Los Angeles WorkSource System
Adult Employers
Customer Satisfaction Survey
2010-2011
Prepared for: City of Los Angeles
Workforce Investment Board
Community Development Department
Authors:
Deborah D. Heisley, Ph.D.
Richard W. Moore, Ph.D.
Bobby Keo
The College of Business Economics
Table of Contents
OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................................ 1
METHOD ............................................................................................................................... 1
FINDINGS .............................................................................................................................. 2
Overall Satisfaction and Related Measures ............................................................................................ 2
Figure 1: Overall Satisfaction and Related Measures .......................................................................... 3
Overall Satisfaction by Center ..................................................................................................................... 4
Figure 2: Overall Satisfaction by Center .................................................................................................... 4
Satisfaction with Specific Elements of the Program ........................................................................... 5
Figure 3: Satisfaction with Specific Elements of the Program ......................................................... 5
Table 1: Relationship between Program Elements and Overall Satisfaction* .......................... 5
Type of Services Received and Satisfaction ........................................................................................... 6
Figure 4: Services Received during the Past Twelve Months ............................................................ 6
Figure 5: Overall Satisfaction by Services Received during the Past Twelve Months ............ 7
Employers’ First Involvement with Program ........................................................................................ 8
Figure 6: How Employers First Became Involved .................................................................................. 8
Company Industry and Satisfaction .......................................................................................................... 9
Figure 7: Industry of Company....................................................................................................................... 9
Figure 8: Overall Satisfaction by Industry ............................................................................................. 10
Company Size and Satisfaction ................................................................................................................ 11
Figure 9: Total Number of People Employed at Site .......................................................................... 11
Employer’s Role In Company.................................................................................................................... 12
Figure 10: Employer’s Role in Company ................................................................................................. 12
CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................... 12
APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................ 14
Appendix A: Disposition Table ..................................................................................................................... 14
Appendix B: Questionnaire............................................................................................................................ 15
Appendix C: Overall Satisfaction Correlations ..................................................................................... 19
Appendix D: Overall Satisfaction and Related Satisfaction Measures by Center................... 20
Appendix E: Satisfaction with Specific Elements by Center ............................................................ 21
Appendix F: Services Received during the Past Twelve Months .................................................... 22
Appendix G: Overall Satisfaction by Services Received ..................................................................... 23
Appendix H: How First Got Involved by Center .................................................................................... 24
Appendix I: Company Industry .................................................................................................................... 25
Appendix J: Overall Satisfaction by Industry ......................................................................................... 26
Appendix K: Number of Employees at Site ............................................................................................. 26
Appendix L: Overall Satisfaction by Number of Employees at Site .............................................. 27
Appendix M: Employers Role in Company .............................................................................................. 27
ii
OVERVIEW
The City of Los Angeles Workforce Investment Board contracted with California State
University Northridge to conduct a survey of adult employers that received services from
the WorkSource Centers in the 2010-11 program year. The survey is part of a performance
management system known as SOFA which includes four components: customer
Satisfaction, Outcomes, Flow, and Administration. This survey of employers served by the
WorkSource Centers is part of the “Satisfaction” measure. This is the first survey of adult
employers in several years. The results of the survey show a relatively high level of average
overall satisfaction of 8.6 on a 10 point scale (see Figure 1 below) with a two-point range
from 7.8 to 9.9 between the lowest and highest scores for the eighteen individual centers
(see Figure 2 below). The overall satisfaction seems to primarily be driven by satisfaction
with the services received from participation with the WorkSource Centers and the center’s
staff. In this report we provide our analysis of the data. We give results for each individual
WorkSource Center in the appendix.
METHOD
Participating WorkSource Centers provided a total sample pool of 1015 employers that
participated in the adult employer program in the 2010-11 program year. In August of
20111 we attempted to complete 18 interviews per center. Employers were called three
times during various hours of business before they were classified as non-responsive. The
main reasons for non-response were disconnected or non-working numbers (105), refusals
(171), or fax numbers (18). We completed 287 telephone interviews averaging about seven
and a half minutes each. The number of employer interviews completed at individual
WorkSource Centers ranged from 7 to 18 (with the exception of Chinatown at 20), with
three sites having 10 or fewer interviews completed. The disposition table reporting the
size of the initial employer list, completed sample size, reasons for non-responses and
length of interview by center are provided in Appendix A.
The questionnaire for the study is included in Appendix B. The adult employers were first
asked how they got involved with the program. Next overall client satisfaction was
measured using a single question with “10” representing “very satisfied” and “1” being
“very dissatisfied”. Besides overall satisfaction we asked two related satisfaction questions
from the American Customer Satisfaction Index (ASCI) (www.theacsi.org):
 The extent which the services met expectations
o “1” being “falls short” and “10” being “exceeds all”
We initially completed 14 interviews in Chinatown. Due to concern by the Chinatown center that the
questionnaire was not available in Chinese, we administered the phone survey procedure again in February
2012 in Mandarin and Cantonese. We called 28 Chinatown employers that had refused to participate or were
categorized as not participating in English, and gained six additional interviews for a total of 20.
1

A comparison of services received compared to the ideal
o “1” being “not very close” and “10” being “very close”
Subsequently, employers were asked about their involvement with the centers.
Interviewees were asked which of the following services they participated in during the
past twelve months:
 Posted your job openings
 Screened applications for your job openings
 Referred job applicants to your firm
 Hosted job fair in which your company participated
 Provided you with recruitment/interviewing facilities
 Designed and delivered training program for your employees
 Provided you with job specification development
 Provided you with labor market information
 Helped pay for part of a new employee’s wage through the on-the-job
training program
 Other
Employers were also asked about their satisfaction with specific elements of the center’s
services with “1” again representing “very dissatisfied” and “10” representing “very
satisfied”. Questions included satisfaction with:
 The quality of the referrals from the center
 The center’s follow-up with the company to ensure individuals hired from
the center were successful
 The performance and services provided by the center’s staff
Lastly, the adult employers were asked questions regarding descriptive information
including:
 The company’s industry
 The size of their company in terms of numbers of employees
 Their role in the company
FINDINGS
Overall Satisfaction and Related Measures
Three satisfaction measures were gathered using 10-point scales (see Figure 1 below).
Adult employers reported fairly high levels of satisfaction on all three measures. The
average response for “overall satisfaction” was a high 8.6 (with 10 being “very satisfied”).
We asked two additional satisfaction questions from the American Customer Satisfaction
Index (www.theacsi.org) about expectations and ideals. When asked to what extent the
center met expectations, the average response was high at 8.3 (with 10 being “exceeds all
of my expectations”). Finally, when asked how close the services received were to
employers’ ideal set of services, the average response was 7.8 (with 10 being “very close to
2
my ideal”). Comparisons to expectations and ideals are strongly related to overall
satisfaction with a correlation of .89 and .84 respectively (see Appendix C).
Figure 1: Overall Satisfaction and Related Measures
Mean Satisfaction
Overall
8.6
Compared to Expectations
8.3
Compared to Ideal
7.8
1
2
3
4
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
Overall Satisfaction by Center
Average overall satisfaction was calculated for each center (see Figure 2 below). Star-level
employer satisfaction is set at 8.0 on the 10 point scale. Sixteen of the centers achieved
star-level performance with overall satisfaction ranging from 8.1 to 9.8. Five of the centers
exceeded a score of 9.0 on satisfaction: Southeast Los Angeles – Watts, Northeast Los
Angeles, West Adams – Baldwin Hills, Westlake, and Chatsworth – Northridge. Two of the
centers, Southeast Los Angeles Crenshaw and south Los Angeles, had overall satisfaction
ratings of 7.8, falling somewhat below star-level.
Figure 2: Overall Satisfaction by Center
Southeast Los Angeles - Watts
Northeast Los Angeles
West Adams - Baldwin Hills
Westlake
Chatsworth - Northridge
Sun Valley
Harbor
Metro North
Van Nuys - North Sherman Oaks
Canoga Park - West Hills
Downtown
Marina Del Rey - Mar Vista
Housing Authority Portal
Chinatown
Hollywood
Wilshire - Metro
Southeast Los Angeles - Crenshaw
South Los Angeles
9.8
9.7
9.4
9.3
9.1
8.8
8.8
8.7
8.6
8.4
8.3
8.3
8.1
8.1
8.1
8.1
7.8
7.8
0
1
2
3
4
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Satisfaction with Specific Elements of the Program
In addition to overall satisfaction, employers rated their satisfaction with three specific
elements of the program. Mean satisfaction ratings for the specific elements of the
programs are displayed in Figure 3. The highest rated element was the performance of the
staff at 8.6. Second was satisfaction with referrals from the center at 8.1. The lowest ranked
item was the center’s follow-up at 7.9.
Figure 3: Satisfaction with Specific Elements of the Program
Mean Satisfaction
Performance of Staff
8.6
Referrals
8.1
Center's Follow-Up
7.9
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
To explore how specific service elements relate to overall satisfaction, we correlated
employers’ ratings of those specific elements with overall satisfaction. The three elements
are presented (See Table 1 below) according to the strength of the relationship with overall
satisfaction (see Appendix C: Correlations for complete data).
Table 1: Relationship between Program Elements and Overall Satisfaction*
Specific Program Element
Correlation
Performance of the staff
The centers’ follow-up
Referrals
0.82
0.74
0.73
* A “1.0” correlation indicates a perfect positive relationship and
zero correlation indicates no relationship at all.
Performance of the staff was most strongly related to overall satisfaction (.82), and it also
ranked highest on mean satisfaction (8.6), indicating that WorkSource centers were doing a
good job with the element of service employers valued most. Interestingly, centers’ followup was also strongly related to overall satisfaction (.74), but was ranked lowest in
satisfaction (7.9). This suggests that centers can increase employers’ satisfaction with the
program by increasing the quality of their follow-ups with the employers.
5
Type of Services Received and Satisfaction
Employers were asked to indicate which of a list of services they had received from a
center during the past twelve months. The primary service received from the centers was
the referral of job applicants to the employers’ firms (67.2%). A little over half of the
employers had used a center to post job openings (52.3%) and/or to screen applicants for
the openings (50.9%). The centers provided recruitment services to many (43.9%)
employers. About one-third of the employers reported that they participated in job fairs
that were hosted by the center (38.0%), received labor market information from the center
(36.9%), and/or utilized the center for job specification development. Finally, around one
in four employers reported that the center helped pay for part of a new employee’s wages
through the on-the-job training program (27.5%) and/or that the center designed and
delivered a training program for their employee(s) (23.7%). Some employers (13.9%)
reported using none of these services, and a few (3.8%) reported using “other” services.
Figure 4: Services Received during the Past Twelve Months
Referred job applicants to your firm
67.2%
Posted your job openings
52.3%
Screened applications for your job openings
50.9%
Provided you with recruitment/interviewing
facilities
43.9%
Hosted job fairs in which your company
participated
38.0%
Provided you with labor market information
36.9%
Provided you with job specification
development
35.2%
Helped pay for part of a new employee's wages
through on-the-job training program
27.5%
Design and deliver training program for your
employees
23.7%
None of the above
13.9%
Other
3.8%
0%
20%
6
40%
60%
80%
Overall, employers were highly satisfied regardless of their type of participation. Figure 5
below shows that the average level of overall satisfaction for all types of participation was
8.7 and above. Employers that received the WorkSource centers’ services of designing and
delivering training programs for their employees, or who received labor market
information from the center were most satisfied at 9.4. Overall satisfaction scores for
employers who responded “None of the above” and “Other” are not reported as they,
combined, represented less than 5% of the sample.
The most used services, e.g. screening and referring job applicants, are also two of the
services with some of the lowest satisfaction scores (8.8 each). However, 8.8 is still a good
level of satisfaction, and some of the satisfaction may be attributable to the employee and
not the center, and therefore beyond the center’s control. The lowest satisfaction score
(8.7) is also related to ”posting job openings” a heavily used service (52.3%) and we
recommend that the center do some troubleshooting in this area to see if satisfaction can
be improved in this area. All of the other services provided by the center achieved high
satisfaction ratings of 9.0 and above.
Figure 5: Overall Satisfaction by Services Received during the Past Twelve Months
Mean Satisfaction
Designed and delivered training program for
your employees
9.4
Provided you with labor market information
9.4
Provided you with job specification
development
9.2
Hosted job fairs in which your company
participated
9.0
Helped pay for part of a new employee’s wages
through the on-the-job training program
9.0
Provided you with recruitment/interviewing
facilities
9.0
Screened applications for your job openings
8.8
Referred job applicants to your firm
8.8
Posted your job openings
8.7
0
1
7
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Employers’ First Involvement with Program
Employers were asked how they first became involved in the program. Their responses
were organized into twelve pre-determined categories with “other” as a thirteenth option
(see Figure 6 below).
Figure 6: How Employers First Became Involved
Referred by Another Company
20.6%
Previous Dealings With Center
17.4%
Employee Contact/Referral
16.0%
Job Fair, Seminar
12.5%
HR Contact/Referral
9.1%
Advertising
6.6%
Through EDD
5.6%
CDD, WorkSource or other website
5.6%
Internet Search
3.8%
Other
3.1%
Business Initiated Contact
2.8%
Saw WorkSource Location
2.4%
LA Business Assistance Program
2.4%
0%
10%
20%
30%
Currently the primary driver behind involvement in the centers is relationship based. Out
of the top five categories, four of the five can be considered primarily relationship based.
This includes the top three categories of responses “referred by another company”
(20.6%), “previous dealings with the center” (17.4%) and “employee contact/referral”
(16.0%), as well as the fifth ranked “HR contact/referral” (9.1%). The fourth ranked “job
fair/seminar” could be either relationship based or materials based (for example the
employer may have picked up a pamphlet). Advertising (6.6%), websites (5.6%), and
internet searches (3.8%) together accounted for 16% of employers reported first
involvement. Programs credited for leading to involvement with the center are EDD (5.6%)
and the LA Business Assistance program (2.4%) and CDD inasmuch as it accounted for the
website leads mentioned above. Employers sometimes report initiating the contact (2.8%).
Occasionally employers became aware of the center when they actually saw the
WorkSource location (2.4%) suggesting that high traffic locations and good signage could
bring involve more employers. Finally, “other” reasons were mentioned 3.1% of the time.
8
Company Industry and Satisfaction
Employers operate in a broad range of industries. Of the industries represented with ten or
more companies from our sample population, the most served segment (14.7%) was the
non-profit/community service sector. Health/medical was second at 11.5%. Then followed
retail trade (9.8%), business services (8.7%), and temporary/personnel agencies (8.0%).
The bottom half included banking/finance/real estate (7.3%), manufacturing (6.6%),
education (6.4%), construction (4.9%), restaurant/bar/fast food (4.5%), and government
agencies (3.5%) (see Figure 7 below).
Figure 7: Industry of Company
Non-profit/community service
14.7%
Health/medical
11.5%
Retail trade
9.8%
Business Services
8.7%
Temporary/personnel agency
8.0%
Banking/Finance/Real Estate
7.3%
Manufacturing
6.6%
Education
6.4%
Construction
4.9%
Restaurant/Bar/Fast Food
4.5%
Government agency
3.5%
0%
2%
4%
9
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
Breaking down satisfaction by industries with at least ten companies in the category,
construction companies displayed the highest level of average satisfaction at 9.1, followed
closely behind by business services (8.9), government agencies (8.9), manufacturing (8.8)
and non-profit/community service (8.8). The lowest scoring industries were
restaurant/bar/fast food (7.9) and temporary/personnel agency (7.6) (see Figure 8 below).
Figure 8: Overall Satisfaction by Industry
Mean Satisfaction
Construction
9.1
Business Services
8.9
Government Agency
8.9
Manufacturing
8.8
Non-profit/Community Service
8.8
Retail trade
8.5
Education
8.4
Health/medical
8.1
Banking/Finance/Real Estate
8.0
Restaurant/Bar/Fast Food
7.9
Temporary/Personnel Agency
7.6
1
2
3
4
10
5
6
7
8
9
10
Company Size and Satisfaction
Companies of all sizes participated in the program, from companies as small as 1-20 to
companies as large as 500 or more. Overall small employers dominated the sample, over
50% of employers had 20 or fewer employees and 70.3% of participating companies had
fewer than 100 employees, only 12.8% had 500 or more employees (see Figure 9 below).
Figure 9: Total Number of People Employed at Site
1 to 20
53.1%
21 to 49
9.2%
50 to 99
8.1%
100 to 149
4.8%
150 to 249
7.7%
250 to 499
4.4%
500 or more
12.8%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
There did not appear to be a direct relationship between the number of employees at the
site and satisfaction with the WorkSource services. Satisfaction scores for number of
employees on site from 1 to 20, 21 to 49, 50 to 99, and 100 to 149 all range from 8.4 to 8.5.
There is a jump at the 150 to 259 range to 9.1, it drops to 8.2 for sites of size 250 to 499,
and then it rises again to 8.9 for sites of 500 or more. These satisfaction scores and number
of respondents for each size range are reported in Appendix L: Overall Satisfaction by
Number of Employees at Site.
11
Employer’s Role In Company
Employers that participated in this study were for the most part supervisors/managers
(49.0%). HR specialists were second (28.0%) followed closely behind by owner/general
partner (21.7%). Lastly, only a little over 1% of surveyed employers were of various other
roles within the company (see Figure 10 below).
Figure 10: Employer’s Role in Company
Supervisor/manager
49.0%
HR specialist
28.0%
Owner/general partner
21.7%
Other
1.4%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
CONCLUSION
Employers are generally satisfied with the WorkSource program with an overall
satisfaction score of 8.6 on a 10-point scale with 10 being “very satisfied.” The performance
of the centers compares well to employers’ expectations (8.3 with 10 being “exceeds all of
my expectations”). The centers are also performing close to the employers’ ideal
experience at 7.8 with 10 representing “very close” to my ideal.” Gains in satisfaction might
be made by further investigating what constitutes employers’ ideal experience and
considering adjusting the service experience accordingly.
Sixteen WorkSource Centers achieved star-level performance at 8.0 or above on overall
satisfaction at the individual center level, while two fell slightly short at 7.8. Five centers
achieved scores of over 9.0, indicating very high levels of satisfaction. Individual center
data is presented in the appendices and can be examined by each center for indications of
satisfaction with various elements of the service experience.
Employers also indicated high satisfaction with the various elements of the WorkSource
program. The high satisfaction scores are driven primarily through the high satisfaction
with the performance of the staff (8.6), and the staff should be recognized for their
excellent performance. Referrals and follow-up by the center are also strongly related to
employer satisfaction. Employers are satisfied with referrals and follow-up (8.1 and 7.9
12
respectively). Follow up is a service that is strongly related to satisfaction, yet it remains a
little below the 8.0 level. This is an aspect of employer services that staff can control more
than the quality of referrals, hence it is a good target for improvement.
Employers were asked to identify their use of nine services that were offered by the
centers. The most frequently used services were “referred job applicants to your firm”
(67.2%), “posted job openings” (52.3%), and “screened applicants for job openings”
(50.9%). These might be considered the core services of the WorkSource program.
Interestingly, while employers who received these three “core services” services are very
satisfied (8.8, 8.7 and 8.8 respectively), they are slightly less than employers who received
the other six services. The training programs are used by the fewest number of employers
(27.5% of the firms reported that WorkSource designed and delivered training programs to
their firm), but they reported very high levels of satisfaction with a score of 9.4. Also, 23.7%
reported that WorkSource helped pay part of a new employee’s wages through on-the-job
training programs, and employers who got this service reported a 9.0 level of satisfaction.
Finally support services such as providing interviewing facilities (43.9%), hosting job fairs
(38.0%), providing labor market information to employers (36.9%), and helping employers
develop job specifications (35.2%) were frequently used and companies that used them
report satisfaction scores ranging between 9.0 and 9.4. The most effective strategy for
improving satisfaction might be to increase quality of the three core services and/or
increase usage of the highly valued but not as heavily utilized training programs.
The results of the survey indicated that employers’ initial involvement with WorkSource
was typically relationship based with referrals from individuals, professionals, companies,
and programs being of critical importance. Also 17.4% of the employers reported having
had previous dealings with WorkSource, again underscoring the importance of
relationships. Although advertising (6.6%), websites (5.6%) and the internet (3.8%) are
not currently reported as being as important as direct referrals for first involvement,
WorkSource should not underestimate the importance of these tools. These lower numbers
might indicate that WorkSource is not using the internet to its full potential in terms of SEO
(Search Engine Optimization), the quality of its website, and linking with other relevant
organizations. As CDD rethinks its business service function in may we worthwhile
reconsidering the marketing mix used to promote business services.
We spoke primarily with supervisors and managers (49.0%), HR specialists (28.0%) and
owners or general partners (21.7%). We asked the respondents their industry and the
number of employees on site. The majority (53.1%) of the employers were small
businesses or smaller sites of larger entities with 20 or fewer employees. Only 12.8% of the
employers had over 500 employees. In the 2010-2011 program year, WorkSource served a
diverse set of industries fragmented across 11 categories with only two categories
representing more than 10% (non-profit and community services at 14.7% and
health/medical at 11.5%). Nine of the industry satisfaction scores were at 8.0 and above.
The restaurant/bar/fast food and the temporary/personnel agency industries fell a little
below 8.0 at 7.9 and 7.6 respectively. The generally high satisfaction scores achieved by
WorkSource centers are even more commendable when the difficult and daunting task of
serving so many employers fragmented across so many industries is considered.
13
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Disposition Table*
WorkSource Center
Total
Sample
Pool
No
Response
Resolved
Completes
Disconnected
/Non-working
Numbers
Fax
Number
Interview
Length
(Minutes)
Refused
Canoga Park- West Hills
23
5
18
9
1
0
6
7.78
Chatsworth- Northridge
46
8
38
17
8
2
4
7.65
Chinatown
58
6
52
20
4
1
22
6.86
Downtown
28
4
24
10
4
0
4
7.70
Sun Valley
42
1
41
18
2
0
4
7.39
Harbor
43
10
33
17
2
1
9
8.00
Hollywood
69
22
47
18
10
0
15
6.61
Housing Authority Portal
73
33
40
18
5
1
9
8.17
Marina Del Rey- Mar Vista
73
35
38
18
12
0
3
7.44
Metro North
74
20
54
18
11
3
14
7.17
Northeast Los Angeles
40
17
23
7
1
1
8
7.86
South Los Angeles
62
20
42
18
8
0
8
7.28
78
5
73
18
4
2
8
7.56
52
16
36
13
8
1
9
6.77
47
7
40
18
9
5
4
7.61
West Adams- Baldwin Hills
70
21
49
14
7
1
21
7.00
Westlake
55
20
35
18
3
0
8
7.28
Wilshire- Metro
82
33
49
18
8
0
15
7.06
1015
283
732
287
105
18
171
7.38
Southeast Los AngelesCrenshaw
Southeast Los AngelesWatts
Van Nuys- North Sherman
Oaks
Total
*All numbers from the sample were called multiple times. Reasons for no responses include, but are not limited to, things such as
answering machines/voicemails and no answers. Only main reasons are provided above in regards to the numbers which were resolved.
14
Appendix B: Questionnaire
LOS ANGELES WORKSOURCE CENTER
EMPLOYER SATISFACTION INTERVIEW
AUGUST 2011
INTRODUCTION
INTERVIEWER: ASK FOR <INSERT SAMPLE NAME>
Hello, my name is ______________ and I am calling from Davis Research on behalf of the City
of Los Angeles WorkSource Centers. In the past year your company received services from
__________________ WorkSource Center. Are you the person at your company to talk to
about your experiences with this One-Stop?

Yes (proceed to question 1)

No
o
Ask: Whom should I contact?
Name:
Telephone #:
1. On behalf of the City of Los Angeles, Community Development Department, we would like
to ask how satisfied you are with the services your company received from
_______________ WorkSource Center, and we would like to hear your suggestions for
improving services. It should take about five minutes. May we go ahead now?


o
Yes
No
Ask: Is there a better time to call back?
o Yes (record time & date) ____________________
o No (thank person, terminate call & contact next employer on list)
2. How did you first get involved with __________________ WorkSource Center?
[DO NOT READ LIST, CODE ALL THAT APPLY]
 1 Advertising: sign or brochure
 2 Job Fair, seminar or other community event
 3 Referral by another company
 4 HR contact/referral
 5 Employee contact/referral
 6 Through EDD
 7 CDD, WorkSource or other website
 8 Through previous dealings with WorkSource agencies
 9 Jobsla.org
 10 LA Business Assistance Program/other Economic Development Project
15
 11 Internet Search
 12 Social media
 13 Other (Please Specify): ____________________________
3. I’d like to begin by asking you about your overall satisfaction with the program. On a scale of
1 to 10 (1 being ‘very dissatisfied’ and 10 being ‘very satisfied’) how satisfied are you overall
with the services you received from this center?
Very Dissatisfied
1
2
Very Satisfied
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
DK
REF
11
12
4. On a scale of 1 to 10 (where 1 means ‘falls short of my expectations’ and 10 means
‘exceeds all of my expectations’), to what extent have the center’s services met your
expectations?
Falls Short
1
2
Exceeds All
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
DK
11
REF No Expectations
12
13
5. Now I would like you to think about the ideal set of services for a business like yours. How
well do you think the services you received compare with that ideal set of services? Now 1
means ‘not very close to my ideal’ and 10 means ‘very close to my ideal’ on a scale of 1 to
10.
Not very close
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Very Close
DK
REF No Ideal
9
11
12
10
13
Now I would like to ask you a question about your involvement with the _________________
WorkSource Center.
6. During the past twelve months did the Center provide you with any of the following services:
(Read list and check all that apply)
[RANDOMIZE, ANCHOR OTHER AND NONE OF THE ABOVE]
 Posted your job openings
 Screened applications for your job openings
 Referred job applicants to your firm
 Hosted job fairs in which your company participated
 Provided you with recruitment/interviewing facilities
 Designed and delivered training program for your employees
 Provided you with job specification development
 Provided you with labor market information
 Helped pay for part of a new employee’s wages through the on-the-job training
program
 Other (Please specify) _____________________________
 [DO NOT READ] None of the above
16
We would also like to know about your satisfaction with specific elements of center service.
Please rate your satisfaction on a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 means “very dissatisfied” and 10
means “very satisfied”.
On a scale of 1 to 10, how satisfied were you with:
7. The individuals who came from the center?
Very Dissatisfied
1
2
Very Satisfied
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
N/A
11
8. The center’s follow-up with your company to ensure the individuals you hired are
successful?
Very Dissatisfied
1
2
Very Satisfied
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
N/A
11
Now I am going to ask you to rate the quality of staff service on the same 1 to 10 scale. How
satisfied are you with:
9. The services provided by the center’s staff?
Very Dissatisfied
1
2
Very Satisfied
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
N/A
11
DEMOGRAPHICS
Finally, I have a few questions about you and your company for classification purposes.
10. What industry is your company in?
[READ LIST AS NEED TO CLARIFY]
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
Temporary/personnel agency
Retail trade
Restaurant/bar/fast food
Hotel
Banking/finance/real estate
Wholesale trade
Health/medical
Non-profit/community service
Construction
Education
Engineering
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Legal
Manufacturing
Business Services
Agriculture/forestry
Transportation
Communications
Public utility
Government agency
Other (please specify)
________________________
11. What is the total number of people employed at your site?
[READ LIST AS NEEDED]
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
1-20
21-49
50-99
100-149
150-249
250-499
500 or more
Don’t know
17
12. What is your role in the company?
[DO NOT READ LIST]
01
02
03
04
05
Owner/general partner
Supervisor/manager
HR Specialist
Other ___________________
Refused
On behalf of the City of Los Angeles WorkSource Centers, we sincerely appreciate your time
and opinions. Have a good day.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME!
18
Appendix C: Overall Satisfaction Correlations
Overall
Satisfaction
Overall
Satisfaction
Met Your Expectations
Compared To Ideal
Pearson
Correlation
.888
.844
Sample Size
281
277
Satisfaction With
Center's Staff
Satisfaction With
Center’s Follow-Up
Satisfaction With
Referrals From
Center
Pearson
Correlation
.816
.741
.733
Sample Size
276
221
254
19
Appendix D: Overall Satisfaction and Related Satisfaction Measures by Center
WorkSource Center
Canoga Park- West Hills
Chatsworth- Northridge
Chinatown
Downtown
Sun Valley
Harbor
Hollywood
Housing Authority Portal
Marina Del Rey- Mar Vista
Metro North
Northeast Los Angeles
South Los Angeles
Southeast Los AngelesCrenshaw
Southeast Los Angeles- Watts
Van Nuys- North Sherman
Oaks
West Adams- Baldwin Hills
Westlake
Wilshire- Metro
Total
Overall Satisfaction
Compared to Expectations
Compare to Ideal
Mean
8.44
8.22
7.78
N
9
9
9
Mean
9.06
8.94
8.44
N
16
17
16
Mean
8.10
7.89
7.37
N
20
19
19
Mean
8.30
8.10
7.20
N
10
10
10
Mean
8.83
8.33
8.17
N
18
18
18
Mean
8.76
8.41
8.24
N
17
17
17
Mean
8.06
7.83
7.00
N
18
18
18
Mean
8.12
7.72
7.06
N
17
18
18
Mean
8.29
8.24
7.35
N
17
17
17
Mean
8.67
8.59
7.88
N
18
17
17
Mean
9.67
9.17
8.83
N
6
6
6
Mean
7.78
7.72
6.94
N
18
18
18
Mean
7.83
7.39
7.24
N
18
18
17
Mean
9.85
9.54
9.31
N
13
13
13
Mean
8.61
7.83
7.94
N
18
18
17
Mean
9.43
9.36
8.71
N
14
14
14
Mean
9.33
8.83
8.61
N
18
18
18
Mean
8.06
7.83
7.44
N
18
18
18
Mean
8.55
8.27
7.80
N
283
283
280
20
Appendix E: Satisfaction with Specific Elements by Center
Individuals who came
from the center
Center's follow-up
Services provided
by center's staff
Mean
8.38
7.63
8.89
N
8
8
9
Mean
9.15
9.56
9.13
N
13
9
16
Mean
8.46
7.54
8.11
N
13
13
18
Mean
8.20
7.11
8.30
N
10
9
10
Mean
8.60
9.21
8.83
N
15
14
18
Mean
8.50
8.50
8.88
N
14
12
17
Mean
7.56
7.07
7.94
N
16
15
18
Mean
7.56
6.40
8.00
N
18
15
17
Mean
8.19
7.22
8.50
N
16
9
16
Mean
8.13
8.06
8.78
N
16
17
18
Mean
7.50
9.17
9.50
N
6
6
6
Mean
7.12
6.59
7.89
N
17
17
18
Mean
7.38
7.71
8.06
N
16
14
16
Mean
9.92
9.75
9.92
N
12
12
13
Mean
7.63
7.67
8.56
N
16
12
18
Mean
8.57
8.17
9.43
N
14
12
14
Mean
9.24
9.15
9.17
N
17
13
18
Mean
7.17
7.33
8.00
N
18
15
18
Mean
8.11
7.91
8.60
N
255
222
278
WorkSource Center
Canoga Park- West Hills
Chatsworth- Northridge
Chinatown
Downtown
Sun Valley
Harbor
Hollywood
Housing Authority Portal
Marina Del Rey- Mar Vista
Metro North
Northeast Los Angeles
South Los Angeles
Southeast Los AngelesCrenshaw
Southeast Los Angeles- Watts
Van Nuys- North Sherman
Oaks
West Adams- Baldwin Hills
Westlake
Wilshire- Metro
Total
21
Posted your job
openings
Screened
applications for
your job
openings
Referred job
applicants to
your firm
Hosted job fairs
in which your
company
participated
Provided you
with recruitment/
interviewing
facilities
Designed and
delivered training
program for your
employees
Provided you
with job
specification
development
Provided you
with labor market
information
Helped pay for
part of a new
employee’s
wages through
on-the-job
training program
Other
None of the
above
Total
Appendix F: Services Received during the Past Twelve Months
Count
% within WorkSource Center
Count
7
77.8%
5
3
33.3%
7
7
77.8%
8
1
11.1%
3
3
33.3%
6
1
11.1%
5
3
33.3%
4
3
33.3%
7
2
22.2%
1
0
0.0%
1
0
0.0%
3
9
100.0%
17
% within WorkSource Center
Count
% within WorkSource Center
Count
% within WorkSource Center
Count
% within WorkSource Center
Count
% within WorkSource Center
Count
% within WorkSource Center
Count
% within WorkSource Center
Count
% within WorkSource Center
29.4%
12
60.0%
6
60.0%
8
44.4%
12
70.6%
6
33.3%
8
44.4%
5
27.8%
41.2%
8
40.0%
6
60.0%
9
50.0%
12
70.6%
7
38.9%
9
50.0%
4
22.2%
47.1%
10
50.0%
9
90.0%
13
72.2%
12
70.6%
10
55.6%
11
61.1%
5
27.8%
17.6%
4
20.0%
6
60.0%
6
33.3%
4
23.5%
7
38.9%
5
27.8%
4
22.2%
35.3%
4
20.0%
6
60.0%
9
50.0%
7
41.2%
9
50.0%
7
38.9%
6
33.3%
29.4%
5
25.0%
2
20.0%
3
16.7%
4
23.5%
3
16.7%
4
22.2%
3
16.7%
23.5%
4
20.0%
4
40.0%
6
33.3%
7
41.2%
8
44.4%
3
16.7%
3
16.7%
41.2%
6
30.0%
5
50.0%
4
22.2%
7
41.2%
8
44.4%
4
22.2%
6
33.3%
5.9%
3
15.0%
4
40.0%
4
22.2%
6
35.3%
7
38.9%
5
27.8%
1
5.6%
5.9%
1
5.0%
1
10.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
1
5.6%
1
5.6%
17.6%
2
10.0%
0
0.0%
4
22.2%
2
11.8%
4
22.2%
4
22.2%
5
27.8%
100.0%
20
100.0%
10
100.0%
18
100.0%
17
100.0%
18
100.0%
18
100.0%
18
100.0%
Count
% within WorkSource Center
Count
% within WorkSource Center
Count
% within WorkSource Center
Count
% within WorkSource Center
13
72.2%
5
71.4%
8
44.4%
8
44.4%
13
72.2%
4
57.1%
8
44.4%
9
50.0%
16
88.9%
6
85.7%
13
72.2%
13
72.2%
7
38.9%
3
42.9%
8
44.4%
8
44.4%
8
44.4%
5
71.4%
9
50.0%
7
38.9%
4
22.2%
1
14.3%
4
22.2%
4
22.2%
6
33.3%
4
57.1%
6
33.3%
5
27.8%
7
38.9%
3
42.9%
6
33.3%
4
22.2%
5
27.8%
1
14.3%
3
16.7%
4
22.2%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
1
5.6%
0
0.0%
1
5.6%
1
14.3%
2
11.1%
4
22.2%
18
100.0%
7
100.0%
18
100.0%
18
100.0%
WorkSource Center
Canoga Park- West
Hills
Chatsworth- Northridge
Chinatown
Downtown
Sun Valley
Harbor
Hollywood
Housing Authority
Portal
Marina Del Rey- Mar
Vista
Metro North
Northeast Los Angeles
South Los Angeles
Southeast Los
Angeles- Crenshaw
Southeast Los
Angeles- Watts
Van Nuys- North
Sherman Oaks
West Adams- Baldwin
Hills
Westlake
Wilshire- Metro
Count
10
8
12
9
8
6
9
9
10
0
1
13
% within WorkSource Center
Count
% within WorkSource Center
Count
76.9%
13
72.2%
8
61.5%
10
55.6%
9
92.3%
14
77.8%
10
69.2%
9
50.0%
9
61.5%
11
61.1%
6
46.2%
3
16.7%
6
69.2%
6
33.3%
7
69.2%
4
22.2%
6
76.9%
5
27.8%
5
0.0%
0
0.0%
2
7.7%
1
5.6%
4
100.0%
18
100.0%
14
% within WorkSource Center
57.1%
64.3%
71.4%
64.3%
42.9%
42.9%
50.0%
42.9%
35.7%
14.3%
28.6%
100.0%
Count
% within WorkSource Center
Count
6
33.3%
10
8
44.4%
12
11
61.1%
13
9
50.0%
7
9
50.0%
6
7
38.9%
3
11
61.1%
5
10
55.6%
7
7
38.9%
6
0
0.0%
3
1
5.6%
1
18
100.0%
18
% within WorkSource Center
55.6%
66.7%
72.2%
38.9%
33.3%
16.7%
27.8%
38.9%
33.3%
16.7%
5.6%
100.0%
Count
150
146
193
109
126
68
101
106
79
11
40
287
% within WorkSource Center
52.3%
50.9%
67.2%
38.0%
43.9%
23.7%
35.2%
36.9%
27.5%
3.8%
13.9%
100.0%
Total
22
Appendix G: Overall Satisfaction by Services Received
Services
Mean Satisfaction
Count
Designed and delivered training program for
your employees
9.40
68
Provided you with labor market information
9.37
105
Provided you with job specification
development
9.22
100
Hosted job fairs in which your company
participated
9.03
107
Helped pay for part of a new employee’s
wages through the on-the-job training program
9.00
79
Provided you with recruitment/interviewing
facilities
8.99
125
Screened applications for your job openings
8.84
145
Referred job applicants to your firm
8.79
193
Posted your job openings
8.68
150
None of the above
7.87
39
Other
8.90
10
23
Advertising: sign
or brochure
Job Fair,
seminar or other
community event
Referral by
another
company
HR contact/
referral
Employee
contact/ referral
Through EDD
CDD,
WorkSource or
other website
Through
previous
dealings with
WorkSource
agencies
LA Business
Assistance
Program/other
Economic
Development
Project
Internet Search
Social Media
Business
Initiated Contact
Saw
WorkSource
Location
Other
Total
Appendix H: How First Got Involved by Center
Count
% within WorkSource Center
Count
0
0.0%
0
3
33.3%
4
2
22.2%
2
3
33.3%
0
0
0.0%
1
2
22.2%
1
0
0.0%
0
1
11.1%
3
0
0.0%
0
0
0.0%
1
0
0.0%
1
1
11.1%
3
0
0.0%
1
0
0.0%
1
9
100.0%
17
% within WorkSource Center
Count
% within WorkSource Center
Count
% within WorkSource Center
Count
% within WorkSource Center
Count
% within WorkSource Center
0.0%
6
30.0%
0
0.0%
1
5.6%
1
5.9%
23.5%
2
10.0%
1
10.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
11.8%
3
15.0%
2
20.0%
5
27.8%
2
11.8%
0.0%
0
0.0%
1
10.0%
4
22.2%
0
0.0%
5.9%
3
15.0%
2
20.0%
3
16.7%
3
17.6%
5.9%
0
0.0%
1
10.0%
0
0.0%
1
5.9%
0.0%
1
5.0%
2
20.0%
0
0.0%
3
17.6%
17.6%
2
10.0%
3
30.0%
5
27.8%
5
29.4%
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
1
5.9%
5.9%
1
5.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
5.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
17.6%
1
5.0%
0
0.0%
1
5.6%
1
5.9%
5.9%
1
5.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
1
5.9%
5.9%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
100.0%
20
100.0%
10
100.0%
18
100.0%
17
100.0%
Count
% within WorkSource Center
Count
% within WorkSource Center
Count
% within WorkSource Center
0
0.0%
1
5.6%
2
11.1%
3
16.7%
1
5.6%
0
0.0%
4
22.2%
5
27.8%
5
27.8%
0
0.0%
2
11.1%
1
5.6%
2
11.1%
4
22.2%
3
16.7%
1
5.6%
0
0.0%
1
5.6%
0
0.0%
1
5.6%
1
5.6%
3
16.7%
2
11.1%
3
16.7%
1
5.6%
1
5.6%
0
0.0%
1
5.6%
0
0.0%
3
16.7%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
1
5.6%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
1
5.6%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
2
11.1%
1
5.6%
0
0.0%
18
100.0%
18
100.0%
18
100.0%
Count
% within WorkSource Center
Count
% within WorkSource Center
Count
% within WorkSource Center
Count
% within WorkSource Center
0
0.0%
1
14.3%
2
11.1%
2
11.1%
2
11.1%
1
14.3%
4
22.2%
4
22.2%
5
27.8%
1
14.3%
2
11.1%
3
16.7%
0
0.0%
1
14.3%
2
11.1%
2
11.1%
4
22.2%
0
0.0%
4
22.2%
3
16.7%
1
5.6%
0
0.0%
1
5.6%
1
5.6%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
1
5.6%
1
5.6%
3
16.7%
3
42.9%
2
11.1%
2
11.1%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
1
5.6%
0
0.0%
1
5.6%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
2
11.1%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
2
11.1%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
1
14.3%
0
0.0%
1
5.6%
18
100.0%
7
100.0%
18
100.0%
18
100.0%
WorkSource Center
Canoga Park- West
Hills
Chatsworth- Northridge
Chinatown
Downtown
Sun Valley
Harbor
Hollywood
Housing Authority
Portal
Marina Del Rey- Mar
Vista
Metro North
Northeast Los Angeles
South Los Angeles
Southeast Los
Angeles- Crenshaw
Southeast Los
Angeles- Watts
Van Nuys- North
Sherman Oaks
West Adams- Baldwin
Hills
Westlake
Wilshire- Metro
Count
0
1
2
1
3
1
0
5
1
0
0
0
0
1
13
% within WorkSource Center
Count
% within WorkSource Center
Count
% within WorkSource Center
Count
0.0%
0
0.0%
1
7.1%
0
7.7%
1
5.6%
2
14.3%
6
15.4%
5
27.8%
5
35.7%
4
7.7%
0
0.0%
3
21.4%
3
23.1%
2
11.1%
2
14.3%
2
7.7%
1
5.6%
0
0.0%
1
0.0%
2
11.1%
0
0.0%
2
38.5%
3
16.7%
0
0.0%
2
7.7%
1
5.6%
1
7.1%
0
0.0%
2
11.1%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
1
5.6%
0
0.0%
0
7.7%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
1
100.0%
18
100.0%
14
100.0%
18
% within WorkSource Center
Count
% within WorkSource Center
0.0%
2
11.1%
33.3%
1
5.6%
22.2%
2
11.1%
16.7%
3
16.7%
11.1%
5
27.8%
5.6%
3
16.7%
11.1%
1
5.6%
11.1%
3
16.7%
0.0%
0
0.0%
0.0%
0
0.0%
0.0%
0
0.0%
0.0%
0
0.0%
0.0%
0
0.0%
5.6%
1
5.6%
100.0%
18
100.0%
Count
19
36
59
26
46
16
16
50
7
11
1
8
7
9
287
% within WorkSource Center
6.6%
12.5%
20.6%
9.1%
16.0%
5.6%
5.6%
17.4%
2.4%
3.8%
0.3%
2.8%
2.4%
3.1%
100.0%
Total
24
Appendix I: Company Industry
Industry
Frequency
Valid Percent
Non-profit/community service
42
14.7%
Health/medical
33
11.5%
Retail trade
28
9.8%
Business Services
25
8.7%
Temporary/personnel agency
23
8.0%
Banking/Finance/Real Estate
21
7.3%
Manufacturing
19
6.6%
Education
17
6.4%
Construction
14
4.9%
Restaurant/Bar/Fast Food
13
4.5%
Government agency
10
3.5%
Transportation
9
3.1%
Wholesale trade
9
3.1%
Hotel
5
1.7%
Housing/Property Management/Maintenance
5
1.7%
Communications
3
1.0%
Entertainment/Publishing
3
1.0%
Other
2
0.7%
Public Utility
1
0.3%
Don't know
1
0.3%
Refused
1
0.3%
286
100.0%
Total
Missing
1
Total
287
25
Appendix J: Overall Satisfaction by Industry
Industry
Mean Satisfaction
Count
Construction
9.07
14
Business Services
8.92
25
Government Agency
8.90
10
Manufacturing
8.78
19
Non-profit/Community Service
8.76
42
Retail Trade
8.50
28
Education
8.37
17
Health/Medical
8.09
33
Banking/Finance/Real Estate
8.00
21
Restaurant/Bar/Fast Food
7.92
13
Temporary/Personnel Agency
7.59
23
Appendix K: Number of Employees at Site
Number of People
Frequency
Valid Percent
1 to 20
148
53.4%
21 to 49
25
9.0%
50 to 99
23
8.3%
100 to 149
13
4.7%
150 to 249
21
7.6%
250 to 499
12
4.3%
500 or more
35
12.6%
Total
277
100.0%
Missing
10
Total
287
26
Appendix L: Overall Satisfaction by Number of Employees at Site
Number Employed
Mean Satisfaction
Count
1 to 20
8.50
145
21 to 49
8.40
25
50 to 99
8.50
22
100 to 149
8.54
13
150 to 249
9.05
21
250 to 499
8.17
12
500 or more
8.89
35
Total
8.57
273
Appendix M: Employers Role in Company
Role/Title
Frequency
Valid Percent
Supervisor/manager
140
49.0%
HR specialist
80
28.0%
Owner/general partner
62
21.7%
Other
4
1.4%
Total
286
100.0%
Missing
1
Total
287
27