Los Angeles WorkSource System
Youth Participants’ Satisfaction Survey
2011-2012
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 and Economics
Table of Contents
OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................................................... 1
METHOD ................................................................................................................................................... 1
Questionnaire ..................................................................................................................................................... 1
Sample ................................................................................................................................................................... 2
FINDINGS .................................................................................................................................................. 3
SATISFACTION ................................................................................................................................................... 3
AVERAGE PARTICIPANT SATISFACTION BY YEAR ............................................................................ 3
Figure 1: Overall and Related Satisfaction Measures ..................................................................... 4
OVERALL SATISFACTION BY CENTER ..................................................................................................... 4
Figure 2: Overall Satisfaction by Center .............................................................................................. 5
RECOMMEND PROGRAM ............................................................................................................................... 6
Figure 3: Recommend Program to Someone like Yourself .......................................................... 7
SATISFACTION WITH PROGRAM ELEMENTS ....................................................................................... 7
Figure 4: Satisfaction by Program Elements ..................................................................................... 8
SATISFACTION WITH CLASSES AND WORKSHOPS ............................................................................ 9
Figure 5: Satisfaction with Classes and Workshops ....................................................................... 9
PROGRAM CONTACT AND SERVICES RECEIVED ................................................................................. 9
LAST PROGRAM CONTACT ........................................................................................................................... 9
Figure 6: Last Received Services or had Contact with Program ............................................. 10
LEARNED OF PROGRAM ............................................................................................................................. 10
Figure 7: Learned of Program .............................................................................................................. 11
SERVICES RECEIVED .................................................................................................................................... 12
Figure 8: Services Received ................................................................................................................... 14
Figure 9: Support Services Received ................................................................................................. 15
DEMOGRAPHICS................................................................................................................................... 15
GENDER, AGE, AND SATISFACTION ....................................................................................................... 16
Figure 10: Percent of Participant Respondents by Gender ....................................................... 16
Figure 11: Percent of Participant Respondents by Age .............................................................. 17
Table 1: Participant Overall Satisfaction by Gender and Age................................................... 17
SCHOOL ENROLLMENT, AGE, AND SATISFACTION ......................................................................... 18
Table 2: Percent Enrolled in School by Age .................................................................................... 18
Figure 12 A: 14-18 .................................................................................................................................... 19
Figure 12 B: 19+......................................................................................................................................... 19
Table 3: Overall Satisfaction by Age and Enrolled in School .................................................... 19
DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................................................... 20
APPENDICES .......................................................................................................................................... 22
i
Appendix A: Questionnaire ................................................................................................................... 23
Appendix B: Number of Respondents by Center Compared to 2010-2011 ....................... 29
Appendix C: Resolution of All Numbers in Sample by Center.................................................. 30
Appendix D: Overall Satisfaction by Center Compared to 2010-2011 ................................. 31
Appendix E: “Would You Recommend This Program to Someone Like Yourself” by
Center............................................................................................................................................................. 32
Appendix F: Participant Satisfaction by Program Elements - Staff by Center ................... 33
Appendix G: Participant Satisfaction by Program Elements - Website and Facilities by
Center............................................................................................................................................................. 34
Appendix H: Participant Satisfaction by Program Elements - Ease in Receiving Services
by Center ...................................................................................................................................................... 35
Appendix I: Participant Satisfaction by Program Elements - Additional Services by
Center............................................................................................................................................................. 36
Appendix J: Satisfaction with Instructors and Workshops by Center .................................. 37
Appendix K: Last program Contact by Center ................................................................................ 38
Appendix L: Learned of Program by Center ................................................................................... 39
Appendix M: Services Received by Center ...................................................................................... 40
Appendix N: Support Services Received by Center...................................................................... 41
Appendix O: Participant Gender by Center ..................................................................................... 42
Appendix P: Participant Age by Center............................................................................................. 43
Appendix Q: Enrolled in School Last Spring by Center............................................................... 44
Appendix R: Type of School Enrolled in Last Spring by Center .............................................. 45
ii
OVERVIEW
In program year 2011-2012 the City of Los Angeles Workforce Investment Board (WIB)
provided funding for 14 OneSource contractors. OneSource Centers offer a youth program
for those who are 14-21 years old. This program offers an array of services and training
relating to:
Work readiness - to prepare youth to secure a job.
Career exploration - to help youth learn about jobs and careers.
Job skills - to help youth acquire the tools they need to get that first job.
Computer skills - to help youth learn how to find job opportunities and write a resume
and cover letter that can land a job.
College preparation - to help youth learn about educational opportunities and how
degrees lead to careers.
Mentoring & counseling - to support youth as they plan their education and careers.
The Consulting Center at the College of Business and Economics, California State
University, Northridge, contracted with the city to survey the 2011-2012 youth program
participants. We collected data on services received, satisfaction with services received and
the characteristics of participants. This report presents the results of the survey for the
program as a whole and for each OneSource contractor individually. Where possible we
compared results for this year with data from earlier years to identify trends in the data
that may be valuable to program operators and the WIB.
METHOD
Questionnaire
In 2011 the Consulting Center in consultation with city staff designed a questionnaire that
was used for the assessment of the 2010-2011 program year.1 With a slight modification to
instructions and question 28 (school enrollment), we used the same questionnaire to
assess the 2011-2012 program year (see Appendix A). The questionnaire was designed to
gather information on the following:





Overall Customer Satisfaction
Services received
Referrals to other services
Quality of staff service
Condition of facilities
The customer satisfaction survey report for the Los Angeles OneSource System Youth Participant Program
2010-2011, by Deborah D. Heisley, Richard W. Moore, and Robin Patch at the consulting center at The College
of Business California State University, Northridge, including the questionnaire used that year, is ERIC
Document 537208, available from www.eric.ed.gov.
1


Quality of program services
Characteristics of the respondents
Sample
The Los Angeles Community Development Department (CDD) pulled a call list of currently
enrolled youth participants in mid-June 2012. We planned to sample a representative
group of currently enrolled participants from each of the 14 OneSource Centers, with a goal
of completing 30 surveys for each center. However, the call list was problematic. As the
youth program follows the school year (for the most part), pulling the list this late in the
year diminished the sample pool, as many participants had been exited from the program
by June. Furthermore, some centers’ records were of poor quality. Sometimes participants
had exited but their paperwork was never entered. Sometimes the contact information was
inadequate. For example, it appeared that one contractor was not entering phone numbers
for a majority of their youth participants and one center lacked phone numbers for 30% of
their youth participants.
The questionnaire was administered July 5th – July 25th 2012 by telephone in the evenings
and on weekends. Protocol was supposed to be that every telephone number that did not
answer on the first call attempt received two additional callbacks until the quota of 30
completes per center was attained. However, this protocol did not yield adequate results.
We tried to attain the 30 respondents per center by repeatedly calling incompletes beyond
the three call protocol. In the end, the yield was deemed inadequate by the CDD. The CDD
then provided us with an additional list of youth participants who had exited the program
in June 2012 and we administered the questionnaire again from September 24th to
September 28th to these exited participants to increase the sample size.
In the end, the 2012 sample consisted of 344 completed interviews (323 who were
interviewed in July and 21 who were interviewed in September and had exited in June)
based on a total sample pool of 1,752 youth participants. Of the 1,752 numbers in the
sample pool, 1,040 were resolved2 (see Appendix B). The ratio of completes to resolved
yielded a completion rate of 33.1%. The numbers provided were of poor quality with 24%
being bad numbers (189 disconnected or non-working, 6 business or non-residential, 23
fax machines, and 32 duplicate numbers). Also, for an additional 10% of the resolved
numbers, the person who answered the phone said they did not remember receiving
services or that there was no one there by that name. After these additional efforts we were
able to reach the desired number of 30 respondents in eight of the fourteen centers. For
further details of resolution of the sample, and for information by center, please see
Appendix C.
Resolved numbers are those sample records that are no longer available to dial because they are either
completed, unreachable or declined, or maximum attempts were made.
2
2
In summary, we continue to struggle with poor record-keeping by some of the centers. It is
imperative that these centers improve their database management so that participants and
exited participants can be contacted.
FINDINGS
We begin our analysis by examining overall youth participant satisfaction for the 20112012 program year, and comparing it to 2010-2011. We present to what extent
participants would recommend the program to others. Next, we describe participants’
satisfaction with specific program elements. We report when the exited participants last
had contact with their program. We also examine how the participants learned of the
program. Then we describe the services received by the survey respondents. Finally, we
explore relationships between participants’ demographic characteristics and satisfaction
with services received.
SATISFACTION
This section reports our findings across multiple measures of participants’ satisfaction:
overall satisfaction, the degree that services met expectations, how services compared to
ideals, if they would recommend the program to people like themselves, and satisfaction
with various elements of the program, classes, and workshops.
AVERAGE PARTICIPANT SATISFACTION BY YEAR
Figure 1 demonstrates youth participants’ satisfaction with program services they received
across the 14 OneSource Centers (see Appendix D for a table detailing scores by center for
“Overall Satisfaction,” the degree that services “Met Expectations,” and the degree to which
participants felt the services “Compare with Ideal Set of Services”). Participants were asked
to rate their overall satisfaction on a scale of 1 to 10, with one being “very dissatisfied” and
10 being “very satisfied,” and responses were averaged for each year.
3
Figure 1: Overall and Related Satisfaction Measures
2011-2012
2010-2011
9.1
Overall
9.0
8.9
Met Expectations
8.9
8.8
Compared to Ideal
8.6
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
The results of these three satisfaction measures indicate that participants continue to have
a positive experience at the OneSource Centers. The average overall satisfaction measure
across the 14 centers rose slightly from 9.0 in 2010-2011 to 9.1 in 2011-2012. The degree
to which the centers met participants’ expectations remained at 8.9 for both survey years.
The degree to which the services compared to participants ideal set of services increased
from 8.6 to 8.8. Overall satisfaction for both survey years was well above the city’s star
level of 8.5 for customer satisfaction.3 If OneSource would like to pursue continuous
improvement they might investigate what it is that the participants have in mind as an
ideal. Perhaps OneSource could provide an additional service that participants desire or
perhaps OneSource could vary a service it currently provides to more closely approximate
participants’ ideal. Our discussion of satisfaction by specific services should shed light into
what changes the centers might make to increase satisfaction scores to an even higher
level.
OVERALL SATISFACTION BY CENTER
Figure 2 demonstrates that the average overall satisfaction rating was high in all
OneSource Centers with nine centers improving their scores from last year. Every center
met or surpassed the 8.5 star standard for customer satisfaction resulting in an average
satisfaction rating of 9.1 across all 14 centers.
Los Angeles has a “balanced scorecard rating system” for WorkSource and OneSource agencies that
measures participant Satisfaction, Outcomes, Flow of clients, and Administrative capability, which is
commonly referred to as the SOFA system. Centers that achieve a prescribed benchmark are awarded a star
for each category. The star level for both 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 program years was 8.5.
3
4
Figure 2: Overall Satisfaction by Center
2011-2012
2010-2011
9.6
9.2
Para Los Ninos East LA
9.6
El Proyecto del Barrio North Valley
9.0
9.5
YOM North Valley
8.8
9.3
YOM Watts South
8.2
Marriott Foundation
9.3
9.1
El Proyecto del Barrio South Valley
9.2
8.8
9.1
9.5
Catholic Charities South
Catholic Charities Central
9.0
9.1
Urban League South
9.0
8.9
WLCAC South
9.0
8.5
LAUSD Harbor
8.9
9.0
UCLA West
8.8
8.8
YOM East LA Boyle Heights
8.8
8.5
8.8
9.2
UCLA Central
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
However, some of these ratings by center may not be valid because of small sample size
(see Appendix B). As we noted before eight centers did have 30 completed surveys, one
5
center had 20 respondents, one had one-half the desired number at 15, one only 10, and
one a mere 3. So while the scores indicate high satisfaction across all centers, in some cases
we cannot rely on the scores due to small sample size. This will be true for all individual
center measures in the report when their sample size is too small.
The top performing centers this year were Para Los Niños East LA (9.6 based on a sample
of 30) and El Proyecto del Barrio North Valley (9.6 based on a sample of 31). YOM North
Valley achieved a 9.5 rating, based on 20 respondents. Only YOM Watts South fell below the
star level last year with a rating of 8.2, and it raised its satisfaction score to an impressive
9.3 this program year (with a sample size of 30).
RECOMMEND PROGRAM
Participants were asked whether they would recommend the OneSource program to
someone like themselves. Figure 3 demonstrates that an overwhelming 96.5% of
respondents stated that they would, and only 3.2% said they would not (0.3% were
unsure). For a table detailing the results of this question by center see Appendix E. The
very positive response to this question once again indicates that participants have high
levels of satisfaction with the program and implies that the program has a positive impact
on the population it serves. Also, as discussed in the section below regarding how
participants first learned of the program, word-of-mouth is the most important way
potential participants learn of the program. This finding also suggests that if the city has a
growth goal for the program it could implement a successful social media, word-of-mouth,
or traditional advertising campaign with past and current clients authentically endorsing
the program.
6
Figure 3: Recommend Program to Someone like Yourself
Yes
No
Unsure
0.3%
3.2%
96.5%
SATISFACTION WITH PROGRAM ELEMENTS
Figure 4 shows 2011 respondents’ average satisfaction ratings for each of 14 OneSource
program elements (see Appendices F through I for center level data). Satisfaction was high
across all program elements for the past two program years ranging from a low of 8.5 for
paperwork in 2011-2012 to a high of 9.6 for friendliness of staff in 2011-2012.
Respondents were particularly satisfied with program staff and center facilities. For both
years the highest rated item was the friendliness of the staff, which is a tribute to the work
and dedication of the people in the centers. The second highest rated item both years was
the comfort and cleanliness of facilities, again indicating a commitment by contractors and
staff to providing a pleasant and positive environment for youth participants. Clients
remain least satisfied with the amount of paperwork required, responsiveness to phone
calls and emails, and website quality. This might be due to the clients’ young age and
technical savvy or their frustration with cumbersome paperwork.
7
Figure 4: Satisfaction by Program Elements
2011-2012
2010-2011
How friendly staff were
9.6
9.5
Comfort and cleanliness of facility
9.5
9.4
How knowledgeable staff were
9.4
9.4
Quality and availability of
computers
9.4
9.2
Help finding job or enrolling in
school
9.2
8.9
Career counseling, job preparation
9.1
9.1
Information about services
9.1
8.9
Social/recreational activities
9.0
8.9
Availability of staff
9.0
9.0
Enrollment process for training
programs
8.9
8.9
Quality of tutoring
8.9
9.0
Quality of website
8.8
8.8
How quickly phone calls/emails
returned
8.8
8.8
8.5
8.6
Amount of paperwork
0
1
2
3
8
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
SATISFACTION WITH CLASSES AND WORKSHOPS
Only about half of OneSource youth participants surveyed reported attending a workshop
or class, but those who did were highly satisfied. Fifty-three percent of respondents
reported participating in at least one workshop, training program or class during 2012
program year (54% reported participating in 2010-2011). Figure 5 demonstrates that on
average participants were highly satisfied with the quality of the workshops or classes they
attended, though workshops and classes vary from center to center (see Appendix J for
center level data). The average rating for quality of instructors was 9.3 on a ten-point scale
for both program years. Satisfaction with the overall quality of the classes and workshops
increased slightly from 9.2 to 9.3.
Figure 5: Satisfaction with Classes and Workshops
2011-2012
2010-2011
9.3
Quality of instructors
9.3
9.3
Quality of classes/workshops
9.2
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
PROGRAM CONTACT AND SERVICES RECEIVED
This section provides details about when participants last contacted a OneSource center,
how they learned of OneSource services, what job-related activities and services they
participated in, and what support services they received. We compare the results of the
2012 survey to results from the 2011 survey.
LAST PROGRAM CONTACT
Initially the Community Development Department (CDD) provided contact information for
currently enrolled youth participants, so ideally respondents would have recently received
services or been in contact with the program. However, recall that in the case of the 20112012 survey, 323 of the respondents were surveyed in July and 21 more, who had exited in
June, were surveyed in September. In 2010-2011 the survey was administered in July 2011.
Even given that we went back into the field and surveyed participants who had exited,
9
Figure 6 demonstrates that the percent of participants who received services or had
contact with the program in the past month increased from 59.4% (2010-2011) to 67.7%
for the 2011-2012 program year, while the percent that had gone more than a month but
had received services or had contact with the program since the past summer decreased
from 30.6% to 19.8% (see Appendix K for center level data). This is a positive trend that
shows contractors are keeping youth participants engaged in the program. We recommend
that the city set goals with regards to this measure.
On a more negative note, the percent of respondents that had not had contact with the
center or received services since the past summer increased from 8.9% to 11.0%. Recall
that 323 of the participants were provided as currently enrolled and 21 were listed as
having exited in June 2012, yet these participants are reporting that they have been out of
contact with the center for a year or more. The city should troubleshoot this problem and
set goals with regards to reducing this number either through outreach to these
participants to keep them in touch with their center or by keeping better records of who is
actually currently enrolled in the program.
Figure 6: Last Received Services or had Contact with Program
2011-2012
2010-2011
67.7%
During past month
59.4%
19.8%
More than a month ago, but
since Aug '11
30.6%
11.0%
8.9%
Summer 2011 or before
1.5%
1.1%
Don't know/Never had contact
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
LEARNED OF PROGRAM
Figure 7 shows how youth participants learned of the OneSource program (see Appendix L
for center level data). The respondents were asked how they found out about the program
before they contacted the program. Multiple responses were accepted. Youth participants
continued to learn of the program primarily through their friends and family or from their
10
schools. Roughly half of the respondents learned about the program from a friend or
relative. The second most frequent way that respondents learned of the program was
referral by a school, and the percent that reported their school as their source increased
from 27.0% in 2011 to 35.8% in 2012. Also, those who reported learning through a staff
member increased from 3.7% in 2011 to 10.2% in 2012, and those who reported being
referred to the center by another agency increased from 6.5% in 2011 to 9.6% in 2012.
These increases could partly be an artifact of the decreased number of responses being
coded as “other” from 2011 (13.1%) to 2012 (3.2%). Otherwise, these increases might
suggest that the center’s staff is more effective at outreach to the community, or that
awareness of the OneSource system and its programs is increasing in the community.
Figure 7: Learned of Program
2011-2012
2010-2011
50.3%
47.6%
Friend or relative
Referred by a school
27.0%
Met a staff member
3.7%
35.8%
10.2%
9.6%
6.5%
Referred by another agency
7.6%
4.2%
Saw a flyer
5.2%
2.4%
Drove by building
3.2%
Other
Saw a sign
2.3%
1.0%
Internet search or website
2.0%
0.8%
Email
1.2%
0.3%
Social media
1.2%
0.3%
0%
10%
13.1%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
The percent of respondents who reported seeing traditional marketing communications of
flyers and signs almost doubled from 5.2% in 2011 to 9.9% in 2012. This could be a result
11
of increased spending in this area in terms of producing more flyers and signs, or increased
effectiveness of the execution or placement of the flyers and signs.
Very few (4.4%) of the 2012 respondents recalled using computer-based sources such as
internet search or websites, email, or social media to learn about the program before
contacting them. However, only 1.4% of the respondents recalled using computer-based
sources in the 2011 survey, so as expected these numbers are increasing and should be
expected to continue to increase. However, it is surprising that so few in this tech savvy age
group are employing computers to learn about the center before contacting it. These low
figures imply that OneSource agencies could expand program awareness and participation
by increasing email outreach, engaging in social media tactics, and optimizing their website
and links so that they rank higher in search engine results.
SERVICES RECEIVED
Respondents were asked to identify what activities or services they had participated in.
They could provide multiple responses (see Appendix M for center level data).
Figure 8 shows that the most frequently used services by youth participants were directly
related to employment. Over three-fourths of respondents used the activities and services
of the centers to get work experience (78.0% in 2010-2011, 77.9% in 2011-2012). A little
over two-thirds of respondents (69.9% in 2010-2011, 68.3% in 2011-2012) used job
preparation activities/services. Roughly two-thirds of the respondents used services to
help them find a summer job (66.5% for 2010-2011, 67.4% for 2011-2012). Approximately
half of the respondents (50.0% for 2010-2011, 49.1% for 2011-2012) worked on
improving their occupational skills. Use of these services remained relatively stable
between the two program years.
Youth participants also used the services/activities of the center to connect with and
become more involved in their communities through a mentorship program, community
service, and other social/leadership activities. Connecting with a mentor was the fifth most
frequently used service/activity, however, the use of mentors decreased this year (48.7%
2010-2011 versus 39.2% 2011-2012). The cause of this decrease is unknown. Were there
fewer mentors available? Were the participants not encouraged as much to utilize a mentor
or not aware of the availability of mentors? Due to the importance of mentors who form
strong relationships with youth and utilize best practices to mentor youth,4 unless this
decrease is a reflection of an intentional strategy to de-emphasize the mentorship program,
this decrease is of concern and should be investigated. Roughly one-third of the
respondents became involved in community service through the center (31.7 in 20102011, 36.6% in 2011-2012). The increase in community service should generally be
considered positive. However, if participants are increasingly turning toward community
David L. DuBois, Bruce E. Holloway, Jeffrey C. Valentine and Harris Cooper, “Effectiveness of Mentoring
Programs for Youth: A Meta-Analytic Review,” American Journal of Community Psychology, 30, Issue 2, (2002):
157-197.
4
12
service because they cannot get a paid job, this increase might be masking an underlying
problem. Finally, fewer respondents reported using center activities/services for other
social/leadership activities (29.1% in 2010-2011 versus 20.3% in 2011-2012). Again
perhaps more social/leadership activities could be identified and encouraged for the
participants as leadership experience is important in developing leadership skills and work
potential for youth, and it also makes their job applications and resumes stronger.
The third area of activities/services provided by the centers related more directly to
education and included college preparation (39.8% 2010-2011, 33.1% 2011-2012),
tutoring (24.4%, 31.2%), special classes (26.7%, 20.3%), and help enrolling with the GED
(19.6%, 19.2%). Perhaps these services are utilized less than the other services because the
participants are enrolled in some type of school already (see Figure 12) and are receiving
these services there. There was also a general trend of decreasing use of these services.
Once again, the reason is unclear and worth investigating. Are the services less available?
Are the participants less aware or less encouraged to use these services? Or, on a more
positive note, are the schools becoming better at providing these services (unlikely in a
period of deep budget cuts)?
13
Figure 8: Services Received
2011-2012
2010-2011
77.9%
78.0%
Help in getting work experience
68.3%
69.9%
Job preparation
67.4%
66.5%
Help finding a summer job
49.1%
50.0%
Occupational skills
39.2%
Connecting with a mentor
48.7%
36.6%
31.7%
Community Service
33.1%
39.8%
College preparation
24.4%
31.2%
Tutoring
20.3%
Other social/leadership activities
29.1%
20.3%
26.7%
Special classes
19.2%
19.6%
Help enrolling with GED
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
In addition to the program services listed in Figure 8, OneSource Centers also offer support
services that enable youths to participate in the program. Figure 9 reports which of eight
support services respondents received from OneSource during the 2010-2011 and 20112012 program years (see Appendix N for center level data). Multiple responses were
allowed. Fewer respondents used support services this year than last year (28.5% reported
“none” for 2010-2011, while 34.6% reported none for 2011-2012). This decrease is
reflected in a decreased use of every service except child care (stable at 5.2% for 20102011 and 5.5% for 2011-2012). The majority of respondents used transportation/bus
token support (58.4%, 55.8%). Approximately one in five respondents use the center’s help
with uniforms and equipment (21.7%, 19.8%). The use of health services decreased from
18.6% in 2010-2011 to 13.4%. The participants were also less likely to use the center’s
help with school books (14.1% in 2010-2011 versus 8.1% in 2011-2012). The utilization of
drug/alcohol abuse counseling also decreased from 6.0% to 4.7%. The decrease in the use
of support services is of concern. The cause is unclear. Were available support services
14
decreased due to budget cuts? Are youths less informed of the availability of these
services? The OneSource program should investigate the decreased use of these important
services. Needs assessments should be current and target goals should be set for each of
the support services based on the current needs of the youth market. Then youths should
be informed of the availability of support services and encouraged to use the ones that
could help them better succeed.
Figure 9: Support Services Received
2011-2012
2010-2011
55.8%
58.4%
Transportation/ bus tokens
19.8%
21.7%
Uniforms and equipment
13.4%
18.6%
Health services
8.1%
School books
Child care
5.5%
5.2%
Drug/alcohol abuse
counseling
4.7%
6.0%
14.1%
0.3%
0.3%
Other
None
28.5%
0%
10%
20%
30%
34.6%
40%
50%
60%
70%
DEMOGRAPHICS
In this section we present the gender and age composition of OneSource youth respondents
across the 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 program years. Then we examine satisfaction by
gender and age groups for 2012. Next we present school enrollment status for the 20112012 program year. Finally, we relate enrollment status to age and report satisfaction
levels by enrollment status and age category.
15
GENDER, AGE, AND SATISFACTION
Figure 10 demonstrates that in survey population, across all years, the majority of
respondents were female, and there was a slight increase in the percentage of females that
made up the sample from 57.1% in 2010-2011 to 60.5% in 2011-2012 (see Appendix O for
center level data). The actual gender split found in comprehensive program records for
2011-12 is females 56% and males 44%. There are a myriad of reasons the female/male
participation disparity might exist. Some causes that could be explored might include that
females’ need was greater, that their opportunities were fewer, that they were more tapped
into the communication networks that provided information about the program, or that
they were more proactive about seeking OneSource services than males were. If the
program desires more gender balance these data suggest contractors will need to consider
how they recruit participants- who currently come mostly through word-of-mouth, and
review program offerings.
Figure 10: Percent of Participant Respondents by Gender
2011-2012
2010-2011
39.5%
Male
42.9%
60.5%
Female
57.1%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
The proportion of 14-18 years old participant respondents versus the proportion of 19+
years old participant respondents increased significantly (see Figure 11). While 45.0% of
the respondents were 14-18 years old in the 2011 survey, 56.4% were 14-18 years old in
the 2012 survey (see Appendix P for center level data). Actual participant age breakdown
in program records was: 58% 14-18 years old in 2010-11, 56% 14-18 years old in 2011-12,
42% 19+ in 2010-11, and 44% 19+ in 2011-12.
16
Figure 11: Percent of Participant Respondents by Age
2011-2012
2010-2011
0.3%
0.0%
Under 14
56.4%
14-18
45.0%
43.3%
19+
55.0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Table 1 presents our analysis of satisfaction according to gender and age.
During both program years females reported slightly higher overall satisfaction levels (9.01
for females versus 8.87 for males during 2010-2011, and 9.14 for females versus 9.11 for
males during 2011-2012). We have no explanation for this gender difference and the
difference between male and female satisfaction was not statistically significant in either
year.
During the 2010-2011 program year, the 14 to 18 years old respondents were more
satisfied (9.18) than the 19+ age group (8.77), this difference was also statistically
significant (p=.007).4 This difference in satisfaction was mainly driven by the greater
satisfaction of 14-18 years old females who were more satisfied (9.27) than the 19+ years
old females (8.76). For the 2011-2012 program year none of the differences according to
age, gender, or the interaction of the two were statistically significant, so we do not suggest
that these differences be perceived as important or that they be investigated further.
Table 1: Participant Overall Satisfaction by Gender and Age
2010-2011
2011-2012
Gender 14-18 19+ Total Under 14 14-18 19+ Total
Male
9.0
8.8
8.9
NA
9.1
9.1
9.1
Female
9.3
8.8
9.0
9.0
9.1
9.3
9.1
Total
9.2
8.8
9.0
9.0
9.1
9.2
9.1
4
Independent-samples t-test, equal variance not assumed.
17
SCHOOL ENROLLMENT, AGE, AND SATISFACTION
Youth participants were asked if they were enrolled in school during the spring of 2012
(see Appendix Q for center level data). Of the 14-18 years old group, 93.8% reported being
enrolled in school and of the 19+ years old group 64.4% reported being enrolled in school
(see Table 2). It is unclear if the students who were not enrolled had completed high school
or not. There was a slight change in this question from the 2010-2011 study so we do not
present comparisons across years.
Table 2: Percent Enrolled in School by Age
2011-2012
Enrolled in
School
14-18
19+
Yes
93.8%
64.4%
No
6.2%
35.6%
The youth participants that reported being enrolled in school during the spring of 2012
were asked what type of school they were enrolled in (see Appendix R for center level
data). Because the 14-18 years old group is a different educational cohort than the 19+
years old group, we analyzed their enrollment separately.5
For the 14-18 years old group (Figure 12A) high school students was the primary group
(86.6%) being served. Some of the students were enrolled in educational programs other
than high school (community/junior college 3.6%, postsecondary vocational school 2.6%,
or “other” 1%). A small percentage of the 14-18 years old participants (6.2%) were not
enrolled.
For the 19+ years old group (Figure 12 B) roughly half of the respondents (49.7%) were
enrolled in a postsecondary educational program: 7.4% were enrolled in
college/university, 25.5% were enrolled in community or junior colleges, 13.4% were
enrolled in postsecondary vocational schools, and 3.4% reported “other”. Many 19+
respondents (35.6%) were not enrolled in school during the spring of 2012. There were
also a group of respondents (14.8%) who reported that they were still enrolled in high
school during the spring of 2012.
One respondent was less than 14 years old, refused to answer this question and was not included in the
analysis.
5
18
Figure 12 A: 14-18
Not
enrolled
6.2%
Figure 12 B: 19+
Other
1.0%
Other
3.4%
High School
14.8%
Community
/ Junior
College
3.6%
Postsecondary
Vocational
School
2.6%
Not
enrolled
35.6%
High School
86.6%
College/
University
7.4%
Postsecondary
Vocational
School
13.4%
Community
/ Junior
College
25.5%
Again the 19+ years old group was more satisfied overall than the 14-18 years old group
(see Table 3), but this difference was not significant. However, respondents who reported
not being enrolled in school had greater satisfaction (9.37) than those who reported that
they were enrolled in school (9.08), and this difference was significant (p=.032).6 The most
satisfied respondents were 14-18 years old and not enrolled in school. The least satisfied
respondents were 14-18 years old and enrolled in school. Table 3 (below) shows the
overall satisfaction rating for these four groups. The reasons for these differences are
unknown.
Table 3: Overall Satisfaction by Age and Enrolled in School
2011-2012
Enrolled in School
6
14-18
19+
Total
Yes
9.0
9.2
9.1
No
9.6
9.3
9.4
Total
9.1
9.2
9.1
Independent-samples t-test, equal variance not assumed.
19
DISCUSSION
The 2011 and 2012 surveys show convincingly that the OneSource System generates high
levels of satisfaction for youth participants. The average overall satisfaction measure across
the 14 centers was an impressive 9.1 in 2011-2012. Satisfaction with the 2011-2012
program year was uniformly high across the system according to all general satisfaction
measures with all centers achieving star level. However, these findings may not be reliable
for some centers due to poor quality records that did not allow for sufficient sampling.
Therefore, while the centers with sufficient sample size should be commended for their
performance, it is imperative that some centers improve their database management so
that there are valid phone numbers for participants and exited participants.7
All of the satisfaction measures with regards to different elements of the program were
high. Respondents were particularly satisfied with program staff and center facilities (9.4
to 9.6 on a 10 point scale), and employees should be made aware that their efforts are
appreciated by program participants, administration and the board. Respondents remain
least satisfied with the amount of paperwork required, responsiveness to phone calls and
emails, and website quality (8.5 to 8.8 on a 10 point scale). This is perhaps due to the
clients’ young age and technical savvy in addition to their frustration with cumbersome
paperwork.
Youth participants continued to learn of the program primarily through their friends and
family or from their schools. Learning of the program through a staff member or another
agency is increasing, perhaps suggesting that the centers are doing a better job of outreach,
or that awareness of OneSource and its programs is increasing in the community. The small
but growing percent of participants who learn about the program from traditional
marketing communications or use computer-based sources to learn of the program
suggests that these media are under-utilized. OneSource agencies could expand program
awareness and participation by increasing outreach to and maintaining good relations with
key influencers, improving the use of traditional marketing communications, better
utilizing social media and email outreach, and optimizing their websites so that they rank
higher in search engine results.
We investigated services received during the 2011-2012 program year and compared it to
the previous program year. The most frequently used services were directly related to
employment. Youth participants also used the services/activities of the center to connect
with and become more involved in their communities through a mentorship program
(decreasing use), community service (increasing use), and other social/leadership
activities (decreasing use). To a lesser degree participants used education related
activities/services provided by the center such for college preparation, tutoring, special
classes, and help enrolling with the GED. Finally, fewer participants used OneSource Center
11% of the 2011-2012 program year participants reported not being in contact with their center since the
summer of 2011. This suggests that centers might do more in terms of outreach to maintain a connection
with participants, or perhaps it suggests again that the record-keeping is of poor quality and includes
participants who should not be included.
7
20
support services this year than last with a decreased use of every service except child care.
The majority used transportation/bus token support. The reasons for increasing or
decreasing use of services are unclear and worth investigating. It could be that use was
impacted by changes in availability, awareness, encouragement, or need.
It is difficult to tell if too much or too little of any support service is being provided. The city
may want to assess the need for various support services in the client population and then,
based on those needs, set goals for their provision. This level of planning does not negate
the concept of tailoring a program to individual participant’s needs, as it is explicitly based
on assessing participants’ needs, setting goals to meet those needs, delivering sought after
benefits, and allocating resources accordingly. This level of strategic planning will help the
centers optimize their allocation of limited resources for maximum impact.
Finally, we examined differences in participation in the program according to such
characteristics as gender, age, and enrollment in school. Young women are more likely to
participate in the OneSource program than young men are. The age of the respondents
changed from being dominated by 19+ years old participants last year to being dominated
by 14-18 years old participants during 2011-2012. Of the 14-18 years old group, 93.8%
were enrolled in school, with 86.6% in high school. Of the 19+ years old group 64.4%
reported being enrolled in school, with roughly half enrolled in a postsecondary
educational program. The report speculates on some reasons that these gender and age
differences may be occurring, but without further investigation the cause remains
unknown. If the city is concerned about these disparities, further study will be needed.
We investigated the satisfaction of youth participants according to age and gender and we
found no significant differences between the groups on this basis.
Overall this study portrays a system that continues to generate high rates of satisfaction
among its participants. As the program continues to develop the city should continue to
track the experience of participants and seek ways to improve the delivery of service.
21
APPENDICES
22
Appendix A: Questionnaire
LOS ANGELES YOUTH ONESOURCE PROGRAM SURVEY
JUNE 2012
INTRODUCTION
May I please speak with SAMPLE NAME?
Hello, my name is ________ and I am calling from Davis Research on behalf of the City
of Los Angeles OneSource Youth Program. According to their records, you have been
involved through the <INSERT CENTER NAME>. If you have about eight minutes I'd
like to ask you some questions. Your answers are very important for improving the
quality of the program for others. I can assure you that all your responses are for
research purposes only and will be kept confidential. May we go ahead now?


Yes
No
o Ask: Is there a better time to call back?
o Yes (record time & date)
____________________
No (thank person, terminate call & contact next youth on list)
1. I’d like to begin by asking you about your overall satisfaction with the program. On a
scale of 1 to 10 where 1 means ‘very dissatisfied’ and 10 means ‘very satisfied’,
what is your overall satisfaction with the services provided from this Center?
Very Dissatisfied
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Very Satisfied
DK
8
9
10
REF
11
12
2. 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
Expectations
1
2
3
Exceeds All
4
5
6
7
8
9
DK REF No
10
11
12
13
3. Now I would like you to think about an ideal set of services for a person like you. On
a scale from 1 to 10 with 1 meaning ‘not very close to my ideal,’ and 10 meaning
‘very close to my ideal,’ how well do you think the services you received compare
with your ideal set of services?
23
Not very close
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Very Close
DK REF No Ideal
9
10
11 12
13
Now I would like to ask you some questions about your involvement with the <INSERT
CENTER NAME> center.
4. When was the last time you received services or had contact with the program?
[READ LIST, ACCEPT ONE RESPONSE]
[NOTE: IF RESPONDENT IS UNSURE OR RESPONDS, “NEVER HAD CONTACT
WITH PROGRAM” PROBE THOROUGHLY USING ENROLLMENT DATES,
SERVICE DATES, CENTER NAME AND SERVICES LISTED TO ACCURATELY
DETERMINE CONTACT. USE HOLIDAYS AND SCHOOL CALENDAR TO
REFERENCE ENROLLMENT DATES.]
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
During this past week
During this past month
More than a month ago, but since August 2011
Last summer
Before last summer (May 2011 or before)
Never had contact with program [DO NOT READ]
5. How did you find out about the program before you contacted them?
[READ LIST, ACCEPT MULTIPLE RESPONSES]
[RANDOMIZE A-J, ANCHOR OTHER]
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
h)
i)
j)
k)
Friend or relative
Referred by a school
Referred by another center
Met a staff member
Saw a sign
Saw a flyer
Drove by building
Email
Internet search or center website
Social Media (Facebook, YouTube, Blog, Tweet, etc.)
Other [SPECIFY] ______________________
6. What activities or services have you participated in?
[READ LIST, ACCEPT MULTIPLE RESPONSES]
[RANDOMIZE A-J, ANCHOR K]
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
h)
i)
j)
Help in getting work experience such as an internship or job shadowing
Tutoring
Help enrolling with GED
Job prep
Occupational skill training
College prep
Help finding a summer job
Community service
Special classes
Connecting with a mentor
24
k) Other social activities/ leadership activities
7. Did you receive any of the following support services?
[READ LIST, ACCEPT MULTIPLE RESPONSES]
[RANDOMIZE A-F, ANCHOR G & H]
a) Transportation such as bus tokens
b) Uniforms and equipment
c) School books
d) Child care
e) Health services
f) Drug or alcohol abuse counseling
g) Other (Specify) _______________________
h) None [DO NOT READ]
We would also like to know about the people working in the Youth OneSource Program.
Please rate each question on a scale from 1 to 10. If the question does not apply to you,
or if you do not have an opinion, just say ‘Does Not Apply’.
8. On a scale of 1-10 where 1 is unavailable and 10 is available in general, how
available was the staff?
Unavailable
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Available
9
10
N/A (DNR)
11
9. On a scale of 1-10 where 1 is unfriendly and 10 is friendly, in general how friendly
was the staff?
Unfriendly
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Friendly
10
N/A (DNR)
11
10. On a scale of 1-10 where 1 is not knowledgeable and 10 is knowledgeable, how
knowledgeable was the staff?
Not knowledgeable
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Knowledgeable
9
10
N/A (DNR)
11
The following questions ask about your satisfaction with the services you received from
the Youth OneSource Program. Indicate how satisfied you are with each service using a
scale of 1 to 10, where 1 means ’very dissatisfied’ and 10 means ’very satisfied’. Again,
if you have no experience, or do not have an opinion, say “Does Not Apply”.
Using a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 means ’very dissatisfied’ and 10 means ’very satisfied’
how satisfied were you with:
25
11. The information available about services offered by this OneSource Center?
Very Dissatisfied
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Very Satisfied
8
9
10
N/A (DNR)
11
6
7
Very Satisfied
8
9
10
N/A (DNR)
11
Very Satisfied
8
9
10
N/A (DNR)
11
7
Very Satisfied
8
9
10
N/A (DNR)
11
7
Very Satisfied
8
9
10
N/A (DNR)
11
12. The quality of the website?
Very Dissatisfied
1
2
3
4
5
13. The comfort and cleanliness of the facility?
Very Dissatisfied
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
14. The quality and availability of computers?
Very Dissatisfied
1
2
3
4
5
6
15. The social and recreational activities?
Very Dissatisfied
1
2
3
4
5
6
16. The enrollment process for training programs or workshops?
Very Dissatisfied
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Very Satisfied
8
9
10
N/A (DNR)
11
17. The career counseling and job preparation you received here?
Very Dissatisfied
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Very Satisfied
8
9
10
N/A (DNR)
11
18. The program’s help in finding a job or enrolling in school?
Very Dissatisfied
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Very Satisfied
8
9
10
5
6
7
Very Satisfied
8
9
10
N/A (DNR)
11
N/A (DNR)
11
19. The quality of tutoring?
Very Dissatisfied
1
2
3
4
20. How quickly phone calls or emails were returned?
Very Dissatisfied
Very Satisfied
26
N/A (DNR)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
21. The amount of paperwork you had to complete in order to receive services?
Very Dissatisfied
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Very Satisfied
8
9
10
N/A (DNR)
11
22. Did you ever participate in a workshop, training program or class at the <INSERT
CENTER NAME> Center?
a) Yes
b) No [IF NO, SKIP TO Q. 25]
Using a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 means ’very dissatisfied’ and 10 means ’very satisfied’
how satisfied were you with:
23. The quality of the instructors?
Very Dissatisfied
1
2
3
4
Very Satisfied
8
9
10
N/A (DNR)
11
Very Dissatisfied
Very Satisfied
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
25. Would you recommend this program to someone like yourself?
N/A (DNR)
11
5
6
7
24. The quality of the classes or workshops?
a) Yes
b) No
c) Unsure [DO NOT READ]
DEMOGRAPHICS
Finally, I have a few questions about you. Please keep in mind that these questions are
for classification purposes only and will remain confidential.
26. [PLEASE OBSERVE GENDER BY OBSERVATION. DO NOT ASK.]
a) Male
b) Female
27. How old are you?
[ASK FOR AN EXACT AGE AND SELECT THE APPROPRIATE AGE RANGE BELOW.
DO NOT READ LIST.]
27
a) 14 - 18
b) 19+
28A. Were you enrolled in school last spring (2012)?
a) Yes [GO TO Q28B]
b) No [GO TO “THANK YOU” SCRIPT]
28B. What type of school were you enrolled in last spring (2012)?
[READ LIST AND ACCEPT ONE RESPONSE]
a) High School
b) Postsecondary Vocational School
c) Community College/ Junior College
d) College/ University
ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES WORKSOURCE CENTERS, WE SINCERELY APPRECIATE YOUR
TIME AND OPINIONS. HAVE A GOOD DAY.
28
Appendix B: Number of Respondents by Center Compared to 2010-2011
OneSource Center
2010-2011
2011-2012
Catholic Charities Central
32
30
Catholic Charities South
30
30
El Proyecto del Barrio North Valley
30
31
El Proyecto del Barrio South Valley
30
30
LAUSD Harbor
29
26
Marriott Foundation
15
3
Para Los Niños East LA
49
30
UCLA Central
30
30
UCLA West
26
29
Urban League South
29
10
WLCAC South
31
30
YOM East LA Boyle Heights
13
15
YOM North Valley
19
20
YOM Watts South
17
30
380
344
Total
* Sample was 1752 with 1040 resolved exited clients with 344 completed surveys.
29
Appendix C: Resolution of All Numbers in Sample by Center
TOTAL SAMPLE POOL*
RESOLVED NUMBERS
COMPLETES
Completion Rate**
QUALIFIED MID-TERMINATES
OVER QUOTAS
DISCONNECTED/NON-WORKING NUMBERS
BUSINESS/NON-RESIDENTIAL NUMBER
FAX
DUPLICATE NUMBERS
Percent Bad Numbers***
LANGUAGE PROBLEM
REFUSED TO BE RECORDED
REFUSED
HARD REFUSAL 2ND TIME
INTRO (PHONE NUMBER BLOCKED - 2ND TIME)
TERM: INTRO - DOES NOT REMEMBER
INTRO - NO ONE THERE BY THAT NAME/WRONG NUMBER
TERM: TAKE ME OFF THE LIST
MAXIMUM TARGET ATTEMPTS
DNC - REMOVED BY DNC SYSTEM
ACTIVE NUMBERS
NO ANSWER
BUSY
TWO BUSY - CHANGED TO NO ANSWER
CALLBACKS
CALLBACKS UNSPECIFIED
ANSWERING MACHINES/VOICE MAIL
PHONE BLOCKED NUMBER - 1ST TIME
NUMBER CHANGED (DIALER)
SUSPENDED RECORDS
VIRGIN NUMBERS
INTERVIEW LENGTH (IN MINUTES)
TOTAL
1752
1040
344
33.1%
15
128
189
6
23
32
24.0%
45
55
63
41
15
82
2
709
267
21
34
44
29
265
10
39
3
7.56
Proyecto
No
181
56
31
55.4%
3
7
1
2
3
23.2%
3
4
2
125
47
1
8
1
8
43
8
9
7.55
Marriott
15
15
3
20.0%
1
4
26.7%
1
1
1
4
7.67
YOM
North
69
69
20
29.0%
1
19
2
4
36.2%
1
2
3
5
12
7.6
Proyecto
SO
220
71
30
42.3%
7
15
4
1
28.2%
5
6
2
1
149
57
7
6
11
6
53
1
8
7.13
Para
Los
173
83
30
36.1%
17
14
1
3
21.7%
2
6
6
4
90
36
1
5
6
2
35
5
7.5
YOM
East
77
76
15
19.7%
21
1
28.9%
3
4
1
8
23
1
1
7.13
UCLA
West
77
76
29
38.2%
12
1
2
1
21.1%
3
4
3
4
17
1
7.55
Catholic
Cent
167
74
30
40.5%
3
2
8
1
3
16.2%
5
4
16
2
93
27
2
10
8
3
41
2
7.77
UCLA
Cent
123
41
30
73.2%
2
2
2
9.8%
3
1
1
81
27
2
2
3
2
39
1
5
1
7.7
Urban
South
70
70
10
14.3%
1
22
1
1
34.3%
1
3
5
7
19
7.7
Catholic
SO
114
108
30
27.8%
2
23
23
1
1
2
25.0%
5
5
7
4
2
3
5
1
4
1
7.93
WLCAC
South
223
121
30
24.8%
2
50
12
2
1
4
15.7%
4
7
6
2
1
102
49
4
2
4
7
32
4
7.83
* Total Sample Pool = Resolved Numbers + Active Numbers + Suspended Records + Virgin Numbers
**Completion Rate = Completes ÷ Resolved Numbers
***Percent Bad Numbers = Disconnected/Non-Working Numbers + Business/Non-Residential Numbers + Fax + Duplicate Numbers ÷ Resolved Number
30
YOM
Watts
181
119
30
25.2%
4
24
17
1
6
5
24.4%
7
4
8
9
4
62
23
4
10
1
22
2
7.27
LAUSD
Harbor
62
61
26
42.6%
1
13
2
2
27.9%
2
4
3
4
4
1
1
7.54
Appendix D: Overall Satisfaction by Center Compared to 2010-2011
OneSource Center
Overall
2010-2011
Met
Expectations
Compared
to Ideal
Overall
2011-2012
Met
Expectations
Compared
to Ideal
Catholic Charities Central
9.1
9.0
8.5
9.0
8.9
9.1
Catholic Charities South
9.5
9.4
9.3
9.1
9.1
8.9
El Proyecto del Barrio North Valley
9.0
8.8
8.8
9.6
9.3
9.3
El Proyecto del Barrio South Valley
8.8
8.8
8.7
9.2
9.1
8.8
LAUSD Harbor
9.0
8.9
9.0
8.9
9.0
8.7
Marriott Foundation
9.1
9.1
8.3
9.3
10.0
7.7
Para Los Niños East LA
9.2
8.8
8.5
9.6
9.4
9.1
UCLA Central
9.2
9.0
9.1
8.8
8.5
8.4
UCLA West
8.8
8.6
8.4
8.8
8.5
8.8
Urban League South
8.9
8.8
8.5
9.0
8.6
8.5
WLCAC South
8.5
8.4
7.7
9.0
8.6
8.4
YOM East LA Boyle Heights
8.5
9.1
8.2
8.8
8.1
7.7
YOM North Valley
8.8
8.8
8.1
9.5
9.0
8.8
YOM Watts South
8.2
8.5
8.1
9.3
8.7
9.3
9.0
8.9
8.6
9.1
8.9
8.8
Total
31
Appendix E: “Would You Recommend This Program to Someone Like Yourself” by
Center
OneSource Center
Catholic Charities
Central
Catholic Charities
South
El Proyecto del
Barrio North Valley
El Proyecto del
Barrio South Valley
LAUSD Harbor
Marriott Foundation
Para Los Niños
East LA
UCLA Central
UCLA West
Urban League
South
WLCAC South
YOM East LA Boyle
Heights
YOM North Valley
YOM Watts South
Total
Yes
No
Unsure
Total
Count
30
0
0
30
% within Center
100.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
Count
27
3
0
30
% within Center
90.0%
10.0%
0.0%
100.0%
Count
30
1
0
31
% within Center
96.8%
3.2%
0.0%
100.0%
Count
29
0
1
30
% within Center
96.7%
0.0%
3.3%
100.0%
Count
26
0
0
26
% within Center
100.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
Count
3
0
0
3
% within Center
100.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
Count
29
1
0
30
% within Center
96.7%
3.3%
0.0%
100.0%
Count
29
1
0
30
% within Center
96.7%
3.3%
0.0%
100.0%
Count
26
3
0
29
% within Center
89.7%
10.3%
0.0%
100.0%
Count
9
1
0
10
% within Center
90.0%
10.0%
0.0%
100.0%
Count
29
1
0
30
% within Center
96.7%
3.3%
0.0%
100.0%
Count
15
0
0
15
% within Center
100.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
Count
20
0
0
20
% within Center
100.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
Count
30
0
0
30
% within Center
100.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
Count
332
11
1
344
% within Center
96.5%
3.2%
0.3%
100.0%
32
Appendix F: Participant Satisfaction by Program Elements - Staff by Center
How available
was the staff?
How friendly
was the staff?
How
knowledgeable
was the staff?
Catholic Charities
Central
8.3
9.4
9.2
Catholic Charities
South
9.4
9.7
9.6
El Proyecto del
Barrio North Valley
9.5
9.6
9.5
El Proyecto del
Barrio South Valley
8.7
9.3
9.4
LAUSD Harbor
9.1
9.8
9.2
Marriott Foundation
10.0
10.0
10.0
Para Los Niños
East LA
9.6
9.8
9.6
UCLA Central
8.4
9.4
9.1
UCLA West
8.0
9.0
9.0
Urban League
South
9.6
9.8
9.4
WLCAC South
9.1
9.5
9.2
YOM East LA Boyle
Heights
8.5
9.7
9.7
YOM North Valley
9.5
9.6
9.7
YOM Watts South
9.5
9.9
9.8
Total
9.0
9.6
9.4
OneSource Center
33
Appendix G: Participant Satisfaction by Program Elements - Website and Facilities by
Center
Quality of
website
Comfort and
cleanliness
of facility
Quality and
availability of
computers
Catholic Charities
Central
8.5
9.2
9.2
Catholic Charities
South
9.4
9.7
9.4
El Proyecto del
Barrio North Valley
8.7
9.7
9.5
El Proyecto del
Barrio South Valley
8.9
9.3
9.5
LAUSD Harbor
8.7
9.2
8.4
Marriott Foundation
10.0
8.7
10.0
Para Los Niños
East LA
8.6
9.8
9.8
UCLA Central
8.6
8.9
8.9
UCLA West
8.0
9.0
8.9
Urban League
South
9.7
9.8
9.6
WLCAC South
9.4
9.4
9.0
YOM East LA Boyle
Heights
8.0
9.9
9.5
YOM North Valley
8.8
9.9
9.6
YOM Watts South
9.7
9.6
9.7
Total
8.8
9.5
9.4
OneSource Center
34
Appendix H: Participant Satisfaction by Program Elements - Ease in Receiving Services
by Center
Information
available about
services offered
How quickly
phone calls or
emails were
returned
Amount of
paperwork
needed in order to
receive services
Enrollment
process for
training programs
or workshops
Catholic Charities
Central
9.1
9.2
8.4
8.5
Catholic Charities
South
9.5
9.0
9.3
9.1
El Proyecto del
Barrio North Valley
9.0
9.2
8.7
8.7
El Proyecto del
Barrio South Valley
9.1
9.0
8.1
9.0
LAUSD Harbor
8.7
8.3
8.4
8.5
Marriott Foundation
9.3
7.7
9.0
10.0
Para Los Niños
East LA
9.5
9.1
8.8
9.6
UCLA Central
8.3
8.4
8.2
8.7
UCLA West
8.9
7.5
7.1
8.1
Urban League
South
9.8
8.4
9.1
9.1
WLCAC South
9.4
8.9
7.8
8.8
YOM East LA Boyle
Heights
8.7
8.1
8.5
8.4
YOM North Valley
9.7
9.5
8.9
8.8
YOM Watts South
9.4
9.2
9.5
9.5
Total
9.1
8.8
8.5
8.9
OneSource Center
35
Appendix I: Participant Satisfaction by Program Elements - Additional Services by
Center
Social and
recreational
activities
Career
counseling
and job
preparation
Program's
help in finding
a job or
enrolling in
school
Quality of
tutoring
Catholic Charities
Central
9.0
9.2
9.3
9.1
Catholic Charities
South
8.9
9.3
9.5
9.1
El Proyecto del
Barrio North Valley
9.5
9.4
9.7
8.4
El Proyecto del
Barrio South Valley
9.3
9.2
9.3
8.9
LAUSD Harbor
9.1
9.1
8.8
9.0
Marriott Foundation
8.0
8.3
8.3
6.5
Para Los Niños
East LA
9.3
9.4
9.6
9.3
UCLA Central
7.9
8.8
8.5
8.7
UCLA West
8.8
8.3
8.0
7.6
Urban League
South
9.6
9.3
9.3
9.0
WLCAC South
8.6
8.9
9.3
9.4
YOM East LA Boyle
Heights
7.4
8.6
9.1
7.0
YOM North Valley
9.7
9.6
9.3
9.7
YOM Watts South
9.5
9.6
9.7
9.3
Total
9.0
9.1
9.2
8.9
OneSource Center
36
Appendix J: Satisfaction with Instructors and Workshops by Center
Quality of the
instructors
Quality of the
classes or
workshops
Catholic Charities
Central
9.9
9.7
Catholic Charities
South
9.1
8.6
El Proyecto del
Barrio North Valley
9.4
9.4
El Proyecto del
Barrio South Valley
9.2
9.3
LAUSD Harbor
9.6
9.0
Marriott Foundation
10.0
10.0
Para Los Niños
East LA
9.6
9.4
UCLA Central
8.6
9.2
UCLA West
9.6
9.1
Urban League
South
9.6
9.2
WLCAC South
9.5
9.4
YOM East LA Boyle
Heights
7.9
7.7
YOM North Valley
9.7
9.7
YOM Watts South
9.8
9.6
Total
9.3
9.3
OneSource Center
37
During this
past week
During this
past month
More than a
month ago, but
since August
2011
Last summer
Before last
summer
(May 2011 or
before)
Don't know
Never had
contact with
program
Total
Appendix K: Last program Contact by Center
Catholic Charities
Central
Count
13
9
5
3
0
0
0
30
% within Center
43.3%
30.0%
16.7%
10.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
Catholic Charities
South
Count
11
11
3
2
2
1
0
30
% within Center
36.7%
36.7%
10.0%
6.7%
6.7%
3.3%
0.0%
100.0%
Count
13
12
4
2
0
0
0
31
% within Center
41.9%
38.7%
12.9%
6.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
Count
14
11
2
3
0
0
0
30
% within Center
46.7%
36.7%
6.7%
10.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
Count
5
5
4
10
0
2
0
26
% within Center
19.2%
19.2%
15.4%
38.5%
0.0%
7.7%
0.0%
100.0%
Count
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
3
% within Center
33.3%
33.3%
0.0%
33.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
Count
13
8
5
2
1
0
1
30
% within Center
43.3%
26.7%
16.7%
6.7%
3.3%
0.0%
3.3%
100.0%
Count
10
10
9
0
1
0
0
30
% within Center
33.3%
33.3%
30.0%
0.0%
3.3%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
Count
8
13
6
2
0
0
0
29
% within Center
27.6%
44.8%
20.7%
6.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
OneSource Center
El Proyecto del
Barrio North Valley
El Proyecto del
Barrio South Valley
LAUSD Harbor
Marriott Foundation
Para Los Niños
East LA
UCLA Central
UCLA West
Urban League
South
WLCAC South
YOM East LA Boyle
Heights
YOM North Valley
YOM Watts South
Total
Count
2
3
3
2
0
0
0
10
% within Center
20.0%
30.0%
30.0%
20.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
Count
6
10
11
2
0
1
0
30
% within Center
20.0%
33.3%
36.7%
6.7%
0.0%
3.3%
0.0%
100.0%
Count
2
3
7
3
0
0
0
15
% within Center
13.3%
20.0%
46.7%
20.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
Count
8
5
6
0
1
0
0
20
% within Center
40.0%
25.0%
30.0%
0.0%
5.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
Count
20
6
3
1
0
0
0
30
% within Center
66.7%
20.0%
10.0%
3.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
Count
126
107
68
33
5
4
1
344
% within Center
36.6%
31.1%
19.8%
9.6%
1.5%
1.2%
0.3%
100.0%
38
El Proyecto del
Barrio North Valley
El Proyecto del
Barrio South Valley
LAUSD Harbor
Marriott Foundation
Para Los Niños
East LA
UCLA Central
UCLA West
Urban League
South
WLCAC South
YOM East LA Boyle
Heights
YOM North Valley
YOM Watts South
Total
Met a staff
member
Saw a sign
Saw a flyer
Drove by
building
Email
Internet
search or
website
Social
Media
Other
Catholic Charities
South
Count
% within Center
Count
% within Center
Referred
by another
center
Catholic Charities
Central
Referred
by a school
OneSource Center
Friend or
relative
Appendix L: Learned of Program by Center
12
40.0%
15
50.0%
11
36.7%
9
30.0%
8
26.7%
5
16.7%
1
3.3%
2
6.7%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
2
6.7%
0
0.0%
2
6.7%
1
3.3%
1
3.3%
0
0.0%
2
6.7%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
2
6.7%
Count
15
13
0
2
0
3
0
0
1
0
2
% within Center
Count
% within Center
Count
% within Center
48.4%
19
63.3%
11
42.3%
41.9%
15
50.0%
12
46.2%
0.0%
0
0.0%
1
3.8%
6.5%
2
6.7%
8
30.8%
0.0%
1
3.3%
0
0.0%
9.7%
2
6.7%
2
7.7%
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0.0%
0
0.0%
1
3.8%
3.2%
1
3.3%
1
3.8%
0.0%
1
3.3%
1
3.8%
6.5%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
Count
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
% within Center
Count
% within Center
Count
% within Center
Count
% within Center
Count
% within Center
Count
% within Center
Count
% within Center
Count
% within Center
Count
% within Center
Count
% within Center
0.0%
16
53.3%
16
53.3%
10
34.5%
7
70.0%
14
46.7%
8
53.3%
12
60.0%
18
60.0%
173
50.3%
100.0%
9
30.0%
8
26.7%
19
65.5%
1
10.0%
12
40.0%
5
33.3%
3
15.0%
3
10.0%
123
35.8%
0.0%
3
10.0%
4
13.3%
2
6.9%
0
0.0%
4
13.3%
2
13.3%
2
10.0%
2
6.7%
33
9.6%
0.0%
1
3.3%
2
6.7%
3
10.3%
1
10.0%
6
20.0%
1
6.7%
1
5.0%
5
16.7%
35
10.2%
0.0%
0
0.0%
1
3.3%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
3
10.0%
0
0.0%
1
5.0%
2
6.7%
8
2.3%
0.0%
2
6.7%
3
10.0%
2
6.9%
0
0.0%
6
20.0%
1
6.7%
2
10.0%
1
3.3%
26
7.6%
0.0%
0
0.0%
2
6.7%
0
0.0%
2
20.0%
4
13.3%
2
13.3%
1
5.0%
5
16.7%
18
5.2%
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
1
3.3%
4
1.2%
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
1
3.4%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
1
3.3%
7
2.0%
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
1
3.4%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
1
3.3%
4
1.2%
0.0%
1
3.3%
1
3.3%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
2
10.0%
3
10.0%
11
3.2%
39
El Proyecto del
Barrio North Valley
El Proyecto del
Barrio South Valley
LAUSD Harbor
Marriott Foundation
Para Los Niños
East LA
UCLA Central
UCLA West
Urban League
South
WLCAC South
YOM East LA
Boyle Heights
YOM North Valley
YOM Watts South
Total
Job
preparation
Occupational
skill
College
preparation
Help finding
a summer
job
Community
service
Special
classes
Connecting
with a
mentor
Other social/
leadership
activities
Catholic Charities
South
Count
% within Center
Count
% within Center
Help
enrolling with
GED
Catholic Charities
Central
Tutoring
OneSource Center
Help in
getting work
experience
Appendix M: Services Received by Center
26
86.7%
27
90.0%
6
20.0%
6
20.0%
3
10.0%
4
13.3%
19
63.3%
21
70.0%
16
53.3%
17
56.7%
10
33.3%
9
30.0%
17
56.7%
19
63.3%
12
40.0%
10
33.3%
3
10.0%
4
13.3%
12
40.0%
13
43.3%
3
10.0%
6
20.0%
Count
26
5
4
27
19
9
24
16
8
14
10
% within Center
Count
% within Center
Count
% within Center
83.9%
27
90.0%
16
61.5%
16.1%
5
16.7%
9
34.6%
12.9%
4
13.3%
7
26.9%
87.1%
23
76.7%
16
61.5%
61.3%
19
63.3%
10
38.5%
29.0%
10
33.3%
8
30.8%
77.4%
22
73.3%
24
92.3%
51.6%
12
40.0%
14
53.8%
25.8%
8
26.7%
1
3.8%
45.2%
13
43.3%
11
42.3%
32.3%
3
10.0%
6
23.1%
Count
3
0
0
2
2
0
3
0
1
2
0
% within Center
Count
% within Center
Count
% within Center
100.0%
20
66.7%
24
80.0%
0.0%
7
23.3%
12
40.0%
0.0%
9
30.0%
1
3.3%
66.7%
26
86.7%
17
56.7%
66.7%
16
53.3%
13
43.3%
0.0%
16
53.3%
9
30.0%
100.0%
23
76.7%
17
56.7%
0.0%
14
46.7%
7
23.3%
33.3%
8
26.7%
3
10.0%
66.7%
15
50.0%
11
36.7%
0.0%
10
33.3%
6
20.0%
Count
22
6
0
16
13
8
13
13
6
8
6
% within Center
Count
% within Center
Count
% within Center
75.9%
9
90.0%
20
66.7%
20.7%
2
20.0%
11
36.7%
0.0%
3
30.0%
9
30.0%
55.2%
9
90.0%
18
60.0%
44.8%
2
20.0%
11
36.7%
27.6%
3
30.0%
12
40.0%
44.8%
6
60.0%
19
63.3%
44.8%
0
0.0%
9
30.0%
20.7%
2
20.0%
5
16.7%
27.6%
3
30.0%
14
46.7%
20.7%
0
0.0%
7
23.3%
Count
7
2
7
6
4
5
8
3
4
1
2
% within Center
Count
% within Center
Count
% within Center
Count
% within Center
46.7%
15
75.0%
26
86.7%
268
77.9%
13.3%
8
40.0%
5
16.7%
84
24.4%
46.7%
8
40.0%
7
23.3%
66
19.2%
40.0%
14
70.0%
21
70.0%
235
68.3%
26.7%
9
45.0%
18
60.0%
169
49.1%
33.3%
5
25.0%
10
33.3%
114
33.1%
53.3%
16
80.0%
21
70.0%
232
67.4%
20.0%
8
40.0%
8
26.7%
126
36.6%
26.7%
5
25.0%
12
40.0%
70
20.3%
6.7%
6
30.0%
12
40.0%
135
39.2%
13.3%
7
35.0%
4
13.3%
70
20.3%
40
Appendix N: Support Services Received by Center
OneSource Center
Catholic Charities
Central
Catholic Charities
South
El Proyecto del
Barrio North Valley
El Proyecto del
Barrio South Valley
LAUSD Harbor
Marriott Foundation
Para Los Niños
East LA
UCLA Central
UCLA West
Urban League
South
WLCAC South
YOM East LA Boyle
Heights
YOM North Valley
YOM Watts South
Total
Count
% within Center
Count
% within Center
Count
% within Center
Count
% within Center
Count
% within Center
Count
% within Center
Count
% within Center
Count
% within Center
Count
% within Center
Count
% within Center
Count
% within Center
Count
% within Center
Count
% within Center
Count
% within Center
Count
% within Center
Transportation/
bus tokens
Uniforms
and
equipment
School
books
Child
care
Health
services
13
43.3%
11
36.7%
27
87.1%
26
86.7%
4
15.4%
3
100.0%
26
86.7%
16
53.3%
8
27.6%
5
50.0%
13
43.3%
12
80.0%
9
45.0%
19
63.3%
192
55.8%
5
16.7%
10
33.3%
3
9.7%
2
6.7%
4
15.4%
3
100.0%
13
43.3%
3
10.0%
0
0.0%
2
20.0%
8
26.7%
4
26.7%
5
25.0%
6
20.0%
68
19.8%
2
6.7%
0
0.0%
1
3.2%
0
0.0%
3
11.5%
0
0.0%
5
16.7%
1
3.3%
0
0.0%
2
20.0%
4
13.3%
1
6.7%
5
25.0%
4
13.3%
28
8.1%
2
6.7%
4
13.3%
0
0.0%
1
3.3%
3
11.5%
0
0.0%
3
10.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
1
3.3%
1
6.7%
0
0.0%
4
13.3%
98
5.5%
3
10.0%
5
16.7%
4
12.9%
4
13.3%
7
26.9%
0
0.0%
4
13.3%
3
10.0%
1
3.4%
2
20.0%
5
16.7%
0
0.0%
1
5.0%
7
23.3%
46
13.4%
41
Drug/
alcohol
abuse
counseling
2
6.7%
0
0.0%
2
6.5%
1
3.3%
1
3.8%
0
0.0%
4
13.3%
2
6.7%
1
3.4%
0
0.0%
1
3.3%
0
0.0%
1
5.0%
1
3.3%
16
4.7%
Other
None
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
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
1
5.0%
0
0.0%
1
0.3%
12
40.0%
12
40.0%
4
12.9%
4
13.3%
16
61.5%
0
0.0%
4
13.3%
11
36.7%
21
72.4%
4
40.0%
15
50.0%
2
13.3%
7
35.0%
7
23.3%
119
34.6%
Appendix O: Participant Gender by Center
OneSource Center
Catholic Charities
Central
Catholic Charities
South
El Proyecto del
Barrio North Valley
El Proyecto del
Barrio South Valley
Male
Female
Total
Count
8
22
30
% within Center
26.7%
73.3%
100.0%
Count
12
18
30
% within Center
40.0%
60.0%
100.0%
Count
6
25
31
% within Center
19.4%
80.6%
100.0%
Count
8
22
30
% within Center
26.7%
73.3%
100.0%
Count
12
14
26
% within Center
46.2%
53.8%
100.0%
Count
1
2
3
% within Center
33.3%
66.7%
100.0%
Count
16
14
30
% within Center
53.3%
46.7%
100.0%
Count
9
21
30
% within Center
30.0%
70.0%
100.0%
Count
9
20
29
% within Center
31.0%
69.0%
100.0%
Count
4
6
10
% within Center
40.0%
60.0%
100.0%
Count
13
17
30
% within Center
43.3%
56.7%
100.0%
Count
9
6
15
% within Center
60.0%
40.0%
100.0%
Count
15
5
20
% within Center
75.0%
25.0%
100.0%
Count
14
16
30
% within Center
46.7%
53.3%
100.0%
Count
136
208
344
% within Center
39.5%
60.5%
100.0%
LAUSD Harbor
Marriott Foundation
Para Los Niños
East LA
UCLA Central
UCLA West
Urban League
South
WLCAC South
YOM East LA Boyle
Heights
YOM North Valley
YOM Watts South
Total
42
Appendix P: Participant Age by Center
OneSource Center
Catholic Charities
Central
Catholic Charities
South
Under 14
14 - 18
19+
Total
Count
0
20
10
30
% within Center
0.0%
66.7%
33.3%
100.0%
Count
0
16
14
30
% within Center
100.0%
0.0%
53.3%
46.7%
El Proyecto del
Barrio North Valley
Count
0
27
4
31
% within Center
0.0%
87.1%
12.9%
100.0%
El Proyecto del
Barrio South Valley
Count
0
24
6
30
% within Center
0.0%
80.0%
20.0%
100.0%
Count
0
20
6
26
% within Center
0.0%
76.9%
23.1%
100.0%
Count
0
0
3
3
% within Center
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Count
1
12
17
30
% within Center
3.3%
40.0%
56.7%
100.0%
LAUSD Harbor
Marriott Foundation
Para Los Niños
East LA
UCLA Central
UCLA West
Urban League
South
WLCAC South
YOM East LA Boyle
Heights
YOM North Valley
YOM Watts South
Total
Count
0
19
11
30
% within Center
0.0%
63.3%
36.7%
100.0%
Count
0
22
7
29
% within Center
0.0%
75.9%
24.1%
100.0%
Count
0
1
9
10
% within Center
0.0%
10.0%
90.0%
100.0%
Count
0
18
12
30
% within Center
0.0%
60.0%
40.0%
100.0%
Count
0
3
12
15
% within Center
0.0%
20.0%
80.0%
100.0%
Count
0
8
12
20
% within Center
0.0%
40.0%
60.0%
100.0%
Count
0
4
26
30
% within Center
0.0%
13.3%
86.7%
100.0%
Count
1
194
149
344
% within Center
0.3%
56.4%
43.3%
100.0%
43
Appendix Q: Enrolled in School Last Spring by Center
OneSource Center
Catholic Charities
Central
Catholic Charities
South
El Proyecto del
Barrio North Valley
El Proyecto del
Barrio South Valley
LAUSD Harbor
Marriott Foundation
Para Los Niños
East LA
UCLA Central
UCLA West
Urban League
South
WLCAC South
YOM East LA Boyle
Heights
YOM North Valley
YOM Watts South
Total
Yes
No
Refused
Total
Count
27
3
0
30
% within Center
90.0%
10.0%
0.0%
100.0%
Count
21
9
0
30
% within Center
70.0%
30.0%
0.0%
100.0%
Count
30
1
0
31
% within Center
96.8%
3.2%
0.0%
100.0%
Count
27
3
0
30
% within Center
90.0%
10.0%
0.0%
100.0%
Count
25
1
0
26
% within Center
96.2%
3.8%
0.0%
100.0%
Count
2
1
0
3
% within Center
66.7%
33.3%
0.0%
100.0%
Count
26
3
1
30
% within Center
86.7%
10.0%
3.3%
100.0%
Count
28
2
0
30
% within Center
93.3%
6.7%
0.0%
100.0%
Count
25
4
0
29
% within Center
86.2%
13.8%
0.0%
100.0%
Count
5
5
0
10
% within Center
50.0%
50.0%
0.0%
100.0%
Count
23
7
0
30
% within Center
76.7%
23.3%
0.0%
100.0%
Count
11
4
0
15
% within Center
73.3%
26.7%
0.0%
100.0%
Count
14
6
0
20
% within Center
70.0%
30.0%
0.0%
100.0%
Count
14
16
0
30
% within Center
46.7%
53.3%
0.0%
100.0%
Count
278
65
1
344
% within Center
80.8%
18.9%
0.3%
100.0%
44
Appendix R: Type of School Enrolled in Last Spring by Center
High
School
Postsecondary
Vocational
School
Community/
Junior
College
College/
University
Other
Total
Count
19
1
5
2
0
27
% within Center
70.4%
3.7%
18.5%
7.4%
0.0%
100.0%
Count
15
3
3
0
0
21
% within Center
71.4%
14.3%
14.3%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
Count
27
0
2
0
1
30
% within Center
90.0%
0.0%
6.7%
0.0%
3.3%
100.0%
Count
25
0
2
0
0
27
% within Center
92.6%
0.0%
7.4%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
OneSource Center
Catholic Charities
Central
Catholic Charities
South
El Proyecto del
Barrio North Valley
El Proyecto del
Barrio South Valley
LAUSD Harbor
Marriott Foundation
Para Los Niños
East LA
UCLA Central
UCLA West
Urban League
South
WLCAC South
YOM East LA Boyle
Heights
YOM North Valley
YOM Watts South
Total
Count
18
0
4
3
0
25
% within Center
72.0%
0.0%
16.0%
12.0%
0.0%
100.0%
Count
0
1
0
1
0
2
% within Center
0.0%
50.0%
0.0%
50.0%
0.0%
100.0%
Count
14
6
4
1
1
26
% within Center
53.8%
23.1%
15.4%
3.8%
3.8%
100.0%
Count
22
1
3
2
0
28
% within Center
78.6%
3.6%
10.7%
7.1%
0.0%
100.0%
Count
21
3
1
0
0
25
% within Center
84.0%
12.0%
4.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
Count
1
2
2
0
0
5
% within Center
20.0%
40.0%
40.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
Count
14
2
6
0
1
23
% within Center
60.9%
8.7%
26.1%
0.0%
4.3%
100.0%
Count
4
0
4
2
1
11
% within Center
36.4%
0.0%
36.4%
18.2%
9.1%
100.0%
Count
6
4
2
0
2
14
% within Center
42.9%
28.6%
14.3%
0.0%
14.3%
100.0%
Count
4
2
7
0
1
14
% within Center
28.6%
14.3%
50.0%
0.0%
7.1%
100.0%
Count
190
25
45
11
7
278
% within Center
68.3%
9.0%
16.2%
4.0%
2.5%
100.0%
45