Citizen Schools Catalyst Project SteerCo #2

January 16th, 2019

DRAFT Catalyst project meeting roadmap

Project Holiday weeks Start up 1 2 3 4 5 6 break 7 8 9 10 11 Week 10/29 11/5 11/12 11/19 11/26 12/3 12/10 12/17- 1/2 1/7 1/14 1/21 1/28 beginning 1/1 Today’s meeting

Nov 13th Dec 3rd Jan 16th Jan 30th Project Kickoff: SteerCo #1: SteerCo #2: SteerCo #3: • Introduce project team • Review initial assessment of attractiveness • Review refined assessment of • Review final of Catalyst product attractiveness of Catalyst refinements to Catalyst • Review project scope, calendar, – Demand among schools and corporate partners product model strategy and and deliverables – Competitive and partner landscape financials (as needed) • Discuss which Catalyst model • Discuss goals of Catalyst and • Discuss preliminary view on Citizen Schools’ to pursue based on a refined • Align on near-term dimensions for evaluating ability to win and fit with Catalyst product view of: mobilization plan Catalyst (attractiveness, fit, and – Attractiveness (including model – Capabilities to build out ability to win) – Fit with capabilities and operational feasibility – Ability to scale financials) • Align on key discussion topics for – Potential for differentiation – Fit and ability to win customer interviews (schools and corporate partners) • Agree on set of Catalyst models, including Model 1 and Model 2, to explore in-depth

BOS 190116 Catalyst Project SteerC ... 2 Objectives for today’s discussion

Review refined view of demand for Catalyst among customers

Discuss preliminary scale projections and economic model analysis

Debate which Catalyst model to pursue based on attractiveness, fit, & ability to win

Align on major areas for further refinement for SteerCo #3

BOS 190116 Catalyst Project SteerC ... 3 Reminder: We decided to explore three Catalyst models in depth following SteerCo #1

Citizen Schools Mass STEM Hub Citizen Schools

PLTW CS Partner PLTW Partner Partner MSH

PLTW Partner CS CS CS CS CS CS

1 Catalyst “Full service” model 2 Catalyst “Mass STEM Hub” model 3 Catalyst “Coordinator” model

• Catalyst delivered primarily via Citizen • Catalyst delivered primarily via Mass • Catalyst delivered primarily via Citizen Schools STEM Hub and PLTW Schools and partner

• Citizen Schools: General contractor, • Citizen Schools: Volunteer matching and • Citizen Schools: General contractor, volunteer matching, professional volunteer integration professional volunteer matching, and volunteer development, and curriculum development integration professional development – Curriculum internally developed or heavily modified • Partners: Curriculum, assessments, • Partners: Curriculum, assessments, and broader professional development tools, broader professional development tools • Partners: Assessments and potentially and general contractor curriculum

Citizen Schools “owns” Catalyst Citizen Schools partners for Catalyst element element with minimal modifications

Note: CS = Citizen Schools; MSH = Mass STEM Hub; PLTW = Project Lead The Way

BOS 190116 Catalyst Project SteerC ... 4 Since SteerCo #1, we’ve conducted interviews with 17 additional school leaders and 11 additional corporate partners

Citizen Schools 1:1s School leadership interviews Corporate interviews Other resources

• Em McCann, CEO Citizen Schools contacts Bain contacts • Jessica Anderson, Strategic Giving • Economic model Manager, Dell – 2018 personnel cost data • Nell Kisiel, VP of Strategy and • Florin Purice, Principal, Isaac • Principal, Cambridge – 2019 Q1 non-personnel cost data Business Development Newton Middle School • Nick Sirianni, Senior Manager, PwC – Citizen Schools Revenue Data FY19 • Industry expert, San Francisco • Rita German, Director of Pipeline and FY20 Committed • Brian Bradley, Principal, • Amy Hoffmaster, Catalyst Community Investments and – Catalyst US2020 model Renaissance School of the Arts • Superintendent, Chicago – Secondary research benchmarking Managing Director Corporate Responsibility, John • ED of Curriculum and Instruction, – Working sessions with Catalyst team and • Aimee Sargent, Chief External • Alison Riordan, Curriculum Hancock Finance team Coordinator, Plymouth schools Minneapolis Engagement Officer • Ryan Kish, Senior Program • Secondary research reports • Principal, Portland • Mike Kubiak, Managing Director, • Sanda Balaban, Former Regional Manager, Arconic Foundation – “Strategies to Scale Up Social Programs: Superintendent, New York City • Regional Superintendent, New • Sarah MacDonald, Executive Pathways, Partnerships and Fidelity,” Foundations & Evaluation prepared by The Wallace Foundation, • Alain Balan, Program Manager, York City Director, Life Science Cares • Patricia Corbett, Catalyst Volunteer 2017 Boston Public Schools • Sam Whitting and Lauran Support Manager • Principal, Portland • “Expanding Opportunities to • Erik Turner, Principal, Sedgefield Samson, Directors of Global • Lauren Chamberlain, Catalyst • Principal, San Francisco Engagement, Boeing Successfully Support Early Middle School Readers: A Five-Year Study of Director of Training & Support • District leader, New York City • Meghan Weber, Engagement • Crystal Isom-Adu, Principal, Reading Partners Colorado,” Manager, Amazon • Colin Lacy, Managing Director, Githens Middle School • Superintendent, National charter prepared by Augenblick, Palaich • Kelly Petrich, Community US2020 City Network network and Associates, 2017Citizen • Michael Fuga, Principal, Neal Relations Manager, Cisco • Maria Drake, Executive Director, Schools materials Middle School • Director of STEM, National • Kate Denton, Manager of CA – “Catalyst” • Tara Bickford, Principal, Joseph charter network Corporate Social Responsibility, – “Catalyst Program Overview” • Wendy Lee, Executive Director, NY George Middle School Vertex – “Overview of Catalyst Model for Bain” • Superintendent, Chicago – “Catalyst Year 1 Report” • Jessica Halloran, Senior – “Catalyst Design Workshop” • Vanessa Bishop, Managing • Tommy Blain, Principal, KIPP • District leader, TX Director, MA Massachusetts Manager of Corporate – “Catalyst Pilot Volunteer Training” • Innovation Project Specialist, Philanthropy, Amgen – “Catalyst Pilot – Project Overview: • Brian Cooper, Principal, Thermal Energy” Somerville • Drew Mogren, Associate, Greenleaf Middle School • Interviews conducted by • Principal, Milwaukee Goldman Sachs • Caleb Dolan, Executive Director, • Crystal Barnes, Senior VP of Bridgespan as part of the 2017- KIPP Massachusetts Global Responsibility, Nielsen 2018 Catalyst work • Nikki Barnes, Managing Director, • Sherry Burch, STEM Pathways KIPP Massachusetts Project Manager, The Tech • Jackie Montejano, Principal, Lee Museum of Innovation Mathson Middle School • Milissa Bedell, Director of Global • David McAuley, Executive Community Relations, Western Director, Young Achievers Digital • Kristen Thompson, Community • Linda Tugurian, District Science Relations Manager, Fidelity Specialist, Durham Public Bold indicates interviews since • Alex Neuber, Senior Manager, Schools SteerCo #1 Wayfair

BOS 190116 Catalyst Project SteerC ... 5 AGENDA Executive summary

Refined view of demand among school leadership and corporate partners

Preliminary Catalyst scale projections and economics

Go-forward Catalyst model discussion and next steps

Appendix: Detailed analysis

BOS 190116 Catalyst Project SteerC ... 6 Executive summary

PRELIMINARY

• School leadership and corporate partners have strong interest in Catalyst driven by its focus on STEM real-world learning experiences and ability to facilitate meaningful and unique connections for both students and volunteers

• Catalyst has the potential to be a differentiated product; there are few comparable offerings that integrate a STEM, project-based learning curriculum with an industry professional volunteer overlay

• Schools and districts are highly price sensitive customers; on average, schools are willing to pay ~$15/student per Catalyst curriculum unit, but excluding schools unwilling to pay at all, the adjusted average is ~$25/student per unit

• Model 1 is the preferred model due to strong demand among customers, long-term economies of scale from programmatic investments, and strong fit with mission; Model 1 offers best potential path to self-sufficiency with fee for service funding from schools and corporations

• Model 2 offers the lowest cost per student, but relies on service fees from a single foundation; however, Model 2 is a unique and compelling opportunity for Citizen Schools given the momentum, scale, and significant funding of Mass STEM Hub and PLTW

• Model 3 is the least compelling model for Citizen Schools to pursue due to a lack of available partners, unclear demand from schools and corporate partners, and lower economies of scale given curriculum licensing fee

• Citizen Schools must weigh whether to pursue a two-pronged go-to-market strategy focusing on Model 2 in Massachusetts and Model 1 in the remainder of the US, or to simply focus on developing Model 1 in all geographies

BOS 190116 Catalyst Project SteerC ... 7 AGENDA Executive summary

Refined view of demand among school leadership and corporate partners

Preliminary Catalyst scale projections and economics

Go-forward Catalyst model discussion and next steps

Appendix: Detailed analysis

BOS 190116 Catalyst Project SteerC ... 8 Additional interviews with school leadership confirmed strong interest in Catalyst

SCHOOL LEADERSHIP

School leaders expressed strong interest in Catalyst driven by the program’s ability to foster real-world connections, career exposure, and student engagement; schools’ primary concern is burdening teachers

On average, schools are willing to pay ~$15/student per Catalyst curriculum unit; excluding schools unwilling to pay at all for Catalyst, the adjusted average is ~$25/student per Catalyst unit

Schools will pay more for a fully-bundled Catalyst product than an add-on volunteer overlay for a curriculum already in place; schools are unlikely to differentiate between Catalyst model options if product is bundled

CS must offer at least two to five quality Catalyst units per grade that are standards-aligned and largely plug and play, but that maintain some room for targeted customization and personalization for teachers

Demand for financial literacy programs is mixed and the market is crowded; CS should focus on developing STEM offerings first and financial literacy later on; financial literacy projects should align to math standards

Source: School leadership interviews (N=31)

BOS 190116 Catalyst Project SteerC ... 9 Additional interviews found that corporate partners have strong interest in Catalyst

CORPORATE PARTNERS

Corporate partners value Catalyst’s STEM-focused experiential learning, shorter program length, and ability to reach more students and engage more volunteers; Catalyst mission consistently aligns with corporate priorities

CS should consider pairing volunteers together in teams to address corporates’ biggest concern with Catalyst: a significant time commitment during the work day over multiple weeks

Corporations are generally interested in a partnership model for Catalyst, but prefer to fund the lead partner; partnership model must clear a higher bar in terms of accountability and transparency to receive funding

Corporations are generally reluctant to provide growth capital or seed funding for new programs and prefer to support proven programs; CS can leverage its strong brand to help overcome this potential funding hurdle

Volunteer recruiting is generally a local grassroots effort and requires field resources on the ground; conversely, funding is often controlled at the central (HQ) level

Source: Corporate partner interviews (N=16)

BOS 190116 Catalyst Project SteerC ... 10 AGENDA Executive summary

Refined view of demand among school leadership and corporate partners

Preliminary Catalyst scale projections and economics

Go-forward Catalyst model discussion and next steps

Appendix: Detailed analysis

BOS 190116 Catalyst Project SteerC ... 11 Reminder: The economic model calculates the philanthropic gap for each model

Economic model objectives and output Model structure and flow

• Model compares the economics of the Start-up Ongoing three Catalyst model options Cities, schools/city, students/school  students served • Primary output is the philanthropic gap Growth capital fundraising and Growth capital (e.g., fundraising & for each model, which is determined by student & program development grants) comparing revenue and costs volunteer fees Student & volunteer fees • Current base case is based on work done to date, including: Program costs (curriculum, teacher – Citizen Schools internal data PD, assessments & volunteer) – Working sessions with Catalyst team – Working sessions with Finance team One-time startup costs (e.g., Personnel (Catalyst regional & Program costs Curriculum/PD content development, – Citizen Schools Revenue Data FY19 Pipeline headquarters/national) and FY20 Committed partner search and negotiation) – School leadership interviews – Corporate partner interviews Non-personnel (Catalyst regional & headquarters/national) – Feedback from pilots

Philanthropic need BOS 190116 Catalyst Project SteerC ... 12 We compared the economics of the three Catalyst model options; several key reach and cost drivers vary across the models

DRIVERS LISTED ARE NOT EXHAUSTIVE

Citizen Schools Mass STEM Hub Citizen Schools

PLTW CS Partner PLTW Partner Partner MSH

PLTW Partner CS CS CS CS CS CS

1 Catalyst “Full service” model 2 Catalyst “Mass STEM Hub” model 3 Catalyst “Coordinator” model Reach Reach Reach • Starts in 3 metro/regional areas • Only serves schools in MA • Starts in 3 metro/regional areas • 4 schools per metro area • Starts in 50 schools • 4 schools per metro area Costs Costs Costs • Field team consists of sales reps, • Field team consists of volunteer • Field team consists of sales reps, volunteer recruiters, and project recruiters & project managers volunteer recruiters, and project managers • No sales team managers • Curriculum director (creates 2 • No curriculum costs • $800/teacher license fee paid to courses per year) curriculum partner

Note: CS = Citizen Schools; MSH = Mass STEM Hub; PLTW = Project Lead The Way

BOS 190116 Catalyst Project SteerC ... 13 Proposed field and dedicated national team roles and responsibilities

PRELIMINARY

Field team National team

Catalyst Sales • Sources, builds, and maintains relationships with Catalyst Sales • Designs overall national sales strategy for Catalyst Representative district and school leaders Director • Supports district and school sourcing and • Markets and sells Catalyst to districts and schools relationship management • Researches funding sources to help districts and • Manages Catalyst Sales Reps in the field schools pay for Catalyst Catalyst Training • Designs volunteer and teacher experience strategy Catalyst Volunteer • Sources, builds, and maintains relationships & Experience • Designs training for volunteers and teachers Recruiter with local corporate partner offices Director • Manages Catalyst Project Managers in the field • Markets and sells to local corporate offices Catalyst • Develops and refines library of curricula for • Informs, recruits, and signs up volunteers Curriculum Catalyst • Raises corporate funding from local offices Director • Partners with Training/Experience Director to help Catalyst Project • Serves as primary point of contact for develop teacher training for specific projects Manager volunteers, teachers, and schools once Catalyst Catalyst Program • Oversees program design, quality, and evaluation is sold Director • Manages Catalyst Data Analyst • Coordinates all logistics, including matching volunteers and scheduling Catalyst Data • Collects, analyzes, and synthesizes feedback and • Provides local training for teachers and volunteers Analyst data on Catalyst program quality • Supports Catalyst Program Director

BOS 190116 Catalyst Project SteerC ... 14 Proposed Catalyst team consists of a dedicated team at headquarters with field staff assigned to large regional/metro areas

FY20 MODEL 1 PRELIMINARY

National team

Field team

TBD

Catalyst TBD – Catalyst Catalyst Catalyst Sales Training/ Corporate Curriculum Program Director Experience Partnerships Development Director Director Lead Director

Sales Sales Sales Project Project Project Volunteer Volunteer Volunteer Rep Rep Rep Manager Manager Manager Recruiter Recruiter Recruiter Data analyst (Region 1) (Region 2) (Region 3) (Region 1) (Region 2) (Region 3) (Region 1) (Region 2) (Region 3)

BOS 190116 Catalyst Project SteerC ... 15 Base case Catalyst model scale projections and economics (2 of 2)

PRELIMINARY

Model 1: FY20 FY22 FY24 Full Service Recruiters 3 5 7 Project managers 3 7 15 Sales reps 3 5 7 National team 5 5 5 Total Catalyst team 14 22 34 Who will serve FY20 FY22 FY24 as the project Model 2: manager in Mass STEM Hub Recruiters 6 8 11 Model 2 (MSH, PLTW or CS)? Project managers 10 23 38 Sales reps 0 0 0 National team 3 3 3 Total Catalyst team 19 34 52

Model 3: FY20 FY22 FY24 Coordinator Recruiters 3 5 7 Project managers 3 7 15 Sales reps 3 5 7 National team 4 4 4 Total Catalyst team 13 21 33

Source: Catalyst economic model; Note: National team numbers only include personnel fully allocated to Catalyst (e.g., Business Development Director not counted given they are not fully allocated to Catalyst)

BOS 190116 Catalyst Project SteerC ... 16 Base case Catalyst model scale projections and economics (1 of 2)

PRELIMINARY Model 1: FY19 FY20 FY22 FY24 Full Service Schools 3 12 34 64 Teachers 10 24 136 292 Students ~900* 1,998 11,322 24,309 Volunteers ~30* 72 408 876 Cost per student - $992 $195 $127

Model 2: FY19 FY20 FY22 FY24 Mass STEM Hub Schools 17 50 100 150 Model 2 reach Teachers 27 100 450 750 assumptions Students ~2,430* 8,325 37,463 62,438 need to be validated Volunteers ~80* 300 1,350 2,250 with MSH Citizen Schools’ cost per student - $245 $69 $60

Model 3: FY19 FY20 FY22 FY24 Coordinator Schools - 12 34 64 Teachers - 24 136 292 Students - 1,998 11,322 24,309 Volunteers - 72 408 876 Cost per student - $999 $200 $135

Note: Model 1 pilot (Fall 2018) operated in three cities (Durham, San Jose, Charlotte); Model 2 pilot (Spring 2019) operates in MA across 5 communities (Boston, NE, FR, Chelmsford, Leicester); MSH = Mass STEM Hub; Cost per student does not take into account any revenue (e.g., committed capital, earned revenue). *Assumes 3 classes per teacher, 30 students per class, and 1 volunteer per class; Source: Catalyst economic model; Pilot data from 11/26 “MSH Partnership Project Intro” & 1/04 “Teacher Experience in Catalyst”

BOS 190116 Catalyst Project SteerC ... 17 Latest detailed economic reach and personnel model assumptions

PRELIMINARY

Model 1: Model 2: Model 3: Degree of Item Full Service Mass STEM Hub Coordinator confidence Source/notes Catalyst cities • FY20: 3 • FY20-24: 1 • FY20: 3 • Moderate • 1/9 working session • 1 new city/year • All MA sites report into HQ • 1 new city/year Schools per Catalyst city • FY20: 4 • FY20: 50 in MA • FY20: 4 • Moderate • 1/9 working session • 2 new schools/city per year • 25 new schools/year • 2 new schools/city per year Teachers per school • FY20: 2 • FY20: 2 • FY20: 2 • High • 1/9 working session • FY21: 4 (in established schools) • FY21: 4 (in established schools) • FY21: 4 (in established schools) • 2 new teachers/school per year • FY22: 6 (in established schools) • FY22: 6 (in established schools) • FY22: 6 (in established schools) • Ramps to 6 teachers/school Class sections per teacher • 3 • 3 • 3 • High • 1/9 working session per semester • Catalyst only taught 1 semester • Upside: 2 semesters per class section Volunteers per volunteer • FY20: 50 • FY20: 50 • FY20: 50 • Moderate • 1/9 working session recruiter • FY21: 100 • FY21: 100 • FY21: 100 • Must have a minimum of 1 recruiter per metro area/region • FY22-24: 200 • FY22-24: 200 • FY22-24: 200 Teachers per project • FY20: 10 • FY20: 10 • FY20: 10 • Moderate • 1/4 working session manager • FY21: 15 • FY21: 15 • FY21: 15 • Must have a minimum of 1 project manager per metro area/region • FY22-24: 20 • FY22-24: 20 • FY22-24: 20 Schools per sales rep • FY20: 5 • N/A • FY20: 5 • Moderate • 1/9 working session • FY21: 10 • FY21: 10 • Must have a minimum of 1 sales rep per metro area/region • FY22-24: 15 • FY22-24: 15 Assumption degree of confidence High Moderate Low

BOS 190116 Catalyst Project SteerC ... 18 Model 1: As Model 1 progresses beyond the startup phase, field team expenses become the bulk of Catalyst costs

MODEL 1 PRELIMINARY

Catalyst Model 1 base case costs

$4M National • National team personnel costs (sales team costs leader, curriculum director, volunteer training 3.1 director, data analyst, program director) 3 • Curriculum, teacher PD, and volunteer training 2.6 content refresh 2.2 Field costs • Field team support personnel costs (sales reps, 2.0 project managers, volunteer recruiters) 2 1.8 National • Regional/field support indirect costs (travel) • Volunteer costs (background checks) Regional • Office costs 1 Start up • Curriculum and teacher PD content development costs • Volunteer training content development Start up • Digital investments • Marketing collateral development 0 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24

Note: Does not include G&A and other overhead costs Source: Catalyst economic model

BOS 190116 Catalyst Project SteerC ... 19 For Catalyst to achieve long-term self-sufficiency, it must rely on renewable, reliable funding from districts and corporations

Renewable and reliable revenue sources Non-renewable and non-reliable revenue sources • School districts • Fundraising events – School pays lump sum or per student fee for each Catalyst unit • Corporations • Corporations • Corporate foundations – Employee Benefit > Company pays lump sum or per employee fee to participate in • Philanthropic foundations Catalyst for professional and critical skill development • High net-worth individuals – Corporate Engagement Liaison > Company pays portion of Citizen Schools’ employee’s salary • Federal and state grants > Dedicated/semi-dedicated employee provides in-depth support, curating a menu of custom civic engagement opportunities to fit the company’s needs, goals, and interests

Fee for service funding sources

BOS 190116 Catalyst Project SteerC ... 20 Model 1: What you need to believe in order to achieve long-term self-sufficiency through student and volunteer fees by FY24 given current assumptions

MODEL 1 PRELIMINARY Catalyst Students Fee per Volunteers Fee per total cost served student served volunteer Notes Scenario 1 $3.1M 24.3K $127 876 $0 • Relies exclusively on student fees

Scenario 2 $3.1M 24.3K $50 876 $2,140 • $50/student is the upper bound of what schools are willing to pay for Catalyst Scenario 3 $3.1M 24.3K $25 876 $2,835 • $25/student is the adjusted average of what paying schools are willing to pay for Catalyst Scenario 4 $3.1M 24.3K $0 876 $3,530 • Relies exclusively on volunteer fees

Which scenario for student and volunteer fees is most realistic for Catalyst to achieve funding self-sufficiency? Note: Volunteer fees are rounded to nearest $5 fee increment Source: Catalyst economic model

BOS 190116 Catalyst Project SteerC ... 21 AGENDA Executive summary

Refined view of demand among school leadership and corporate partners

Preliminary Catalyst scale projections and economics

Go-forward Catalyst model discussion and next steps

Appendix: Detailed analysis

BOS 190116 Catalyst Project SteerC ... 22 Key questions to consider as we debate which Catalyst model to pursue at scale

What are the strengths and potential risks of each model?

Given limited resources, what is the right model or approach for Catalyst?

What are the key outstanding questions that need to be explored to decide which model or approach is best for Catalyst?

BOS 190116 Catalyst Project SteerC ... 23 Using our research to date, we can now debate which Catalyst model to scale

Primary focus of Bain’s work

Attractiveness Fit and ability to win

Student Demand for Fit with mission and ability to Ability to Impact Catalyst inspire stakeholders fundraise

Competitive Financial model Required vs. current Ability to environment capabilities scale

BOS 190116 Catalyst Project SteerC ... 24 We rated each of the three Catalyst model options across the attractiveness, fit, and ability to win metrics

Clearly demonstrated strength

Moderate strength

Mixed or unknown impact

Moderate weakness

Clearly demonstrated weakness

BOS 190116 Catalyst Project SteerC ... 25 How the Catalyst model options performed across attractiveness metrics (1 of 2)

PRELIMINARY

Evaluation criteria Model 1: Full service Model 2: Mass STEM Hub Model 3: Coordinator Student Impact • CS curricula are less robust • PLTW curricula are more robust and • TBD on partner; PLTW more and established established established, Amplify less robust Demand for Catalyst Schools and Districts • Strong demand for fully • Strong demand in MA for fully • Interest in volunteer overlay, bundled product bundled product unwilling to pay for it • Outside of MA, unwilling to pay for • Highly dependent on partners, add-on volunteer overlay roles and model configuration Corporate partners • Strong demand for fully • Best-in-class partnership is • Prefer to fund lead bundled product attractive, but prefer to fund the lead, • Highly dependent on partners, and question CS role roles, and model configuration Competitive environment • Whitespace outside of MA; • Do not compete directly with MSH & • Whitespace outside of MA; compete directly with MSH & PLTW in MA compete directly with MSH & PLTW in MA PLTW in MA Financial model Cost profile • High upfront investment but • Lowest cost per student due to scale • Low upfront investment but few economies of scale in long run economies of scale due to expensive licensing fees* Long-term self-sufficiency • Higher likelihood of revenue • Majority of funding comes from • Lower likelihood of revenue (renewable, reliable revenue) from schools and corporates single source, must be appropriately from schools and corporates

Note: *Economic model assumes $800/teacher license fee for curriculum compensated for services

BOS 190116 Catalyst Project SteerC ... 26 How the Catalyst model options performed across fit & ability to win metrics (2 of 2)

PRELIMINARY

Evaluation criteria Model 1: Full service Model 2: Mass STEM Hub Model 3: Coordinator Overall fit Fit with mission • Focus on underserved schools • Beholden to MSH and PLTW • Focus on underserved schools • Ability to focus on underserved schools unclear Ability to inspire • Most compelling model for • Less compelling model, but • Least compelling model, stakeholders Board and key stakeholders momentum and mandate in MA insufficient value-add for CS Ability to fundraise • Compelling value proposition to • Less compelling role to • Less compelling role to (philanthropy) fundraise against fundraise against fundraise against • Higher likelihood of long-term • Unclear long-term self- • Unclear long-term self- self-sufficiency sufficiency sufficiency Required vs. current • Capability gap exists • Volunteer matching capability • Unproven sales and general capabilities • Need to hire and develop will need to scale rapidly contractor capabilities capabilities Ability to scale • Slower path, but CS benefits • CS can achieve rapid scale, but • Lacks benefit of economies of from economies of scale and bounded within MA with MSH scale, but CS controls trajectory controls trajectory and pace partnership and pace

BOS 190116 Catalyst Project SteerC ... 27 Based on our analysis, Model 1 is the preferred model for Citizen Schools to scale, but there are risks associated with Model 1 that must be considered

PRELIMINARY

Model 1 is the preferred model to scale… …but there are potential risks

• Strong customer and corporate partner demand • Slower path to scale

• Significant whitespace outside of Massachusetts • Must build internal capabilities upfront and all at once (e.g., general contractor, curriculum) • Self-funding opportunity over the long-term; more likely high percentage of reliable, renewable revenue • Compete directly with Mass STEM Hub & PLTW in Massachusetts • Mission-aligned and inspiring model for stakeholders • Strain on internal capacity • Ability to raise growth capital

• Long-term economies of scale from programmatic investments

Do we agree Model 1 is the preferred model? What does pursuing Model 1 mean for the Mass STEM Hub partnership?

BOS 190116 Catalyst Project SteerC ... 28 Given the competitive environment in Massachusetts, Citizen Schools should consider whether a two-pronged approach is the best path forward

PRELIMINARY Direct strategy Two-pronged strategy

• CS pursues a direct strategy where it builds a minimum • CS pursues a two-pronged strategy where it partners viable product or MVP* and then refines and expands with MSH and PLTW in MA and builds an MVP for the product over time Model 1 for markets outside of MA

Direct strategy Two-pronged strategy 1 1 Model Model

Citizen Schools does not pursue Model 2 Model 2 Model 2

Citizen Schools does not pursue Model 3 Citizen Schools does not pursue Model 3 Model 3 Model 3

Note: *A minimum viable product or MVP is the most basic version of the product which the company wants to launch in the market; MSH = Mass STEM Hub; PLTW = Project Lead The Way Source: Economic Times

BOS 190116 Catalyst Project SteerC ... 29 Direct strategy and two-pronged strategy have various strengths and risks that must be weighed against each other

PRELIMINARY

Direct strategy: Model 1 Two-pronged strategy: Model 1 + Model 2 • Focus efforts on ultimate ambition of scaling Model 1 • CS collaborates with vs. competes against MSH and PLTW in MA • Most mission-aligned and inspiring model and strategy for key stakeholders • Provides experience and opportunity for CS to learn from Strengths best-in-class partners & improve offering outside of MA • Define own scale ambition and timeline rather than meeting demands of partners • Creates proof points, success stories, and momentum

• Must compete directly with MSH and PLTW in MA • Ability to deliver the quality and quantity of volunteers that MSH demands • May give MSH and PLTW incentive to fund/build professional volunteer capability themselves • Operational complexity and internal capacity strain of building and managing multi-model portfolio Risks • Pass up a unique opportunity to learn and improve from best- in-class partners and capitalize on their success • Model 1 is sidelined to meet the demands of Model 2 • Potentially become secondary in MA market to MSH & PLTW • Ability to fund both models concurrently

Note: MSH = Mass STEM Hub; PLTW = Project Lead The Way

BOS 190116 Catalyst Project SteerC ... 30 Next steps

• Conduct additional district and corporate partner interviews to refine willingness to pay for Catalyst among districts, and to test interest in the fee for service model among corporates

• Continue to refine the economic model based on feedback from today’s discussion, working sessions with Catalyst and Finance teams, and secondary research (e.g., benchmarking analysis)

• Synthesize findings into an integrated strategy and support the creation of a fundraising presentation

• Build near-term actions and capabilities required to deliver Catalyst

• Begin to transition project work to Citizen Schools (e.g., economic model handover)

BOS 190116 Catalyst Project SteerC ... 31 AGENDA Executive summary

Refined view of demand among school leadership and corporate partners

Preliminary Catalyst scale projections and economics

Go-forward Catalyst model discussion and next steps

Appendix: Detailed analysis

BOS 190116 Catalyst Project SteerC ... 32 APPENDIX Project background and context

School leadership detailed findings

Corporate partners detailed findings

Total addressable market analysis

Economic model detailed assumptions and output

Primary market research materials

BOS 190116 Catalyst Project SteerC ... 33 How we’re assessing which Catalyst model to scale

Primary focus of Bain’s work

Attractiveness Fit and ability to win

Impact Demand for Fit with mission and ability to Ability to Catalyst inspire stakeholders fundraise

Competitive Financial model Required vs. current Ability to environment capabilities scale

BOS 190116 Catalyst Project SteerC ... 34 How we defined the five key elements of Catalyst

Five key elements of Catalyst Definitions of the five key elements

• General contractor • Volunteers General contractor – Coordinates and packages all four – STEM industry professionals and topic Catalyst elements into single, experts integrated offering – Help facilitate project and enhance – Develops relationships with schools learning in the classroom and districts, including sales Curriculum Student assessments • Teacher professional – Handles the logistics, scheduling, and administration of program development – Volunteer-focused PD for integration of • Curriculum volunteers into the classroom Curriculum- – 8-10 hours of in-school class time – Curriculum-focused PD directly tied to focused teacher spread over 4-5 weeks teaching the content via project-based professional – STEM-focused, NGSS-aligned, learning development project-based curriculum, with clear Volunteers mapping to standards • Assessments Volunteer- – NGSS and core standards mastery focused teacher – Includes lesson plans, sequencing, professional scaffolding, scope, and materials – Social and emotional learning surveys development – STEM topic & career interest surveys – 21st Century skill development

Source: Citizen Schools’ Catalyst presentations

BOS 190116 Catalyst Project SteerC ... 35 APPENDIX Project background and context

School leadership detailed findings

Corporate partners detailed findings

Total addressable market analysis

Economic model detailed assumptions and output

Primary market research materials

BOS 190116 Catalyst Project SteerC ... 36 Key topics discussed with school leadership helped inform general demand for Catalyst, Catalyst model decision, and Catalyst program design

SCHOOL LEADERSHIP

Demand for Catalyst Catalyst model decision Catalyst program design

• Are schools and districts interested • How much would a school pay for a • What is the minimum number of in Catalyst? pure volunteer overlay? curricula Catalyst needs to offer for schools to be interested? • How much would a school pay for a • Would a school differentiate fully bundled Catalyst product? between Models 1, 2, and 3? • What is the optimal level of customizability for curriculum? • What differentiates and drives • If Citizen Schools worked with a demand for products like Catalyst? best-in-class partner, how would • Are schools interested in financial that impact interest? literacy programs? • What are the biggest concerns about Catalyst among school leadership?

BOS 190116 Catalyst Project SteerC ... 37 We interviewed 31 school leaders who serve a wide range of districts, geographies, and student demographics

BOS 190116 Catalyst Project SteerC ... 38 School leaders would pay a range of prices for Catalyst; Citizen Schools should target to sell Catalyst for at least $25/student per unit

SCHOOL LEADERSHIP Schools leaders stated an average price of $15/student However, there is a meaningful number of schools for one unit of Catalyst willing to pay $25 adjusted average price

Q: How much would you be willing to spend (per student) on one unit? “Looking at $25-30 a student if you want to provide it to the entire community. But I would probably focus on the 6th grade. And in that case, I would be willing to go to $50-100 a student.” Principal #2, New York City

“If it were $20 per kid, $600/classroom for a full year that feels doable. Then I could do 100 classrooms for $60K and you’re Excluding schools definitely in the competitive ballpark.” unwilling to pay at District Leader #1, Minneapolis all for Catalyst, the average willingness to pay is $25/ student per unit

Note: *Based on average class size of ~30, **N differs from number of interviews conducted due to timing of interview Source: School leadership interviews (N=31)

BOS 190116 Catalyst Project SteerC ... 39 Schools see standards alignment as table stakes; real-world connections and student engagement are key factors that drive interest and product differentiation

DEMAND SCHOOL LEADERSHIP Standards alignment expected; differentiation is driven Schools want Catalyst to connect what students learn by real-world connections and student engagement in the classroom to real world careers

Q: What are the primary drivers of demand for a program like Catalyst? “The piece that really excites me is the real-world context. It is 16 8 7 5 14 15 5 1 1 powerful when professionals show students how what they’re Demand drivers learning today connects to where they could be in 10 to 15 years.” (# of mentions); N=31 School Leader #2, Massachusetts 16 16 15 14 “ We teachers talk about that in 14 You can’t be what you can’t see. school all the time. So the real value of Catalyst is that it could 12 expose students to careers they may not have ever seen.” 10 Superintendent #1, National Charter Network 8 8 6 Tangible end products help drive student engagement 4 “If the project culminates in a product and those kids reach a stage 2 of self-fulfillment like ‘I built something!’ then it is worth it so kids 0 can see their labor meant something.” Principal #2, New York City “We would want to see the goal of each project, what the end product would be for a student. We would closely assess that tangible end result because it informs why should I pick Catalyst.” Standards alignment Student engagement School Leader #2, Massachusetts Real-world connection Source: School leadership interviews (N=31) Ease of implementation

BOS 190116 Catalyst Project SteerC ... 40 Schools value bringing volunteers into the classroom to introduce career paths, leverage their expertise on a specific topic, and drive student engagement

SCHOOL LEADERSHIP Customers value volunteers because they expose Volunteers succeed when they raise the level of students to careers in STEM classroom learning and make connections to careers

Q: What are the primary drivers of demand for volunteers in the classroom? “STEM careers are underrepresented in my school community, so being able to expose our kids to a real scientist from a company like Biogen is a huge hook. It opens a career path.” Principal #2, Massachusetts

“Because Middle School teachers are usually generalists, an expert who comes in can really advance the thinking in the classroom.” District Leader #1, Massachusetts

“Finding a volunteer that can challenge and engage the students is paramount. The volunteer is 90% of the whole program.” Principal #1, New York City Volunteer programs used by interviewees

BOS 190116 Catalyst Project SteerC ... 41 School leaders consistently rank curriculum and volunteer matching as the most important elements of Catalyst

DEMAND SCHOOL LEADERSHIP School leaders consistently rank curriculum and Curriculum and volunteer matching are make or break volunteer matching higher than other elements for customer adoption

Q: On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 = not at all important and 5 = extremely important, “Volunteer matching is critical. There is so much value from how important are each of the core elements of a program like Catalyst? having a Google engineer in the room, especially if they are dynamic and engaging.” 4.7 3.1 3 4.8 3.75 Average level of importance Superintendent, Chicago N=28* “In order to buy into Catalyst, I would pay such close attention to Volunteers 4.7 the curriculum. Specifically, I would judge whether I think the curriculum’s main theory of change is compelling. Will the content scope, sequence, and design grab student interest?” Director of STEM #1, National Charter Network Curriculum 4.4 Assessments and teacher PD are seen as less critical

Assesments 3.7 “Our teachers know how to play nice in the sandbox with others. They don’t need PD on incorporating volunteers into the classroom.” Teacher PD 3.3 District Leader #1, Massachusetts

0 1 2 3 4 5 “We have robust student content assessments already. Assuming there really is alignment between Catalyst and our

Note: *N differs from number of interviews conducted due to timing of interview existing curriculum, then I would just use my own tests.” Source: School leadership interviews (N=31) Superintendent #1, National Charter Network BOS 190116 Catalyst Project SteerC ... 42 School leadership primarily concerned about over-burdening teachers and the quality of Catalyst curricula and volunteer

DEMAND SCHOOL LEADERSHIP Customers are concerned about burdening teachers Project-based learning can create significant and the fit and quality of curricula and volunteer challenges and additional work for teachers

Q: What challenges would you anticipate when trying to implement Catalyst? “Teachers are not used to teaching project-based curriculum. So it’s a hard ask to say, ‘hey you’re a really great teacher, but we need Key concerns you to totally rethink how you are teaching.’” (# of mentions), N=31 Industry Expert #1, California 20 20 “The co-teaching model is much like a marriage. We have trained 18 educators who can’t pull it off.” 16 Superintendent #1, Chicago 14 14 13 12 11 Projects must be easily integrated into curricula and 10 supported by a high quality volunteer 8 6 6 5 “What would drive demand is if Catalyst was legitimately plug and 4 play, and easily massaged to fit into our existing curriculum.” Principal #1, New York City 2 “The program you are describing is going to take dynamic volunteers, 0 and dynamic volunteers don’t grow on trees. High-quality people Cost are more the exception than the rule. But if you can find excellent,

Curriculum experienced and caring employees, Catalyst will be compelling. ” Proof of impact Principal #2, New York City quality and Volunteerfit quality Burden on teacher Volunteer logistics

Source: School leadership interviews (N=31)

BOS 190116 Catalyst Project SteerC ... 43 Schools did not differentiate between the Catalyst model options when sold as a fully bundled product; unlikely to pay for a pure volunteer add-on to existing curriculum

MODEL DECISION SCHOOL LEADERSHIP Customers are willing to pay for a bundled product and However, PLTW customers express reluctance to pay likely would not differentiate between Catalyst models for a pure volunteer add-on to their existing curriculum

“In terms of paying for the product, I don’t think schools care which “Since we already have PLTW in our schools, I would be interested model you provide. They just want to see that someone is there on in a volunteer overlay but wouldn’t pay for it. I know Citizen Schools the other side to spearhead it, check it for quality, and give a needs funds to orchestrate everything, but I think I would still streamlined product to the school at the end of the day.” want it for free because of the word ‘volunteer.’” Principal #3, North Carolina School Leader #1, Massachusetts

“I’m not sure if one approach or the other would matter to me. If “I would love to have a volunteer come in to help us deliver PLTW a volunteer overlay came as part of the PLTW package, that material, but I don’t think I would pay very much for that service. would be something we would be willing to pay for if the price We’re already invested in PLTW.” point was just a minimal increase.” School Leader #1, Texas Principal #1, Milwaukee “It would be incredibly valuable to supplement our existing “If the program is delivered with a partnership but the end product curriculum with a real-life scientist. On the one hand, I should be is the same, I would pay for it or at least have the same relative willing to pay for it. But on the other hand, it is definitely a barrier interest. But that is only if the partner has a national reputation to pay for this on top of what I am paying for PLTW.” and they are considered a leader in the space.” School Leader #3, Massachusetts School Leader #1, North Carolina

Source: School leadership interviews (N=31)

BOS 190116 Catalyst Project SteerC ... 44 Most schools have some flexibility for funding but would prefer to use grants to pay for supplemental programs like Catalyst

PROGRAM DESIGN SCHOOL LEADERSHIP Schools have some flexibility to access different funding sources for a program like Catalyst Schools prefer to use grants for supplemental programs

• Funding sources that could be accessed to pay for Catalyst: “Grants are the best way for a school to fund Catalyst, a program – Title funds: Title I, Title II, Title III, and Title IV like this is not core to our school. Our PLTW and Amplify curricula were initially funded through grants.” – Grants: Federal and private School Leader #1, Massachusetts – School funds: General fund, operating budget, revolving, gifts “Whenever principals hear about a new program, the first thing they “Since we are a low income school, we would look into committing ask is ‘can I use a grant for this?’” Title I funds for a program like this. If Title I funds are tied up at the Director of STEM #1, National Charter Network district level, then I would look into grants.” Principal #2, California Citizen Schools can benefit by helping remove burden of finding and applying for grants “If I can’t mimic the program myself internally, then the sources of to pay for something like this are .” funds endless “Citizen Schools should research the most applicable grants for District Leader #1, Massachusetts Catalyst, and then share that research when they reach out to potential customers. That would be a smart marketing play and “As school leaders we are trained to think flexibly about funding would really help me.” sources. Sometimes money comes from our , operating budget Principal #1, Portland sometimes from non-discretionary district funds, or sometimes we can or funds from the district.” unlock earmarked grants “I don’t grant write for anything, period. It just requires jumping Principal #3, California through too many hoops in California. It would be extremely helpful to have that work off my plate.” Source: School leadership interviews (N=31) Principal #4, California BOS 190116 Catalyst Project SteerC ... 45 In order to unlock funding, school leaders say Citizen Schools must plan well in advance, meet specific criteria, and hit certain student outcomes

PROGRAM DESIGN SCHOOL LEADERSHIP Accessing funding requires planning ahead and Implementation and payment are dependent on meeting managing long lead times specific criteria and student outcomes

• Budgeting process typically starts 6-9 months before school year “In order to spend the ~$20K, we would need to see a measurable improvement on the end of year math, ELA, and science • In-year budgets are tight and typically fully allocated come fall standards-based exams. There should also be an improvement and a in the quantity of • Title funds have strict criteria and must supplement not supplant in attendance decrease disruptive .” other funding sources behavior Principal, North Carolina • Grant applications are rolling and funds may have long lead times “It always comes down to academics and test scores. That’s what the community wants to see in order to commit money – is there “If it’s going to be a major expense, I would want to know and be evidence that the program will impact student achievement? I planning for it in December or January for the following fall.” would want to see example pre and post assessments.” Superintendent #1, National Charter Network Principal #2, California “Citizen Schools needs to reach out early and plant the seed in “We are most concerned about the life our students aspire to have January or February to earmark funding for the following year.” after college or a technical program. So the outcome I would want Principal #2, Oregon to track is whether Catalyst increases interest in STEM topics and careers.” “A lot of grants have to be written by the summer, and you need to School Leader #3, Massachusetts know exactly what you’re applying for .” ahead of time “Before any volunteer walks into a middle school classroom, I Superintendent, Chicago personally want to make sure they can hold the students’ “At the beginning of the school year you may have a little more attention and have a clear sense of the curriculum scope and money, but by mid-fall all the funds have been committed.” sequence.” Source: School leadership interviews (N=31) Principal #2, New York City Principal, California

BOS 190116 Catalyst Project SteerC ... 46 The quality of curricula matters more than the quantity; school leaders only need to see 2 to 5 high quality units to consider piloting or adopting Catalyst

SCHOOL LEADERSHIP School leaders look for at least 2 to 5 units per grade NGSS alignment and curriculum fit drive interest

Q: What is the minimum number of curricula or units per grade that would need “When I’m thinking of STEM project options, I’m primarily thinking to be offered to consider adoption? through the lens of standards alignment. I want to see at least one unit per big chunk of standards.” Principal #2, California

“It’s less about the number of options and more about how do the options align with our school’s curriculum? It could just be two options, that’s fine. But the key question as I look at a catalog is do the projects match the NGSS?” Principal #3, California Quality of options matters more than quantity

Note: *N differs from number of interviews conducted due to timing of interview Source: School leadership interviews (N=31)

BOS 190116 Catalyst Project SteerC ... 47 Catalyst curricula should largely be plug and play, but could benefit from having clearly prescribed avenues for potential customization

PROGRAM DESIGN SCHOOL LEADERSHIP Easily implemented, standardized units appeal to Some teachers want autonomy and flexibility to tailor a principals and help encourage teacher adoption project to better fit their class and teaching style

• Principals value simplicity and have an eye towards • Experienced teachers may want to craft the curriculum, but do standardizing teaching across their staff best if they are working within well-defined parameters • Ease of implementation is particularly important for new • Strong project-based learning often has homegrown elements teachers and school districts with high teacher turnover “It’s more important that the curriculum is standardized than “I’m a big believer in customizable. As a school leader, I want to make sure all my teachers feeling empowered to customize. But I am also a big believer in providing a to give teachers can take this program and run with it. So I would want basic roadmap to see a clear script with fit to our curriculum and to the NGSS.” teachers a really clear bottom line. And then from there if teachers Principal #3, North Carolina have the skill and desire to innovate and go off script…great!” Director of STEM #1, National Charter Network

“When you are asking teachers to do extra work, that won’t be “Even if you have a great standalone curriculum and you show up appealing. So the Catalyst curriculum has to have potential to to try to do it, that doesn’t necessarily mean it is going to be great. be standalone in order to gain teacher buy-in.” So an excellent science teacher is going to wonder, ‘how do I add Principal #3, California something special?’” “The kind of teacher who would have the know-how and appetite to Principal #3, California customize this curriculum is an experienced and certified EdTech “As a school leader, I’ve seen my most successful teachers are the teacher. That person is a unicorn. Most teachers just want ones who take a simple curriculum template and then dream big something that works out of the box.” and improvise about the best way to deliver the content.” Principal #1, Milwaukee Principal #1, California

Source: School leadership interviews (N=31)

BOS 190116 Catalyst Project SteerC ... 48 While there is some demand for financial literacy programs, schools are more focused on driving STEM outcomes and warn that the space is already crowded

SCHOOL LEADERSHIP Schools have mixed reactions to financial literacy Financial literacy should be positioned as a math programs program, not as a distinct or standalone offering

Q: Are you interested in purchasing a middle school financial literacy program? “Citizen Schools should talk about financial literacy, but it shouldn’t be the main selling point. I think it’d be cool if it was positioned as multidisciplinary. If a financial literacy program is just a standalone offering then people probably would rather spend time on STEM.” Principal #3, California

Financial literacy space is crowded and fragmented

BOS 190116 Catalyst Project SteerC ... 49 Most schools are primarily focused on STEM concept mastery and 21st Century skills development; social & emotional learning (SEL) is seen as important but secondary

PROGRAM DESIGN SCHOOL LEADERSHIP School leadership ranks STEM concept mastery and STEM projects help kids make real-world connections, skill development consistently higher than SEL driving engagement and concept mastery

Q: Rank the importance of the following student outcomes: STEM concept “Making real-world connections is the magic of STEM. Taking mastery, social & emotional learning, and 21st Century skills development. science concepts and relating them to the real world makes it relevant and drives interest for kids.” Customer priority rankings Superintendent, Chicago N=27* 27 27 27 100% “What makes Catalyst exciting for me is that you are connecting 1st students to the world outside of school. When you do that, you 1st immediately engage students and pique their interest. From there 80 1st it is easier to teach content and collaboration.” Principal #3, California 2nd 60 21st Century skills development is key for college and

2nd career readiness 2nd 40 ~50% of “Developing 21st Century skills is all about college and career school readiness. A lot of these skills are already embedded in the NGSS 3rd leaders 20 ranked standards framework.” 3rd 3rd SEL last District Leader #1, Massachusetts “Skill development is all about asking kids to grapple with things that 0 STEM 21st Century skills SEL are challenging, collaborate with others, and build the toolset they’ll need for future careers.” Note: *N differs from number of interviews conducted due to timing of interview Source: School leadership interviews (N=31) Industry expert, California

BOS 190116 Catalyst Project SteerC ... 50 APPENDIX Project background and context

School leadership detailed findings

Corporate partners detailed findings

Total addressable market analysis

Economic model detailed assumptions and output

Primary market research materials

BOS 190116 Catalyst Project SteerC ... 51 Key topics discussed with corporate partners helped inform general demand for Catalyst, Catalyst model decision, and Catalyst program design

CORPORATE PARTNERS

Demand for Catalyst Catalyst model decision Catalyst program design • Are corporate funders and • Are corporate funders and • Do corporations coordinate volunteers interested in Catalyst? volunteers open to Citizen Schools volunteer opportunities across pursuing a partnership model for offices? • What differentiates and drives Catalyst? demand for products like Catalyst? • Will volunteers have content • How would a partnership model knowledge and interest in a • What are corporate partners’ affect corporate willingness to predominantly science offering? biggest potential concerns about fund Catalyst? Catalyst? • How can Citizen Schools best set • How would Citizen Schools role in up a volunteer experience for • Are corporations willing to provide a partnership model affect success? growth capital? funding?

BOS 190116 Catalyst Project SteerC ... 52 Corporate partners are enthusiastic about Catalyst’s STEM content focus and the potential to reach more students and to engage more volunteers

DEMAND CORPORATE PARTNERS

Relevant content Student reach & access Expanded locations Lower time commitment

• Focus on STEM and • Ability to serve more • More scalable program • Shorter program is more experiential learning in students and more allows CS to reach new manageable for underserved communities equitable programming for geographies and offer volunteers; lower time aligns with corporate students as it takes places volunteer opportunities commitment enables more priorities during the school day across offices program participation

“I am excited about Catalyst “Our company very specifically “Corporate sponsors want to see “The four-five week timeline is because you are prioritizes STEM education and making programs near their offices. interesting. It’s hard to commit to we have always wanted Citizen enrichment a core part of the Geography matters – they want to a six-month program. I can block . That’s a game Schools to focus even more of school day provide opportunities for their off five weeks though. It’s much changer. Not everyone can their efforts on STEM.” employees, build up the local easier to recruit for a program Corporate Partner #14 access an afterschool program, workforce, and create goodwill like that.” plus kids are burnt out by then.” in the places they operate.” Corporate Partner #3 “Our corporate engagement goals Corporate Partner #12 Corporate Partner #2 are focused on the idea of “Citizen Schools is a very “I’m excited that Catalyst could creating students who are ready pragmatic, smart nonprofit. “It is smart to make Catalyst expand quickly. Right now CS less for 21st century STEM career. They know what will work and just serves employees in our of a time commitment. Now We also direct our service they do it. Changing the model California offices but they could instead of realistically being able towards underserved students.” will reach more students, which to pitch it to a dozen employees, I unlock more funding if they Corporate Partner #7 is what we want to do.” could .” served more of our locations.” go pitch it to hundred Corporate Partner #5 Corporate Partner #10 Corporate Partner #14 Source: Corporate partner interviews (N=16)

BOS 190116 Catalyst Project SteerC ... 53 Corporate funders prefer to finance programs with a proven track record and results; however, Catalyst can leverage Citizen Schools’ brand to unlock growth capital

DEMAND CORPORATE PARTNERS Corporations prefer to fund established programs with CS’s 25 years of experience and results can help a proven track record overcome that barrier to secure Catalyst seed funding

“When thinking about philanthropy, we definitely want to support “Generally speaking we don’t do seed funding. But I’m going to go more established programs. We tend to fund programs that are out on a limb here and say that – should Catalyst come to our up and running and have results that we can make decisions on.” region – I would personally be willing to present an application to Corporate Partner #10 our funding committee because of my trust in Citizen Schools.” Corporate Partner #14 “Our inclination, based on risk mitigation, is to just pick the proven winners who have a track record. The types of nonprofits that “Funding new programs vs. existing programs is less of an issue have historically been supported by our impact fund have found for us. It’s more of an issue of a startup vs. a proven organization. success for at least a few years prior.” If we are talking about CS then, yes, we could be open to providing Corporate Partner #11 funds because they have a history in the education space.” Corporate Partner #12 “In order to win a grant from our corporate foundation, you need to bring facts and figures that prove your impact in our specific “I would say that there is a lot of respect that comes along with priority area. It is difficult to imagine a brand new program having Citizen Schools. There’s a lot of heft there. There’s the thought that that kind of proof.” whatever is run by CS is going to be well-organized and work.” Corporate Partner #8 Corporate Partner #10

“I know from sitting on corporate funding committees that it is very “From a corporate perspective, Citizen Schools has the trust hard to financially support a program that doesn’t have data to factor and experience. I can’t think of anyone who would be more really show they are successfully doing what they say they are credible than CS. That’s a brand they can leverage when seeking doing.” funding for a new project.” Source: Corporate partner interviews (N=16) Corporate Partner #1 Corporate Partner #4

BOS 190116 Catalyst Project SteerC ... 54 Employees biggest concerns with Catalyst center around commitments during the workday; CS can help address this obstacle by pairing volunteers together in teams

DEMAND CORPORATE PARTNERS Volunteers biggest concerns with Catalyst are related to Many employees lack the flexibility to leave work during significant time commitments during the workday the day on a regular basis

Q: What challenges would you anticipate when trying to implement Catalyst? “Volunteering after school is a stretch for a lot of us, so volunteering is even more of a stretch.” during the school day Key Concerns Corporate Partner #7 N=13* “One of the things that is true for manufacturing companies like 10 ours is that a lot of manufacturing employees have very rigid work 9 9 hours. They tend to work right through the school day with no flexibility.” 8 Corporate Partner #6 7 6 Pairing volunteers together can help alleviate the issue 5 5 5 4 “The times I have seen volunteer programs succeed happen when 4 there are more people involved than you really need. Then 3 volunteers cover for each other if something comes up at work.” 2 Corporate Partner #13 1 “One technique I believe works well is when employees come 0 Scheduling Ongoing time Content Travel to school volunteer in a group. If one employee can’t leave work, there is during work day commitment mastery site another one who covers. That way the employee doesn’t end up at the last minute.” Note: *N differs from number of interviews conducted due to timing of interview feeling like they failed the students Source: Corporate partner interviews (N=16) Corporate Partner #8

BOS 190116 Catalyst Project SteerC ... 55 Corporations are generally interested in a partnership model for Catalyst, provided partners are best-in-class and roles are clearly defined upfront

MODEL DECISION CORPORATE PARTNERS Many corporate partners are open to CS working with a Several corporate partners saw the partnership model consortium of nonprofits to deliver Catalyst as a value add to Catalyst

Q: If Citizen Schools worked with other non-profit partners to deliver Catalyst, “We provide volunteers for consortiums all the time and have no how would that impact the likelihood of funding and providing volunteers? problem with a partnership. I actually think a partnership works well in

Percent of respondents this case because it increases the scale and therefore, increases the N=14* likelihood of there being a school close by to our office.” Corporate Partner #12 14 100% Less likely “I would probably be more inclined to fund a partnership of nonprofits than a single nonprofit. I like the idea of joining a team of other qualified people, because a group could drive results even better than someone 80 unilaterally responsible a complex program.” Corporate Partner #11 Neutral 60 Others were interested as long as CS found a best-in- class partner and roles were clearly delineated upfront

40 “If [the partner] was a large, well-respected, well-known organization in the education space with a track record of success, then a consortium would be very strong idea.” Corporate Partner #10 20 More likely “My gut says that a partnership model is not a barrier, but it depends on each partner’s responsibilities and expertise. I would want a clear 0 Likelihood to support plan on how they are going to work together to deliver the program.” Note: *N differs from number of interviews conducted due to timing of interview Corporate Partner #9 Source: Corporate partner interviews (N=16)

BOS 190116 Catalyst Project SteerC ... 56 In a partnership model, corporates have a higher bar to provide funding and prefer to fund the lead partner; transparency and clear roles can help overcome obstacles

MODEL DECISION CORPORATE PARTNERS Funders are open to investing but prefer to support the Upfront transparency and accountability can help lead organization in a partnership or consortium model partnerships clear the higher hurdle to receive funds

“If there is a lead organization in a partnership, our tendency is to “I don’t particularly care how our funds are divvyed up amongst just work with that organization. We want to avoid re-granting partners. So long as it is transparent on the front end how that situations where a lead partner turns around and provides funds to division would work, I am open to it.” other partners. That’s because we want direct accountability.” Corporate Partner #10 Corporate Partner #6 “If we were investing in a partnership we would want increased “As an existing funder of Citizen Schools, I want to see them lead information and assurances. The bar is higher. We would look to in this space, and I think it behooves them to be seen as a see if the various organizations have the ability to take responsibility leader. They should be a convener that brings non-profit partners and that the lead is on the hook.” together in the education space, but they shouldn’t step back.” Corporate Partner #9 Corporate Partner #12 “We could theoretically fund a secondary partner, but only if we “If Citizen Schools is not the lead, it would call into question why fully understood how the funds were being utilized within a would we fund them. It wouldn’t make sense to me to fund the consortium. We would only write the check out to one non-profit, but service provider instead of the lead provider.” we would be ok if money was then split within the partnership.” Corporate Partner #3 Corporate Partner #14

Source: Corporate partner interviews (N=16)

BOS 190116 Catalyst Project SteerC ... 57 Clear expectations, roles, and coordination both before and during a project help setup volunteers for success

PROGRAM DESIGN CORPORATE PARTNERS Employees look for clearly defined roles and During a project, volunteers want streamlined logistics expectations when evaluating volunteer opportunities and dedicated time to collaborate with the teacher

“The easier volunteering appears from the beginning, the more “The less logistics an employee has to handle while volunteering likely people are to sign up. Before entering the classroom, the better. Ideally they can just show up and immediately go to volunteers like to see an easy signup process, simple training work. Oftentimes, that means a single coordinator is pulling materials, and a plan for exactly what to do and where to go.” strings behind the scenes and communicating with them.” Corporate Partner #10 Corporate Partner #11 “Our volunteers look for a clear articulation of the time commitment “It’s important that Citizen Schools, school leadership, the teacher, from the outset. They also want a clear role and responsibility so and the volunteer are all singing the same song. There has to be it is simple for the employee to enter the school and become a part time to sit down, collaborate, and get on the same page.” of the classroom experience.” Corporate Partner #12 Corporate Partner #8 “It’s harder for us to get volunteers to commit when a program is “For volunteers to really do their best, they need the opportunity to opaque. When there are many options for curriculum, school collaborate with the teacher. If this collaboration happens week locations, and times, we struggle to get commitment. You have to over week then the employee can truly become comfortable with say we’ve identified a specific school, curriculum and time.” the curriculum.” Corporate Partner #5 Corporate Partner #7

“Professional volunteer matching only works at scale if there is “When it comes to logistics during a project, all volunteers really strong customer service. So I would underscore how important it need is clarity. They think ‘just let me know where I need to be is to have a simple ready-made model to articulate to volunteers and when I need to be there and for how long.’” and a easy-to-use platform for them to sign up for opportunities.” Corporate Partner #14 Corporate Partner #3 Source: Corporate partner interviews (N=16)

BOS 190116 Catalyst Project SteerC ... 58 Corporate funding decisions are made at the central level, while volunteer recruiting happens locally; Catalyst team should fundraise centrally and recruit locally

PROGRAM DESIGN CORPORATE PARTNERS Corporate HQs are often responsible for annual Volunteer recruiting is more of a local effort, built philanthropic funding and grants through relationships with specific offices

“We don’t have a philanthropic slush fund in each local office. “Volunteering is mostly a grassroots efforts these days. We don’t Instead that money comes from our national corporate have anybody who coordinates volunteers across multiple sites. foundation. They give one grant to fund non-profits per year.” Sourcing volunteers happens on an office by office basis.” Corporate Partner #12 Corporate Partner #10

“At our company we separate non-profit funding from employee “There wouldn’t be a great deal of coordination across volunteer engagement. Our central body sets our philanthropic geographic regions in terms of volunteer sourcing. Each region priorities and makes the funding choices.” works on their own when it comes to employee engagement.” Corporate Partner #7 Corporate Partner #8

“While there is less of a mechanism for national volunteer “Volunteer sourcing is mostly just coordinated by one person within partnerships, that national level is where most of the larger any geographic branch of our company. It is not top down in any philanthropic funding decisions are made. We have two grant sense; it is really grassroots.” programs that are run out of our headquarter location.” Corporate Partner #7 Corporate Partner #8 “Recruiting volunteers happens at the regional level. For example, my central enterprise office does not recruit volunteers. We do have a preference for non-profits who offer services at multiple office locations; but the recruitment still happens on the ground level.” Corporate Partner #15

Source: Corporate partner interviews (N=16)

BOS 190116 Catalyst Project SteerC ... 59 APPENDIX Project background and context

School leadership detailed findings

Corporate partners detailed findings

Total addressable market analysis

Economic model detailed assumptions and output

Primary market research materials

BOS 190116 Catalyst Project SteerC ... 60 We used three separate approaches to define the target addressable market

Approach #1 – Citizen Schools footprint Approach #2 – STEM priority cities Approach #3 – Corporate headquarters

• Criteria: Cities within Citizen School’s • Criteria: Cities well-positioned for STEM • Criteria: Cities that serve as corporate current geographic footprint research and careers headquarters for key partners

• Rationale: Citizen Schools can leverage • Rationale: Citizen Schools should target • Rationale: Citizen Schools should target existing relationships and footprint to cities with supply of STEM volunteers partner headquarters to access achieve scale and career opportunities volunteers and funding

• List of US2020 and ELT cities: • List of STEM Priority cities*: Atlanta, • List of priority corporations**: AB Allendale, Atlanta, Baton Rouge, Boston, Austin, Boston, Chicago, Cincinnati, InBev, Amazon, Amgen, Arconic Buffalo, Charlotte, Chicago, Cincinnati, Columbus, Dallas, Dayton, Denver, Foundation, Boeing, Capital One, Cisco, Dallas, Detroit, Durham, Indianapolis, Hartford, Indianapolis, Los Angeles, Dell, Dow, Fidelity, Goldman Sachs, Los Angeles, New York, Philadelphia, Madison, Miami, Minneapolis, Nashville, Google, Infosys, John Hancock, Life Pittsburg, San Jose, San Francisco, New York City, Orlando, Philadelphia, Science Cares, Microsoft, Nielson, PwC, Socorro, The Dalles, Tulsa, Washington Pittsburgh, Raleigh, Sacramento, Salt Salesforce, Vertex, Wayfair, Western D.C., Wichita Lake City, San Diego, San Francisco, Digital San Jose, Seattle, Springfield, Washington D.C., Worcester

Note: *Top 30 STEM cities defined by Amazon HQ2 list and Wallethub analysis, **Priority corporate partners defined through discussions with Citizen Schools

BOS 190116 Catalyst Project SteerC ... 61 TAM analysis shows Citizen Schools’ footprint largely aligns with priority STEM cities and corporate partner headquarters’ locations

The three approaches to defining the target addressable market lead to a largely overlapping set of priority cities; existing US2020 and ELT cities are well-positioned to access corporate STEM volunteers and funds

Five out of six ELT cities are both corporate partner headquarters and STEM priority cities; fourteen out of twenty-two US2020 locations are STEM priority cities

Austin and Seattle are strong candidates for new priority Catalyst cities; both are home to corporate partner headquarters and are STEM priority cities with a deep supply of STEM industry professionals

Worcester and Springfield in Massachusetts are also strong potential expansion city candidates, as both cities have high STEM-friendliness ratings* and exist close to Citizen School’s home market of Boston

Citizen Schools should potentially deprioritize US2020 cities that are neither STEM priority cities nor corporate partner headquarter locations: Allendale, Baton Rouge, Detroit, Idaho, Soccorro, The Dalles, Tulsa, and Wichita

Note: *STEM-friendliness ratings weigh metrics like Quality of Engineering Universities and Presence of Tech Summer Programs Source: NCES database, Wallethub

BOS 190116 Catalyst Project SteerC ... 62 Approach #1: Defining the target addressable market for Model 1 and Model 3

APPROACH 1 MODEL 1 AND MODEL 3

1 • Filter out parochial and private schools All public and charter Middle Schools • Filter out Elementary and High schools

2 • Filter out middle and high income districts High-need, low-income Middle Schools • Only Title I schools remain (>40% FRL)*

Total addressable market 3 • Filter out districts in town and rural communities (suburban and urban Middle Schools) • Only suburban and urban districts remain

Practical addressable market 4 • Filter out communities with no current Citizen (ELT & US2020) Schools presence • Only districts in ELT & US2020 communities remain (i.e. ~25 cities across the US) Target addressable 5 • Filter out districts in US2020 communities market • Only districts in ELT communities remain (i.e. San (ELT) Francisco, San Jose, New York, Boston, Charlotte

Note: *We excluded schools that receive targeted Title 1 funds and Durham)

BOS 190116 Catalyst Project SteerC ... 63 BOS 190116 Catalyst Project SteerC ... 64 Approach #1: The Model 1 and 3 target addressable market is ~240K Middle School students using the Citizen Schools footprint approach

APPROACH 1 MODEL 1 AND MODEL 3 Citizen Schools should first target 3K core customer schools Number of Middle School students Addressable market 12.5M Total Practical Target ~11.2

10.0

7.5

5.0 ~(5.3) ~3.7 ~(2.2) 2.5 ~1.3 ~(1.1) ~(2.4) ~0.2 0.0 Middle Non Title I Rural/towns* Urban/ Communities US2020 US2020 ELT schools suburban with no CS and ELT communities communities Title I presence communities

Note: *Rural/towns are territories located outside an urban center or with a population less than 50,000 Source: NCES database

BOS 190116 Catalyst Project SteerC ... 65 Approach #1: Defining the target addressable market for Model 2

APPROACH 1 MODEL 2

1 • Starting point is confined to the ~3700** public and PLTW Gateway public and charter Middle Schools charter Middle Schools that use the PLTW Gateway program

2 • Filter out middle and high income districts High-need, low-income Middle Schools • Only Title I schools remain (>40% FRL)*

Total addressable market 3 • Filter out districts in town and rural communities (suburban and urban Middle Schools) • Only suburban and urban districts remain

Practical addressable market 4 • Filter out communities with no current Citizen (ELT & US2020) Schools presence • Only districts in ELT & US2020 communities remain

Target addressable 5 • Filter out districts in US2020 communities market • Only districts in ELT communities remain (ELT)

Note: *We excluded schools that receive targeted Title 1 funds; **We were unable to match ~800 PLTW schools into the NCES database

BOS 190116 Catalyst Project SteerC ... 66 BOS 190116 Catalyst Project SteerC ... 67 Approach #1: Model 2 target schools represent about ~12% of the Model 1 and 3 target student population, as PLTW is slightly over-indexed to larger schools

APPROACH 1 MODEL 2 Citizen Schools should first target 3K core customer schools Number of Middle School students Addressable market 12.0M Total Practical Target

11.2

We were unable to identify ~800 schools in PLTW database 2.0** (9.2) 1.5

1.0 (1.0) 0.7 0.5 (0.3) 0.2 (0.2) 0.03 0.0 (0.4) All Middle Non-PLTW PLTW Non Title I Rural/towns* Urban/ Communities US2020 US2020 ELT schools Middle suburban with no CS and ELT communities communities schools Title I presence communities

Note: *Rural/towns are territories located outside an urban center or with a population less than 50,000, **We considered all schools that use the Gateway curriculum as middle schools Source: NCES database, PLTW database

BOS 190116 Catalyst Project SteerC ... 68 Approach #2: Defining the target addressable market using STEM priority cities

APPROACH 2 MODEL 1

1 • Filter out parochial and private schools All public and charter Middle Schools • Filter out Elementary and High schools

2 • Filter out middle and high income districts High-need, low-income Middle Schools • Only Title I schools remain (>40% FRL)*

Total addressable market 3 • Filter out districts in town and rural communities (suburban and urban Middle Schools) • Only suburban and urban districts remain

Practical addressable market 4 • Filter out non STEM priority communities (STEM Priority) • Only districts in STEM priority communities** remain

Target 5 • Filter out communities with no current Citizen addressable Schools presence market • Only districts in Citizens Schools communities (CS) remain (US2020 and ELT) Note: *We excluded schools that receive targeted Title 1 funds, **STEM priority communities are defined using Amazon HQ2 and Wallethub research, they include: Atlanta, Austin, Boston, Chicago, Cincinnati, Columbus, Dallas, Dayton, Denver, Hartford, Indianapolis, Los Angeles, Madison, Miami, Minneapolis, Nashville, New York City, Orlando, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Raleigh, Sacramento, Salt Lake City, San Diego, San Francisco, San Jose, Seattle, Springfield, Washington D.C, Worcester

BOS 190116 Catalyst Project SteerC ... 69 BOS 190116 Catalyst Project SteerC ... 70 Approach #2: The Model 1 target addressable market is ~1.2M middle school students using the STEM priority cities approach

APPROACH 2 MODEL 1 Citizen Schools should first target 3K core customer schools Number of Middle School students Addressable market 12.5M Total Practical Target ~11.2

10.0

7.5

5.0 ~(5.3) ~3.7 ~(2.2) 2.5 ~1.7 ~(0.5) ~1.2 ~(2) 0.0 Middle Non Title I Rural/towns* Urban/ Not STEM STEM priority Not CS CS schools suburban priority cities cities communities communities Title I

Note: *Rural/towns are territories located outside an urban center or with a population less than 50,000 Source: NCES database

BOS 190116 Catalyst Project SteerC ... 71 Approach #3: Defining the target addressable market using corporate footprint

APPROACH 3 MODEL 1

1 • Filter out parochial and private schools All public and charter Middle Schools • Filter out Elementary and High schools

2 • Filter out middle and high income districts High-need, low-income Middle Schools • Only Title I schools remain (>40% FRL)*

Total addressable market 3 • Filter out districts in town and rural communities (suburban and urban Middle Schools) • Only suburban and urban districts remain

Practical addressable market 4 • Filter out communities outside of priority corporate (Priority corporate partners) partner headquarter cities • Only districts in priority corporate partner headquarter cities remain** Target • Filter out communities with no current Citizen addressable 5 Schools presence market (CS) • Only districts in Citizens Schools communities remain (US2020 and ELT) Note: *We excluded schools that receive targeted Title 1 funds, **Priority corporate partner headquarter cities include: Austin, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, Midland, New York, Pittsburgh, San Francisco, San Jose, Seattle, St. Louis, Washington D.C.

BOS 190116 Catalyst Project SteerC ... 72 BOS 190116 Catalyst Project SteerC ... 73 Approach #3: The Model 1 target addressable market is ~700K middle school students using the corporate footprint approach

APPROACH 3 MODEL 1 Citizen Schools should first target 3K core customer schools Number of Middle School students Addressable market 12.5M Total Practical Target ~11.2

10.0

7.5

5.0 ~(5.3) ~3.7 ~(2.2) 2.5

~0.8 ~(0.1) ~0.7 0.0 ~(2.8) Middle Non Title I Rural/towns* Urban/ Not in Corporate Not in CS CS schools suburban corporate footprint communities communities Title I footprint

Note: *Rural/towns are territories located outside an urban center or with a population less than 50,000 Source: NCES database

BOS 190116 Catalyst Project SteerC ... 74 APPENDIX Project background and context

School leadership detailed findings

Corporate partners detailed findings

Total addressable market analysis

Economic model detailed assumptions and output

Primary market research materials

BOS 190116 Catalyst Project SteerC ... 75 Catalyst reach assumptions (1 of 2)

Model 1: Model 2: Model 3: Degree of PRELIMINARY Item Full Service Mass STEM Hub Coordinator confidence Source/notes Reach Catalyst cities • FY20: 3 • FY20-24: 1 • FY20: 3 • Moderate • 1/9 working session • 1 new city/year through 2023 • All MA sites report into Boston • 1 new city/year through 2023 • City defined as a major metro area Schools per Catalyst • FY20: 4 • FY20: 50 in MA • FY20: 4 • Moderate • 1/9 working session city • 2 new schools/city per year • 25 new schools/year • 2 new schools/city per year Teachers per school • FY20: 2 • FY20: 2 • FY20: 2 • High • 1/9 working session • FY21: 4 (in established schools) • FY21: 4 (in established schools) • FY21: 4 (in established schools) • 2 new teachers/year per school • FY22: 6 (in established schools) • FY22: 6 (in established schools) • FY22: 6 (in established schools) • Ramps to 6 teachers/school Class sections per • 3 • 3 • 3 • High • 1/9 working session teacher per semester • # of class sections per teacher where Catalyst is taught Number of semesters • 1-2 • 1-2 • 1-2 • High • 1/9 working session • Base case: 1 semester of Catalyst per class section • Alternative scenario: 2 semesters of Catalyst per class section Volunteers per class • 1-2 • 1-2 • 1-2 • High • 1/9 working session section • Base case: 1 volunteer per class section • Alternative scenario: 2 volunteers per class section Students per class • 28 • 28 • 28 • High • 12/18 working session section Assumption degree of confidence High Moderate Low

BOS 190116 Catalyst Project SteerC ... 76 Catalyst reach assumptions (2 of 2)

Model 1: Model 2: Model 3: Degree of PRELIMINARY Item Full Service Mass STEM Hub Coordinator confidence Source/notes Reach Volunteers per volunteer • FY20: 50 • FY20: 50 • FY20: 50 • Moderate • 1/9 working session recruiter • FY21: 100 • FY21: 100 • FY21: 100 • FY22-24: 200 • FY22-24: 200 • FY22-24: 200 Teachers per project • FY20: 10 • FY20: 10 • FY20: 10 • Moderate • 1/4 working session manager • FY21: 15 • FY21: 15 • FY21: 15 • FY22-24: 20 • FY22-24: 20 • FY22-24: 20 Schools per sales rep • FY20: 5 • N/A • FY20: 5 • Moderate • 1/9 working session • FY21: 10 • FY21: 10 • FY22-24: 15 • FY22-24: 15

Assumption degree of confidence High Moderate Low

BOS 190116 Catalyst Project SteerC ... 77 Assumption degree of confidence Catalyst cost assumptions (1 of 3) High Moderate Low Fully loaded Model 1: Model 2: Model 3: Level of PRELIMINARY Item salary Full Service Mass STEM Hub Coordinator confidence Source/notes Start up costs Marketing • ~$50K • FY20: 50% • N/A • FY20: 50% • Low • 2018 personnel cost data; 12/18 working session collateral • FY21: 25% • FY21: 25% • Marketing Manager salary & time allocation used as a development proxy for cost • FY22-24: 0% • FY22-24: 0% Volunteer training • ~$90K • FY20-24: Ramps • FY20-24: Ramps • FY20-24: Ramps down as • Moderate • 2018 personnel cost data; 12/18 working session content down as director down as director director works on • Catalyst Training and Experience Director salary & time development works on refreshing works on refreshing refreshing vs. building allocation used a proxy for cost vs. building content vs. building content content Curriculum and • ~$120K • FY20: 100% • N/A • N/A • Moderate • 2018 personnel cost data; 12/18 working session PD development • FY21-24: Ramps • Catalyst Curriculum/PD Development Director salary & down as director time allocation used a proxy for cost works on refreshing vs. new content Curriculum and • N/A • N/A • N/A • FY20-24: 2 consulting • Moderate • 12/20 working session PD modification projects per year ($10K per project) Digital • N/A • FY20: $700K • FY20: $700K • FY20: $700K • Low • Catalyst US2020 model (Bridgespan) investments • FY21: $200K • FY21: $200K • FY21: $200K • Figures to be revisited - new data available in Jan 2019 • FY22: $200K • FY22: $200K • FY22: $200K • FY23: $100K • FY23: $100K • FY23: $100K • FY24: $0K • FY24: $0K • FY24: $0K Email marketing • N/A • FY20-24: $2K • N/A • FY20-24: $2K • Low • Secondary research Physical • N/A • FY20-24: $4K • N/A • FY20-24: $4K • Low • Secondary research marketing

BOS 190116 Catalyst Project SteerC ... 78 Assumption degree of confidence Catalyst cost assumptions (2 of 3) High Moderate Low

Fully loaded Model 1: Model 2: Model 3: Level of PRELIMINARY Item salary Full Service Mass STEM Hub Coordinator confidence Source/notes Ongoing costs Personnel National Business development • ~$160K • N/A • FY20: 50% of time • FY20: 50% of time • Moderate • 2018 personnel cost data; 12/18 working session director • FY21-24: 25% • FY21-24: 25% Training/experience • ~$90K • FY20-24: Ramps up • FY20-24: Ramps • FY20-24: Ramps up as • Moderate • 2018 personnel cost data; 12/18 working session director as director works on up as director director works on refreshing vs. works on refreshing refreshing vs. building building content vs. building content content Curriculum • ~$120K • FY20-24: Ramps up • N/A • N/A • Moderate • 2018 personnel cost data; 12/18 working session development director as director works on refreshing vs. building content Sales director • ~$120K • FY20-24: 100% • N/A • FY20-24: 100% • Moderate • 2018 personnel cost data; 12/18 working session Program director • ~$90K • FY20-24: 100% • FY20-24: 100% • FY20-24: 100% • Moderate • 2018 personnel cost data; 12/18 working session Data analyst • ~$50K • FY20-24: 100% • FY20-24: 100% • FY20-24: 100% • Moderate • 2018 personnel cost data; 12/18 working session Regional/Field Sales representative • ~$80K • FY20-24: 100% • N/A • FY20-24: 100% • Moderate • 2018 personnel cost data; 1/4 working session • # of sales reps based on # of schools; must have 1 per metro area/region Project manager • ~$55K • FY20-24: 100% • FY20-24: 100% • FY20-24: 100% • Moderate • 2018 personnel cost data; 12/18 working session • # of project managers based on # of teachers; must have 1 per metro area/region Volunteer recruiter • ~$60K • FY20-24: 100% • FY20-24: 100% • FY20-24: 100% • Moderate • 2018 personnel cost data; 12/18 working session • # of recruiters based on # of volunteers; must have 1 BOS 190116 Catalystper Project metro SteerC area/region ... 79 Catalyst cost assumptions (3 of 3)

PRELIMINARY Model 1: Model 2: Model 3: Degree of Item Full Service Mass STEM Hub Coordinator confidence Source/notes Ongoing costs Office cost (per city) Office space • $30K • $30K • $30K • Moderate • Q1 2019 annualized non-personnel cost data Software • $12K • $12K • $12K • Moderate • Q1 2019 annualized non-personnel cost data Insurance • $5K • $5K • $5K • Moderate • Q1 2019 annualized non-personnel cost data Phone, fax, internet • $5K • $5K • $5K • Moderate • Q1 2019 annualized non-personnel cost data Supplies and materials • $4K • $4K • $4K • Moderate • Q1 2019 annualized non-personnel cost data Miscellaneous (e.g., copying) • $1K • $1K • $1K • Moderate • Q1 2019 annualized non-personnel cost data Sub-total • $57K • $57K • $57K • Moderate Other non-personnel costs Partner licensing fees (per teacher) • N/A • N/A • $800 • High • 12/20 working session • Amplify licensing fee from Fall 2018 used Training per volunteer • $25 • $25 • $25 • Moderate • Catalyst US2020 model (Bridgespan) Background check per volunteer • $50 • $50 • $50 • Moderate • Catalyst US2020 model (Bridgespan) Travel per project manager • $3K • $3K • $3K • Low • Catalyst US2020 model (Bridgespan) Travel per volunteer recruiter • $1K • $1K • $1K • Low • Catalyst US2020 model (Bridgespan) Travel per sales representative • $1K • $1K • $1K • Low • Catalyst US2020 model (Bridgespan)

Assumption degree of confidence High Moderate Low

BOS 190116 Catalyst Project SteerC ... 80 Catalyst revenue assumptions

PRELIMINARY

Model 1: Model 2: Model 3: Level of Item Full Service Mass STEM Hub Coordinator confidence Source/notes Revenue Growth capital/ • FY20: $250K • FY20: $250K • FY20: $250K • Moderate • Citizen Schools Revenue Data FY19 Pipeline and FY20 Private (lump sum) Committed • FY21: $250K • FY21:$250K • FY21:$250K • Siegel Family Endowment • FY22-24: $0K • FY22-24: $0K • FY22-24: $0K District (per student) • FY20-24: $25 per • N/A • FY20-24: $25 per • Low • School leadership primary research student student • Adjusted average price schools/districts are willing to pay

Assumption degree of confidence High Moderate Low

BOS 190116 Catalyst Project SteerC ... 81 Model 2 has greater school and student reach than Model 1 and Model 3

Cities served Schools served Students served

Number of schools served Number of students served 150 150 70K 62 125 60

50 100 100

40 37 75

64 64 24 24 50 50 48 48 21 20 17 17 34 34 11 11 22 22 8 12 12 6 6 2 2 0 0 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24

BOS 190116 Catalyst Project SteerC ... 82 Model 2 requires that Citizen Schools more rapidly scale its capabilities and team

Corporate volunteers Regional/field personnel

Number of regional personnel

50 49

40 39

31 30 29 29 25 22 22 20 16 17 17 13 13

10 9 9

0 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24

BOS 190116 Catalyst Project SteerC ... 83 All models have relatively similar cost profiles and philanthropic gaps in FY20, but Model 2 begins to outpace Model 1 and Model 2 in FY21-FY24

Cost profile Philanthropic gap

Annualized total cost

$4M 3.8

3.3 3.1 3.1 3 2.7 2.6 2.6

2.2 2.3 2.1 2.0 2.0 2.0 2 1.8 1.8

1

0 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24

BOS 190116 Catalyst Project SteerC ... 84 APPENDIX Project background and context

School leadership detailed findings

Corporate partners detailed findings

Total addressable market analysis

Economic model detailed assumptions and output

Primary market research materials

BOS 190116 Catalyst Project SteerC ... 85 How we defined Catalyst in primary interviews with customers

“The new product is called Catalyst and it pairs an industry professional volunteer with a teacher to deliver STEM, project- based learning in the classroom during the school day. There are four key components of the Catalyst program:

1) Curriculum - NGSS standards aligned project-based science curriculum 2) Assessment – Measure STEM concept mastery and interest in STEM careers / topics 3) Teacher PD – Support effective integration of volunteers into the classroom 4) Volunteer – Industry expert to help facilitate project and bring subject matter expertise into the classroom

Projects run 4-5 weeks at 1-2 hours per week, for a total of 8-10 hours per project. An example Catalyst project would be a Google software developer teaching a coding project in a school alongside a teacher.”

Source: Citizen Schools’ Catalyst presentations

BOS 190116 Catalyst Project SteerC ... 86 How we defined social & emotional learning (SEL) and 21st Century skills in primary interviews with customers

21st Century skills Social & emotional learning (SEL)

• Critical thinking • Self-awareness • Creativity and imagination • Self-management • Collaboration and teamwork • Social-awareness • Problem solving • Relationship skills • Oral and written communication • Responsible decision-making • Information literacy • Empathy • Civic literacy and citizenship • Impulse control • Technology literacy • Flexibility and adaptability • Emotion recognition • Leadership • Emotion management • Initiative and self-direction • Assertiveness • Productivity and work ethic • Social responsibility and ethics

Source: CASEL, OECD, Envision, P21, Applied Education, Committee for Children

BOS 190116 Catalyst Project SteerC ... 87