2012-2013

OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................................................... 1
METHOD ................................................................................................................................................... 1
First Online Survey ........................................................................................................................................... 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 ..................................................................................................... 5
Figure 2: Overall Satisfaction by Center .............................................................................................. 6
RECOMMEND PROGRAM ............................................................................................................................... 7
Figure 3: Recommend Program to Someone like Yourself .......................................................... 7
SATISFACTION WITH PROGRAM ELEMENTS ....................................................................................... 8
Figure 4: Satisfaction by Program Elements ..................................................................................... 9
SATISFACTION WITH CLASSES AND WORKSHOPS ......................................................................... 10
Figure 5: Satisfaction with Classes and Workshops .................................................................... 10
PROGRAM CONTACT AND SERVICES RECEIVED .............................................................................. 10
LAST PROGRAM CONTACT ........................................................................................................................ 10
Figure 6: Last Received Services or had Contact with Program ............................................. 11
LEARNED OF PROGRAM ............................................................................................................................. 11
Figure 7: Learned of Program .............................................................................................................. 12
SERVICES RECEIVED .................................................................................................................................... 13
Figure 8: Services Received ................................................................................................................... 15
Figure 9: Support Services Received ................................................................................................. 16
DEMOGRAPHICS ................................................................................................................................... 17
GENDER, AGE, AND SATISFACTION ....................................................................................................... 17
Figure 10: Percent of Participant Respondents by Gender ....................................................... 17
Figure 11: Percent of Participant Respondents by Age .............................................................. 18
Table 1: Participant Overall Satisfaction by Gender and Age................................................... 18
SCHOOL ENROLLMENT, AGE, AND SATISFACTION ......................................................................... 18
Table 2: Percent Enrolled in School by Age .................................................................................... 19
Figure 12 A: 2011-2012 Enrolled in School 14-18 ....................................................................... 20
i

Figure 12 B: 2011-2012 Enrolled in School 19+ ........................................................................... 20
Figure 12 C: 2012-2013 Enrolled in School 14-18 ....................................................................... 20
Figure 12 D: 2012-2013 Enrolled in School 19+ ........................................................................... 20
Table 3: Overall Satisfaction by Age and Enrolled in School .................................................... 21
DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................................................... 22
APPENDICES .......................................................................................................................................... 24
Appendix A: Questionnaire .................................................................................................................... 24
Appendix B: Number of Respondents by Center Compared to 2010-2011, 2011-2012 50
Appendix C: Resolution of All Numbers in Sample by Center .................................................. 51
Appendix D: Overall Satisfaction by Center Compared to 2010-2011, 2011-2012 ........ 52
Appendix E: “Would You Recommend This Program to Someone Like Yourself” by
Center ............................................................................................................................................................. 53
Appendix F: Participant Satisfaction by Program Elements - Staff by Center ................... 54
Appendix G: Participant Satisfaction by Program Elements - Website and Facilities by
Center ............................................................................................................................................................. 55
Appendix H: Participant Satisfaction by Program Elements - Ease in Receiving Services by Center ....................................................................................................................................................... 56
Appendix I: Participant Satisfaction by Program Elements - Additional Services by
Center ............................................................................................................................................................. 57
Appendix J: Satisfaction with Instructors and Workshops by Center .................................. 58
Appendix K: Last Program Contact by Center ................................................................................ 59
Appendix L: Learned of Program by Center ................................................................................... 60
Appendix M: Services Received by Center....................................................................................... 61
Appendix N: Support Services Received by Center ...................................................................... 62
Appendix O: Participant Gender by Center ..................................................................................... 63
Appendix P: Participant Age by Center ............................................................................................. 64
Appendix Q: Enrolled in School Last Spring by Center ............................................................... 65
Appendix R: Type of School Enrolled in Last Spring by Center ............................................... 66
ii

In program year 2012-2013 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 2012-2013 youth program participants. We collected data on services received, satisfaction with services received and the characteristics of participants. For the first time this survey was conducted on-line rather than through a phone interview. 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.
At the city’s request, we changed the survey method from a phone interview to an on-line survey, using the Survey Monkey system. We transformed the phone script used in earlier surveys into an online questionnaire (See appendix A).
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
1 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

instructions and question 28 (school enrollment), we used the same questionnaire to assess the 2011-2012 program year, as well as the 2012-2013 program year, but in a written form as opposed to a phone script. 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
 Quality of program services
 Characteristics of the respondents
The Los Angeles Community Development Department (CDD) compiled a list of emails of currently enrolled youth participants in early June 2013. Given the economies of on-line surveying, we planned to survey all youth participants. In the past, due to the cost of phone surveying, we chose a representative sample of currently enrolled participants from each of the 14 OneSource Centers, with a goal of completing 30 surveys for each center.
However, the email list was problematic, we only had email addresses for half the participants, and only one center had 30 participants complete the survey. There were substantial differences in the Centers’ ability to provide email addresses. The percent of participant email addresses available ranged from 20% to 95% in the various centers.
Overall we received email addresses for half the participants. In addition, over 17% of the emails we did receive were invalid, further reducing the survey population. Appendix B provides a complete accounting of emails received and responses completed by center.
The questionnaire was administered July 16 th – August 7 th 2013 through the online survey system, Survey Monkey. We tried to attain at least 30 respondents per center by repeatedly sending email reminders to those who had not yet completed the survey. A reminder email was sent on the 19 th , 22 nd , and 26 th of July after the initial email was delivered. We also entered respondents in a raffle to win one of 10 gift cards worth $50. The survey was finally closed on August 7 th , giving potential respondents ample time to complete the survey.
In the end, the 2012-13 sample consisted of 216 completed questionnaires based on a total sample pool of 1,397 youth participant email addresses, yielding a completion rate of
18.6% . In previous years, more questionnaires were completed, 380 in 2010-2011, and
344 in 2011-2012, with completion rates of 19% and 33.1% respectively. For further details of resolution of the sample, and for information by center, please see Appendix C. of Business California State University, Northridge, including the questionnaire used that year, is ERIC
Document 537208, available from www.eric.ed.gov
.
2

In summary, these results show that it is imperative that OneSource Centers collect and update participants’ emails if effective follow-up evaluations are going to be conducted online.
We begin our analysis by examining overall youth participant satisfaction for the 2012-
2013 program year, and comparing it to 2010-2011, and 2011-2012. We present the extent to which 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.
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.
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
2012-2013 2011-2012 2010-2011
Overall
Met Expectations
9.1
9.1
9.0
8.9
8.9
8.9
Compared to Ideal
8.7
8.8
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, and remained the same for 2012-2013. The degree to which the centers met participants’ expectations remained at 8.9 for all three survey years. The degree to which the services compared to participants ideal set of services increased from 8.6 to 8.8 in the year 2011-
2012 and fell slightly to 8.7 in 2012-2013. Overall satisfaction for both survey years was well above the city’s star level of 8.5 for customer satisfaction.
2 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.
It is interesting to note, that the lower response rate and change in surveying method did not seem change the overall satisfaction measure, indicating that there is little variation in the degree of satisfactions of clients’ experience.
2 Los Angeles has a “balanced scorecard rating system” for WorkSource and OneSource agencies that measures participant S atisfaction, O utcomes, F low of clients, and A dministrative 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.
4

Figure 2 demonstrates that the average overall satisfaction rating was high in all
OneSource Centers with nine centers improving their scores from last year. Only one center fell below the 8.5 star standard for customer satisfaction resulting in an average satisfaction rating of 9.2 across all 14 centers. However, some of these ratings by center may not be valid because of extremely small sample size (see Appendix B). As we noted before, only one center had at least 30 completed surveys, two centers had 28 completed surveys, and on the lower end, one center had only two completed surveys. 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 El Proyecto del Barrio South Valley (9.7 based on a sample of 3) and El Proyecto del Barrio North Valley (9.6 based on a sample of 14).
YOM North Valley achieved a 9.6 rating, based on 11 respondents. Only LAUSD Harbor/LA
Harbor College fell below the star level with a rating of 7.8 (with a sample size of 8)., which is a decrease in satisfaction score of 1.1 from last year.
5

Figure 2: Overall Satisfaction by Center
2012-2013 2011-2012 2010-2011
El Proyecto del Barrio South Valley
El Proyecto del Barrio North Valley
YOM North Valley
9.2
8.8
9.7
9.6
9.0
9.6
8.8
9.6
9.5
9.5
Brotherhood Crusade
Catholic Charities South
WLCAC South
UCLA West
YOM East LA Boyle Heights
UCLA Central
YOM Watts South
Catholic Charities Central
Para Los Ninos East LA
LAUSD Harbor/ LA Harbor College
Marriott Foundation
9.3
9.1
9.5
9.3
8.5
9.0
9.2
8.8
8.8
9.2
8.8
8.5
9.1
8.8
9.2
8.2
9.0
9.3
9.0
9.0
9.1
8.7
9.6
9.2
7.8
8.9
9.0
9.3
9.1
Urban League South 9.0
8.9
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
*The center that was operated by LAUSD Harbor from 2010-2012 is now operated by LA Harbor College for 2012-2013.
Brotherhood Crusade is a new contractor for 2012-2013.
Marriott Foundation and Urban League South are no longer represented in this 2012-2013 report.
6

Participants were asked whether they would recommend the OneSource program to someone like themselves. Figure 3 demonstrates that a still overwhelming 94.6% of respondents stated that they would which is down only slightly from last year. Only 1.6% said they would not, and 3.8% said that they 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.
Figure 3: Recommend Program to Someone like Yourself
2011-2012 2012-2013
3.2% 0.3% 1.6% 3.8%
Yes
No
Unsure
Yes
No
Unsure
96.5% 94.6%
7

Figure 4 shows 2012-2013 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 8.3 for paperwork in 2012-2013 to a high of 9.6 for friendliness of staff in
2012-2013. Respondents were particularly satisfied with program staff and center facilities. For all three 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 all three 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.
8

Figure 4: Satisfaction by Program Elements
2012-2013 2011-2012 2010-2011
How friendly staff were
Comfort and cleanliness of facility
How knowledgeable staff were
Quality and availability of computers
Help finding job or enrolling in school
Career counseling, job preparation
Information about services
Social/recreational activities
Availability of staff
Enrollment process for training programs
Quality of tutoring
Quality of website
How quickly phone calls/emails returned
Amount of paperwork
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9.6
9.6
9.5
9.4
9.4
9.2
9.0
9.2
8.9
9.5
9.5
9.4
9.4
9.4
9.4
9.2
9.1
9.1
9.3
9.1
8.9
9.2
9.0
8.9
9.3
9.0
9.0
9.2
8.9
8.9
9.0
8.9
9.0
8.9
8.8
8.8
9.0
8.8
8.8
8.3
8.5
8.6
9 10
9

Over three-fourths of OneSource youth participants surveyed reported attending a workshop or class (up from roughly half last year), and those who did were highly satisfied.
Seventy-seven percent of respondents reported participating in at least one workshop, training program or class during 2012-13 program year (53% reported participating in
2011-2012). 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 9.4 on a ten-point scale, up from previous years. Satisfaction with the overall quality of the classes and workshops also increased slightly from 9.3 to 9.4.
Figure 5: Satisfaction with Classes and Workshops
2012-2013 2011-2012 2010-2011
Quality of instructors
9.4
9.3
9.3
Quality of classes/workshops
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
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
2012-13 survey to results from the 2011 and 2012 survey.
This survey is designed to be a survey of current clients. So we ask youth when they last had contract with the program. 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, and then again to 72% in the
2012-2013 program year, while the percent that had gone more than a month but had
10
9.4
9.3
9.2

received services or had contact with the program since the past summer decreased from
19.8% to 14.5% (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. Additionally, the percent of respondents that had not had contact with the center or received services since the past summer decreased from 11.0% to 3.0%.On a negative note, the percent that responded “don’t know/never had contact” increased from 1.5% to 10.5%. 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. This response may also be related to the small sub-sample of clients for which the centers has email addresses.
Figure 6: Last Received Services or had Contact with Program
2012-2013 2011-2012 2010-2011
During past month
59.4%
72.0%
67.7%
More than a month ago, but since Aug '12
Summer 2012 or before
14.5%
19.8%
30.6%
3.0%
11.0%
8.9%
Don't know/Never had contact 1.5%
1.1%
10.5%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
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 schools. 38.9% of the respondents learned about the program from a friend or relative, down from roughly half in 2011-2012. This shows that youth participants are increasingly relying on other sources. The second most frequent way that respondents learned of the
11

program was referral by a school, and the percent that reported their school as their source remained roughly the same as the previous year. Also, those who reported learning through a staff member increased from 10.2% in 2012 to 14.4% in 2013. This increase 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
2012-2013 2011-2012 2010-2011
Friend or relative
38.90%
50.3%
47.6%
Referred by a school
Met a staff member
Saw a flyer
Referred by another center
Email
Internet search or website
Other
Not Applicable
3.20%
0.8%
2.30%
3.2%
1.90%
Drove by building
Saw a sign
Social media
1.90%
2.4%
1.40%
2.3%
1.0%
1.40%
3.7%
14.40%
10.2%
7.6%
4.2%
10.60%
8.30%
9.6%
6.5%
4.20%
13.1%
27.0%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
The percent of respondents who reported learning of the program through email more than tripled from 1.2% in 2012 to 4.2% in 2013. There was also an increase in the use of
12

internet searches, which could be a result of youth placing a greater emphasis on technology for acquiring information. Additionally, OneSource agencies could further 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. It may also be the subset of youth for whom the Centers had email addresses, were more likely to find the Center through the internet than other participants.
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 still directly related to employment, although down significantly from previous years. Over half of respondents used the activities and services of the centers to get work experience (56% in 2013, down from 78.0% in 2010-2011, 77.9% in 2011-2012). The usage of job preparation activities/services fell also, from 68.3% in 2012 to 38.9% in 2013. Use of
OneSource services for help finding a summer job decreased by almost half in the most recent year (67.4% for 2011-2012, 34.3% in 2012-2013), and usage of services for the improvement of occupational skills decreased by over half (49.1% in 2012 to 21.8% in
2013). Ultimately, data shows that the use of these services decreased dramatically in the past year. This decrease in use of employment related services is of huge concern, as it is one of the main focuses of the program, and should be investigated further.
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. The use of mentors decreased this year
(39.2% 2011-2012 versus 17.6% in 2012-2013). 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, 3 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. Also, fewer youth reported using the center for community service activities (36.6% in 2011-2012,
21.3% in 2012-2013). This could be due to a number of factors, such as, lack of interest or lack of available activities. In fact, social/leadership activities were the only use of services to increase across all OneSource centers (20.3% in 2011-2012, 23.6% in 2013-2013).
Possibly because these activities were 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.
3 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.
13

The third area of activities/services provided by the centers related more directly to education and included college preparation (33.1% in 2011-2012, 29.2% in 2012-2013), tutoring (24.4%, compared to 18.5%), special classes (20.3%, compared to3.7%), and help enrolling with the GED (19.2% compared to, 5.6%). There was also a general trend of decreasing use of these services. 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. 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?
Again, we have to interpret these changes cautiously due the change in survey method and the much lower response rate.
14

Figure 8: Services Received
2012-2013 2011-2012 2010-2011
Help in getting work experience
38.9%
Job preparation
34.3%
Help finding a summer job
College preparation
29.2%
33.1%
39.8%
Other social/leadership activities
Occupational skills
Community service
Tutoring
Connecting with a mentor
Help enrolling with GED
Special classes
5.6%
3.7%
29.1%
21.8%
49.1%
50.0%
21.3%
36.6%
31.7%
18.5%
24.4%
31.2%
17.6%
39.2%
48.7%
19.2%
19.6%
20.3%
26.7%
56.0%
68.3%
69.9%
67.4%
66.5%
77.9%
78.0%
3.2%
Not applicable
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, 2011-2012, and 2012-2013 program years (see Appendix N for center level data). Multiple responses were allowed. Fewer respondents used support services this year than last year. This decrease is reflected in a decreased use of every service except “other”. The majority of respondents who got a support service still used transportation/bus token support (58.4% in 2010-2011, 55.8% in 2011-2012, 47.2% in 2012-2013). Approximately one in ten respondents use the center’s help with uniforms and equipment, a significant decrease from previous years (21.7%, 19.8%, 10.2%). The use of health services also decreased dramatically from 13.4% in 2011-2012 to 4.2%. The participants were also less likely to use the center’s help with school books (8.1% in 2011-2012 versus 6.9% in 2012-2013).
15

The utilization of drug/alcohol abuse counseling also decreased from 4.7% to 1.9%. The decrease in the use of support services over the three year period is of concern. The cause is unclear. Were available support services 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
2012-2013 2011-2012 2010-2011
Transportation/ bus tokens
47.2%
55.8%
58.4%
Uniforms and equipment
School books
Health services
Other
Drug/alcohol abuse counseling
Child care
None/ Not applicable
2.3%
0.3%
0.3%
1.9%
4.7%
6.0%
1.0%
5.5%
5.2%
10.2%
6.9%
8.1%
14.1%
4.2%
19.8%
21.7%
13.4%
18.6%
27.3%
28.5%
34.6%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
16

In this section we present the gender and age composition of OneSource youth respondents across the 2010-2011, 2011-2012, and 2012-2013 program years. Then we examine satisfaction by gender and age groups for 2013. Next we present school enrollment status for the 2012-2013 program year. Finally, we relate enrollment status to age and report satisfaction levels by enrollment status and age category. Again, we caution that changes in the current year may be due to changes in our survey method rather than a real change in the characteristics of participants.
Figure 10 demonstrates that in survey population, across all years, the majority of respondents were female, and there was a significant increase in the percentage of females that made up the sample from 57.1% in 2010-2011 to 60.5% in 2011-2012 and finally to
74.1% in 2012-2013 (see Appendix O for center level data). The actual gender split found in comprehensive program records for 2012-13 is females 57% and males 43%. The disparity between the gender distribution in survey respondents and all youth actually enrolled, suggests the on-line survey method is not yielding a representative sample of participants. If on-line surveying continues, the response rate for various groups will need to be studied to insure respondents are representative of the entire population.
Figure 10: Percent of Participant Respondents by Gender
2012-2013 2011-2012 2010-2011
25.9%
Male 39.5%
42.9%
74.1%
Female 60.5%
57.1%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
The proportion of 14-18 years old participant respondents versus the proportion of 19+ years old participant respondents increased over the three years (see Figure 11). While
45.0% of the respondents were 14-18 years old in the 2011 survey, 60% were 14-18 years old in the 2013 survey (see Appendix P for center level data). Actual participant age
17

breakdown in program records was: 45% 14-18 years old in 2010-11, 56% 14-18 years old in 2011-12 and 60.1% in 2012-2013, 55% 19+ in 2010-11, and 43.3% 19+ in 2011-12, and
39.9% in 2012-2013.
Figure 11: Percent of Participant Respondents by Age
2012-2013 2011-2012 2010-2011
Under 14
0.0%
0.3%
0.0%
14-18
60.1%
56.4%
19+
39.9%
43.3%
55.0%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Table 1 presents our analysis of satisfaction according to gender and age.
During both previous 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). However, for the program year 2012-2013 males reported slightly higher overall satisfaction levels at 9.2 versus 9.1 for females. We have no explanation for this shift in gender difference.
Table 1: Participant Overall Satisfaction by Gender and Age
2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013
Gender 14-18 19+ Total Under 14 14-18 19+ Total 14-18 19+ Total
Male 9.0 8.8 8.9 NA 9.1 9.1 9.1 9.5 8.9 9.2
Female 9.3 8.8 9.0
Total 9.2
8.8
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.1
9.1
9.3
9.2
9.1
9.1
8.9
9.0
9.4
9.3
9.1
9.1
Youth participants were asked if they were enrolled in school during the Spring of 2012 and 2013 (see Appendix Q for center level data). Of the 14-18 years old group, 93.8%
18
45.0%

reported being enrolled in school in 2012 versus 96.3% in 2013, and of the 19+ years old group 64.4% reported being enrolled in school in 2012 versus 74.6% in 2013 (see Table 2).
Therefore, there was an increase in enrollment in school in both age groups over the two program years. 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 all three years.
Table 2: Percent Enrolled in School by Age
2011-2012 2012-2013
Enrolled in
School
14-18 19+ 14-18 19+
Yes 93.8% 64.4% 96.3% 74.6%
No 6.2% 35.6% 3.7% 25.4%
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%, 87.9%) being served in both 2011-2012 and 2012-2013. Some of the students were enrolled in educational programs other than high school (community/junior college
3.6% and 5.6%, postsecondary vocational school 2.6% and 2.6%, or “other” 1% for 2011-
2012, and college/university 0.9% for 2012-2013). The percentage of 14-18 years old participants who were not enrolled decreased from 6.2% to 3.7% in 2013.
For the 19+ years old group (Figure 12 B) roughly half of the respondents (49.7%) were enrolled in a postsecondary educational program 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.
For the 19+ years old group (Figure 12 B) almost two thirds of the respondents (62.7%) were enrolled in a postsecondary educational program: 8.5% were enrolled in college/university, 40.8% were enrolled in community or junior colleges, 13.4% were enrolled in postsecondary vocational schools. This is a significant increase from the previous year of 49.7% enrolled in postsecondary education. Additionally, there is a decrease in the proportion of students not enrolled from the previous year of about 10%
(35.6%, 25.4%). High school enrollment remained relatively stable.
5 One respondent was less than 14 years old, refused to answer this question and was not included in the analysis.
19

Figure 12 A: 2011-2012 Enrolled in School
14-18
Other
1.0%
Not enrolled
6.2%
Community
/ Junior
College
3.6%
Figure 12 B: 2011-2012 Enrolled in School
19+
Other
3.4%
High School
14.8%
Postsecondary
Vocational
School
13.4%
Postsecondary
Vocational
School
2.6%
Community
/ Junior
College
5.6%
High School
86.6%
Not enrolled
35.6%
Not enrolled
25.4%
Community
/ Junior
College
25.5%
Figure 12 C: 2012-2013 Enrolled in School
14-18
College/
University
0.9%
Not enrolled
3.7%
College/
University
7.4%
Figure 12 D: 2012-2013 Enrolled in School
19+
High School
16.9%
Postsecondary
Vocational
School
13.4%
Postsecondary
Vocational
School
2.6%
High School
87.9%
College/
University
8.5%
Community
/ Junior
College
40.8%
The most satisfied respondents from 2011-2012 were 14-18 years old and not enrolled in school (9.6), whereas the most satisfied respondents from 2012-2013 were 19+ years old and not enrolled in school (9.5). This shows that youth who gain the most from these programs are currently not enrolled in school. The least satisfied respondents in 2011-
2012 were 14-18 years old and enrolled in school, whereas the least satisfied respondents in 2012-2013 were 14-18 and not enrolled in school (7.0). This low satisfaction score could be due to the small sample size of 14-18 year olds who are not enrolled in school, as it was only 3.7% of youths the surveyed. Table 3 (below) shows the overall satisfaction rating for
20

these four groups. The reasons for these differences are unknown. Again, given the low response several of these groups, such as out of school youth 14-18, are very small and may not be a representative sample.
Table 3: Overall Satisfaction by Age and Enrolled in School
2011-2012 2012-2013
Enrolled in School 14-18 19+ Total 14-18 19+ Total
Yes 9.0 9.2 9.1 9.1 9.2 9.2
No
Total
9.6 9.3 9.4 7.0 9.5 9.1
9.1 9.2 9.1 9.0 9.3 9.1
21

The 2011, 2012, and 2013 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 9.2 in 2012-2013. Satisfaction with the 2012-2013 program year was uniformly high across the system according to all general satisfaction measures with all but one center achieving star level. However, these findings may not be reliable for some centers due to the small sampling. Therefore, while the center with sufficient sample size should be commended for their performance, it is imperative that most centers improve their database management so that there are valid email addresses for participants.
Satisfaction measures with most programs 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 (8.3 to 9.0 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 through flyers 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. Learning of the program through “other” means is increasing, perhaps suggesting that the survey should account for another measure not listed. Learning of the program through email and internet searches is also increasing. Thus, 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 2012-2013 program year and compared it to the previous program years. The most frequently used services were still directly related to employment, although the use of these services are down from previous years. The city should explore if this change represents a conscious change in strategy or if there is some other reason employment services would decline so steeply.
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 (decreasing use), and other social/leadership activities
(increasing use). To a lesser degree overall, participants used education related activities/services provided by the center, such as, college preparation, tutoring, special classes, and help enrolling with the GED. Finally, fewer participants used OneSource Center support services this year than last with a decreased use of every service except ”other.”
22

The majority still 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.
We examined differences in participation in the program according to such characteristics as gender, age, and enrollment in school. Young women are increasingly more likely to participate in the OneSource program than young men are. The amount of respondents ages 14-18 continued to increase this year, now accounting for almost two thirds of youth respondents. Of the 14-18 years old group, 96.3% were enrolled in school, with 87.9% in high school. Of the 19+ years old group 74.6% reported being enrolled in school, with roughly two thirds enrolled in a postsecondary educational program, up from about half the previous year. 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.
Since our analysis is based on a relatively small sample of participants with good email addresses, we suggest City staff examine enrollment data in LA Performs to see if these shifts in enrollment found in the survey are actually occurring in the entire population of participants.
Finally, this was the first youth survey conducted with an on-line questionnaire. In making this pioneering effort, we learned that OneSource Centers do not have complete lists of participant emails, and that youth are less responsive to on-line surveying then they are to phone interviews. If the city wishes to stay with the less costly, on-line methods, steps need to be taken to insure that participant emails are recorded and kept up to date. A more complete analysis of any response biases generated by the on-line survey are also recommended.
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.
23

Appendix A: Questionnaire
24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

Appendix B: Number of Respondents by Center Compared to 2010-2011, 2011-2012
OneSource Center 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013
Brotherhood Crusade
Catholic Charities Central
Catholic Charities South
El Proyecto del Barrio North Valley
El Proyecto del Barrio South Valley
LAUSD Harbor/ LA Harbor College
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
31
13
19
17
49
30
26
29
NA
32
30
30
30
29
15
30
15
20
30
30
30
29
10
NA
30
30
31
30
26
3
7
25
11
28
31
22
28
NA
2
19
18
14
3
8
NA
Total 380 344 216
*The center that was operated by LAUSD Harbor from 2010-2012 is now operated by LA Harbor College for 2012-2013.
Brotherhood Crusade is a new contractor for 2012-2013.
Marriott Foundation and Urban League South are no longer represented in this 2012-2013 report.
50

Appendix C: Resolution of All Numbers in Sample by Center
OneSource Center
El Proyecto del Barrio North Valley
YOM North Valley
El Proyecto del Barrio South Valley
Para los Ninos East LA
YOM East LA Boyle Heights
UCLA West
Catholic Charities Central
UCLA Central
Catholic Charities South
WLCAC South
YOM Watts South
Brotherhood Crusade
LA Harbor College
TOTAL Population
% of Emails= Total÷Total Exited
% Invalid/Bounced= Invalid/Bounced÷Total
% Complete= Completes÷(Total-Invalid/Bounced)
Total
Emails
50
63
16
204
168
171
135
164
104
39
208
13
62
1397
Total
Enrolled
% of
Emails
247 20.2%
286 22.0%
258 6.2%
213 95.6%
246 68.3%
211 81.0%
235 57.4%
196 84.7%
249 41.8%
230 17.0%
214 97.2%
137 9.5%
73 84.9%
2795 50.0%
Invalid/ Bounced
Emails
5
8
3
31
31
33
43
2
4
237
15
39
16
7
% Invalid/ Bounced Completes % Complete
10.0%
12.7%
18.8%
15.2%
18.5%
19.3%
11.1%
23.8%
15.4%
17.9%
20.7%
15.4%
6.5%
17.0%
14
11
3
31
25
28
19
22
18
7
28
2
8
216
31.1%
20.0%
23.1%
17.9%
18.2%
20.3%
15.8%
17.6%
20.5%
21.9%
17.0%
18.2%
13.8%
18.6%
51

Appendix D: Overall Satisfaction by Center Compared to 2010-2011, 2011-2012
OneSource Center
Brotherhood Crusade
Catholic Charities Central
Catholic Charities South
El Proyecto del Barrio North Valley
El Proyecto del Barrio South Valley
LAUSD Harbor/ LA Harbor College
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
Overall
9.2
8.8
8.9
8.5
8.5
8.8
8.2
8.8
9.0
9.1
9.2
NA
9.1
9.5
9.0
9.0
8.8
8.4
9.1
8.8
8.5
9.1
8.8
9.0
8.6
2010-2011
Met
Expectations
NA
9.0
9.4
8.8
8.8
8.9
8.9
8.5
7.7
8.2
8.1
8.1
8.3
8.5
9.1
8.4
Compared to Ideal
NA
8.5
9.3
8.8
8.7
9.0
8.6
Overall
8.8
8.8
9.0
9.0
8.8
9.5
9.3
9.2
8.9
9.3
9.6
NA
9.0
9.1
9.6
9.1
10.0
9.4
8.5
8.5
8.6
8.6
8.1
9.0
8.7
2011-2012
Met
Expectations
NA
8.9
9.1
9.3
9.1
9.0
8.9
8.5
8.4
7.7
8.8
9.3
7.7
9.1
8.4
8.8
Compared to Ideal
NA
9.1
8.9
9.3
8.8
8.7
8.8
Overall
9.1
9.2
NA
9.3
9.2
9.6
9.0
9.7
7.8
NA
8.7
9.5
9.0
9.3
9.6
9.1
NA
8.7
9.3
9.3
8.8
NA
8.4
9.0
8.9
2012-2013
Met
Expectations
9.0
8.9
9.1
9.6
9.7
7.4
8.9
NA
8.6
8.9
8.8
8.6
NA
8.6
8.8
8.7
Compared to Ideal
9.0
8.2
9.3
9.5
9.7
7.6
8.7
52

Appendix E: “Would You Recommend This Program to Someone Like Yourself” by
Center
OneSource Center
Count
Brotherhood
Crusade
% within Center
Yes
2
100.0%
Catholic Charities
Central
Count
% within Center
Count
Catholic Charities
South
18
94.7%
14
El Proyecto del
Barrio North Valley
% within Center 100.0%
Count 14
% within Center 100.0%
El Proyecto del
Barrio South Valley
LA Harbor College
Para Los Niños
East LA
UCLA Central
Count 1
% within Center 100.0%
Count 6
% within Center
Count
% within Center
Count
% within Center
75.0%
25
96.2%
12
80.0%
UCLA West
WLCAC South
YOM East LA Boyle
Heights
YOM North Valley
YOM Watts South
Total
Count 23
% within Center 100.0%
Count 6
% within Center
Count
% within Center
85.7%
20
95.2%
Count 11
% within Center 100.0%
Count
% within Center
22
95.7%
Count
% within Center
174
94.6%
0.0%
1
4.8%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
3
1.6%
25.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
No
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
2
Unsure
0
0.0%
1
5.3%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
1
3.8%
3
100.0%
26
100.0%
15
20.0% 100.0%
0
0.0%
1
23
100.0%
7
14.3% 100.0%
0 21
0.0% 100.0%
0
0.0%
1
4.3%
7
3.8%
11
100.0%
23
100.0%
184
100.0%
Total
2
100.0%
19
100.0%
14
100.0%
14
100.0%
1
100.0%
8
53

Appendix F: Participant Satisfaction by Program Elements - Staff by Center
OneSource Center
How available was the staff?
How friendly was the staff?
10.0 9.5
How knowledgeable was the staff?
9.0
Brotherhood
Crusade
Catholic Charities
Central
Catholic Charities
South
El Proyecto del
Barrio North Valley
El Proyecto del
Barrio South Valley
9.3
9.5
9.4
9.7
9.6
9.8
9.8
9.7
9.4
9.6
9.8
10.0
LA Harbor College 7.9 7.9 7.6
Para Los Niños
East LA
UCLA Central
9.1
8.8
9.6
9.7
9.2
9.3
UCLA West
WLCAC South
YOM East LA Boyle
Heights
YOM North Valley
9.6
9.0
9.3
9.8
9.8
9.4
9.6
9.6
9.7
9.3
9.5
9.6
YOM Watts South
Total
9.5
9.3
9.4
9.6
9.4
9.4
54

Appendix G: Participant Satisfaction by Program Elements - Website and Facilities by
Center
OneSource Center
Quality of website
Comfort and cleanliness of facility
Quality and availability of computers
Brotherhood
Crusade
Catholic Charities
Central
Catholic Charities
South
El Proyecto del
Barrio North Valley
El Proyecto del
Barrio South Valley
LA Harbor College
Para Los Niños
East LA
UCLA Central
9.0
8.8
8.7
8.9
NA
7.8
8.7
8.8
9.0
9.4
9.7
9.9
10.0
9.4
9.5
8.9
9.5
9.3
9.7
10.0
10.0
8.4
9.2
9.3
UCLA West
WLCAC South
YOM East LA Boyle
Heights
YOM North Valley
8.9
9.0
9.3
9.2
9.7
9.3
9.5
9.4
9.7
9.0
9.4
9.7
YOM Watts South
Total
9.1
8.9
9.7
9.5
9.7
9.4
55

Appendix H: Participant Satisfaction by Program Elements - Ease in Receiving Services by Center
OneSource 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
Brotherhood
Crusade
Catholic Charities
Central
Catholic Charities
South
El Proyecto del
Barrio North Valley
El Proyecto del
Barrio South Valley
9.5
9.2
9.6
9.6
10.0
9.0
8.8
9.5
9.6
8.0
7.0
8.4
8.3
7.1
6.0
9.5
9.3
9.7
8.9
10.0
7.1 7.4 7.5 7.7 LA Harbor College
Para Los Niños
East LA
UCLA Central
9.3
9.2
8.3
8.5
8.7
7.8
9.1
9.1
UCLA West 9.3 9.2 8.2 9.5
WLCAC South
YOM East LA Boyle
Heights
YOM North Valley
9.4
9.4
9.8
8.4
8.9
9.7
8.4
8.7
8.9
8.9
9.3
9.4
YOM Watts South
Total
9.4
9.3
9.5
9.0
8.9
8.3
9.4
9.2
56

Appendix I: Participant Satisfaction by Program Elements - Additional Services by
Center
OneSource Center
Social and recreational activities
Career counseling and job preparation
Program's help in finding a job or enrolling in school
Quality of tutoring
Brotherhood
Crusade
8.5 9.0 9.0 9.5
Catholic Charities
Central
Catholic Charities
South
El Proyecto del
Barrio North Valley
El Proyecto del
Barrio South Valley
9.0
9.7
9.3
NA
9.0
9.4
9.5
10.0
8.9
9.3
9.8
NA
9.1
8.9
9.6
NA
6.8 7.8 7.1 7.0 LA Harbor College
Para Los Niños
East LA
UCLA Central
8.9
9.1
8.9
8.9
8.5
9.2
8.8
8.6
UCLA West 9.4 9.6 9.2 9.2
WLCAC South
YOM East LA Boyle
Heights
YOM North Valley
9.3
9.3
9.2
9.7
9.3
9.6
8.7
9.0
9.4
8.4
9.0
9.6
YOM Watts South
Total
9.4
9.2
9.5
9.2
9.1
9.0
9.2
9.0
57

Appendix J: Satisfaction with Instructors and Workshops by Center
OneSource Center
Quality of the instructors
Quality of the classes or workshops
Brotherhood
Crusade
Catholic Charities
Central
Catholic Charities
South
El Proyecto del
Barrio North Valley
El Proyecto del
Barrio South Valley
10.0
9.5
10.0
9.8
10.0
10.0
9.2
10.0
9.5
10.0
9.4 8.8 LA Harbor College
Para Los Niños
East LA
UCLA Central
9.1
9.1
9.1
9.3
UCLA West 9.5 9.5
WLCAC South
YOM East LA Boyle
Heights
YOM North Valley
YOM Watts South
Total
9.2
9.4
9.6
9.6
9.4
9.5
9.5
9.1
9.6
9.4
58

Appendix K: Last Program Contact by Center
OneSource Center
Brotherhood
Crusade
Catholic Charities
Central
Catholic Charities
South
El Proyecto del
Barrio North Valley
El Proyecto del
Barrio South Valley
LA Harbor College
Para Los Niños
East LA
UCLA Central
UCLA West
WLCAC South
YOM East LA Boyle
Heights
YOM North Valley
YOM Watts South
Total
Count 1 1
% within Center 50.0% 50.0%
Count 3 9
% within Center 15.8% 47.4%
Count 10 5
% within Center 62.5% 31.3%
Count 2 8
% within Center 14.3% 57.1%
Count
% within Center
Count
% within Center
0
0.0%
2
25.0%
0
0.0%
3
337.5
%
7 Count 8
% within Center 26.7% 23.3%
Count 7 8
% within Center 38.9% 44.4%
Count 7 10
% within Center 28.0% 40.0%
Count 3 4
% within Center 42.9% 57.1%
Count 9 9
% within Center 39.1% 39.1%
Count 5 5
% within Center 45.5% 45.5%
Count 4 14
% within Center 16.7% 58.3%
Count 61 83
% within Center 30.5% 41.5%
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
3
1.5%
2
6.7%
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%
1
12.5%
13.0%
0
0.0%
4
16.7%
29
14.5%
7
23.3%
0
0.0%
4
16.0%
0
0.0%
3
0
0.0%
5
26.3%
0
0.0%
3
21.4%
3
100.0%
0
0.0%
0 2
0.0% 100.0%
1 19
5.3% 100.0%
1 16
6.3% 100.0%
1 14
7.1% 100.0%
0 3
0.0% 100.0%
1 8
12.5% 100.0%
6 30
20.0% 100.0%
3 18
16.7% 100.0%
3 25
12.0% 100.0%
0 7
0.0% 100.0%
2 23
8.7% 100.0%
1 11
9.1% 100.0%
2 24
8.3% 100.0%
21 200
10.5% 100.0%
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
3
1.5%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
1
4.0%
0
0.0%
0
0
0.0%
1
5.3%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
1
12.5%
59

Appendix L: Learned of Program by Center
OneSource Center
Brotherhood
Crusade
Catholic Charities
Central
Catholic Charities
South
El Proyecto del
Barrio North Valley
El Proyecto del
Barrio South Valley
LA Harbor College
Para Los Niños
East LA
UCLA Central
UCLA West
WLCAC South
YOM East LA Boyle
Heights
YOM North Valley
YOM Watts South
Total
Count 1
% within Center 50.0%
0
0.0%
0 1 1 1 0
0.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 0.0%
0 1 0
0.0% 50.0% 0.0%
Count 11 6 3 2 1 4 1 2 1
% within Center 57.9% 31.6% 15.8% 10.5% 5.3% 21.1% 5.3% 10.5% 5.3%
1
5.3%
Count 8 6
% within Center 38.9% 33.3%
1 2 0
5.6% 11.1% 0.0%
Count 13
% within Center 92.9%
Count 1
1
7.1%
1
0
0.0%
1
1
7.1%
0
% within Center 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% 0.0%
0
1
5.6%
4
0
0.0%
1
0.0% 28.6% 7.1%
0 0 0
0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
1
7.1%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
1
7.1%
0
0.0%
Count 6
% within Center 75.0%
0
0.0%
Count 14 11
% within Center 45.2% 35.5%
Count 8 9
% within Center 36.4% 40.9%
1 1 0 1 0
12.5% 12.5% 0.0% 12.5% 0.0%
2
6.5%
1
4.5%
3
9.7%
1
4.5%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
3
9.7%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
Count 5 14
% within Center 17.9% 50.0%
1 6 1 5 0
3.6% 21.4% 3.6% 17.9% 0.0%
Count 2 3 1 1 0 1 0
% within Center 25.6% 42.9% 14.3% 14.3% 0.0% 14.3% 0.0%
Count 8 9 3 6 0 1 1
% within Center 32.0% 36.0% 12.0% 24.0% 0.0%
Count 4 5 1 1 0
4.0%
1
4.0%
0
% within Center 36.4% 45.5% 9.1% 9.1% 0.0%
Count 3 11 3 6 0
% within Center 10.7% 39.3% 10.7% 21.4% 0.0%
Count 84 76
% within Center 38.9% 35.2%
9.1%
1
3.6%
0.0%
1
3.6%
18 31 3 23 4
8.3% 14.4% 1.4% 10.6% 1.9%
0
0.0%
1
3.2%
1
4.5%
1
3.6%
0
0.0%
1
4.0%
1
9.1%
2
7.1%
9
4.2%
0
0.0%
1
3.2%
0
0.0%
1
3.6%
0
0.0%
1
4.0%
0
0.0%
1
3.6%
7
3.2%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0 1 0
0.0% 12.5% 0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
2
6.5%
0
0.0%
2
6.5%
0
0.0%
1
3.6%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
1
3.6%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
1
4.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
3
1.4%
0.0%
1
3.6%
5
2.3%
0.0%
1
3.6%
4
1.9%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
60

Appendix M: Services Received by Center
OneSource Center
Brotherhood
Crusade (2)
Catholic Charities
Central (19)
Catholic Charities
South (18)
El Proyecto del (14)
Barrio North Valley
El Proyecto del (3)
Barrio South Valley
LA Harbor College
(8)
Para Los Niños
East LA (31)
UCLA Central (22)
UCLA West (28)
WLCAC South (7)
YOM East LA
Boyle Heights (25)
YOM North Valley
(11)
YOM Watts South
(28)
Total (216)
Count 2 2 0 1 0 2 2
% within Center 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Count 9 4 2 11 4 6 7
% within Center 47.4% 21.1% 10.5% 57.9% 21.1% 31.6% 36.8%
Count 9 3
% within Center 50.0% 16.7%
Count 8
% within Center 57.1%
Count 2
% within Center 66.7%
1
7.1%
0
0.0%
Count 5 1
1
0
0
0.0%
0
5
6
0
0.0%
3
2
3
5
1
0.0% 42.9% 21.4% 7.1%
5
5.6% 27.8% 11.1% 27.8% 27.8%
8
57.1%
0 1 2
0.0% 33.3% 66.7%
2 2 3
% within Center 62.5% 12.5%
Count 15 7
% within Center 48.4% 22.6%
Count 10 4
% within Center 45.5% 18.2%
Count 19 8
0.0% 37.5% 25.0% 25.0% 37.5%
1 16 8 11 10
3.2% 51.6% 25.8% 35.5% 32.3%
0 6 3 6 5
0.0% 27.3% 13.6% 27.3% 22.7%
2 11 7 13 11
% within Center 67.9% 28.6% 7.1% 39.3% 25% 46.4% 39.3%
Count 5 1 1 4 4 2 3
% within Center 71.4% 14.3% 14.3% 57.1% 57.1% 28.6% 42.9%
Count 16 4 1 6 7 5 10
% within Center 64.0% 16.0%
Count 8 1
% within Center 72.7%
Count 13
9.1%
4
% within Center 46.4% 14.3%
Count 121 40
4.0%
2
18.2%
2
7.1%
12
24.0%
4
36.4%
11
39.3%
84
28.0%
2
18.2%
5
17.9%
47
20.0%
1
9.1%
8
28.6%
63
40.0%
2
18.2%
6
21.4%
74
5.6% 38.9% 21.8% 29.2% 34.3% % within Center 56.0% 18.5%
12.5%
6
19.4%
3
13.6%
10
35.7%
2
28.6%
4
16.0%
4
36.4%
5
17.9%
46
21.3%
0
0.0%
3
15.8%
5
27.8%
3
21.4%
0
0.0%
1
50.0%
3
9.7%
2
9.1%
8
28.6%
1
14.3%
4
16.0%
2
18.2%
4
14.3%
38
17.6%
0
0.0%
4
21.1%
3
16.7%
3
21.4%
0
0.0%
4
12.5%
3
9.7%
0
0.0%
1
3.6%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
8
3.7%
0
0.0%
1
5.3%
1
5.6%
1
7.1%
0
0.0%
1
1 0
50.0% 0.0%
4 1
21.1% 5.3%
3 2
16.7% 11.1%
4 1
28.6% 7.1%
0 1
0.0% 33.3%
3 0
37.5% 0.0%
9 1
29.0% 3.2%
0 0
0.0%
9
0.0%
0
32.1% 0.0%
3 0
42.9% 0.0%
8 1
32.0% 4.0%
3 0
27.3% 0.0%
4 1
14.3% 3.6%
51 7
23.6% 3.2%
61

Appendix N: Support Services Received by Center
OneSource Center
Brotherhood
Crusade (2)
Catholic Charities
Central (19)
Catholic Charities
South (18)
El Proyecto del (14)
Barrio North Valley
El Proyecto del (3)
Barrio South Valley
LA Harbor College
(8)
Para Los Niños
East LA (31)
UCLA Central (22)
UCLA West (28)
WLCAC South (7)
YOM East LA Boyle
Heights (25)
YOM North Valley
(11)
YOM Watts South
(28)
Total (216)
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
9.1%
3
10.7%
1
14.3%
6
24.0%
1
9.1%
3
10.7%
22
10.2%
0
0.0%
1
5.3%
1
5.6%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
1
12.5%
3
9.7%
2
45.5%
18
64.3%
5
71.4%
13
52.0%
5
45.5%
11
39.3%
102
47.2%
1
50.0%
5
26.3%
6
33.3%
13
92.9%
1
33.3%
3
37.5%
11
35.5%
10
School books
4.5%
3
10.7%
2
28.6%
2
8.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
15
6.9%
1
50.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
1
7.1%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
5
16.1%
1
Child care
0.0%
1
3.6%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
1
9.1%
0
0.0%
2
1.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
Health services
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
1
3.2%
0
0.0%
1
3.6%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
Drug/ alcohol abuse counseling
0
0.0%
1
5.3%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
1
9.1%
0
0.0%
4
1.9%
0.0%
2
7.1%
0
0.0%
2
8.0%
1
9.1%
0
0.0%
9
4.2%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
4
12.9%
0
Other
4.5%
2
7.1%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
5
2.3%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
2
6.5%
1
Not
Applicable
13.6%
4
14.3%
1
14.3%
4
16.0%
5
45.5%
11
39.3%
59
27.3%
0
0.0%
10
52.6%
7
38.9%
1
7.1%
1
33.3%
5
62.5%
7
22.6%
3
62

Appendix O: Participant Gender by Center
OneSource Center
Count
Brotherhood
Crusade
% within Center
Catholic Charities
Central
Catholic Charities
South
El Proyecto del
Barrio North Valley
Count
% within Center
Count
% within Center
Count
% within Center
El Proyecto del
Barrio South Valley
LA Harbor College
Para Los Niños
East LA
Count 1
% within Center 100.0%
Count
% within Center
2
25.0%
Count 9
% within Center 34.6%%
Count 3
UCLA Central
UCLA West
WLCAC South
YOM East LA Boyle
Heights
% within Center
Count
% within Center
Count
% within Center
Count
YOM North Valley
YOM Watts South
Total
% within Center
Count
% within Center
Count
% within Center
Count
% within Center
20.0%
4
17.4%
3
42.9%
5
23.8%
2
18.2%
3
13.0%
48
25.9%
Male
0
0.0%
4
21.1%
9
60.0%
3
21.4%
Female
2
Total
2
100.0% 100.0%
0
0.0%
6
75.0%
17
65.4%
12
80.0%
19
82.6%
4
57.1%
16
15
78.9%
6
40.0%
11
78.6%
76.2%
9
81.8%
20
87.0%
137
74.1%
100.0%
11
100.0%
23
100.0%
185
100.0%
19
100.0%
15
100.0%
14
100.0%
1
100.0%
8
100.0%
26
100.0%
15
100.0%
23
100.0%
7
100.0%
21
63

Appendix P: Participant Age by Center
Brotherhood
Crusade
Catholic Charities
Central
Catholic Charities
South
El Proyecto del
Barrio North Valley
El Proyecto del
Barrio South Valley
Para Los Niños
East LA
YOM East LA Boyle
Heights
Total
OneSource Center
LA Harbor College
UCLA Central
UCLA West
WLCAC South
YOM North Valley
YOM Watts South
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
Under 14 14 - 18
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%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
9
42.9%
9
81.8%
17
73.9%
110
60.1%
13
50.0%
12
80.0%
15
68.2%
4
57.1%
1
50.0%
9
47.4%
7
50.0%
11
78.6%
0
0.0%
3
37.5%
19+ Total
1 2
50.0% 100.0%
10 19
52.6% 100.0%
7 14
50.0% 100.0%
3 14
21.4% 100.0%
1 1
100.0% 100.0%
5 8
62.5% 100.0%
13 26
50.0% 100.0%
3 15
20.0% 100.0%
7 22
31.8% 100.0%
3 7
42.9% 100.0%
12 21
57.1% 100.0%
2 11
18.2% 100.0%
6 23
26.1% 100.0%
73 183
39.9% 100.0%
64

Appendix Q: Enrolled in School Last Spring by Center
OneSource Center
Count
Brotherhood
Crusade
% within Center
Yes
1
50.0%
Catholic Charities
Central
Catholic Charities
South
Count 14
% within Center 73.7%
Count 13
% within Center 86.7%
Count 13
El Proyecto del
Barrio North Valley
% within Center 100.0%
El Proyecto del
Barrio South Valley
LA Harbor College
Count 1
% within Center 100.0%
Count 7
% within Center 87.5%
Count 20
Para Los Niños
East LA
UCLA Central
% within Center 80.0%
Count 13
% within Center 86.7%
UCLA West
WLCAC South
YOM East LA Boyle
Heights
YOM North Valley
YOM Watts South
Total
Count 22
% within Center 95.7%
Count 7
% within Center 100.0%
Count 16
% within Center 80.0%
Count 10
% within Center 100.0%
Count 21
% within Center 91.3%
Count 158
% within Center 87.3%
20.0%
0
0.0%
2
8.7%
23
12.7%
20.0%
2
13.3%
1
4.3%
0
0.0%
4
13.3%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
1
12.5%
5
No
1
50.0%
5
26.3%
2
100.0%
10
100.0%
23
100.0%
181
100.0%
100.0%
15
100.0%
23
100.0%
7
100.0%
20
Total
2
100.0%
19
100.0%
15
100.0%
13
100.0%
1
100.0%
8
100.0%
25
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
Refused
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
65

Appendix R: Type of School Enrolled in Last Spring by Center
OneSource Center
Brotherhood
Crusade
Catholic Charities
Central
Catholic Charities
South
El Proyecto del
Barrio North Valley
El Proyecto del
Barrio South Valley
LA Harbor College
Para Los Niños
East LA
UCLA Central
UCLA West
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
High
School
4
57.1%
8
50.0%
7
70.0%
14
66.7%
108
68.4%
3
42.9%
11
55.0%
12
92.3%
19
86.4%
0
0.0%
10
71.4%
9
69.2%
11
84.6%
0
0.0%
1
14.3%
0
0.0%
1
10.0%
1
4.8%
8
5.1%
1
14.3%
2
10.0%
0
0.0%
1
4.5%
Post- secondary
Vocational
School
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
1
7.7%
0
0.0%
Community/
Junior
College
2
28.6%
5
31.3%
1
10.0%
6
28.6%
35
22.2%
3
42.9%
7
35.0%
1
7.7%
2
9.1%
1
100.0%
2
14.3%
4
30.8%
0
0.0%
1
100.0%
College/
University
0
0.0%
3
18.8%
1
10.0%
0
0.0%
7
4.4%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
2
14.3%
0
0.0%
1
7.7%
0
0.0%
Other
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
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
Total
7
100.0%
16
100.0%
10
100.0%
21
100.0%
158
100.0%
7
100.0%
20
100.0%
13
100.0%
22
100.0%
1
100.0%
14
100.0%
13
100.0%
13
100.0%
1
100.0%
66