Los Angeles Worksource System Youth Participants' Satisfaction

Los Angeles WorkSource System

Youth Participants’ Satisfaction Survey 2015-2016

Prepared for: City of Los Angeles

Workforce Development Economic & Workforce Development Board Department

Authors: Richard W. Moore, Ph.D. Raquel Orochena Kamelia Assefnia Elena Paredes

The College of Business and Economics

Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 4

OVERVIEW ...... 6

METHOD ...... 7

Questionnaire ...... 7 Telephone Survey ...... 7 Sample ...... 7 FINDINGS ...... 8

SATISFACTION ...... 8 AVERAGE PARTICIPANT SATISFACTION BY YEAR ...... 8 Figure 1: Overall and Related Satisfaction Measures ...... 8 OVERALL SATISFACTION BY CENTER ...... 9 Figure 2: Overall Satisfaction by Center ...... 10 RECOMMEND PROGRAM ...... 11 Figure 3: Recommend Program to Someone like Yourself ...... 11 SATISFACTION WITH PROGRAM ELEMENTS ...... 12 Figure 4: Satisfaction by Program Elements ...... 13 SATISFACTION WITH CLASSES AND WORKSHOPS ...... 14 Figure 5: Satisfaction with Classes and Workshops ...... 14 LEARNING ABOUT THE PROGRAM AND SERVICES RECEIVED ...... 15 LEARNED OF PROGRAM ...... 15 Figure 6: Learned of Program ...... 16 SERVICES RECEIVED ...... 17 Figure 7: Services Received ...... 18 Figure 8: Support Services Received ...... 20 DEMOGRAPHICS ...... 21

GENDER, AGE, AND SATISFACTION ...... 21 Figure 9: Percent of Participant Respondents by Gender ...... 21 Figure 10: Percent of Participant Respondents by Age ...... 22 Table 1: Participant Overall Satisfaction by Gender and Age...... 22 SCHOOL ENROLLMENT, AGE, AND SATISFACTION ...... 23 Table 2: Percent Enrolled in School by Age ...... 23 Figure 11 A: 2015-16 Enrolled in School 14-18 ...... 24 Figure 11 B: 2015-16 Enrolled in School 19+ ...... 24

Figure 11 C: 2014-15 Enrolled in School 14-18 ...... 24 Figure 11 D: 2014-15 Enrolled in School 19+ ...... 24 Table 3: Overall Satisfaction by Age and Enrolled in School ...... 25 DISCUSSION ...... 26

APPENDICES ...... 28

Appendix A: Survey Questionnaire ...... 28 Appendix B: Number of Respondents by Center 2013-2014, 2014-2015, & 2015-16 .. 34 Appendix C: Resolution of All Numbers in Sample by Center ...... 34 Appendix D: Overall Satisfaction by Center 2013-2014, 2014-2015, & 2015-16 ...... 35 Appendix E: “Would You Recommend This Program to Someone Like Yourself?” by Center ...... 36 Appendix F: Participant Satisfaction by Program Elements - Staff by Center ...... 37 Appendix G: Participant Satisfaction by Program Elements - Website and Facilities by Center ...... 38 Appendix H: Participant Satisfaction by Program Elements - Ease in Receiving Services by Center ...... 39 Appendix I: Participant Satisfaction by Program Elements - Additional Services by Center ...... 40 Appendix J: Satisfaction with Instructors and Workshops by Center ...... 41 Appendix K: Learned of Program by Center ...... 42 Appendix L: Services Received by Center ...... 43 Appendix M: Support Services Received by Center ...... 44 Appendix N: Participant Gender by Center ...... 45 Appendix O: Participant Age by Center ...... 46 Appendix P: Enrolled in School Last Spring by Center ...... 47 Appendix Q: Type of School Enrolled in Last Spring by Center ...... 48

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Economic Workforce Development Department (EWDD) has contracted with California State University, Northridge to conduct a phone survey of youth served by the City’s YouthSource Centers. These surveys are part of the EWDD’s performance management system and are designed to measure youths’ customer satisfaction with services received. YouthSource Centers principally serve youth who are out-of-school and out-of-work. The program goal is to re-engage youth in education and or employment through a variety of program activities.

Youth report high levels of satisfaction with their YouthSource Center (YSC); the average overall satisfaction score across the system was 9.3 on a 10-point scale. The degree to which the centers met participants’ expectations rose to 9.1 in 2015-16 from 9.0 in the prior two years. Satisfaction with how services compared to participants’ ideal services increased to 8.9 from 8.8 in the prior year. The average overall satisfaction ratings remain high in all YouthSource Centers, ranging from 9.1 to 9.6. Compared to program year 2014-15, six centers improved their scores and seven centers had the same score or experienced a slight decrease from last year. All these scores are above the “Star Level” set by EWDD.

We also found that 99.2% of respondents would recommend their YSC program to someone like themselves. This indicates high levels of satisfaction. For the 2015-16 year, satisfaction was also high across all program elements, ranging from a low (8.7) for paperwork requirements to a high of (10) for quality of tutoring. Other highly rated program elements were staff knowledge, quality of website, quality and availability of computers, and social and recreational activities. These high ratings show a commitment by contractors and staff to provide a pleasant, positive experience and environment for the youth participants. The level of satisfaction reported by the YouthSource participants who attended a workshop or class, were also high at 9.4 in both 2014-15 and 2015-16. The average rating for quality of instructors has remained 9.5 over the past 3 years.

The majority of this year’s survey population was female (59.7%). Almost two-thirds of youth surveyed this year were over the age of 19 (64.9%) and the remaining (35.1%) were between the ages of 14-18. Among the 14-18-year-old group, 89.1% reported being enrolled in school while in the 19+ year-old group, 59.7% reported currently attending school.

Results showed that youth participants continue to learn about the program primarily through their family and friends (56.4%) or through referral by a school (25.9%). A new trend reveals that youth are learning about the centers through internet search or website (9.0% in 2015-16). This suggests that social media may become a useful recruitment tool.

In 2015-16, most participants (69.7%) came to the YouthSource Centers to gain work experience through the centers’ activities and services. Participants’ involvement in job preparation activities and services increased from 65.0% in 2014-15 to 69.5% in 2015-16. Use of YouthSource services to get help finding a summer job has also increased (from 62.9% in 2014-15 to 64.9% in 2015-16). This reflects the continuing growth of the former summer work experience program, which now operates year-round. The percentage of participants that used support services increased this year. The majority (60.3%) of respondents that received support services got transportation/bus tokens. Support for purchasing uniforms, equipment and school books increased this year which reflects the focus on helping youth to find and qualify for future employment and return to school.

The survey findings show a picture of YouthSource Centers that satisfy their customers by providing a variety of high quality employment and education related services.

OVERVIEW In program year 2015-16 the City of Los Angeles Workforce Development Board (WDB) provided funding for 13 YouthSource contractors. YouthSource Centers offer an array of supportive service and training services for youths aged 14-24 years old. The target population for the YouthSource Centers is “disconnected youth” who are out of school and out of work. That focus shapes the results reported here. The supportive and training services for this group include, but are not limited, to the following:

Work readiness - to prepare youths to secure jobs. Career exploration - to help youths learn about jobs and careers. Job skills - to help youths acquire necessary skills for obtaining a first job. Computer skills - to help youths learn how to find job opportunities online; and to write a resume and cover letter for landing a job. College preparation - to help youths learn about educational opportunities and how degrees lead to careers. Mentoring & counseling - to support youths as they plan their education and careers. Subsidized Employment- paid work experience in the summer and during the school year.

The City of Los Angeles Economic and Workforce Development Department (EWDD) contracted with the Northridge Consulting Group at the College of Business and Economics, California State University, Northridge, to survey 2015-2016 youth program participants. We collected data on services received, satisfaction with services received and the characteristics of participants, through a phone survey. This report presents the results of the survey for the program as a whole and for each YouthSource contractor individually, in the report’s appendices. 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, the EWDD and the WDB.

METHOD Questionnaire In 2011, the Northridge Consulting Group in consultation with city staff designed a questionnaire that was used to assess program participants for the 2010-11 program year. We continue to use the same questionnaire, after a slight modification to the instructions, for 2013-14, 2014-15, and 2015-16 program year assessments, to allow year to year comparisons. Telephone Survey In 2015-16 we used the services of The Davis Research Group to conduct a telephone survey of a minimum of 30 participants per center. The questionnaire (see Appendix A) was designed to measure the following aspects of customer satisfaction: • Overall customer satisfaction • Services received • Referrals to other services • Quality of service provided by staff • Condition of facilities • Quality of program services Sample The Los Angeles Economic and Workforce Development Department (EWDD) compiled the list of telephone numbers of currently enrolled youth participants. We had a representative sample of currently enrolled participants from each of the 13 YouthSource Centers, with a goal of completing 30 surveys for each center.

We were able to complete 30 surveys for each of the 13 centers.

The 2015-16 response consisted of 390 completed phone surveys based on a total pool of 2,407 youth participants with telephone numbers. From the total pool of telephone numbers, a total of 1,102 phone numbers were contacted, yielding a 35.39% completion rate. For further details of resolution of the sample, and for information by center, please refer to Appendices B and C.

FINDINGS We begin our analysis by examining overall youth participant satisfaction for the 2015-16 program year and compare it to 2013-14 and 2014-15. Next, we present the extent to which participants would recommend the program to others. Then, we describe participants’ satisfaction with specific program elements. We also report when the participants last had contact with their program. Further, we examine how the participants learned about the program and the services. 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: (1) overall satisfaction, (2) the degree that services met expectations, (3) how services compared to the ideal, (4) whether or not program participants would recommend the program to people like themselves, and (5) satisfaction with various program elements, classes, and workshops. AVERAGE PARTICIPANT SATISFACTION BY YEAR Figure 1 shows youth participants’ satisfaction with the program services they received across the 13 YouthSource Centers (see Figure 2 or Appendix D for a table detailing results by center for “Overall Satisfaction,” the degree that services “Met Expectations,” and how 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 ten being “very satisfied,” the responses were averaged for each year.

Figure 1: Overall and Related Satisfaction Measures

2015-2016 2014-2015 2013-2014

9.3 Overall 9.3 9.2

9.1 Met Expectations 9.0 9.0

8.9 Compared to Ideal 8.8 8.9

0 2 4 6 8 10

The results of these three satisfaction measures indicate that participants continue to have a positive experience at the YouthSource Centers. The average overall satisfaction measure across the 13 centers remained at 9.3 the same as 2014-15. The degree to which the centers met participants’ expectations rose to 9.1 in 2015-16 from 9.0 in the prior two years. Satisfaction with how services compared to participants’ ideal services increased to 8.9 from 8.8 in the prior year.

Overall satisfaction for all three survey years was well above the city’s star level of 8.5 for customer satisfaction. It might be useful for YouthSource Centers to investigate what “ideal” means to participants in order to better serve them and understand where the centers can improve or where their focus should be to raise the overall satisfaction level for the coming years. Our discussion of satisfaction by specific services should shed light on changes individual centers might make to increase satisfaction scores to an even higher level. OVERALL SATISFACTION BY CENTER Figure 2 demonstrates that the average overall satisfaction ratings were high in all YouthSource Centers, ranging from 9.1 to 9.6. A total of six centers improved their scores and seven centers had the same score or experienced a slight decrease from last year. We do note that all these scores are above the “Star Level” set by EWDD.

As we noted before, all thirteen centers had 30 surveys completed, which represents a slightly higher number of responses (390) as compared to (387) responses received last year.

The overall result across all 13 centers was an average satisfaction rating of 9.3.

Figure 2: Overall Satisfaction by Center 2015-2016 2014-2015 2013-2014

9.1 Boyle Heights - East LA 9.4 9.1

9.1 Central Los Angeles - Hollywood 9.5 9

9.4 Central Los Angeles - Westlake 8.9 9.2

9.4 East San Fernando Valley 9.5 9.2

9.6 Harbor/LA Harbor College 9.3 9.4

9.1 North San Fernando Valley 9.5 9.4

9.5 Northeast Los Angeles 9.5 9.8

9.1 South Los Angeles - Watts 8.8 9.2

9.1 South Los Angeles - Crenshaw 9.5 9.3

9.3 South Los Angeles - Exposition Park 9.1 9.4

9.3 Southeast Los Angeles 9.1 9

9.1 West Los Angeles 8.9 8.9

9.4 West/South San Fernando Valley 9.5 8.9

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

RECOMMEND PROGRAM Participants were asked whether they would recommend the YouthSource program to someone like themselves. Figure 3 for 2015-16 reveals that 99% of respondents stated that they would make a recommendation. Less than one percent (0.8%) said they would not. 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 will be discussed in the upcoming section regarding how participants first learned of the program, friends or relatives through word-of-mouth is the most common way potential participants learn of the program. This suggests that if the city seeks to grow the program, it could do so by getting the participants involved through a referral program with incentives, or using social media to engage past and potential future participants Figure 3: Recommend Program to Someone like Yourself 2015-2016 0.02% 0.08%

Yes No Unsure 99.0%

2014-2015

1.1%

Yes No 98.9% Unsure

SATISFACTION WITH PROGRAM ELEMENTS Figure 4 shows 2015-16 respondents’ average satisfaction ratings for each of 13 YouthSource program elements (see Appendices F through I for individual center data).

For the 2015-16 year, satisfaction was high across all program elements, ranging from a low (8.7) for paperwork to a high of (9.1) for quality of tutoring. Other highly rated items in the 2015-16 year were staff friendliness and knowledge, quality and availability of computers, and comfort and cleanliness of the facility. These high ratings indicate a commitment by contractors and staff to providing a pleasant and positive experience and environment for the youth.

Clients remain least satisfied with the amount of paperwork required, as well as with the centers’ quality of website. Both measures either improved slightly from the previous year or remained the same. The amount of paperwork required might not be entirely under the centers’ control and therefore, difficult for the centers to improve on. However, implementing a better website may improve client satisfaction.

Figure 4: Satisfaction by Program Elements

2015-2016 2014-2015 2013-2014

9.7 How Friendly staff were 9.5 9.7

Comfort and cleanliness of 9.5 9.5 facility 9.4

Quality and availability of 9.5 9.4 computers 9.4

How knowledgable staff 9.6 9.4 were 9.6

Enrollment process for 9.3 9.3 training programs 9.3

Carer counselings, job 9.4 9.2 preparation 9.4

Help finding job or enrolling 9.3 9.2 in school 9.4 9.4 Information about services 9.1 9.3 9.2 Availability of Staff 9.1 9

Social/recreational 9.2 9.1 activities 9.1 9.1 Quality of tutoring 8.9 9.0 8.9 Quality of website 8.9 9.0

How quickly phone 9.0 8.8 calls/emails returned 9.0 8.6 Amount of paperwork 8.6 8.7

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

SATISFACTION WITH CLASSES AND WORKSHOPS The YouthSource participants who attended a workshop or class, were highly satisfied. Figure 5 shows that on average, participants were highly satisfied with the quality of the classes/workshops they attended. The level of satisfaction has remained high at 9.4 between 2014-15 and 2015-16. We do note that workshops and classes vary from center to center and not all youth participate.

Satisfaction with the quality of instructors remains very high. The average rating for quality of instructors was 9.5 for the past 3 years. This is a good indicator that the centers are staffed with competent and friendly instructors, which also highlights the effectiveness of the centers’ hiring process.

For center-specific data please refer to Appendix J.

Figure 5: Satisfaction with Classes and Workshops

2015-2016 2014-2015 2013-2014

9.5 Quality of instructors 9.5 9.5

9.4 Quality of classes/workshops 9.4 9.3

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

LEARNING ABOUT THE PROGRAM AND SERVICES RECEIVED This section provides details about how participants learned about YouthSource services, what job-related activities and services they participated in, and what support services they received. We compare the results of the 2015-16 survey to results from the 2014-15 and 2013-14 surveys.

LEARNED OF PROGRAM Figure 6 shows how participants learned about the YouthSource program (see Appendix K for center level data). The respondents were asked how they found out about the program. Because multiple responses were accepted, percentages add up to more than 100%.

Youth participants continued to learn about the program primarily through their friends and family. More than half of the respondents (56.4%) in 2015-16 learned about the program from a friend or relative.

The second most frequent way that respondents learned about the program was through referral by a school, this percentage increased from, from 23.0% in 2014-15 to 25.9% in 2015-16. The percentage who reported learning about the program from a staff member also increased from 18.4% in 2014-15, to 19.2% in 2015-16. On the other hand, the percentage of participants who learned about the program by seeing a flyer decreased from 16.1% in 2014-15 to 13.3% in 2015-16. However, we are seeing a trend where more youth are reporting that they learn about the centers through Internet search or website (3.7% in 2013-14, 6.6% in 2014-15, 9.0% in 2015-16).

The reliance on personal connections to learn about YouthSource Centers and on school referrals highlights the importance of these referral channels. Centers can also benefit from focusing outreach efforts using new online platforms, email, and social media to expand their reach into new populations.

Figure 6: Learned of Program

2015-2016 2014-2015 2013-2014

56.4% Friends or relative 56.1% 52.4%

25.9% Referred by a school 23.0% 28.2%

19.2% Met a staff member 18.4% 21.1%

13.3% Saw a flyer 16.1% 9.7%

12.6% Referred by another center 10.7% 11.4%

10.3% Drove by building 9.2% 6.8%

9.0% Internet search or website 6.6% 3.7%

7.9% Saw a sign 8.4% 4.3%

7.7% Email 5.4% 2.0%

6.9% Other 13.6% 6.0%

3.1% Social Media 3.3% 1.4%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

SERVICES RECEIVED Respondents were asked to identify what activities or services they had participated in. They were able to identify multiple activities and services so percentages add up to more than 100 (see Appendix L for center level data).

Figure 7 shows that participants’ focus on employment services remains prevalent. In 2015- 16, 69.7% of the respondents sought to gain work experience through the centers’ activities and services, up slightly from 69.1% for the 2014-15 period. Participants’ involvement in job preparation activities and services also increased, from 65.0% in 2014-15 to 69.5% in 2015-16. This growth in both categories is probably due to the continuing focus on “disconnected youth” who are out-of-school and out of work.

Use of YouthSource services to get help finding a summer job has also increased (from 62.9% in 2014-15 to 64.9% in 2015-16). This reflects the continuing expansion of the summer employment experience program, which operates year round now. There is also an increase in youth who come to the centers looking for occupational skills (from 42.5% in 2014-15 to 49.2% in 2015-16).

Education was a key area that provided services to youth participants. Assistance with college preparation saw a large gain from 18.9% in 2014-15 to 39.7% in 2015-16, that is a significant increase in this type of service. This may reflect the impact of having LAUSD counselors in each center who help youth return to education. Consequently, tutoring and help enrolling with GED also experienced increases from past year results.

Figure 7: Services Received

2015-2016 2014-2015 2013-2014

Help in getting 69.7% 69.1% work experience 73.5%

69.5% Job preparation 65.0% 68.4%

Help finding a 64.9% 62.9% summer job 62.7%

Occupational 49.2% 42.5% skills 44.7%

Connecting with 46.4% 48.8% a mentor 48.7%

College 39.7% 18.9% preparation 34.2%

Other 25.4% social/leadership 18.7% activities 24.8%

24.9% Tutoring 22.5% 23.9%

Community 24.4% 25.6% service 26.5%

Help enrolling 23.1% 22.5% with GED 21.4%

21.5% Special classes 22.5% 23.4%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

In addition to the program services listed in Figure 7, YouthSource Centers also offer support services that enable youth to participate in the program. Figure 8 reports which support services respondents received from YouthSource during the 2013-14, 2014-15, and 2015- 16 program years (see Appendix M for center level data). Participants were allowed to select multiple responses.

The percentage of participants that used support services increased this year, this is illustrated by the decrease of participants who responded “None/Not Applicable” (from 35.3% in 2014-15 to 25.9% in 2015-16).

The majority of respondents that used support services received transportation/bus tokens, this percentage increased since last year (60.3% for 2015-16 versus 52.9% in 2014-15).

Help purchasing uniforms and equipment increased (from 19.2% in 2014-15 to 21% in 2015-16). Support with school books also increased (from 13.3% in 2014-15 to 18.5% in 2015-16). This reflects the focus on helping youth to find and qualify for future employment and return to school.

The use of health services decreased in the past year (from 12.8% in 2014-15 to 9.7% in 2015-16). However, drug/alcohol abuse counseling increased slightly (from 2.6% in 2014- 15 to 3.1% in 2015-16).

Figure 8: Support Services Received

2015-2016 2014-2015 2013-2014

60.3% Transportation/bus tokens 52.9% 56.4%

25.9% None/ Not applicable 35.3% 27.4%

21.0% Uniforms and equipment 19.2% 18.8%

18.5% School books 13.3% 17.7%

9.7% Health Services 12.8% 10.8%

6.9% Other 6.1% 6.0%

3.1% Child care 3.6% 4.8%

3.1% Drug / alcohol abuse counseling 2.6% 4.8%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

DEMOGRAPHICS In this section we present the gender and age composition of YouthSource respondents across the 2013-14, 2014-15, and 2015-16 program years. Then, we examine satisfaction by gender and age groups and present school enrollment status. Finally, we relate enrollment status to age, and report satisfaction levels by enrollment status and age category. GENDER, AGE, AND SATISFACTION

Figure 9 demonstrates that the majority of the survey population across all years is predominantly female. In 2015-16 the survey respondents were 59.7% female versus 40.3% male (see Appendix N for center level data). As Figure 9 indicates the percentage of females increased and the percentage of males decreased between 2014-15 and 2015-16.

Figure 9: Percent of Participant Respondents by Gender

2015-2016 2014-2015 2013-2014

40.3% Male 44.5% 41.9%

59.7% Female 55.5% 58.1%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

In Figure 10, it can be seen that age profile of participants has change substantially; almost two-thirds of youth surveyed this year were in the 19+ age group (64.9%), the remaining 35.1% were between the ages of 14-18 years old. This is a substantial increase in the older group. This is like due to the increased focused on serving out-of-school youth.

Figure 10: Percent of Participant Respondents by Age

2015-2016 2014-2015 2013-2014

64.9%

19+ 37.3%

59.0%

35.1%

14-18 62.4%

40.2%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

To better understand the interaction of age, gender and satisfaction we created four age/gender groups and calculated the average satisfaction for each group. The overall satisfaction level reported by females in 2015-16 remained at 9.3, the same level reported for the 2014-15 year. For males, there was a slight increase from 9.2 in 2014-15 to 9.3 in 2015-16. The data do indicate that younger females and older males are the most satisfied group, but, overall we find satisfaction is high across all age and gender groups, indicating the centers serve all groups well.

Table 1 presents our analysis of satisfaction according to gender and age.

Table 1: Participant Overall Satisfaction by Gender and Age 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 Gender 14-18 19+ Total 14-18 19+ Total 14-18 19+ Total Male 9.4 9.3 9.3 9.2 9.1 9.2 9.1 9.4 9.3 Female 9.0 9.2 9.1 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.6 9.1 9.3 Overall Mean* 9.2 9.2 9.2 9.3 9.2 9.3 9.3 9.2 9.3 *Overall Mean is calculated based on all respondents, not an average of all the center’s means.

SCHOOL ENROLLMENT, AGE, AND SATISFACTION

Youth participants were asked if they were enrolled in school (see Appendix P for center level data). In the 14-18 year old group, 89.1% reported being enrolled in school in 2015- 16 versus 84.4% in 2014-15, and 87.2% in 2013-14. In the 19+ year-old group, 59.7% reported being enrolled in school in 2015-16 versus 54.8% in 2014-15, and 69.6% in 2013- 14.

Table 2 presents our analysis of youth enrollment in school according to age. Table 2: Percent Enrolled in School by Age

2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 Enrolled in School 14-18 19+ 14-18 19+ 14-18 19+ Yes 87.2% 69.6% 84.4% 54.8% 89.1% 59.7% No 12.8% 30.4% 15.6% 45.2% 10.9% 40.3%

The youth participants that reported enrollment in school were asked what type of school they were enrolled in (see Appendix Q for center level data). Because the 14-18 year-old group comprises a different educational cohort than the 19+ year-old group (youth aged 14- 18 are usually still enrolled in secondary school, while 19+ year-olds are expected to have graduated from secondary school, enrolled in higher education, or be out working), we analyzed their enrollment numbers separately.

The 14-18 year-old group (Figures 11A & 11C) was composed primarily of high school students both in 2014-15 and 2015-16, with a slight increase in the 2015-16 period (75.7% and 79.5%, respectively). Students enrolled in community college/junior college enrollment decreased from 15% to 9% from 2014-15 to 2015-16; postsecondary vocational school remained fairly stable 3.3% in 2015-16 vs. 3.4% in 2014-15. College/university increased from 4.9% in 2014-15 to 6.6% in 2015-16.

The 19+ year-old group (Figures 11B & 11D) was composed mainly of community college students. There was a slight decrease in the percentage enrolled in community /junior college from 53.8% in 2014-15 to 49.7% in 2015-16, while the percentage enrolled in high school increased from 18.6% in 2014-15 to 23.1% in 2015-16. Again this likely reflects the effort to return out-of-school youth to education.

The percentage of 19+ aged participants enrolled in college or university also increased, from 11.3% in 2014-15 to 15.9% in 2015-16 while postsecondary vocational school enrollment decreased from 13.8% in 2014-15 to 7.3% in 2015-16.

The increase in college/university enrollments among all age groups between 2014-15 and 2015-16 indicates that YouthSource has been successful in emphasizing the importance of pursuing a college / university education to obtain better work opportunities. 23

Figure 11 A: 2015-16 Enrolled in School Figure 11 B: 2015-16 Enrolled in School 14-18 19+

Postsecondary Postsecondary Vocational Vocational School School 3.3% 7.3% High School College/Uni 23.1% versity 6.6% High School 79.5% College/University 15.9% Other 4.0%

Community college/Jun ior college 9.0% Community college/Juni or college Other 1.6% 49.7%

Figure 11 C: 2014-15 Enrolled in School Figure 11 D: 2014-15 Enrolled in School 14-18 19+

Other 1.0% Postsecondary Other 2.5% High School Vocational 18.6% Postsecondary School 3.4% Vocational School 13.8%

College/Uni versity 4.9%

High School College/Uni Communtiy Community 75.7% versity College/Junior College College/Junior 11.3% 15.0% College 53.8%

Table 3 presents our analysis of overall satisfaction reported by age and by school enrollment. Overall satisfaction was uniformly high across age groups and school enrollment. The most satisfied respondents from 2015-16 were the 14-18 year old youth not enrolled in school (9.5). Slightly lower were the 14-18 year-olds in school with an average satisfaction score of 9.3. Observing the three years we see an upward trend in the satisfaction of out-of-school youth, probably reflecting the programs increased focus on services for them.

Table 3: Overall Satisfaction by Age and Enrolled in School

2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

Enrolled in School 14-18 19+ Total 14-18 19+ Total 14-18 19+ Total

Yes 9.2 9.2 9.2 9.3 9.2 9.3 9.3 9.2 9.3

No 8.6 9.4 9.0 9.2 9.1 9.2 9.5 9.2 9.3

Overall Mean* 9.2 9.2 9.2 9.3 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.2 9.3

*Overall Mean is calculated based on all respondents, not an average of all the center’s means.

DISCUSSION The 2014, 2015, and 2016 surveys show that the YouthSource System generates high levels of satisfaction for youth participants. The average overall satisfaction score across the 13 centers remained at 9.3 in 2015-16, the same level as in 2014-15. All centers achieved star- level for the period. The focus on disconnected youth has not led to declines in satisfaction, the high level of satisfaction has been sustained within the system. The results also show that the YouthSource Centers have placed an increased emphasis on helping youth find employment while encouraging them to pursue their education in order to be more competitive in the job market. The increased focus on out-of-school youth is reflected in the high levels of satisfaction with the program among the out-of-school population.

A total of 99% of those surveyed indicated that they would recommend the YouthSource program to someone like themselves, again indicating a high quality of service to participants.

Satisfaction measures were high across all program elements with values ranging from a low (8.6) for paperwork to a high of (10) for quality of tutoring. Some of the most highly rated items in 2015-16 were: The quality of the website, staff friendliness, the quality and availability of computers, staff knowledge, and social and recreational activities. All 9.6 or above. These high ratings indicate a commitment by contractors and staff to providing a pleasant and positive experience and environment for the youth.

The areas that show the lowest satisfaction levels of satisfaction are amount of paperwork (8.7), and the system’s responses to phone calls and emails (9.1). This is perhaps due to the clients’ young age, high expectations of response time, and frustration with handling paperwork. But we note that these are still relatively high ratings on the 10 point scale.

Youth participants continued to learn about the program primarily through their friends and family (56.4%) or from their schools (25.9%). Both of these percentages have increased from (56.1% and 23% respectively in 2014-15). YouthSource Centers should continue to reach out to networks and the community to introduce their services. This will result in increased referrals, which is a successful channel to get more youth who may be outside the existing referral network into the centers. Centers should also continue to advertise through the use of flyers, signs, websites and social media.

The percentages of respondents who learned of the center through email, internet search and social media have been increasing gradually for the past three years. For example, those who learned from an internet search or web site has increased as follows: 3.7% in 2013-14, 6.6% in 2014-15, and 9.0% in 2015-16. YouthSource agencies should continue their efforts to expand program awareness and participation by increasing their email outreach, and their presence on different social media platforms.

We collected information to determine the services received and the satisfaction levels for those services during the 2015-16 program year and compared them to previous years.

The most frequently used services are related to employment services, followed by education-related services.

In 2015-16, 69.7% of the respondents sought to gain work experience, this is a small increase from the 69.1% reported in the 2014-15 year. Participants’ involvement in job preparation activities and services also increased from 65.0% in 2014-15 to 69.5% in 2015-16.

We would like to note that assistance with college preparation saw a significant increase from 18.9% in 2014-15 to 39.7% in 2015-16, and returned to a level above that in 13-14, 34.2%. This indicates that an increasing percentage of youth see the value of a college education and centers are helping them prepare. Overall, these figures demonstrate that the use of employment and education related services reflects the program’s focus on helping youth return to education, especially those who are over 19 years of age.

Program participants relied on the centers support services like transportation/bus tokens, school books, and the purchase of uniforms and equipment. The increase in these services highlights areas where youth continue to need help and support as they prepare for future employment.

The results of the 2015-16 study indicate that the work and services provided by the 13 YouthSource centers generate high levels of satisfaction as reported by program participants. This indicates that the centers are making improvements in the way that they train and prepare youth with the skills, education, and experience to become productive members of society. Individual centers can use the detailed data in the following appendices to assess their own performance over time, and find ways to continue to improve the valuable services they provide.

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Survey Questionnaire

LOS ANGELES YOUTH SOURCE PROGRAM SURVEY JULY 2016

INTRODUCTION

Hello, my name is ______and I am calling from Davis Research on behalf of the City of Los Angeles Youth Source Program. According to their records, you have been involved through the . 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 Very Satisfied DK REF 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 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 Exceeds All DK REF No Expectations 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 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?

Not very close Very Close DK REF No Ideal 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Now I would like to ask you some questions about your involvement with the 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) During this past week b) During this past month c) More than a month ago, but since August 2015 d) Last summer e) Before last summer (May 2015 or before) f) 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 K] a) Friend or relative b) Referred by a school c) Referred by another center d) Met a staff member e) Saw a sign f) Saw a flyer g) Drove by building h) Email i) Internet search or center website j) Social Media (Facebook, YouTube, Blog, Tweet, etc.) k) Other [SPECIFY] ______

6. What activities or services have you participated in? [READ LIST, ACCEPT MULTIPLE RESPONSES] [RANDOMIZE A-J, ANCHOR K] a) Help in getting work experience such as an internship or job shadowing b) Tutoring c) Help enrolling with GED d) Job prep e) Occupational skill training f) College prep

g) Help finding a summer job h) Community service i) Special classes j) Connecting with a mentor 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 Source 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 Available N/A (DNR) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

9. On a scale of 1-10 where 1 is unfriendly and 10 is friendly, in general how friendly was the staff?

Unfriendly Friendly N/A (DNR) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

10. On a scale of 1-10 where 1 is not knowledgeable and 10 is knowledgeable, how knowledgeable was the staff?

Not knowledgeable Knowledgeable N/A (DNR) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

The following questions ask about your satisfaction with the services you received from the Youth Source 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:

11. The information available about services offered by this Youth Source Center?