To further understand accessibility better, we broadened our scope and explored the district-level view to examine how SBHC access is distributed across Connecticut school districts. The table below, in Figure 4, shows which districts have SBHCs, how many are located in each district, the table also indicates school districts have none at all.
Figure 4. Connecticut Districts with School-Based Health Centers Link to interactive table.
Mapping this table geographically helps give a better picture. We translated this district-level data onto a map of Connecticut, shown in Figure 5 below. The choropleth map uses the Unified School District Map 2025, the most complete and consistent geographic boundary dataset currently available for statewide visualization. While this polygon layer does not capture every small or non-unified district with perfect precision, it remains the best available option for representing overall geographic trends. This map makes it easier to see regional concentrations, gaps, and the concentration of SBHCs in the unified school districts across Connecticut. In the map below, we see trends of SBHCs being clustered around large urban districts, with Hartford and New Haven being the darkest colored polygons, indicating higher SBHC counts.
Figure 5. Connecticut Districts with SBHC Totals. Link to interactive map.
From these figures, we can see that Hartford leads with 21 SBHCs serving 15,782 students, followed by New Haven with 20 SBHC serving 18,144 students. The visualization reveals a clear pattern of how SBHCs in Connecticut are mostly concentrated in the large urban districts particularly the five major urban districts – Hartford, Bridgeport, Waterbury, New Haven, and Stamford. In addition, semi-urban districts show mixed patterns: Bloomfield, Groton, and Stratford have multiple SBHCs, but at the same time, some urban adjacent districts such as Milford, West Hartford, and Fairfield have surprisingly no SBHC at all. Also, many rural and small town districts have few or no access to SBHCs at all.
While the largest urban districts have the highest number of SBHCs, they also carry the burden of having a significantly higher number of students who attend those schools. The higher number of SBHCs in these districts does not simply indicate greater funding or development, but it is also driven by their high student populations. For example, while Hartford and New Haven have some of the largest numbers of SBHCs in the state, they also serve approximately 15,782 and 18,144 students, respectively.
Disproportionate Access to SBHCs: Per 1,000 Students Reveals Hidden Inequities
Given that the SBHC counts are not solely related to urbanisation and development, but the actual enrolled population, using student enrollment as a criterion will help us better analyse the accessibility of school-based health services across Connecticut. Thus, using a metric of ‘SBHC-per-1000-students’ can reveal a different story to better understand how many students are actually getting access, and those who are void of it.
To better understand how access differs when we take student population into account, we calculated SBHCs per 1,000 students for each district. The table in Figure 6 below shows that some smaller districts, despite having fewer SBHCs, actually have higher access relative to their student population.
Figure 6. Access to SBHC per 1000 students among Connecticut Schools. Link to interactive table.
The table makes the differences visible, showing how the accessibility rank of districts rises or falls once student enrollment is taken into account. While the urban and large districts of Hartford and New Haven no longer appear at the top because their high student populations significantly diminish their access rate, several smaller and mid-sized districts, in fact, give better SBHC access to students. School districts such as Sharon, North Canaan, and Winchester visibly provide better access despite having far fewer total SBHCs. At the same time, many smaller towns with only one SBHC, and in many cases none at all, remain clustered at the bottom, revealing gaps in SBHC access. This normalization helps paint a clearer picture of which students across the state actually benefit from higher access. We then translated the normalized data into the map below in Figure 7 and compared it with the trends in Figure 5. The map reveals a new pattern that appears to contradict the earlier geographical trends in Figure 2. The concentration of access is not around the five and other large urban distrcits but rather spread across several small to medium-sized districts.
Figure 7. Connecticut Districts with SBHCs per 1000 students. Link to interactive map.
Larger districts like Hartford and New Haven have access rates of 1.33 and 1.1 SBHCs per 1,000 students, whereas smaller and unified districts such as Sharon, Portland and Winchester have much higher rates of 10.31, 4.06 and 3.44, respectively. This shows that accessibility is not solely about the number of SBHCs but the number of students who benefit. However, it is also not always the case that districts with lower student populations are always accessible, because several smaller towns have rates that fall below 1 SBHC per 1000 students, and a fair number of these smaller and rural districts do not have access to school based health centers at all. The absence of such important services raises concerns about regional equity and whether resources are being distributed where the needs are greatest or simply where systems already exist.
Where Do We Go From Here?
Taken together, these findings point to the need for a more calculated approach to the distribution and accessibility of School-Based Health Centers. Simply adding more centers would not guarantee better access if the student populations remain disproportionate in every district. Going forward and rethinking access, the per 1000 student rates can serve as a comprehensive tool for state agencies, districts, and community partners to identify the most inaccessible areas, especially the smaller towns that have no SBHC services at all. By directing future investment and funding toward regions with the greatest gaps, and not just the largest districts, Connecticut can move closer to a school-health infrastructure that is far more equitable, accessible, and focused on the actual needs.
Methods
We began our analysis by cleaning our dataset of Connecticut School-Based Health Centers (SBHCs) provided by our professor, Jack Dougherty, and organized by Allison MacDougall. This dataset identified which schools operate an SBHC, as well as the towns and districts in which these schools are located. We used the XLOOKUP function to match the schools with SBHCs and those without SBHCs. After that, we used “Yes” for schools that we found have SBHCs and “No” for those that do not have.
After preparing our cleaned dataset, we used pivot tables in Google Sheets to summarize school-level and district-level totals, calculate enrollment with and without SBHC access, and organize everything for clearer visualization across multiple tabs. We imported the data into Datawrapper to create both school-level and district-level maps, including a point map showing individual school access, a choropleth showing district-level patterns, and a sortable interactive table displaying SBHC counts, enrollment, and SBHCs per 1,000 students. For the geographic mapping, we used the Connecticut map provided by our professor, which included detailed polygon boundaries for the state’s five largest cities, so we could more accurately layer and highlight geographic trends. We further used the Datawrapper’s Unified School District Map 2025, which happens to be the standardized and best available option in outlining the school district polygons of Connecticut. The Unified School District Map 2025 includes fewer districts and also hides several, because it is based on the larger overview of unified districts. However, despite its limitations, the map used ensures consistency across all visualizations and official boundaries.
While working with such extensive data, some schools in our dataset were not listed in the EdSight enrollment data, and so we did not add them to our calculations. There are also reasons why enrollment data is masked on official portals, and these gaps have to be overlooked in our calculations. Moreover, our maps assume that students use the SBHC located in the school they attend. However, in real life, some students may receive care at a center outside their district. Our visualizations cannot fully capture these cross-district patterns, so actual access may differ slightly from what the map shows. But despite these uncertainties, the combined methods we used do provide a reliable foundation for understanding SBHC distribution and access across Connecticut.
Works Cited:
“School Attendance Following Receipt of Care From a School-Based Health Center.” Journal of Adolescent Health, vol. 73, no. 6, 2023, pp. S1054–S1062. Elsevier, doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2023.07.012. Epub 2023 Sep 13. PMID: 37702648.
. Accessed 19 Nov. 2025.
“Enrollment Report” EdSight – Connecticut’s Official Source for Education Data, State of Connecticut, CT.gov, https://public-edsight.ct.gov/students/enrollment-dashboard/enrollment-report-legacy?language=en_US
. Accessed 19 Nov. 2025.