “If you miss like one class, 

you get a low percentage. As if you’re going to fail.” Another student echoed this experience, calling 

MAP-Works “dangerous” because of how discouraging the system can be for students. Asked how 

the program could be improved, a third student suggested (and her peers agreed) that MAP-Works 

focus more on mental health. She explained, “Rather than asking, did you miss class, ask why you 

missed class” to get to the root of absenteeism and retention problems. While MAP-Works does not 

technically track students’ day-to-day attendance, students’ misconceptions about the system may 
Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 108

also have reinforced their frustrations. Since 2015-16, MAP-Works has been discontinued and 

replaced with a new student retention and success software.

Integration of BosC4C Coaching on Campus

Success Boston coaches at UMB were described by college staff as helping to supplement the diverse 

array of services UMB provides for its student body. UMB leadership stressed the importance of 

integrating the coaches into its efforts to enhance student success and development. They went on to 

distinguish between the role of a BosC4C coach and the role of an advisor, explaining that “UMB 

was very clear that you are coming on as a coach and effective referral agent and understanding our 

practices toward graduation, but you are not taking on the role of academic advising and registering 

students for classes. We want that to stay in the hands of the advisors.” UMB leaders expressed that 

coaches’ job is to teach students how to take full advantage of advising and other campus services and 

resources and to help them problem-solve challenges they may be facing outside of school. A second 

UMB support staff member, a student advisor and a former Success Boston student, also 

distinguished the role of an advisor from that of a coach with an analogy likening BosC4C coaches to 

football coaches. He explained,

If the quarterback is sacked, you have multiple spectators. You have people watching from 

multiple angles. The coaches’ position is unique because they have gone through that 

experience and know the fans and ... they can guide the players in this game, so to speak. 

Just like coaches at practices, BosC4C coaches are on campus. When I [as a Success Boston 

student] thought about dropping out, my coach was here and talked to me in the cafeteria, 

and that’s what makes it unique.

Though the Success Boston coach role was described as supplemental to support services at UMB, 

support staff recognized the unique and personal relationships BosC4C coaches formed with the 

students on their respective caseloads, and noted that college staff were not so easily able to establish 

such close relationships. In addition to close relationships, staff also noted that coaches had the time 

and freedom to work with students in ways college employees could not. One career services staff 

member described an instance in which a BosC4C nonprofit organization brought some of its UMB 

students to a Hispanic career fair, an after-hours event UMB staff members could not attend 

themselves. The same staff member described how helpful it is to have coaches take a first pass at 

revising students’ cover letters and resumes. The staff member elaborated, “I can’t edit a whole cover 

letter in a 30-minute period, so that additional level of sitting with them and working through it, it 

meant a higher quality document.... That additional level has helped students get over the hump.”

UMB support staff actively create and maintain strong, communicative relationships with BosC4C 

coaches. UMB hosts monthly meetings, which include BosC4C coaches, UMB Success Coaches, and 

select UMB support staff. These monthly coaches’ meetings offer an opportunity for coaches from 

across the different organizations all serving UMB students to come together and to meet college 

support staff and learn about campus services. In addition, biannually, UMB Success Coaches and 

BosC4C coaches review students’ progress toward graduation (i.e., degree audits) to determine which 

UMB students are on track academically and to identify potential trends among the students they 

serve. UMB also designates a point of contact between the university and BosC4C coaches to ensure 

the coaches are integrated into the university’s student success efforts, to facilitate coordination and 

co-planning, and to regularly communicate with coaches about campus space, deadlines, and events.
CASE STUDIES

Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 109

BosC4C coaches reported meeting with students in multiple locations at UMB, including the library, 

the cafeteria, and designated shared-workstations assigned to coaches. The designated workstations 

are shared amongst several coaches, and UMB staff members recognized that “space here [at UMB] 

is a challenge.” Though coaches meet students in varying locations on campus, UMB staff members 

still reported that BosC4C coaches are visible. Another employee noted how UMB has strategically 

tried to integrate the BosC4C program into its broader system of student supports; instead of being 

“an aside thing,” it is a purposefully embedded support.

In terms of accessing student data at UMB, a college leader explained that some coaches have limited 

access to the UMB student database. UMB classifies these coaches as contingent workers and they 

receive monthly supervision from the Director of the Advising Center. Coaches without this 

classification can receive updates on students’ academic progress from UMB provided they obtain 

signed Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) waivers from their students. Given the 

various administrative steps in obtaining direct access to the system, many coaches reported accessing 

academic progress directly with their students. 

Overall, 10 of 11 support staff at UMB said that the BosC4C coaches were well integrated with their 

services and work on their campus. The disability center was the only exception; its staff described 

“very little interaction” with the BosC4C coaches, and wished they could provide the coaches with 

more training on disabilities and disability services. Leaders at UMB also acknowledged needing to 

increase collaboration between coaches and the disability center, recognizing that coaches sometimes 

work with students with complex disabilities who need more support. College leaders also cited

differences between how nonprofit organizations, structure coaching caseloads, as being a potential 

hindrance to integration with UMB. For example, some organizations assign students to coaches 

based on where they attend college or based on existing relationships coaches have with students; this 

results in some coaches serving students at just one or two colleges, while other coaches work across 

many different colleges. Another challenge, cited by the leaders, was turnover among BosC4C 

coaches.

College staff recommended other ways in which the program could be even more beneficial and 

better integrated on campus. For example, financial aid office staff observed that occasionally, 

coaches had provided students with information not aligned with the college’s guidance, which 

concerned them since financial policies and practices are externally regulated. A second staff member 

concurred that “[A coach] can’t be an expert in everything,” and suggested that coaches should refer 

students to relevant college staff if they are unsure of how to advise students on a particular subject 

instead of trying to figure it out themselves.

College leaders raised questions about the sustainability and future of BosC4C coaching, especially 

because UMB, even with its own set of coaches, reported feeling “dependent” on BosC4C coaches’

support to reach all BPS students enrolled at UMB. They noted, if the program were to end, they 

would be left without a key student support service.

Influence of Coaching on Practices and Policies

Partnership with the BosC4C program and its predecessor, Success Boston Coaching, contributed to 

UMB’s decision to establish its own set of Success Coaches in 2010. In fact, since its launch, the 

Chancellor of UMB has served as co-chair of the Success Boston initiative, helping to spearhead 

implementation of the coaching program by the nonprofit organizations and, recognizing coaching’s 
Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 110

potential early on, to proactively embed coaching into UMB’s own support services. The university 

uses its coaches to support BPS graduates outside the reach of the Success Boston coaches; its 

coaches are included in monthly meetings with Success Boston coaches. The purposeful inclusion of 

both types of coaches reflect UMB leadership’s interest in creating an even more collaborative, 

beneficial relationship with Success Boston coaches to help inform how the university allocates its 

resources and “open up conversation about curriculum and design.” UMB recognizes that all four 

years of students’ experiences, not just the first two years, are crucial in enabling them to succeed and 

graduate. 

Lessons Learned 

One UMB staff member, a former Success Boston student at UMB, described the element of Success 

Boston Coaching he believes sets it apart from all other support services: 

When it comes to working with people and young people, I’ve learned that the work is done 

out of sympathy or empathy. It’s sympathy if you feel like you should give back and you do so 

9 to 5. But Success Boston is approaching students through an empathetic lens. If sympathy is 

9 to 5, empathy is 24/7. ... Success Boston coaches have gone to graduations and to funerals. 

He concluded that one of his largest lessons learned is that “the organic nature” of the BosC4C 

coaching is why the program “has continued to work.” His statement received a round of applause 

from his colleagues, prompting multiple staff members to agree: “I couldn’t have said it better.”

10.3 Bunker Hill Community College 

Bunker Hill Community College (BHCC) is a public, two-year community college that serves more 

than 14,000 students across two main campuses in Charlestown and Chelsea, Massachusetts, with 

three satellite campuses, one in Malden and two in Boston neighborhoods. BHCC first partnered with 

Success Boston in 2009. BHCC consistently enrolls approximately one-third of students coached 

through BosC4C and its predecessor, Success Boston Coaching; in 2015-16, one-third (32 percent) of 

all BosC4C students attended BHCC and worked with 28 BosC4C coaches from eight of nine 

nonprofit organizations. 

BHCC also offers its own coaching program to all new students, including BosC4C students. 

Incoming students, enrolled in one of the college’s Learning Communities Seminars, are assigned to a 

BHCC Success Coach who support their transition to college. 

Student Support Services at BHCC 

Over the past 10 years, the student population at BHCC has nearly doubled in size.25 Consequently, 

BHCC provides support services to more students than ever before. Interviews with one BHCC leader 

(n=1), support staff (n=4), and a focus group with non-BosC4C students (n=18) described the diverse 

and connected array of support services available to all enrolled students. College staff estimated that 

between one-quarter and one-third of students take advantage of one or more available student 

 

25 From 8,212 students enrolled in the Fall 2006 semester (http://www.bhcc.edu/media/03-

documents/FactBook0607.pdf) to 14,047 students enrolled in Fall 2015 

(http://www.bhcc.mass.edu/about/institutionaleffectiveness/fastfacts/) 
CASE STUDIES

Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 111

services.

BHCC provides wrap-around services, academic, financial aid, career-oriented, and personal 

supports.

 Wrap-Around Services. The LifeMap Commons marries services in six distinct student areas 

(career planning, education planning, e-portfolio, financial planning, social network, and support 

network). Modeled after the LifeMap program at Valencia College (Florida), BHCC adapted its 

program to be the hub for both student services and academic affairs on campus. Through the 

LifeMap center, students can access other services including:

- Tutoring and Academic Support Center

- Career Services Center

- Summer transition programs, and

- Transfer workshops.

In 2006, under a Federal Title III grant, , BHCC launched the Learning Communities Seminars 

(LCS). New students can choose from one of the numerous LCSs to aid their transition to BHCC. 

The LSCs are led by faculty and supported by 11 BHCC Success Coaches26; they are smaller 

courses that integrate hands-on activities. The Success Coaches aim to support students’ 

educational, career, and personal needs during their first semester. One college staff member 

estimated that 6,500 students are assigned to one of the 11 Success Coaches each academic year 

(4,000 in the fall and 2,500 in spring semesters) as part of the LCSs.

BHCC has a Single Stop initiative designed to provide rapid-response, wrap-around services to 

students, including access to food, shelter, financial counseling, health insurance, and other 

essential supports.

 Academic supports. The Tutoring and Academic Support Center (TASC) provides students with 

academic support through tutors who provide both individual and group review sessions. TASC 

staff refer students to other specialized centers on campus, including the Writing Place, the 

Language Lab, and the Math Space. These supports provide students with subject area–specific 

tutoring, workshops, and review sessions. Disabilities Support Services support eligible students’ 

additional academic needs through testing, arranging course accommodations and academic and 

career advising.

 Financial Aid. The financial aid office offers students advising and counseling services about 

financial aid status and packages. The Textbook Assistance Program (TAP) is a popular campus 

program through which students borrow textbooks; students who return the books at the end of 

the semester become eligible to borrow again the next semester.

 Career services. The career services office provides information on internship opportunities for 

students, career advancement and planning, and workshops and resources to students (e.g., 

creating a resume, interview skills, and job placement). The Learn and Earn program, launched 

 

26 BHCC leadership indicated that two additional coaches will be hired in the future.
Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 112

during the 2012-13 academic year, places students in internships in the Greater Boston area. 

BHCC staff reported that more than 100 students per semester participate in the program to gain 

career-related experience.

 Health and personal supports. BHCC employs two health counselors on campus who provide 

crisis counseling to students and refer them to long-term community resources when necessary. 

During the 2015-16 academic year, BHCC launched the Campus Assessment, Response and 

Evaluation (CARE) team, providing behavioral interventions and health and safety supports to 

students, especially to those demonstrating concerning behavior.

Despite the breadth and depth of services available, some college staff observed that students do not 

necessarily take advantage of the services, perhaps because the students aren’t aware they exist. 

Although students have access to a wide range of services, college staff reported that in recent years 

they noticed that students were not familiar with these services and not taking full advantage of 

support services. To improve knowledge of and access to supports, in recent years BHCC updated 

information disseminated in new student orientation materials, course catalogues, and course 

curricula; asks its instructional faculty to professors integrate services into course assignments (e.g., 

requiring students to visit and learn about the services on campus, requiring students workshop 

provided by the college); and sends support service coordinators (i.e., from TASC or the Language 

Lab) into classrooms to present information directly to students. Based on informal student feedback, 

it also expanded TASC’s hours and provided more flexibility in how students access services (e.g., 

drop-in sessions, appointments, group review sessions).

BHCC also made a concerted effort in recent years to raise staff awareness of all support available. 

Advising staff, including the Success Coaches, regularly refer students to relevant support services on 

campus, sometimes even escorting them directly to a relevant service. One college staff member 

described this shift: “And I think my staff would say that over the past eight years, we went from 

students saying ‘Huh, we have a tutoring center?’ to ‘Yeah, I’ve been there.’”

BHCC staff believe the cumulative effect of these efforts has led to a recent upswing in student 

awareness and take-up of services offered. To help promote student use of services, college staff plan 

to develop a technology-based tool to disseminate information about them.

BHCC focus group students reported that they access support services most frequently through the 

LifeMap Commons, especially for TASC tutoring services. Two students noted that it took them 

some time to learn how the LifeMap Commons could benefit them, and as a result, they began using 

it regularly only after their first semester at BHCC.

Two other students discussed positive interactions with Single Stop staff; whom they noted can help 

answer personal and financial questions and support more than just students’ academic needs. Two 

other students indicated they had made regular appointments with Disabilities Support Services when 

they first started at BHCC. Two other students expressed appreciation for the varied ways they can 

get services through these offices, including both drop-in sessions and appointments.

Two focus group participants were transfer students who described accessing and navigating support 

services as challenging, because the college’s processes (e.g., registering for courses, advising) were 

not intuitive and straightforward. Although they reported using services and resources on campus, 
CASE STUDIES

Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 113

these two students emphasized that student support service offices can be difficult to navigate despite 

the role that the LifeMap Commons plays on campus as a hub for student information.

Integration of BosC4C Coaching on Campus

Though the BHCC Success Coaches on campus aim to provide services similar to the BosC4C 

transition coaching, they cannot support the entire student population. College staff reported that,

ideally, Success Coaches would be able to dedicate equivalent amounts of time to each student as do 

BosC4C coaches, yet 11 Success Coaches do not have the time or capacity to serve 14, 000 BHCC 

students. One staff member commented,

We haven’t been able to do the kind of the intensive advising that they’re doing, the coaching. 

And so that was always our hope that we would get there. But in reality, we’ve got 11 fulltime staff right now, and we’ve got to divide 14,000 students by 11, and it’s just not a 

reasonable caseload.

At BHCC, BosC4C represents a meaningful extension of services beyond those provided by Success 

Coaches, albeit to a specific subgroup of enrolled students. All students enrolled in BHCC Learning 

Community Seminars are assigned Success Coaches through BHCC. When incoming BHCC students

have pre-existing connections with BosC4C nonprofit coaching organizations, they are supported by 

both BosC4C coaches and Success Coaches. In practice, because Success Coaches have large student 

caseloads, students with both a Success Coach and a BosC4C coach are encouraged to rely on their 

BosC4C coach for college-based coaching and individual support. 

Since 2009, when Success Boston Coaching, and now BosC4C coaching was introduced at BHCC,

staff indicate that the coach-college partnership has become more cohesive. College staff said that 

over the years, BosC4C coaches have become increasingly familiar with BHCC student services, and 

college staff now view BosC4C coaches as an essential supportive service available to eligible 

students. One staff member explained that she believes that it is important for students to hear about 

BHCC services from multiple sources, including Success Boston coaches, to emphasize their 

availability.

BHCC staff host monthly coaches’ meetings for BosC4C coaches and staff from any other similar 

coaching programs on campus (e.g., Cambridge and Chelsea coaching programs). These monthly 

meetings generally last an hour and a half; the first half is generally devoted sharing college updates, 

and the second half is usually used to familiarize coaches with BHCC-specific systems and processes. 

Representatives from different student support service offices (e.g., LifeMap, Single Stop, TASC) 

attend meetings, as relevant, to promote active coordination and collaboration with coaches. In each 

student support office, BosC4C coaches are assigned a point of contact, and these representatives are 

often the staff who attend the monthly meetings. The meetings foster easier information sharing 

between coaches and staff, and provide opportunities for coaches to provide feedback about services, 

based on their experiences and what they hear from students.

The college also designated one BosC4C coach as the point person through whom information is 

disseminated from staff to coaches and vice versa. The college staff voiced their appreciation for 

having the coach represent the BosC4C program; they believe that this is an invaluable strategy for 

helping everyone—BHCC staff and BosC4C coaches—to be on the same page.
Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 114

BosC4C coaches do not have direct access to student academic information. Staff reported that many 

of the coaches log into student accounts with their students to retrieve this information. BHCC does 

have a data sharing agreement with Success Boston to provide coaches with lists of incoming eligible 

students for coaching each semester, helping coaches to better focus their recruiting efforts on 

campus.

At BHCC, the BosC4C coaches make themselves visible on campus by wearing Success Boston tshirts and lanyards. The BHCC staff noted that BosC4C coaches appeared to be more active and 

unified on campus during the 2015-16 academic year than in previous years. Coaches meet with 

students in public spaces around campus. Coaches and college staff concur that coaches would benefit 

from a dedicated meeting space on campus where coaches could work with students, and where 

information about the initiative could be centrally located.

BHCC staff reported that they are always looking for ways to better integrate the coaches on campus. 

To date there is not a formal BosC4C coach orientation to college services, although BHCC is 

considering implementing one in the future. BHCC plans to hire a dedicated staff member to 

coordinate the monthly coaches’ meetings and to support communication with coaches on campus. 

Although BHCC has invited coaches to only one professional development event offered by the 

college, it plans to provide more such opportunities once the new staff member is hired. Despite the 

lack of a formal orientation and limited shared professional development opportunities, BHCC staff 

know that veteran BosC4C coaches mentor newer coaches and use the monthly coaches’ meetings to 

teach coaches about support services for students.

Influence of Coaching on Practices and Policies

BHCC has yet to introduce new policies or programs specifically in response to the Success Boston 

initiative. However, college staff and coaches communicate openly and regularly, and coaches 

provide college staff with valuable feedback, including through contributions to specific campus 

policy discussions. BHCC is planning to hire additional staff (two Success Coaches and one coach 

coordinator) to expand the reach of its Success Coaches and better coordinate with the BosC4C 

coaches.

Over the past seven years, college staff describe the relationships between the college and BosC4C 

(and Success Boston) coaches transforming into a cohesive partnership that can improve on each 

year. Although BHCC does not intend to form its own group of transition coaches to replicate 

Success Boston Coaching, staff and leadership hope the partnership will continue to support eligible 

students and allow the Success Coaches and advisors to focus their efforts on serving other students 

assigned to their caseloads.

Lessons Learned

With a growing student population, BHCC staff have developed strategies to provide student support 

services to its students in numbers not experienced by offices in recent years, including through hiring 

two new Success Coaches to work with students in LSCs, and developing online technology that will 

allow students faster and easier access to services. College staff view BosC4C and its predecessor, 

Success Boston Coaching, as a resource for eligible students on campus to benefit from transition 

coaching that BHCC does not have the capacity to provide all students.
CASE STUDIES 

Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 115

Open and regular communication between coaches and staff is essential at BHCC, given that 28 

BosC4C coaches from eight nonprofit organizations work with almost 300 students on campus. 

BHCC has a designated BosC4C coach who communicates with staff and relays information to 

coaches, and it is also planning to hire a coordinator to serve in this role for the college staff. Through 

established communication channels, staff hope to orient coaches to the services on campus more 

deeply, and to encourage coaches to refer their students to relevant services. The monthly coaches’ 

meetings provide a means by which information is shared about students and the college, and BHCC 

staff plan to incorporate more professional development into these meetings via the soon-to-be-filled 

coordinator position. 

10.4 Massachusetts Bay Community College 

Massachusetts Bay Community College (MassBay) is a public, two-year community college that 

serves more than 8,000 students across three campuses in Wellesley, Ashland, and Framingham, 

Massachusetts. MassBay first partnered with the Success Boston initiative in 2014. During the 2015-

16 academic year, three coaches from three of the nine nonprofit organizations served 24 BosC4C 

students. 

Student Support Services at MassBay 

Through interviews with a college leader (n=1) and support staff (n=2) and a focus group with nonBosC4C students (n=16), MassBay staff and students described a diverse and connected array of 

support services available to all currently enrolled students. MassBay staff believe that student 

support services information must be readily available and easily accessible to students from the 

moment they arrive on campus, through both online and physical resources. One college staff 

member noted that offices strive to have information immediately available so students can access it 

as soon as they are ready. She explained, 

We try our best to get the information [about services] out there, but ... when a first-year 

student shows up at college, you know, they’re really more anxious about ... mak[ing] friends 

... and things of those sorts. When you talk to them about financial aid ... it kind of goes over 

their head until they need it. 

MassBay offers support services primarily through three offices: the Academic Achievement Center, 

the academic advising office, and the student development office. 

 Academic supports. The Academic Achievement Center is composed of five areas: (1) Reading 

and Writing Center, (2) Math and Science Center, (3) Peer Tutoring, (4) Disability Resources, 

and (5) Testing Services. From professional and peer tutors spanning almost every subject area, 

students can access flexible individual or group academic supports. Through Disability 

Resources, eligible students work with staff to make sure the proper accommodations are in place 

to promote academic success. During the 2014-15 academic year, MassBay also launched a 

Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Mentor Program, matching 

students majoring in STEM subjects with relevant employers in the region to develop 

relationships and career experiences. 

The academic advising office consists of academic advisors (both faculty and administrators) who 

are assigned to all new full-time students. Students and advisors are matched based on area of 

study. All BosC4C students at MassBay are assigned to one of two academic advisors, both of 
Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 116

whom are familiar with and contribute to coordinating BosC4C on MassBay’s campus. The 

MassBay transfer coordinator is also supported through the academic advising office. This 

coordinator supports students who transfer from MassBay to another institution, providing 

individual counseling, workshops, and college fairs for students.

 Financial aid supports. The financial aid office provides support to students on the financial aid 

process and student accounts; it offers workshops on FAFSA completion and provides 

information on scholarships. Staff attend new student orientation and throughout the year hold 

information sessions.

 Personal and career supports. The student development office is a hub for student life-related 

supports, including students’ personal, career, and mental health needs. The office offers career 

services, counseling services, student orientations, student activities and athletics, and support 

services for student subgroups (e.g., Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender Support Services; 

Veterans Affairs). One college staff member explained, “We do whatever we can to help students 

who hit bumps in the road or just need some triaging or emotional support to kind of get them on 

the right track.”

The majority of focus group participants reported that they access services through the Academic 

Achievement Center; the Reading and Writing Center and Disability Resources were both described 

as commonly accessed supports, followed by the student development office and the Academic 

Advising Center and lastly, the financial aid office. Students who had accessed supports through the 

student development office noted that it serves as a central place on campus for information about all 

of the support services, and staff there refer students to other offices and services on campus.

Students reported that during class and through assignments, professors also actively encourage 

student use of campus resources. One student explained,

Almost every class tells you about all the resources available to you. You don’t have to read 

the emails; there are signs everywhere, and there are also people in the cafeteria to tell you 

about services, and professors will include them in the syllabus and will tell you to email 

them if you need more.

Focus group participants also acknowledged appreciating the services offered to them, although one 

student expressed concern about their availability, noting that services offered through the Academic 

Achievement Center are often in high demand and getting a reservation for tutoring was difficult. 

Other students also reported that peer tutors have limited availability, too, and the times they are 

available are not always convenient for students. Recently, MassBay launched released a website and 

online tool for student essay review and writing support online in order to improve student access to 

academic supports.

Another student observed that coordination among the three MassBay campuses about service 

availability was a concern, because services varied from campus to campus and shuttle service 

between campuses was limited.

In recent years, MassBay has been challenged by budgetary constraints, resulting in the loss of six 

full-time staff, some of whom had been delivering support services to students. Further, MassBay’s 

three-year Performance Incentive Fund grant (PIF) ended in spring 2015; it had funded a Career and 
CASE STUDIES

Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 117

Academic Success coaching program. Similar to BosC4C coaches, PIF’s part-time coaches provided 

students with more individualized support and helped students to take full advantage of other 

available MassBay student services. Despite these budgetary and staffing setbacks, MassBay still 

makes many of the same support services available to students, and interviewed staff noted that they 

have taken on more responsibility to do their best to continue to provide sufficient support services.

MassBay staff indicated that they (and the college) continue to look for ways to improve student 

experiences when accessing services, an observation corroborated by a focus group participant who 

said that MassBay staff frequently solicit student feedback about how support services on campus can 

be improved. Other focus group students noted that they would like to see improvements to the 

student-advisor matching process, mental health services and follow-up, child care services, study 

space on campus, and information on public safety and incident reporting.

Integration of BosC4C Coaching on Campus

The number of BosC4C coaches working on campus has expanded from one in 2014-15 to three in 

2015-16. BosC4C coaches provide supplemental supports to eligible students on campus. College 

staff reported that the BosC4C coaches are familiar with the support services offered and often refer 

students to relevant offices.

BosC4C coaches work primarily with a designated MassBay staff member, the BosC4C college 

liaison, who serves as their point of contact. In 2015-16, the BosC4C liaison was one of the two 

student advisors assigned to all BosC4C students on campus. Her responsibilities include providing 

college updates, coordinating communications between coaches and college staff, and answering 

BosC4C coaches’ questions. She regularly met with coaches for each nonprofit organization on 

campus separately, although she hoped to establish (in the future) a formal monthly check-in meeting 

with all coaches during which specific student issues can be addressed.

At the beginning of each year, BosC4C coaches participate in an orientation to college processes and 

support services available to students, during which they tour the Wellesley campus and meet key 

staff members with whom they will interact. MassBay staff explained that they provide an orientation 

to coaches as part of a larger effort to foster open communication and to share as much information 

about student services with coaches as possible: “The more the coaches know, the better. The more 

they know not just that we have counseling but who the counselors are. They could walk them down.” 

The BosC4C coordinator also invites coaches to attend the student orientation at the beginning of 

each year to learn more about student services. During the 2015-16 academic year, MassBay staff led 

a training for coaches to discuss the academic advising program and the student course registration 

process in more detail. Coaches also learn about services offered on campus by shadowing a veteran 

coach. At the end of each year, MassBay staff host a debrief session with the coaches to discuss what 

went well and how the coaches’ experience can be improved in the following year.

BosC4C coaches do not have access to student academic data through the college’s portal. Coaches 

log into the student portal with their students to view academic information. MassBay’s BosC4C 

coordinator flags certain issues for coaches, and when deemed appropriate by a student’s advisor, 

coaches are invited to attend advising meetings between students and their academic advisors. Since 

all of the BosC4C students are intentionally assigned to one of two academic advisors, coaches have 

built strong relationships with these advisors.
Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 118

The BosC4C coaches generally meet with students in the college’s café on the Wellesley campus, so 

they are visible to students and staff members. As noted by the BosC4C coordinator, when the college 

advisors sit in the café, students do not generally approach them to check in, whereas if the BosC4C 

coaches sit in the café, students sit with and talk to them. Occasionally, if the BosC4C coordinator

needs to contact a Success Boston advisee, she will sit next the coach in the café. She explained that

the coaches and staff work as partners, and that the staff recognize that coaches are able to form 

closer, more casual relationships with students than college staff can. As a result of the café’s public 

location, it is also easy for the college staff to informally check in with coaches.

The closure of the PIF coaching program in spring 2015 means that MassBay does not offer any 

coaching programs similar to BosC4C. However, college staff reported that the level of engagement 

BosC4C coaches maintain with their students is unparalleled. One MassBay staff member noted that 

the attention BosC4C coaches can give to their students allows them to identify symptoms of a 

student issue early, improving the chances of solving the issue before it escalates into a crisis. Early 

intervention is more difficult for MassBay staff, because of their limited capacity given the recent 

budget and staff cuts. A staff member reported that if the college received additional funding through 

a grant program similar to PIF, she would push MassBay to consider dedicating funds to expanding 

coaching availability on campus. She explained, “If we had more grant money or the college was able 

to, you know, have more money in terms of support services, the [coaching] model is one that we see 

a lot of strength in and we really want to support it.”

MassBay staff explained that they believe transition coaching supplements the support services that 

MassBay offers; these perceptions are based on their experience with both the PIF coaches and 

BosC4C coaches. Staff mentioned that they are considering developing a student mentoring program, 

through which BosC4C students would mentor some of their non-BosC4C peers.

Influence of Coaching on Practices and Policies

Over the past few years, MassBay’s budget and staffing issues affected the implementation of student 

services on campus, limiting the college’s ability to make changes to supports in response to the 

BosC4C coaches. Instead, MassBay focused on maintaining a consistent level of student support 

services, despite budget and staffing challenges. Notable, in 2015-16, was the absence of the PIF 

Career and Academic Success Coaches that focused on introducing students to the college community 

and resources and supporting them through their first year. Staff recognize that cuts have limited the 

level and frequency of individualized student support they offer.

MassBay is in the process of rebuilding its student support staff and restructuring responsibilities 

across staff. Staff indicated that that they believe the student support services are moving in the right 

direction, and staff are working to fill vacant positions. They hope for increased stability in the 

resources to improve their ability to strategically plan for the long term.

Lessons Learned

At Mass Bay, an essential factor promoting implementation of BosC4C is that the college staff have 

recent experience working with coaching programs (both Success Boston Coaching and the PIF 

coaches). Staff observed students benefitting from coaching services and place value on 

individualized coaching models. MassBay staff recognize that part of the effectiveness of the BosC4C 

program comes from coaches developing a deep knowledge of the student support services offered on 
CASE STUDIES

Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 119

campus. If coaches know how to navigate the services offered to students, they can better refer and 

support them.

Despite partnering with the Success Boston initiative for only two years, MassBay staff have 

developed methods through which its coaches are integrated on campus, centered on efficient and 

regular communication. Staff reported that designating a single staff coordinator to oversee 

collaboration with the BosC4C coaches helps to ensure that coaches and staff have the same 

information and can share with one another effectively. The coordinator has developed a rapport with 

the coaches, providing them with a way to give feedback about their students’ experiences with 

campus services. As MassBay staff continue to improve their communication and feedback loops 

with coaches, they plan to create formal monthly coaches’ meetings to foster regular and open 

conversations, in place of the informal meetings with each nonprofit’s coaches held now.
Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 120

Appendix A. Logic Model

Inputs 

The BosC4C intervention comprises three main factors, shown as Key Inputs on the logic model on 

the next page: subgrants distributed to nonprofit organizations, which in turn organize the provision 

of services to students; partnerships between each subgrantee organization and the 

colleges/universities attended by students receiving the organization’s services; and use of 

experienced coaches, who provide one-on-one and cohort-based support to students following their 

senior year of high school and into college. 

Further supports (Secondary Inputs) include initiative-wide staff (e.g., BosC4C program director 

and associate director) and subgrantee staff (e.g., program directors and campus and non-campusbased college liaisons), who oversee activities, develop program models, and provide professional 

development opportunities along with other trainings and resources to coaches. 

Connecting Activities to Outputs and Outcomes 

BosC4C coaches are expected to help students access and use information and supports as they 

transition and adjust to college (Activities). This often begins with reminding students about and 

helping them to complete the FAFSA and other financial aid documents. Coaches also connect 

students with supports and resources as needed; help students learn how to manage their time across 

school, home, and work demands; advise and remind students about course selection and registration 

deadlines; and support students in their career decisions. Further, coaches are expected to manage 

their respective caseloads and attend monthly practitioner meetings to capture and share best practices 

and address organizational challenges. 

As discussed in the literature review (Section 2.1), interventions in which coaches provide such 

supports to students have been shown to have a positive effect on intermediary college outputs 

(Intermediary Outputs), including filing/renewing FAFSA forms, college enrollment, academic 

achievement and credit accumulation, and continued college persistence (see, e.g., Castleman and 

Page, 2013a; Castleman, Page, and Schooley, 2014). 

Each of these outcomes can in turn lead to higher college completion rates, the primary goal 

(Outcome) of BosC4C. 
Abt Associates BosC4C Impleme

Exhibit A-1. Boston Coaching for Completion (BosC4C) Logic Model

Resources

Key Inputs

Grants to nonprofit organizations

Partnerships between nonprofit 

organizations and colleges/universities

Coaches to provide real-time 

navigational support for 1,000 

students per cohort 

Secondary Inputs

Program management and support

staff including program director, 

network coordinator, and campus and 

non-campus-based college liaisons 

Activities

One-on-one and cohort-based coaching 

spanning the end of students’ senior year 

of high school and through at least the first 

two years of college, including:

 Intensive case management 

 Connecting students with supports 

and resources on and off campus 

 Helping students complete the FAFSA 

and financial aid processes 

 Helping students learn time 

management to help balance school, 

work, and life demands 

 Advising students on course selection 

and registrations 

 Helping students identify and obtain 

summer jobs and internships 

Program model development, monthly 

coach meetings, professional development 

and access to technical and other 

resources

Intermediary Outputs

Increased college enrollment rates

Increased FAFSA completion and 

renewal rates

Increased college credit 

accumulation

Stronger college academic 

achievement

Reduced course withdrawals and 

course failures

Increased college persistence 

rates

Expanded and enhanced learning 

community of practitioners; 

capturing/sharing of best practices
Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 122

Appendix B. Nonprofit Organization Leaders Interview Protocol

Coaching Model 

First, I would like to ask you generally about the goals of your organization and the services your 

coaches provide. 

 What are the goals of your organization’s navigation coaching? (probe: specific student 

outcomes) 

- VETERAN: How have these goals changed since last year?

 Do you have a schedule of activities? If yes, please describe the sequence of activities.

 What specific coaching services does your organization provide? 

- Describe specific activities in which coaches interact with students.

- Which coaching activities are most important to helping your organization achieve its 

goals for student outcomes? [Probe for which features are helpful for different outcomes]

- VETERAN: What changes (if any) have you made this year (compared to last year) in 

activities/services offered by coaches?

- What summer programming does your organization offer for students between high 

school and college? 

- If they offer programming: Who is eligible to participate in the summer programming? 

[Probe: are they just BosC4C?]

Target Population 

Next, I would like to ask you a few questions about the students whom your organization serves. 

 How are students identified for BosC4C? 

- Are there any specific requirements to work with a coach? (e.g., GPA, SES, firstgeneration college)? VETERAN: How have these changed since last year? 

- How are students matched to coaches? VETERAN: How has that process changed since 

last year? 

- How are prospective students identified? (e.g., are they referred by their schools, friends, 

other?)? VETERAN: How have these changed since last year? 

 When do students first start working with their coach? 

 NEW: In general, what are the challenges your target students face as they make the transition to 

college? 

- NEW: What are the 1-2 most important strategies your organization uses to address these 

challenges? 

Coaches 

Now I have some questions about how your organization selects and trains coaches. 

 What are the specific characteristics/qualifications you look for in coaches?
APPENDICES 

Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 123

- Probe: What are the job requirements of coaches? (E.g., college degree, prior experience 

working with youth) 

 What specific types of training does your organization require of all coaches (new & 

veteran/returning)? (by whom)

 What kinds of training opportunities are made available to (though not required of) your 

organization’s coaches?

- Which elements of (required/optional) training reflect your organization’s philosophy?

- How does your organization incorporate principles of youth development into 

(required/optional) training?

- What other types of supports and/or resources are provided to coaches (by your 

organization)?

- What types of support/training/resources are provided to coaches by sources outside your 

organization (Probe: uAspire)?

Participation in BosC4C 

I would also like to ask you about your organization’s participation in BosC4C activities and events.

 Please describe your participation, as a [title] at [coaching organization name], in meetings and/or 

activities with BosC4C during the 2015-16 school year. (Such as the monthly transitions 

meetings or the monthly coaches’ meetings)

 Who else from your organization attends such meetings? 

- Which BosC4C trainings and/or meetings? Are these meetings mandatory? 

 Which trainings were most helpful? 

 From your perspective, about which topics could/would your organization’s coaches benefit from 

additional training/support? 

 How does your organization interact with other participating BosC4C partner 

organizations/colleges this year? 

 VETERAN: How have your partnerships with other coaching organizations and/or IHEs changed 

over the last year, if at all? 

Caseload 

I also have a few questions about the caseloads of your coaches. 

 How many BosC4C coaches does your organization employ? 

 How close to your projected total BosC4C caseload are you as of [date]? What are the factors that 

have influenced differences between projected/actual caseloads? 

 If unable to reach target caseload, what were the biggest challenges to meeting this goal? 

 What is the typical total caseload of one of your coaches? 
Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 124

 What are coaches’ responsibilities with respect to working with other (non-BosC4C) college 

students? (Probe: If they have outside students, what percentage of their caseloads is outside 

students?)

Benefits and Challenges with Expanded Scope

 VETERAN: What are the organizational benefits of expanding to serve a larger number of 

students/participating in BosC4C this year? What are the challenges?
APPENDICES 

Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 125

Appendix C. Coach Interview Protocol

Part I. Coaching Activities 

I would like to start by asking you about your coaching activities. I’ll ask about the ways in which you 

communicate with students, the kinds of support you provide to students, and how your coaching activities 

might change across the course of an academic year. 

We’ve understand that you provide students with help across a range of areas or support topics.

1) In general, what topics do you focus on most frequently with your students? 

2) Please describe how you prepare for a typical in-person meeting with a student. How long does it 

typically take you to prepare? 

3) How does the focus of the help and support you provide to students (or the topics you cover with 

students) change over the course of the academic year? 

4) Please describe whether and how you interact with students who drop out of school during their first 

or second year. 

5) Which topics do you wish you had more training and/or resources to work on with students? 

Challenges/Successes: (2 minutes) 

6) Please describe any challenges you’ve experienced engaging students this year.

7) Please describe any aspects of engaging students that have gone well this year. 

For Returning Coaches: Describe how your coaching practice has changed this year (as a result of the 

scale up for BosC4C)? 

Part II. Relationship with IHEs 

Next I’d like to ask you about the different colleges that you are working with. Our records indicate that 

you are currently serving students at [NAME IHEs]. [NOTE: If coach serves students at more than 3 

schools, ask these question for colleges where coach serves the majority of students.] 

For the next set of questions, I’d like you to talk about how things work at each of the colleges. 

REPEAT QUESTIONS 8 - 13 FOR EACH OF THE COLLEGES AT WHICH THE COACH IS 

WORKING. 

8) How do you get access to information about student progress (student records, grades, progress 

information)? 

 [College name] provides me a login/password to student data system 

 Student provides his/her login information 

 Login with the student 

 I don’t have access to student data or progress

 Other Describe: 

9) If you meet on campus, where on campus do you meet? 

10) How do you secure a meeting space on campus? 

11) Please describe any orientation to campus services the college provided to you. What aspects of the 

orientation did you find most helpful? 

12) Please describe the ways in which you learn about campus services and campus supports for students. 

13) [For coaches serving students at more than 3 IHEs] Please share any additional information you have 

about your experiences working at other colleges. 
Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 126

Part III. Training

The next set of questions asks about any trainings or professional development you might have received or 

participated in.

14) Please describe the initial training you received from your coaching organization, when you first 

became a coach. What was the focus of the training? 

15) Please describe any additional training or professional development you’ve received from your 

coaching organization. What topics were covered? 

o What topics did you find the most helpful or useful to your coaching practice? 

16) Please describe any trainings you attended with UAspire. What was the focus of the training? What 

aspects did you find most/least helpful?

Part IV. Partnership with Success Boston Initiative and BosC4C Program 

We’d like to ask about your partnership with the Success Boston Initiative and the BosC4C program.

Please describe the meetings and/or events you participate in as part of BOSC4C. 

a. Coaches’ meeting

b. Transition Support meeting 

c. Other 

17) What is most/least helpful about these meetings? 

18) What other topics or supports could BosC4C provide to help your coaching practice? 

19) Which of these meetings are required by your organization? 

20) Which of these meetings are required by The Boston Foundation? 

21) In which other BosC4C events do you participate? 

Finally, we’d like to ask about how you interact with the initiative-wide database, Salesforce. 

22) How do you use Salesforce? How frequently do you update student transition records? (As a weekly 

upload? Daily?) 

23) What guidance have you received about logging interactions into Salesforce? 

Probe: What types of student interactions do you record in Salesforce? 

24) How likely are you to log brief (less than 5 minute) interactions through any mode in Salesforce? 

 Very likely 

 Likely 

 Somewhat likely 

 Unlikely 

25) How likely are you to record text message communications in Salesforce? 

 Very likely 

 Likely 

 Somewhat likely 

 Unlikely 

26) Describe your process for adding a student onto your caseload. Specifically, we are interested in what 

happens between the time a student has been identified as a potential Success Boston Coaching 

participant and when the first transition support is recorded in Salesforce. 

o What screening criteria, if any, do you consider prior to adding a student onto your 

caseload? 

o When do you generally enter a student’s intake form into Salesforce?

o When do you enter the first transition support record for a student? 
APPENDICES 

Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 127

Appendix D. Coach Pre-Interview Questionnaire

Part I. Education & Employment 

Please tell us about your education and employment background. 

2) What is your highest educational degree? 

 High School 

 Some College 

 College degree 

 Some post graduate college 

 Graduate degree 

3) How long have you been a coach at your organization? 

[enter numeric value] 

4) Is this job 

 Full-time (35 hours/week or more) 

 Part-time (Program: If = part-time, show 3a) 

3a. IF PART-TIME: How many hours per week do you work as a BosC4C coach? 

[enter numeric value] 

5) Are you Hispanic or Latino/Latina? 

 Yes 

 No 

6) What is your race? (Check all that apply) 

 White 

 Black or African American 

 Asian 

 Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 

 American Indian or Alaska Native

Part II. Student Caseload 

7) What is your current caseload? 

[enter numeric value] 

8) Approximately what proportion of the students in your caseload are first year students? 

[enter numeric value]%

9) Approximately what proportion of the students in your caseload are second year students? 

[enter numeric value]%

10) Approximately what proportion of the students in your caseload are BosC4C students? 

[enter numeric value]%

11) Did you work as a Success Boston coach during the 2014-15 school year? 

o Yes (Program: If = yes, then display Q11) 

o No (Program: If = no, then skip to 12) 
Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 128

For Returning Coaches: We would like to understand how your caseload and the students you are 

supporting might be different this year compared to last year. 

12) How has the number of students on your caseload changed since last year? (Increased? 

Decreased?) 

11a. Please describe whether students are assigned to your caseload in a different manner this 

year as compared to last year. For example, are any of the students on your caseload assigned 

to you by a college? 

11b. Please describe any other differences in your caseload this year. For example, do 

students come from different high schools, students come from different neighborhoods, 

students are attending different colleges? 

Part III. Communicating with Students 

We would like to learn about how you communicate with students and the kinds of support you 

provide. We recognize that you may communicate with students in multiple ways, and to ensure that 

we record as accurate a description as possible, we will ask you specific questions about each of the 

communication strategies you use. 

13) Please indicate by which modes (if any) you discuss the following topics: 

Topic Mode I do not 

discuss 

this 

topic 

with my 

EmailText messagePhone callIn

students -person meeting Other

Academic supports

Connecting to tutor or academic center 

(for example, Writing Center)

Registering for classes and course 

selection

Exploring college major options

Strategies for studying for and 

succeeding in courses

Understanding the transfer process to a 

4-year institution

Communicating and connecting with 

professors

Checking in about how classes are going

Financial aid

Completing or renewing FAFSA

Connecting to financial aid or bursar’s 

office

Finding and applying for scholarships or 

grants
APPENDICES 

Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 129

Understanding student loan options

Career planning

Connecting to the campus career center

Developing resume

Applying for internships and jobs

Preparing for job interviews

Developing a plan 

degree

for how to complete 

Exploring career options

Managing life responsibilities

Managing my time effectively

Balancing school, work, and home life

Figuring out transportation (for 

example, getting a discounted T pass)

Managing stress

Connecting to health resources

Resolving personal concerns

14) Please share any additional topics you discuss with students by any mode. 

15) Where do you and your students usually meet when you meet in-person? 

o On campus 

o Off campus 

o At coaching organization offices 
Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 130

Appendix E. Student Survey

Introduction 

The Success Boston Initiative wants to hear from you! Complete this 15-minute survey to help 

Success Boston better understand student experiences with coaching. If you worked with a coach or 

mentor from Boston Private Industry Council (PIC), Bottom Line, College Bound 

Dorchester, Freedom House, Hyde Square Task Force, Match Beyond, Sociedad Latina, 

Steppingstone Foundation, or West End House this year then you are part of Success Boston 

Coaching. Your responses to this survey could help to improve the Success Boston Coaching 

experience for other students like you. 

To thank you for your time, we will send you a $10 eGift card to your choice of Dunkin’ Donuts, 

CVS, or Target once you complete this survey. And if you complete the survey by April 7th, you will 

also be entered to win $100! 

You are not required to complete this survey. Your participation is voluntary and you may choose not 

to answer a question or to stop the survey at any point. You can continue to participate in Success 

Boston Coaching even if you do not complete the survey. 

Protecting your privacy is very important to us. Your name will not be included in any reports or data 

produced by the study. There is a small chance of loss of confidentiality but we have many 

procedures in place to reduce this risk. 

Are you willing to take this survey? (Mandatory question)

 Yes 

 No 

If you have any questions about participating in the study, please call 1-617-520-2968, or email 

Marble_Karuu@abtassoc.com. If you have any questions about subjects’ rights, please contact Abt’s 

Institutional Review Board Administrator, Katie Speanburg, by phone at (877) 520-6835 [toll-free 

number]. 

IF NO: 

Thank you for your time! 
APPENDICES 

Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 131

Section 1: Participation in Success Boston Coaching 

To begin, we would like to learn about how you connected with your Success Boston coach. 

1. How did you first hear about Success Boston Coaching? (Check all that apply) 

 My college/university 

 Someone from a Success Boston Coaching organization came to my high school 

 My high school guidance counselor, teacher, or other staff member 

 A friend from my high school 

 A friend from my college 

 Someone I know from my neighborhood 

 Online 

 During an after-school or summer program 

 Directly from a coach 

 Other, please explain: ______________________ 

 I don’t recall exactly (Exclusive choice)

2. How many Success Boston coaches have you primarily worked with since you graduated 

high school? 

 1

 2

 3

 4

 more than 4 

Now, we would like to know more about your interactions with your current Success Boston coach. 

3. How does your coach usually get in touch with you? (Check all that apply) 

 Text messages

 Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, or other social media 

 Email 

 Phone calls 

 Finding me on campus 

4. How frequently does your coach get in touch with you? 

 Once per semester 

 Once per month 

 Once per week 

 Multiple times per week 

 Never 
Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 132

5. How frequently do you meet in-person with your coach? 

 Once per semester 

 Once per month 

 Once per week 

 Multiple times per week 

 Never 

6. Where do you meet most often with your coach?

 On campus in a public area (for example, lobby, student center, library) 

 On campus in a specific office or center 

 Off campus at a location selected by me 

 Off campus at a location selected by my coach 

 At the local organization/office where my coach works 

 Other, please describe:_____________________________ 

 I don’t meet in-person with my coach 

7. Do you often see your coach around campus? 

 Yes 

 No

8. How do you usually get in touch with your coach when you want to reach out? (check all that 

apply) 

 Text messages 

 Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, or other social media 

 Email 

 Phone calls 

 Finding my coach on campus 

9. How frequently do you reach out to your coach? 

 Once per semester 

 Once per month 

 Once per week 

 Multiple times per week 

 Never

Section 2: Coaching Activities 

Now, we would like to learn about the specific topics you talked about with your Success Boston 

coach this school year. 

10. Which of the following academic support topics did you discuss with your coach? (Check 

all that apply) 

Registering for classes and course selection □

Exploring college major options □

Strategies for studying and being successful in my courses □
APPENDICES 

Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 133

Understanding the process to transfer to a 4-year institution □

Communicating and connecting with my professors □

Checking in about how my classes are going □

Programming: If Q10 = yes for at least one topic, display Q11 

In general, how often did you discuss any academic topics with your coach? 

 Once per semester 

 Once per month 

 Once per week 

 Multiple times per week 

 Never 

 

11. Which of the following financial aid topics did you discuss with your coach? (Check all that 

apply) 

Completing or renewing my FAFSA □

Understanding the financial aid I am eligible for □

Understanding how to maintain my financial aid, for example by 

meeting specific grade requirements

□

Finding and applying for scholarships or grants □

Understanding my student loan options □

Programming: If Q12 = yes for at least one topic, display Q13 

12. In general, how often did you discuss any financial aid topics with your coach? 

 Once per semester 

 Once per month 

 Once per week 

 Multiple times per week 

 Never 

13. Which of the following career planning topics did you discuss with your coach? (Check all 

that apply) 

Developing my resume □

Applying for internships and jobs □

Preparing for job interviews □

Developing a plan for how I will complete my degree □

Exploring career options □
Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 134

Programming: If Q14 = yes for at least one topic, display Q15 

14. In general, how often did you discuss any career planning topics with your coach? 

 Once per semester 

 Once per month 

 Once per week 

 Multiple times per week 

 Never 

15. Which of the following topics related to managing life responsibilities did you discuss with 

your coach? (Check all that apply) 

Managing my time effectively □

Balancing school, work, and home life □

Figuring out transportation (for example getting a discounted T pass) □

Managing stress □

Resolving personal matters □

Programming: If Q16 = yes for at least one topic, display Q17 

16. In general, how often did you discuss any topics related to managing life responsibilities 

with your coach? 

 Once per semester 

 Once per month 

 Once per week 

 Multiple times per week 

 Never 
APPENDICES 

Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 135

Programming: If student selects topic in, Q10, Q12, Q14, or Q16 display topics in Q18. 

17. Thinking about this school year, please select the three topics you discussed most frequently -

in-person with your coach. (Select up to 3 topics) 

 Registering for classes and course selection 

 Exploring college major options 

 Strategies for studying and being successful in my courses 

 Understanding the process to transfer to a 4-year institution 

 Communicating and connecting with my professors 

 Checking in about how my classes are going 

 Completing or renewing my FAFSA 

 Understanding the financial aid I am eligible for 

 Understanding how to maintain my financial aid, for example by meeting specific 

grade requirements 

 Finding and applying for scholarships or grants 

 Understanding my student loan options 

 Developing my resume 

 Applying for internships and jobs 

 Preparing for job interviews 

 Developing a plan for how I will complete my degree 

 Exploring career options 

 Managing my time effectively 

 Balancing school, work, and home life 

 Figuring out transportation (for example, getting a discounted T pass) 

 Managing stress 

 Resolving personal matters 

18. This year, how frequently did your coach refer you to the following campus offices or 

centers? 

NeverOnce per semesterOnce per monthOnce per weekMultiple times per weekNot applicable

Tutoring or academic center (for 

example, Writing Center)

Financial aid or bursar’s office

Career center

Health services
Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 136

Programming: If student selected topic in Q10, Q12, Q14, Q16 or Q19, display topics in Q20. 

Programming: Tables and answer options for Q20 have been randomized and will appear in random 

order for each respondent. 

19. In general, how helpful is your current Success Boston coach at answering your questions 

about the following topics? 

Academic Support

Not helpfulSometimes helpful, sometimes not helpfulSomewhat helpfulVery helpful

Registering for classes and course selection

Exploring college major options

Strategies for studying and being successful in my 

courses 

Understanding the process to transfer to a 4-year 

institution

Communicating and connecting with my professors

Checking in about how my classes are going

Financial Aid

Not helpfulSometimes helpful, sometimes not helpfulSomewhat helpfulVery helpful

Completing or renewing my FAFSA

Understanding the financial aid I am eligible for

Understanding how to maintain my financial aid, for 

example by meeting specific grade requirements

Finding and applying for scholarships or grants 

Understanding my student loan options
APPENDICES 

Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 137

Career Planning

Not helpfulSometimes helpful, sometimes not helpfulSomewhat helpfulVery helpful

Developing my resume

Applying for internships and jobs

Preparing for job interviews

Developing a plan for how I will complete my 

degree

Exploring career options

Managing Life Responsibilities 

Not helpfulSometimes helpful, sometimes not helpfulSomewhat helpfulVery helpful

Managing my time effectively

Balancing school, work, and home life

Figuring out transportation (for example getting a 

discounted T pass)

Managing stress

Resolving personal matters

Connecting to Campus Resources

Not helpfulSometimes helpful, sometimes not helpfulSomewhat helpfulVery helpful

Connecting to tutor or academic center (for 

example, Writing Center)

Connecting to financial aid or bursar’s office
Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 138

Connecting to the campus career center

Connecting to health services

20. How much do you agree with the following statements about working with your current 

Success Boston coach? 

I am comfortable reaching out to my 

coach for help with questions related 

to...

Strongly disagreeDisagreeNeither agree nor disagreeAgreeStrongly agree

Academics

Financial aid 

Career planning 

Managing life responsibilities

21. Please indicate how much you agree with the following statements about your relationship 

with your Success Boston coach: 

Strongly disagreeDisagreeNeither agree nor disagreeAgreeStrongly agree

I feel comfortable with my coach 

reaching out to me.

In general, my coach was a helpful 

resource during my first year of college.

I wish I could have had more one-onone time with my coach.

My coach was easy to get in touch with 

when I needed him/her.

I plan to stay in touch with my coach

during my next academic year.

My coach taught me how to access the 

resources that I need.

Working with my coach helped me to be 

more confident asking questions and 

advocating for myself. 

Working with my coach helped me to be 

more confident in my ability to succeed 

in college.
APPENDICES 

Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 139

Section 3: Your Background 

In this section, we have a few questions about you. 

22. Since finishing high school, is this the first year you have been enrolled in college? 

 Yes 

 No

23. Are you currently: (Check all that apply) 

 Working for pay at a part-time or full-time job (including work study and/or campusbased employment) 

 Taking care of a sick family member 

 Taking care of your child 

 None of the above (Exclusive choice) 

[Program: If Q24 = 1]

24. For your current job(s), do you work: (check all that apply) 

 On-campus 

 Off-campus 

[Program: If Q24 = 1]

25. On average, how many hours do you work each week during the school year? 

Enter number: ________ 

[Program: If Q24 ≠ 4]

26. Do your life responsibilities such as work, caring for family member or child interfere with 

your ability to attend college classes or finish assignments? 

 Yes, once per week or more 

 Yes, a couple of times this semester 

 No

 I’m not sure

27. Do you live...27

 On-campus or in other school-provided housing 

 With parent(s)/guardian(s) 

 Someplace else (off campus) 

 

27 Source: 2004/09 Beginning Postsecondary Students (BPS) Longitudinal Study Survey 
Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 140

28. Do you have any children that you support financially?28

 Yes 

 No

[Program: If Q29 = Yes] 

29. How many children? (dropdown) 

 1

 2

 3

 more than 3 

Section 4: Academic Experiences 

In this section, we would like to learn about your academic experiences and preparation for 

college. 

30. To what extent did the following high school courses prepare you for college? 29 Not at all Somewhat A great deal Did not take in high school

High school math

High school English or writing courses

31. Thinking of the hardest class you took last semester, compared with other students in that 

class would you say your abilities were: 

 Very much above average 

 Above average 

 Average 

 Below average 

 Very much below average 

 

28 Source: 2004/09 Beginning Postsecondary Students (BPS) Longitudinal Study Survey 

29 Source: NCES, Education Longitudinal Study of 2002 (ELS) 
APPENDICES 

Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 141

32. When you were working at a challenging task in that class, how confident were you that you 

would succeed? 

 Extremely confident 

 Very confident 

 Confident 

 Somewhat confident 

 Not at all confident 

Section 5: Educational Goals 

Next, we have a couple of questions about your educational goals.30

33. If there were no barriers, how far in school would you want to go? 

 Complete a certificate or diploma from a school that provides occupational training 

 Complete an Associate's degree—that is, a 2-year college degree 

 Complete a Bachelor's degree—that is, a 4-year college degree 

 Complete a Master’s degree

 Complete a Ph.D., M.D., law degree, or other high level professional degree 

 I don’t know

34. As things stand now, how far in school do you think you will actually get? 

 Complete a certificate or diploma from a school that provides occupational training 

 Complete an Associate's degree—that is, a 2-year college degree 

 Complete a Bachelor's degree—that is, a 4-year college degree 

 Complete a Master’s degree

 Complete a Ph.D., M.D., law degree, or other high level professional degree 

 I don’t know

Section 6: How to Improve Coaching 

Finally, please share with us how you think coaching could be improved. 

Programming: Tables and answer options have been randomized and will appear in random order 

for each respondent.

35. For which specific topics would you like additional support from your coach? (Check all that 

apply)

Academic

Connecting to tutor or academic center (for example, Writing Center) □

Registering for classes and course selection □

 

30 Source: NCES, High School Longitudinal Survey of 2009 (HSLS) 
Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 142

Exploring college major options □

Strategies for studying and being successful in my courses □

Understanding the process to transfer to a 4-year institution □

Communicating and connecting with my professors □

Checking in about how my classes are going □

Other, please specify: 

There are no academic topics for which I would like additional support (program: 

exclusive choice)

□

Financial aid

Completing or renewing my FAFSA □

Understanding the financial aid I am eligible for □

Understanding how to maintain my financial aid, for example by meeting specific 

grade requirements

□

Connecting to financial aid or bursar’s office □

Finding and applying for scholarships or grants □

Understanding my student loan options □

Other, please specify:

There are no financial aid topics for which I would like additional support 

(program: exclusive choice)

□

Career planning

Connecting to the campus career center □

Developing my resume □

Applying for internships and jobs □

Preparing for job interviews □

Developing a plan for how I will complete my degree □

Exploring career options □

Other, please specify:

There are no career planning topics for which I would like additional support 

(program: exclusive choice)

□

Managing life responsibilities 

Managing my time effectively □

Balancing school, work, and home life □

Figuring out transportation (for example, getting a discounted T pass) □

Managing stress □

Connecting to health resources □

Resolving personal matters □

Other, please specify:
APPENDICES 

Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 143

I do not need additional support managing life responsibilities (program: exclusive 

choice)

□

36. Are there any other topics we missed for which you would like additional support? 

37. What advice, if any, would you give to your coach to help improve the supports he/she 

provides? 

38. Please share a short story about a time when your coach helped you overcome a challenge. 

39. Is there anything else you would like us to know about your experience with Success Boston 

Coaching? 

Thank you for taking the Success Boston survey! 

You will receive an email at [insert email address] with your $10 e-gift card in the next 2 weeks. If 

this is not your email address, please give us an updated email address below. 

Please click the submit button to save and complete the survey. 
Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 144

Appendix F. Selected Quotes from Student Survey

Academic Support 

 “Math was always hard in the past two years. My coach clearly explained to me how to address 

teachers for extra help and he also found time to give me some assistance.”

 “I was doing bad in a class and she helped me learn ways to study. So by the end of the semester I 

got a decent grade in that class.”

 “When I was struggling with a class and she helped me figure out that I can do it.”

 “Facing the challenge of not passing my first exam, my coach helped me conduct good study 

habits and I was successful and passed the course.”

 “I had hard time trying to find a topic to write about, and when I asked my couch is she could 

help me, she was very happy to do it, and she helped me find a variety of topics and I felt that 

with her help I was able to do a good project.”

 “I was struggling Bio 411 and my coach hooked me up with an academic mentor.”

 “My coach has helped me check on my progress in each class, to allow me to keep track of my 

grades and what I need to do to get the grade I want.”

 “I was telling them how I don't like my math class because everything is easy they told me to 

work hard and show the professor that I wasn't made to be in that class so they can change me 

into a class that's more challenging for me.”

Financial Aid Support 

 “Filling out my FAFSA has been very hard because my father's income has gone up a lot and my 

coach has helped me deal with the situation.”

 “When my financial aid letter came in late, she helped me learn how to apply to a class even last 

minute.”

 “During FAFSA season, I was very confused about how to fill out a lot of sections. I asked my 

coach for help and she got back to me instantly and I was able to successfully fill out the sections. 

This meant a lot to me because I was very stressed at the time due to all the work I had to do. 

FAFSA was a challenge during a difficult time.”

Balancing Work, Life, and School 

 “My coach has helped me make sure my FAFSA was done and filled out properly. My coach has 

also helped me with managing my free time with time to study and do homework.”

 “I was having a lot of trouble balancing out my school work amongst other responsibilities that I 

had, and I was worried about my grades and losing my scholarship. But my coach gave my good 

advice and I was able to destress.”

Personal and Emotional Support 

 “My coach are very nice and easy to talk to, also the [coaching organization name] care packages 

are very nice.”
APPENDICES 

Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 145

 “Going through family matters, I was going through a situation where I wasn't paying attention to 

a specific class. I told my coach about it and they both kept reminding me about that class and 

pushing me through it.”

 “There were times where I didn't like my college and I wanted to transfer and he kept pushing me 

to get involved and really get the feel of the school before I decided if I actually wanted to 

transfer.”

 “Helped me no longer be discouraged about finishing school, by sharing his personal experience 

with me.”

 “When I told him about my difficulties making friends here and how he advised me to approach it 

and reassured I am not the only one going through this.”

 “I was really stressed out and it was close to finals week. My coached gave me some advice and 

then recommended me to see a counselor.”

Navigating College

 “I was debating whether to withdraw from a course or not, and he helped me understand my 

options and make a decision.”

 “Thank God there has not been major challenges during my first year of college. I can recall how 

resourceful my coach ... was in assisting me during my transfer process. I plan to transfer out of 

Salem State into another four-year institution.”

 “My coach helped me start a new semester by meeting with me and helping me transition from 

high school to college.”

 “My coach helped me sign up for my classes when I didn't know how to and made sure I was 

good on everything.”

 “I was having problems with one of my professors and she convinced me to talk to him about 

how I was doing in class even though at first I was extremely hesitant.”

Time Management

 “I was offered multiple options for my summer after my first year of college and she helped me 

work it out with pros and cons and helped me come to a decision that would be best for me now 

and what I should do during my future summers.”

 “I was stressed out about managing work, basketball and classes until my success coach helped 

me plan the perfect schedule for Fall and Spring.”

 “Once upon a time, I had trouble finding ways to get things done for my life to continue. I would 

always plan things to get done on time but will always procrastinate. Then one day my coach 

gave me nice speech to motivate me to keep on top of my plans. Not only did he give me a 

motivation speech he gave me examples on what to do, also by relating to it.”

General Support 

 “I lost my bus pass and I needed it to go to school. I emailed her and told her my issue. Two days 

after, she told me that she would be able to help me find another one. I was happy because I was 
Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 146

worried about getting around (going to school, appointments etc.). She helped find another bus 

pass and I thanked her for that.”

Areas for Improvement 

 “Spend more time with students.”

 “Have more resources.”

 “My coach has been extremely helpful with everything. I don't really have any tips for her to 

improve. I would love to see her more often instead of 3 times a semester just to see how her day 

is going.”

 “Be more flexible.”

 “Help me more with personal issues.”

 “Visit campus more.”

 “Connect with their students on a more personal level. Like, ‘how was your day’ ask questions 

like, ‘What in your life is hindering you from accomplishing your goals?’”

 “Some advice that I would give to my coach is to check up on their students more often not just 

once a month.”
APPENDICES 

Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 147

Appendix G. College Support Staff/Leader Interview Protocol

Background 

To begin, we would like to learn more about the different types of support services available to all 

students at your college/university. 

1) Please briefly describe the support services available to students at [institution]: 

 Academic support services (e.g., tutoring services, writer’s center)

 Financial aid 

 Federal support programs (e.g., SSS program) 

 Other support services [probe on services specific to individual IHE] 

[Probes: please describe services available to specific subgroups of students (first-year 

students, first-generation students, members of minority groups) as well as those 

available universally] 

COLLEGES LEADERS ONLY: For each support service mentioned: 

2) How long has this support service/program been in place at [institution]? 

3) How does [institution] communicate to students to inform them about the support services 

available? [E.g., via flyers, materials distributed during registration/orientation/online] 

4) What kinds of information does [institution] collect about student participation in these different 

services? If relevant, who is responsible for managing/reviewing such information? 

 What percent of students use this support service/program? (Probes: would you say only a 

small number of students, some students, or the majority of students?) 

5) Which services/programs have been introduced in response to the Success Boston initiative? 

(Probe: what has your institution done in response to the initiative? For example, has your 

institution decided to provide similar services to non-SB students? How to these services 

complement SBC?) 

6) Which services/programs have been changed or expanded in response to the Success Boston 

initiative? 

SB Coach Presence on Campus 

Next, we are interested to learn about your interactions with the Success Boston coaches this year. 

7) Please describe Success Boston coaches’ presence on your campus this year [Probes: where do 

coaches work while on campus, whether they share office space with other college support staff 

(if respondents know)]. 

8) Please describe your/your staff’s interactions with Success Boston coaches on your campus 

(Probes: formal/informal mechanisms for communication and coordination, frequency, individual 

vs. group)

Coordination with SB Coaches 

9) Do Success Boston coaches attend any meetings/trainings offered to you/your staff? If yes, for 

what?

10) Have you/your office provided any resources or trainings to coaches? If yes, on what?

11) Please describe your communication with Success Boston coaches about students. (Probes: 

shared access to college data systems, formal/informal communication about individual students) 

12) How does Success Boston Coaching complement the services your college provides (i.e., services 

available to all students on campus)?
Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 148

13) How might Success Boston coaches better leverage services your college provides?

14) What has changed (if anything) in the interactions with Success Boston coaches this year 

compared to prior years? (Probes: communication, access to data, meeting space) 

15) What factors promote effective coordination and integration between college support services 

staff and Success Boston coaches? (Probes: formal/informal communication, leadership, other) 

16) What factors impede effective coordination and integration between college support services staff 

and Success Boston coaches ? (Probes: formal/informal communication, leadership, other) 

Institutional Change 

COLLEGES LEADERS ONLY: 

Lastly, we are interested to hear about any changes your institution has made or plans to make 

related to student support services offered. 

17) Describe any major changes in the support services provided over the past year? What about over 

the past three years? (Probes: introducing new services/strategies/targeting specific populations, 

altering existing services/strategies/outreach) 

18) How has the presence of Success Boston Coaching on your campus influenced any of the 

upcoming changes on campus? 

19) What changes do you anticipate will occur over the next year/three years? 
APPENDICES 

Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 149

Appendix H. Student Focus Group Protocol

Start by quickly going around the room, asking each student to state his/her name and his/her year in 

college. 

1) Let’s start today talking about the offices or programs available on your campus where you can 

go if you have questions about: 

o Academic support (Probe: Tutoring? Help signing up for or choosing classes?) 

o Financial aid support (Probe: Filling out your FAFSA? Financial aid questions?) 

o Career planning (Probe: Looking for summer jobs or internships? Creating a resume?) 

o Support for personal issues (e.g., time management, mental health, family issues) 

o Other support programs or campus staffs who help you? 

 Do you have a coach or mentor with whom you work? 

2) Thinking back to when you started at [institution name] what resources and supports did you use? 

(Probe: orientation meetings, handouts or other print/online resources, other students already 

enrolled, other mentors or coaches) 

o Which of resources do you continue to use? 

o Describe examples of how you use the supports and resources.

3) How easy / challenging is it for you to access the following offices or types of services at 

[institution name]:

o Academic support 

o Financial aid support 

o Career planning 

o Support for personal issues 

o Other support programs 

4) What makes it easy / challenging? (Probe: proximity, availability on your schedule, feeling 

welcome) 

5) Which services/offices do you use most frequently? Which services/offices have you never used? 

Why? 

6) Which services/supports have been most helpful to you this year? Why? 

7) Which services/supports have been least helpful? 

8) In which area(s) do you wish you had access to additional supports? What supports do you wish 

you had had when you first started at [institution name]? 

9) Please share any additional thoughts about or experiences you have had with the support services 

available at [institution name]. 
Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 150

Appendix I. Cost Data Collection Template

Nonprofit organization name

Comprehensive Staffing, Materials, and Facilities Inventory

Category Ingredient

Cost (Q1-

Q3, FY16)

Administrative / Management / Overhead $ 

Personnel Admin Position 1 $

Admin Position 2 $

Admin Position 3 $

Facilities Rent/occupancy cost $

Overhead Overhead item 1 $

Direct services to

students $ 

Personnel Position 1 $

Position 2 $

Position 3 $

Facilities Rent/occupancy cost $

Activities Supplies, etc. $

Direct assistance Transportation, cash, supplies, etc. $

Total $ 

Program-specific questions 

1)

2)

Review of program activities

Activity Staffing Other Resources

Activity 1

Activity 2

Activity 3
Abt Associates BosC4C Impleme

Appendix J. Implementation Index Map

Construct Component Indicator

Data 

Source(s) Indicator Scoring

Ro

to the Orga

Operations Coach 

Capacity 

Building

Coach onboarding

Coach 

Interview

1 = No on-boarding training for coaches

2 = Informal on-boarding training provided to coaches

3 = Formal on-boarding training provided to coaches

Indicator scores were ave

Scores ranged from 1 (low 

(high implementation)

Ongoing coach 

training 

Coach 

Interview

A. Ongoing training provided by coaching organization 

and/or uAspire

0 = Coaches do not attend or do not have access to ongoing 

trainings

1 = Coaches attend ongoing trainings provided by their 

coaching organization and/or uAspire

B. Coaches engage in ongoing training provided by 

BosC4C

0 = Coaches do not attend monthly coaches’ meetings

1 = Coaches attend monthly coaches’ meetings and/or 

ongoing trainings provided by BosC4C

Scores for A and B were totaled and assigned the 

following scores:

1 = total score of 0

2 = total score of 1

3 = total score of 2

Indicator scores were avera

Scores ranged from 1 (low i

implementation)

Encourages 

participation in 

BosC4C 

meetings/events

Coach 

Interview 

1 = Coach does not participate in monthly coach 

meetings and/or other initial events, and participation 

in BosC4C meetings and/or events is not mandatory

2 = Coach participates in monthly coach meetings 

and/or other initial events, but participation in BosC4C 

meetings and/or events is not mandatory

3 = Coach participates in monthly coach meetings 

and/or other initial events, and participation in BosC4C 

meetings and/or events is mandatory

Indicator scores were ave

Scores ranged from 1 (low 

(high implementation).
Abt Associates BosC4C Impleme

Construct Component Indicator

Data 

Source(s) Indicator Scoring

Ro

to the Orga

Integration 

with College

Campus 

meeting space

Student 

Survey

A. Campus meeting space

0 = Student did not meet with coach on campus

1 = Student met with coach on campus

(For Match Beyond, substitute coach office for campus 

space)

A. Campus meeting spa

1 = Few (50% or less) stu

campus

2 = Some (51%-74%) stu

campus

3 = Most (75% or more) stud

campus

Coach 

Interview

B. Coach satisfaction with campus meeting space

1 = Coach is dissatisfied with campus meeting space

2 = Coach is neutral regarding campus meeting space

3 = Coach is satisfied with campus meeting space

(For coaches serving more than one IHE, an average 

was calculated)

B. Coach satisfaction with 

Indicator scores were ave

Scores were averaged ac

for each organization. Sc

implementation) to 3 (hig

Access to 

student data

Coach 

Interview 

1 = Coach does not have access to student data

2 = Student provides login info or logs in with coach

3 = IHE provides access to student data

(For coaches serving more than one IHE, an average 

was calculated)

Indicator scores were ave

Scores ranged from 1 (low 

(high implementation)

Coach 

knowledge of 

college

Coach 

Interview 

0 = No formal communication with college

1 = Formal communication with college

(For coaches serving more than one IHE, an average 

was calculated)

1 = Fewer than half of co

clearly established comm

across the campuses whe

2 = At least half, but not a

clearly established comm

across the campuses whe

3 = All coaches reported 

communication with camp

campuses where they wo

staff meetings and functio

Coaching 

Processes 

and 

Structure of

CoachStudent 

Mode of 

communication

Program 

database

0 = Students were contacted using fewer than three 

modes of communication

1 = Few (50% or less) stu

three or more modes of c
Abt Associates BosC4C Impleme

Construct Component Indicator

Data 

Source(s) Indicator Scoring

Ro

to the Orga

Activities Engagement 1 = Students were contacted using three or more 

modes of communication

2 = Some (51%-74%) stu

three or more modes of c

3 = Most (75% or more) s

using three or more mode

Construct Component Indicator

Data 

Source(s) Indicator Scoring

Ro

to the Orga

Frequency of 

interactions

Program 

database

The total number of phone or in-person TSRs was 

calculated for each student.

Averaged the number of s

person interactions within 

assigned the following sc

1 = Three or fewer TSRs

2 = Four to seven TSRs

3 = Eight or more TSRs 

Intensity of 

one-on-one 

interactions

Program 

database

The average duration (in minutes) of phone or inperson TSRs was calculated for each student.

The total number of phone or in-person TSRs was 

calculated for each student.

Averaged the number and 

phone or in-person intera

organization and assigne

1 = Student had fewer tha

regardless of meeting len

2 = Student had four or m

meetings averaging less 

31 To avoid penalizing spring entrants for having potentially fewer TSRs, cutpoints for these students were as follow: 1=one or fewer 

TSRs, and 3=four or more TSRs. To calculate these cutpoints across the full and spring samples, the total number of student-level 

was divided by the number of months in the academic year (assuming an eight-month year for students in the sample for the full ye

for spring entrants). The result is the proportion of the academic year that students engaged in phone or in-person interactions. The

averaged at the organizational level and then converted into the cutpoints recorded in the “Roll-Up to the Organization Level” colu

32

Same as previous footnote.
Abt Associates BosC4C Impleme

Construct Component Indicator

Data 

Source(s) Indicator Scoring

Ro

to the Orga

3 = Student had four or m

sample, with meetings av

Nature of 

CoachStudent 

Engagement

Provides 

support for 

re-engagement

Coach 

Interview

0 = Coach provides passive or no re-engagement

1 = Coach provides “active re-engagement”

1 = Fewer than half of co

“active re-engagement”

2 = At least half, but not a

providing “active re-engag

3 = All coaches reported 

engagement” 

TSR is transition support record
Abt Associates BosC4C Impleme

Construct Component Indicator

Data 

Source(s) Indicator Scoring

Ro

to the Orga

Coach 

helpfulness

Student 

Survey

0 = Student did not indicate coaching in topic was very

helpful

1 = Student indicated coaching in topic was very

helpful

Scores were averaged across multiple subtopic 

questions to create overall topic area scores. Then 

overall scores were averaged across all five topic 

areas

1 = Average organization 

.5

2 = Average organization 

and .74

3 = Average organization 

Coach-student 

connection

Student 

Survey

Student responded to each connection statement; for 

example: “I feel comfortable with my coach reaching 

out to me” ... “My coach was easy to get in touch with 

when I needed him/her” ... “I plan to stay in touch with 

my coach during my next academic year”

Score was calculated for each statement:

0 = Student disagreed or strongly disagreed with 

statement

1 = Student agreed or strongly agreed with statement

Then scores were averaged across all statements

1 = Average organization 

.5

2 = Average organization 

and .74

3 = Average organization 

Number of 

coaches with 

whom students 

have worked

Student 

Survey

0 = Student worked with two or more coaches since 

HS graduation

1 = Student worked with one coach since HS 

graduation

1 = Few (50% or less) stu

organization reported wo

since HS graduation 

2 = Some (51%-74%) stu

organization reported wo

since HS graduation

3 = Most (75% or more) s

organization reported wo

since HS graduation

Nature of Sustained Program 1 = Anything less than three topics Indicator scores were ave
Abt Associates BosC4C Impleme

Construct Component Indicator

Data 

Source(s) Indicator Scoring

Ro

to the Orga

Support 

Activities

variety of 

support

database 2 = Three topics at least twice per year

3 = Three topics at least eight times per year

33

Scores ranged from 1 (low 

(high implementation)

Exposure to 

support

Program 

database

0 = Exposure to fewer than three topic areas

1 = Exposure to at least three topic areas

1 = Less than 50% of stu

organization were expose

topic areas

2 = 51-74% of students w

exposed to at least three 

3 = 75% or more of stude

were exposed at least thr

Navigational 

supports

Student 

Survey

0 = Student was not referred to at least two campus 

offices or centers at least once per semester

1 = Student was referred to at least two campus 

offices or centers at least once per semester

1 = Few (0-50%) students 

two campus offices/cente

semester

2 = Many students (51-74

two campus offices/cente

semester

3 = Most students (75% o

least two campus offices/

semester

33 To avoid penalizing spring entrants for having potentially fewer TSRs, cutpoints for these students were as follow: 1=Fewer than t

semester, 2=Three topics at least once per semester, and 3=Three topics at least four times per semester.
APPENDICES 

Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 157

Appendix K. Full Implementation Index Scores
Abt Associates BosC4C Impleme

Type of Element Index Element Org. A Org. B Org. C Org. D Org. E Org. F Org. 

Total 39.2 34.0 37.2 35.6 36.1 40.2 36.8 

Constructs Operations 15.7 12.6 16.5 14.7 15.3 15.7 12.0 

Coaching Processes & 

Activities

23.5 21.4 20.7 20.9 20.8 24.5 24.8 

Components Operations Coach Capacity Building 7.5 7.0 8.0 7.5 8.0 7.8 5.0 

Integration with College 8.2 5.6 8.5 7.2 7.3 7.9 7.0 

Coaching 

Processes & 

Activities

Structure of Coach-Student 

Engagement

7.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 

Nature of Coach-Student 

Engagement

8.0 10.0 10.0 11.0 9.0 10.0 9.0 

Nature of Support Activities 8.5 5.4 4.7 5.9 5.8 7.5 8.8 

Indicators Coach Capacity 

Building

Coach on-boarding 2.0 2.9 2.5 1.5 3.0 2.4 1.0 

Ongoing coach training 3.0 2.2 2.5 3.0 2.5 3.0 2.0 

Encourages participation in 

BosC4C meetings/events

2.5 1.9 3.0 3.0 2.5 2.4 2.0 

Integration with 

College

Campus meeting space 2.5 2.6 2.5 1.8 2.3 2.8 2.0 

Access to student data 2.7 2.0 3.0 2.4 2.0 2.1 2.0 

Coach knowledge of college 3.0 1.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 

Structure of 

Coach-Student 

Engagement

Mode of communication 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 

Frequency of interactions 3.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 

Intensity of one-on-one 

interactions

3.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 

Nature of 

Coach-Student 

Engagement

Provides support for reengagement1.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 

Coach helpfulness 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 

Coach-student connection 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 

Number of coaches with 

whom students have worked

2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 

Nature of 

Support 

Activities

Sustained variety of support 2.5 1.4 1.7 1.9 1.8 2.5 2.8 

Exposure to support 3.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 

Navigational supports 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 

SOURCE: Coach Interviews, Student Survey, Program database
REFERENCES

Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 159

References

Arnold, K., Fleming, S., DeAnda, M., Castleman, B., and K.L. Wartman. 2009. “The Summer Flood: 

The Invisible Gap Among Low-Income Students.” Thought & Action, Fall: 23.

Arnold, K. D., Lu, E. C., and K. J. Armstrong,. 2012. “Special Issue: The Ecology of College 

Readiness.” ASHE Higher Education Report, 38: 1–138.

Aud, S., W. Hussar, F. Johnson, G. Kena, E. Roth, E. Manning, and J. Zhang. 2012. The Condition of 

Education 2012. NCES Report 2012-045. Washington, DC: National Center for Education 

Statistics, US Department of Education. 

Avery, C., J. Howell, and L. Page. 2014. A Review of the Role of College Counseling, Coaching, and 

Mentoring on Students’ Postsecondary Outcomes. New York: College Board Research.

Avery, C., and T. J. Kane. 2004. “Student Perceptions of College Opportunities. The Boston COACH 

Program.” In College Choices: The Economics of Where to Go, When to Go, and How to Pay for 

It, edited by C. Hoxby: 355–394. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Bahr, P. R. 2008. “Does Mathematics Remediation Work? A Comparative Analysis of Academic 

Attainment among Community College Students.” Research in Higher Education, 49 (5): 420–

450.

Bailey, M.J., and S.M. Dynarski. 2011. “Gains and Gaps: Changing Inequality in U.S. College Entry 

and Completion.” In Whither Opportunity? Rising Inequality and the Uncertain Life Chances of 

Low-Income Children, edited by G. J. Duncan and R. J. Murnane: 117–132. New York: Russell 

Sage.

Bettinger, E. P., and R. B. Baker. “The Effects of Student Coaching An Evaluation of a Randomized 

Experiment in Student Advising.” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 36 (1): 3–19.

Bettinger, E. P., A. Boatman, and B. T. Long. 2013. “Student Supports: Developmental Education 

and Other Academic Programs.” The Future of Children, 23 (1): 93–115.

Bettinger, E., B.T. Long, P. Oreopoulos, and L. Sanbonmatsu. 2012. “The Role of Application 

Assistance and Information in College Decisions: Results from the H&R Block FAFSA 

Experiment.” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 127: 1205–1242.

Bozick, R., and S. DeLuca. 2011. “Not Making the Transition to College: School, Work, and 

Opportunities in the Lives of American Youth.” Social Science Research, 40: 1249–1262.

Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). 2017. Employment Projections. Washington, DC: Bureau of Labor 

Statistics. Retrieved from https://data.bls.gov/projections/occupationProj

Carlstrom, A., and M.A. Miller, eds. 2013. NACADA National Survey of Academic Advising

(Monograph No. 25). Manhattan, KS: National Academic Advising Association.

Carnevale, A. P., T. Jayasundera, and A. R. Hanson. 2012. Career and Technical Education: Five 

Ways That Pay Along the Way to the B.A. Washington, DC: Georgetown Public Policy Institute. 
Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 160

Carnevale, A. P., N. Smith, and J. Strohl. 2013. Recovery: Job Growth and Education Requirements 

through 2020. Washington, DC: Center on Education and the Workforce, Georgetown 

University. 

Carrell , S.E., and B. Sacerdote. 2013. “Late Interventions Matter Too: The Case of College Coaching 

New Hampshire.” NBER Working Paper 19031. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic 

Research. 

Castleman, B. L., K. Arnold, and K. L. Wartman. “Stemming the Tide of Summer Melt: An 

Experimental Study of the Effects of Post-High School Summer Intervention on Low-Income 

Students’ College Enrollment.” Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 5 (1), 1–17. 

Castleman, B.L., and L.C. Page. 2013. “A Trickle or a Torrent? Understanding the Extent of Summer 

“Melt” among College-Intending High School Graduates.” Social Science Quarterly, 95 (1), 202–

220. 

Castleman, B.L., L.C. Page, and K. Schooley. 2014. “The Forgotten Summer: Does the Offer of 

College Counseling After High School Mitigate Summer Melt among College-Intending, LowIncome High School Graduates?” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 33 (2): 320-344. 

Castleman, B. L., and L. C. Page. 2016. “Freshman Year Financial Aid Nudges: An Experiment to 

Increase FAFSA Renewal and College Persistence.” Journal of Human Resources, 51(2 ): 389–

415. 

Cooper H., B. Nye, K. Charlton, J. Lindsay, and S. Greathouse. 1996. “The Effects of Summer 

Vacation on Achievement Test Scores: A Narrative and Meta-Analytic Review.” Review of 

Educational Research, 66 (3): 227–268. 

Deming, D., and S.M. Dynarski. 2009. “Into College, Out of Poverty? Policies to Increase the 

Postsecondary Attainment of the Poor.” NBER Working Paper 15387. Cambridge, MA: National 

Bureau of Economic Research. 

DuBois, D. L., and N. Silverthorn. “Natural Mentoring Relationships and Adolescent Health: 

Evidence from a National Study.” American Journal of Public Health, 95 (3): 518–524. 

Eby, L. T., Allen, T. D., Evans, S. C., Ng, T., and DuBois, D. L. 2008. “Does Mentoring Matter? A 

Multidisciplinary Meta-Analysis Comparing Mentored and Non-Mentored Individuals.” Journal 

of Vocational Behavior, 72 (2): 254–267. 

Gallagher, R. P. 2010. National Survey of Counseling Center Directors: 2010. (Monograph 85). 

Alexandria, VA: International Association of Counseling Centers. 

Greene, J.P., and M.A. Winters. 2005. “Public High School Graduation and College-Readiness Rates: 

1991-2002.” Education Working Paper No. 8. Atlanta, GA: Center for Civic Innovation. 

Harper, S.R. 2006. Black Male Students at Public Flagship University in the US: Status, Trends, and 

Implications for Policy and Practices. Washington, DC: Joint Center for Political and Economic 

Studies. 
REFERENCES

Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 161

Harper, S.R., and K.A. Griffen. 2011. “Opportunity Beyond Affirmative Action: How Low-Income 

and Working Class Black Male Achievers Access Highly Selective High-Cost Colleges and 

Universities.” Harvard Journal of African American Public Policy, 17 (1), 43–60.

Haskins, R. 2008. “Education and Economic Mobility.” In Getting Ahead or Losing Ground: 

Economic Mobility in America. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution. Retrieved from 

http://brookings.edu/research/reports/2008/02/economic-mobility-sawhill

Hossler, D., and K. Gallagher. 1987. “Studying Student College Choice: A Three-Phase Model and 

the Implications for Policymakers.” College and University, 62: 207–221.

Hoxby, C., and C. Turner. 2013. “Expanding College Opportunities for High-Achieving, Low Income 

Students” SIEPR Discussion Paper No. 12-014. Stanford, CA: Stanford Institute for Economic 

Policy Research.

Johnson, J., and J. Rochkind. 2009. With Their Whole Lives Ahead of Them: Myths and Realities 

about Why So Many Students Fail to Finish College. A Report for the Bill and Melinda Gates 

Foundation. New York, NY: Public Agenda. Retrieved from 

http://www.publicagenda.org/pages/with-their-whole-lives-ahead-of-them

Karp, M.M. 2011. “Toward a New Understanding of Non-Academic Student Support: Four 

Mechanisms Encouraging Positive Student Outcomes in the Community College” CCRC 

Working Paper No. 28. Assessment of Evidence Series. New York, NY: Community College 

Research Center, Columbia University.

Levin, H. M., and P.J. McEwan (Eds.). (2002). Cost-Effectiveness and Educational Policy. Yearbook 

of the American Education Finance Association. New York: Routledge.

Linkow, T. K. Dadisman, B. Gamse, H. Didriksen, G. Schwartz, M. Hillard, and M. Karuu. 2015. 

Degrees of Coaching. Success Boston’s Transition Coaching Model. Boston, MA: The Boston 

Foundation. 

McLaughlin, N. Sullivan, A. Van Eaton, T. Linkow, H. Didriksen, B. Gamse, and J. Furey. 2016. 

Reaching for the Cap and Gown: Progress Toward Success Boston’s College Completion Goals 

for Graduates of the Boston Public Schools. Boston, MA: The Boston Foundation.

Oreopoulos, P., and U. Petronijevic. 2016. “Student Coaching: How Far Can Technology Go?”

NBER Working Paper 22630. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.

Rhodes, J. E., and D. L. DuBois. 2008. “Mentoring Relationships and Programs for Youth.” Current 

Directions in Psychological Science, 17 (4): 254;ln258.

Roderick, M., J. Nagaoka, V. Coca, E. Moeller, K. Roddie, J. Gilliam, Patton, D. 2008. From High 

School to the Future: Potholes on the Road to College. Chicago, IL: Consortium on Chicago 

School Research.

Ross, R., S. White, J. Wright, and L. Knapp. 2013. Using Behavioral Economics for Postsecondary 

Success. Washington, DC: Ideas 42. 
Abt Associates BosC4C Implementation Report ▌pg. 162

Shapiro, D., A. Dundar, P. K. Wakhungu, X. Yuan, A. Nathan, and Y. Hwang. 2015. Completing 

College: A National View of Student Attainment Rates –Fall 2009 Cohort. Signature Report No. 

10. Herndon, VA: National Student Clearinghouse Research Center.

Stephan, J. L., and J. E. Rosenbaum. 2013. “Can High Schools Reduce College Enrollment Gaps with 

a New Counseling Model?” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 35 (2): 200–219. 

Stephens, N. M., T. N. Brannon, H. R. Markus, and J. E. Nelson. 2015. “Feeling at Home in College: 

Fortifying School-Relevant Selves to Reduce Social Class Disparities in Higher Education.”

Social Issues and Policy Review, 9 (1): 1–24. 

Sum, A., I. Khatiwada, W. McHugh, and S. Palma. 2013. Getting Closer to the Finish Line: The 

College Enrollment and Completion Experiences of Graduates of the Boston Public Schools.

Boston, MA: The Boston Foundation. Retrieved from 

http://www.tbf.org/~/media/TBFOrg/Files/Reports/GettingCloser_011513.pdf

Sum, A., I. Khatiwada, and S. Palma. 2014. The College Persistence and Graduation Experiences of 

Success Boston Coaching Participants from the BPS Graduating Class of 2009. Boston 

Massachusetts: Center for Labor Market Studies, Northeastern University. Retrieved from 

https://repository.library.northeastern.edu/downloads/neu:m0407544b?datastream_id=content

Swecker, H. K., M. Fifolt, and L. Searby. 2013. “Academic Advising and First-Generation College 

Students: A Quantitative Study on Student Retention.” NACADA Journal, 33 (1): 46-53. 

Torpey, E. and A. Watson. 2014. Education Level and Jobs: Opportunities by State. Washington, DC: 

Bureau of Labor Statistics. Retrieved from 

https://www.bls.gov/careeroutlook/2014/article/education-level-and-jobs.htm#learn-more 

Tym, C., R. McMillion, S. Barone, and J. Webster. 2004. First-Generation College Students: A 

Literature Review. Round Rock, TX: Research and Analytic Services, TG. 

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. 2016. The Condition of 

Education 2016 , Immediate College Enrollment Rate. NCES Report 2016-144. Retrieved from 

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cpa.asp

Visher M., K. F. Butcher, and O. S. Cerna. 2010. Guiding Math Students to Campus Services: An 

Impact Evaluation of the Beacon Program at South Texas College. New York, NY: MDRC. 

Walton, G. M. and G. L. Cohen. 2011. “A Brief Social-Belonging Intervention Improves Academic 

and Health Outcomes of Minority Students.” Science, 331 (6023): 1447–1451.