Specialized Teen and Youth Programs Annual Report FY2013-2014

Prepared by:

Castle Sinicrope Heather Lewis-Charp

Social Policy Research Associates (SPR)

CONTENTS

Introduction 1

Programs 2

Participants 7

Performance and Quality 11

Outcomes 16

Conclusion 20

Specialized Teen and Programs Annual Report Summary FY2013SUMMARY-2014

Background I have issues with English, San Francisco’s Department of Children, Youth and Their Families (DCYF) and newly arrived people are provides funding to Specialized Teen and Youth Empowerment Programs scared. We go outside and don’t (Teen programs) to positively engage teenagers and support their transition know what others are saying. to healthy adulthood. FY2013-2014 marked the first year of the FY2013-2016 We worry about getting lost funding cycle, with new strategies focused English Learner Leadership, “ and don’t know how to get to LGBTQQ Leadership Allyship, and Summer Transitions and a change in the places. We also worry about agencies and programs funded in the Teen grantee portfolio. In FY2013- being bullied and being taken 2014, DCYF supported 75 0 Teen programs that provided a range of diverse advantage of. After participating youth development opportunities. in [Newcomer Club], we have This annual report summary focuses on the performance, quality, and more confidence. outcomes of DCYF’s Teen programs during FY2013-2014. Data were drawn -Teen participant, from DCYF’s youth survey and Contract Management System (CMS), interviews CYC Newcomer Club with 11 program directors and staff, and 4 focus groups with youth.

Programs

Teen programs are focused on helping young people navigate their way Characteristics of Teen programs: through and young adulthood and include programs focused  The number of Teen programs specifically on serving English Learners, LGBTQQ youth, and rising 9th and 10th and the total funding for Teen grade students. Teen programs provide services focused on academics, programs increased by over 20% leadership and civic engagement, arts and culture, life skills, and business between FY2012-2013 and and entrepreneurship. Program activities included tutoring, college tours, FY2013-2014. youth organizing, youth-led philanthropy, internships, and education on  DCYF funding made up over 50% diverse topics such as healthy living, financial literacy, visual and performing or more annual budgets for over arts, job readiness, and social and cultural history. 75% of programs (58 programs).  Grants ranged from under $10,000 to over $500,000 with an average of $96,258 and median of $81,200.  While nearly half of Teen programs had budgets of less than $100,000, the percentage of programs with budgets over $300,000 almost doubled (10% to 19%) between FY2012-2013 and FY2013-2014.  The budgets of sponsoring agency varied dramatically, from $135,000 to nearly $100 million.  Academics made up the most service hours delivered, followed by civic engagement and .

Prepared by Social Policy Research Associates | 1

Participants

Similar to previous years, Teen programs continued to serve a higher Key findings for Teen participants: proportion of African American youth and smaller proportion Asian/Pacific  93% of youth served by Teen Islander youth than SFUSD. On average, African American youth received the programs were youth of color, most hours of service while White youth received the fewest hours. with fairly even representation of African American, Latino, and

DCYF Participants by Race/Ethnicity Asian/Pacific Islander youth.

 Most program participants lived 48% SFUSD in southern parts of the city (Bayview, Ingleside-Excelsior, and 30% DCYF 27% Visitacion Valley) and the Mission. 23% 26%  Participants ranged from under 13% 11% 10% 10 to over 25, with an average 7% 6% age of 15.7. 82% of participants were aged 13 to 17.

African Asian/Pacific Hispanic/ White Other  Intensity of services continued to American Islander Latino increase with an average of 93 hours, up from 85 hours in FY2012-2013. Almost 40% of participants received 80 or more Average Hours of Service by Ethnicity hours. 114.1  93.1 Female participants received 90.1 85.5 significantly more services than 70.8 male participants (100 versus 80 hours).  Youth in programs with budgets below $100,000 per year, fewer than 50 youth enrolled, and fewer African Asian/ Hispanic/ White Other than 3 FTE received significantly American Pacific Islander Latino more services than youth in larger programs.

Where are DCYF Teen programs located? Where do DCYF Teen participants live?

Key Key $10,000 2-14 $100,000 15-74 $250,000 75-149 $500,000 150-499 $1 million 500+

2 |Prepared by Social Policy Research Associates

Performance

Key findings for program performance: There are five core DCYF program performance measures for DCYF Teen programs:  Program performance improved for most measures compared to Percent of Programs Meeting DCYF Teen Performance Measures FY2012-2013.

75% of participants report learning  The only measure that showed

something new that thye wanted to know 92% decreases had a higher standard about than in previous years: The target for enhanced enjoyment and 65% of projected core participants engagement in learning increased complete the DCYF Teen suvey. 74% from 60% to 75% in FY2013-2014, and the percentage of programs 85%of participants report involvement in meeting the standard decreased program implementation or leadership 65% from 79% to 57%. opportunities.  Programs with larger annual budgets and higher enrollment 75%of core participants receive a total of numbers were more successful in 80 hours of program dosage per year. 59% providing intensive services to projected core participants. 75% of participants report enhanced  enjoyment and engagement in learning as a 57% Programs that enrolled fewer than result of the program. 50 participants were more successful in engaging youth in their learning.

Quality

The DCYF youth survey, a consistent data source for assessing quality Key findings for program quality: across program, captures quality along seven dimensions on a 5-point  As in previous years, youth had a scale: positive view of quality and rated Average Program Quality based on Youth Survey all dimensions above a 4.0 except linkages to the school day. Program Environment/Safety 4.34  Female participants rated program quality higher than male Promoting Diversity, Access, 4.15 participants. Equity and Inclusion  On average, youth older than 16 Youth Development: Teen rated programs higher on all 4.11 Support dimensions of quality than younger youth. Youth Development: 4.09 Interaction  On average, African American and Hispanic youth provided the Youth Development: 4.08 highest ratings. White provided the lowest ratings in all areas except diversity and safety. Intentional Skill Building 4.03  Youth who received the DCYF target of 80 hours of service rated Linkages to the School Day 3.89 program quality higher than youth who received fewer than 80 hours 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 for all areas except safety. Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Prepared by Social Policy Research Associates | 3

Outcomes

Reflecting the goals of the San Francisco Children’s Fund, DCYF Teen [An important part] is programs have two long-term outcomes with four intermediary outcomes:1 building agency around their own narrative, which turns into a social power rather than a social shame. EMOTIONAL “ MOTIVATION Community-wise one of the AND MENTAL AND READINESS goals is that it’s really HEALTH important to have these [youth] voices to speak not only about their narrative but READY TO broader patterns and LEARN broader issues. -Program Staff, 67 Suenos

SUCCEEDING Key findings for outcomes: IN SCHOOL  Overall, youth reported strong progress towards intermediate KNOWLEDGE, outcomes and readiness to learn SKILLS, AND CRITICAL with a slight decrease compared to OPPORTUNITIES THINKING SKILLS FY2012-2013. TO REACH GOALS  Youth in youth-led organizing and youth-led philanthropy programs reported experiencing significantly In FY2013-2014, progress towards outcomes was measured using the higher outcomes for all areas than youth survey: other youth.  Youth older than 16 and female Progress towards Outcomes based on Youth Survey participants reported significantly higher outcomes for all areas. Intermediate Outcome 1: Students demonstrate motivation and readinessout1 to learn. 74%  There were no significant Intermediate Outcome 2: Participants develop knowledge and skills to promote their own differences in reported outcomes out2 81% emotional and mental health. by ethnicity for intermediate outcomes. For readiness to learn, Intermediate Outcome 3: Participants are confident in applying critical thinking and out3 74% problem solving skills. African American and Hispanic youth reported the highest Intermediate Outcome 4: Participants have knowledge, skills, and opportunities to outcomes. out4 75% make progress toward reaching educational and career goals  Youth who received 80 hours or

Long-term Outcome 1: Students are ready to learn longterm 72% more of service reported higher intermediate outcomes.

 Youth in smaller programs Students are prepared to be productive productive 71% For the complete report, visit: reported higher outcomes than www.dcyf.org youth in larger programs. Students have the skills and tools to navigate through challengesnavigate 74% For more information, contact: Social Policy Research Associates 1333 Broadway, Suite 310 Oakland, CA 94612 (510) 763-1499 1 This Annual Report assesses readiness to learn and not success in school, based on guidance from DCYF. http://www.spra.com/

4 |Prepared by Social Policy Research Associates

INTRODUCTION

Through education, employment, and entertainment in digital media, we empower underserved youth and young adults, helping them find their place in the world. - Youth Powered Media, BAYCAT (website)

This Annual Report provides an overview of the Teen programs funded by San Francisco’s Department of Children, Youth & Their Families (DCYF) and the youth served by these programs during FY2013-2014. The report focuses on two aspects of DCYF’s funding for Teens: Specialized Teen and Youth Empowerment Fund programs. Specialized Teen programs focus on promoting positive youth development and the development of skills that will help them succeed in school and the labor market. Youth Empowerment Fund (YEF) programs train youth in community organizing and support them in working towards meaningful and positive change in their communities. These two funding streams are described as “Teen programs” throughout this report.

Data Sources The Annual Report draws on both qualitative and quantitative data sources, summarized in Exhibit 1. These data describe Teen programs and their participants, measure program quality, and assess programs’ progress towards meeting performance measures and outcomes.

Exhibit 1: Data Sources

Data Source Description DCYF Youth The DCYF youth survey is administered to participants in Teen programs at or near the end of the Survey program cycle. During FY2013-14, 2,286 surveys were completed, representing 36% of partici- pants with at least one hour of program. The survey gathers youth perspective on program quality, collects information on youth demographics, and informs the program performance measures. DCYF’s Contract DCYF’s client management system (CMS) is used to track youth characteristics and hours and Management types of services received. Youth with one hour or more of program services were included in the System (CMS) Annual Report. During 2013-2014, 6,312 youth received at least one hour of program services. Program Survey To collect additional information, we administered a program survey, completed by 72 of 75 program directors. The survey gathered information on staffing, capacity building activities and needs, recruitment strategies, target populations, partnerships, and youth leadership opportunities. Interviews with We conducted phone interviews with 5 program directors and 6 staff to inform three evaluation program staff briefs focusing on English learners, LGBTQQ youth, and technical assistance. Focus groups We conducted 4 focus groups with English learner and LGBTQQ youth, centered on the role and with youth effectiveness of DCYF programs in helping to support newcomer and LGBTQQ youth.

Overview of the Report The report is structured as follows:

 Programs: Provides an overview of Teen programs, including size, location, and strategies.  Participants: Summarizes characteristics and hours of service of Teen participants.  Performance and Quality: Summarizes programs’ progress towards performance measures and explores variation in performance and quality by program and participant characteristics.  Outcomes: Explores the extent to which participants report intermediate and long-term outcomes.

Prepared by Social Policy Research Associates | 1 PROGRAMS

We wanted to create a space so that if young people feel they need to spend more time on healthy relationships, immigration, or legal resources, that they had that opportunity… It provides them with a conduit to establish relationships with one another and create a community of support in the school and outside of the school. -Program Manager, Latinas Unidas

During FY2013-2014, DCYF invested over $7 million to support Teen programs located throughout San Francisco. While all Teen programs shared a focus promoting young people’s life and leadership skills, programs varied along many dimensions, including their size, target population, and approaches to youth development. The 75 Teen programs summarized in this report fall under two main funding streams:2

 Specialized Teen programs help young people navigate their way through adolescence and young adulthood. These diverse programs offer experiences that help youth acquire skills to promote their success in high school, college, the labor market, and life. Specialized Teen includes programs under four strategies:  General Teen programs are designed to teach critical thinking skills, foster confidence, and develop social, emotional, and physical competencies across a broad range of areas (58 programs).  English Learner Leadership (ELL) programs focus on increasing academic success and English fluency while supporting leadership development of newcomer students at SFUSD high schools (2 programs).  LGBTQQ Leadership and Allyship (LGBTQQ)programs aim to create safer and more supportive environments to promote acceptance of LBTQQ youth at middle schools (4 programs).  Summer Transitions (Summer-Trans) program is designed to support rising 9th and 10th graders’ success in school and re-engage their interest in learning through workshops, coaching, and other activities that complement SFUSD summer school sessions (1 program).  Youth Empowerment Fund (YEF) programs support youth-led projects and programs that train youth in community organizing, engage youth in meaningful community change, and provide youth with leadership roles. YEF includes the following strategies:  Youth-led Organizing (YLOrg) programs provide opportunities for youth to engage in and lead community change efforts (8 programs).  Youth-led Philanthropy (YLPhil) programs engage youth in making grants, which in turn support youth-led projects across San Francisco (2 programs). During FY2013-2014, general Teen programs made up the majority of the grantees (77%), followed by Youth-led Organizing programs (11%). With the new LGBTQQ and ELL strategies and the inclusion of the Summer Transition program, the number of Teen programs included in the Annual Report increased from 62 to 75, a 21% increase from FY2012-2013.3

2 A full list of programs is included in the appendix. 3 DCYF funded 68 Teen programs for 2010-2013 cycle but only 62 were included in Annual Reports. During the three-year period, two program consolidated into one agency and one program closed. At DCYF’s request, four programs were excluded from the evaluation reports.

2 |Prepared by Social Policy Research Associates Exhibit 2 illustrates key characteristics of Teen programs including their locations, DCYF funding, and program budget.

Exhibit 2: Overview of Teen Programs in FY2013-2014

Prepared by Social Policy Research Associates | 3 Location Teen programs were located throughout San Francisco, stretching from Potrero Hill in the east to the Richmond in the west and from North Beach in the north to Bayview in the south. During FY2013-2014, the greatest concentration of program sites was in the southern part of San Francisco in Ingleside/ Excelsior and Bayview (14% and 13%), followed by the Mission (17%). Compared to previous years, this represents an increase in the percentage of program sites located in the neighborhoods where the majority of Teen participants live.4 YEF programs tended to cluster near Downtown and in the Mission while Specialized Teen programs were spread throughout the city.

DCYF Funding In FY2013-2014, DCYF invested $7,219,317 in Teen programs, representing a 23% increase from the previous year.5 On average, programs received $96,258, with grants ranging from under $10,000 (Girl Ventures, a general Teen program) to nearly $250,000 (Youth Commission & Youth Empowerment Fund Support, a YLOrg program).6 Mirroring the number of programs funded, general Teen programs accounted for the largest proportion of funding (69%), followed by YLOrg programs (10%). The two new strategies, ELL and LGBTQQ, made up 10% of Teen funding.

DCYF funding continues to provide critical support for many Teen programs. About a quarter of programs (27%) relied exclusively on DCYF funding, and more than 75% received half or more than half of their program funding from DCYF. Smaller programs with budgets below $100,000 relied more on DCYF funding than larger programs with budgets of $300,000 or more, reflecting the important role DCYF plays in maintaining a diverse ecosystem of youth programs San Francisco.

Program Size and Staffing Teen programs supported by DCYF tend to be small, with annual budgets of just over $200,000. Key findings related to program size and staffing include:

 Although the number of large programs doubled from FY2012- Community 2013, most Teen programs had small budgets. Programs ranged in organizations are very size from $41,000 to $1.7 million, but nearly half of the programs small in terms of (44%) operated on annual budgets of less than $100,000. From capacity but for FY2012-2013 to FY2013-2014, the percentage of large programs “capability we bring nearly doubled—from 10% to 19%—yet only a fifth of Teen something very unique. programs had annual budgets over $300,000. YEF programs had smaller average budgets than Teen programs by nearly $100,000. – Program Staff, LYRIC  The size of the sponsoring agencies for Teen programs varied dramatically. Sponsoring agency budgets ranged from $135,000 to nearly $100 million, with an average of $6.8 million. This wide variation meant that programs of similar size had considerably different levels of agency support. For example, Youth in Government, with an annual budget of $60,000, was housed within the YMCA of San Francisco (over $65 million) while the Youth Theater Program, with an annual budget of $47,000 was sponsored by the San Francisco Mime Troupe ($300,000).

4 In FY2012-2013, 34% of program sites were located in Ingleside/Excelsior, Bayview, and the Mission. In FY2013-2014, 44% of program sites were located in these neighborhoods. 5 In FY2012-2013, the 62 Teen programs included in the evaluation reports received $5,865,494 in funding from DCYF. 6 The largest single grant went to Summer Transitions ($507,500), which serves multiple sites in San Francisco.

4 |Prepared by Social Policy Research Associates  Program staffing and youth-to-staff ratios did not closely mirror program budget. Programs ranged from 1 to 23.5 full-time equivalents (FTEs) with an average of 4.4. The fact that program budget was not correlated7 with number of staff and only moderately correlated with youth-to- staff ratios suggests some programs may rely on their sponsoring agencies to provide staffing support. YEF programs were particularly small in their number of FTEs compared to Specialized Teen programs (1.9 versus 4.8 FTE), reflecting that many Youth-led Organizing and Youth-led Philanthropy activities are youth-led, potentially skewing the number of staff at YEF programs. Further, a sizable percentage of DCYF funding provided to youth-led philanthropy programs is redistributed in the form of grants rather than used to pay for staff positions. YEF programs had fewer FTEs and also served fewer students and had a lower youth-to-staff ratio than Specialized Teen programs (16:1 versus 25:1).  On average, Teen programs were led by experienced directors. Across funding streams and programs of different sizes, the average years of tenure as program director was consistently between 9 and 12 years. While there was a group of program directors with less than five years of experience (21%), there was also a group of programs led by seasoned directors with more than 20 years at their programs (25%). Only three programs had directors with less than one year of experience.

Group Activities and Services Teen programs offered a wide range of types of activities to participants in during FY2013-2014. These activities fell within five major service areas: academics; civic engagement and youth leadership; arts and culture; life skills training; and business and entrepreneurship.8

 Academics made up the most services hours delivered. Types of academic services included tutoring, home-work help, college tours, financial aid education, and focused academic support in content areas such as science, math, and English as a second language. Academic services tended to focus specifically on providing support to high-risk low-performing students and included a focus on special populations, such as hearing impaired youth, children of incarcerated parents, and newcomer youth. Although comprising the most service hours overall, academics was only offered in a third of the programs, suggesting that programs offering academic services provide a high level of services to their participants. All of the hours provided by Summer-Transition fell into academics, making up 11% of all hours of academic services received.  Civic engagement and youth leadership activities were offered at the most programs. Two- thirds of programs offered participants services in this area, reflecting the strong value that DCYF places on youth leadership within its Teen programs. Programs promoted youth leadership by engaging youth in decision-making, program evaluation, and public speaking as well as by encouraging them to express their voices and perspectives on issues that they care about through art or other media. Civic engagement activities included community organizing, campaigning, fundraising, and community service. Services in this category were less intensive

7 The correlation between program budget and number of FTE was not significant while the correlation between program budget and youth-to-staff ratio was significant (r = 0.27) but not large. The youth-to-staff ratio was calculated by dividing the number of youth who received at least 1 hour of program services by the number of FTE reported in the program survey. 8 Youth received services in 10 service categories in FY2013-2014, which we combined in to 5 service areas for the report. Academics consisted of minutes recorded for Academic Support and Academically‐Linked Activities (ACA) and Educational Guidance/Post‐secondary Planning (EDG). Civic engagement and youth leadership included minutes of Civic Engagement and Community Organizing (CEO), Community Service/Service Learning (CSL), Culture, Identity, and Diversity (CID), Grantmaking (GRM), and Youth Leadership Development (YOU). The remaining three service areas mapped to one category from the CMS.

Prepared by Social Policy Research Associates | 5 6

5

Exhibit 3: Teen Service Areas by Percent of than academics but were offered by more Total Services Hours Delivered Teen programs, including all YEF programs. Excluding YEF programs, civic engagement Academics: and youth leadership activities were offered4 Covers academic support (remediation, tutoring, homework assistance, project‐ based learning) as well as education and at 62% of Specialized Teen programs 41% post-secondary guidance (college tours, (including all ELL and LGBTQQ programs) application assistance and counseling, goal and made up 29% of service hours, setting, completing education plans). reflecting the strong commitment of Teen Offered by 32% of programs. programs to providing youth with 3 opportunities in this area. Civic Engagement/Youth Leadership: Includes community organizing, culture,  Arts and culture services were the primary 32% identity and diversity, community service, focus at nearly 20% percent of programs.9 grant-making, and youth leadership development. Offered by 67% of programs Arts and culture services focused on 2 promoting self-expression, self-reflection,

and self-confidence. These services included Arts and Culture: a strong focus on visual and digital art as 15% Includes music, dance, drama/theater, poetry, digital media, arts, photography, and cultural well as diverse activities such as acting, activities. Offered by 28% of programs. script writing, film making, music 1 Life Skills Training: production, and dance. Programs focused Develops self-suffciency, independence, 7% on arts and culture often recruited specific communication skills., and financial literacy. populations, and services included an Offered by 20% of programs. Business and Entrepeneurship: exploration of the history of particular 5% Focuses on basic economics andhow to create, identity groups and civil rights and social launch, and operate a new business. Offered by 0 4% of programs. justice issues. Nearly a third (28%) of programs offered arts and culture activities to participants.  Life skills training and business and entrepreneurship made up the smallest percentage of hours delivered. Lastly, 12% of services fell into the area of life skills or business and entrepreneurship. Life skills training, which constituted 7% of services, included a focus on financial literacy, healthy living and body image, healthy relationships, conflict mediation, resource access, and job readiness. Life skills was the primary activity for 8% of programs and a secondary activity for 12% of programs. Business and entrepreneurship services, 5% of total services, included internships in health careers, culinary arts, training in job skills, training for the development of youth-led businesses, and presentations by speakers from local businesses. Some youth in business and entrepreneurship focused programs earned a stipend for their time. Only 3% of programs offered business and entrepreneurship as their primary activity. Although business and entrepreneurship services were formally offered only at Teen programs, many YEF programs also provided stipends and promoted job skill development among youth leaders engaged in organizing or .

9 In 14 of the 75 programs, arts and culture made up more than 50% of program services. In 13 of these 14 programs, arts and culture made up 95% or more of program services.

6 |Prepared by Social Policy Research Associates PARTICIPANTS

There’s something inside each of these young people—a fire in the belly—that drives them to do truly amazing things, and this makes the return on investment more than worth it -College Track (website)

During FY2013-2014, 6,312 youth participated in the Teen programs summarized in this Annual Report, representing an 38% increase from FY2012-2013.10 General Teen programs served the most participants (85%), followed by ELL (5%) and Youth-led Organizing (4%) programs. Combined, the new strategies of ELL and LGBTQQ served just over 7% of participants (5% and 2% respectively). This section describes the characteristics of participants in Teen programs and the hours of services they received in different areas.

Youth Characteristics Broadly speaking, Teen programs target youth aged 13 to 17 in San Francisco. Within this age group, specific Teen strategies have a more focused target population including newcomer students at SFUSD high schools (ELL), middle school students (LGBTQQ), and rising 9th and 10th graders who are struggling academically and enrolled in summer school (Summer Transitions). During FY2013-2014, Teen programs served youth from all neighborhoods in San Francisco, with many youth coming from the southern neighborhoods of Bayview (17%), Ingleside-Excelsior (15%), and Visitacion Valley (8%) and from the Mission (10%). Following are trends in participant characteristics, illustrated in Exhibit 4.

 Teen programs continued to be successful in reaching ethnically diverse youth. The majority of Teen participants were youth of color, split We try not to be between Asian/Pacific Islander (30%), Hispanic/Latino (27%), and African exclusive. To American (24%). At YEF programs, Asian/Pacific Islanders and Hispanic/Latino me, it’s all youth made up an even larger percentage (44% and 40%), reflecting, in part,“ about building the ethnic-specific focus of some YEF programs (e.g., 67 Suenos) or their power in the sponsoring agencies (e.g., Chinatown Community Development Center). White community. youth made up 7% of participants, an increase from 4% in FY2012-2013. -Program Staff, Compared to SFUSD, DCYF programs served a lower percentage of 67 Suenos Asian/Pacific Islanders and a higher percentage of African American youth.11

 Although the majority of youth served by Teen programs fell into the target age range, some programs served younger and older We can only offer youth. Across all programs, 80% of participants were in the target opportunities to youth age range: older than 13 and younger 18, with an average age of from 14 to 18. We have 15.7. Given the focus on middle schools, it is not surprising that “many youth who age out LGBTQQ programs served younger participants, averaging 12.7 years at 18 who are looking for a old. In contrast, YEF programs tended to serve older participants, job, who are looking to with 16% of participants aged 18 or older and an average age of stay connected to the 16.6. Across all programs, approximately 9% of participants were 18 community, and we do our or older. Also of note, from FY2012-2013 to FY2012014, the best to work with them. percentage of out-of-school youth decreased from 11% to 5%. -Program Staff, LYRIC

10 In FY2012-2013, 4,577 youth received one or more hours of service and were included in the Annual Report. Youth from four DCYF-funded programs were excluded from the FY2012-2013 report, so this increase reflects the shifts in youth served by programs in the Annual Report, not in all youth served by DCYF-funded Teen programs. 11 In FY2013-2014, the SFUSD student population for grades 7 through 12 was 11% African American, 48% Asian/Pacific Islander, 26% Latino/Hispanic, 10% White, and 6% Other (DataQuest extract, n = 26,353).

Prepared by Social Policy Research Associates | 7 Exhibit 4: Overview of Teen Participants in FY2013-2014

8 |Prepared by Social Policy Research Associates

 There was a considerable increase in the number of I have issues with English, and newly English Learners served in FY2013-2014. Although the arrived people are scared. We go percentage of youth identified as English learners only outside and don’t know what others increased 5% from FY2012-2013, the number of English are saying. We worry about getting learners who participated in DCYF programs nearly “ lost and don’t know how to get to 12 doubled. The two programs in the new ELL strategy— places. We also worry about being CYC Newcomer Club and Latinas Unidas—served 20% of bullied and being taken advantage of. the English learners who received services from Teen After participating in [Newcomer programs. Other programs that served mostly English Club], we have more confidence. learners included Families In Transition Program (92%), Tel-Hi's Teen Learner's Pathway (91%), and ACCC Youth -Teen participant, Empowerment Program (67%). CYC Newcomer Club  Cantonese and Spanish were the most common home language after English. Consistent with the language focus of programs in the ELL strategy, Cantonese and Spanish were the most common reported home languages. Less than half (41%) of youth participants spoke English as their home language. Because home language was missing for nearly a third of youth (27%), however, these home language findings should be interpreted with care.

Services Received A key goal of the Annual Report is to understand the types of services youth access at Teen programs. As shown in Exhibit 5, youth received services that fell into five areas in FY2013-2014. On average, youth received the most hours in academics, followed by civic engagement and youth leadership and arts and culture. Youth received the fewest hours in life skills training and business/entrepreneurship.

Even more so than last year, there was a dramatic increase in the hours of service youth received at Teen programs. In FY2013-2014, youth received an average of 94 hours, up 10% from 85 hours in FY2012-2013.Not only did the average hours of service increase in FY2013-2014, but the median hours of service increased by 50%, from 36 to 55 hours, reflecting a more even distribution of services across participants in programs. Finally, the percentage of youth who received 80 or more hours of service also increased, from 31% to 39%. Taken together, these notable and consistent increases reflect the continued progress of Teen programs towards providing more intensive levels of service to the youth who participate in their programs.

Key findings in services received by youth and program characteristics include the following:

 There was considerable variation in hours of service by strategy but not by funding stream. Given the intensity of summer school-related programming, it is not surprising that youth in the Summer Transitions program received the most hours on average (160), all in academics. Youth in the two newest funding strategies received the fewest hours, considerably below the overall average: 28 hours in LGBTQQ programs and 52 hours in ELL programs. Lower hours of service, particularly at the LGBTQQ programs, could be attributable to the newness of both the funding strategy and the programs, three of which are new to DCYF funding. At the funding stream level, there was no significant difference in the average hours received by participants in Specialized Teen versus YEF programs (93 versus 97 hours).

12 The number of youth categorized as somewhat fluent or not fluent nearly doubled, from 798 to 1399. Because the total number of youth served also increased, the percentage of English learners only shifted from 17% to 22%.

Prepared by Social Policy Research Associates | 9

Exhibit 5: Average Hours of Service Received in FY2013-2014

 Female participants received significantly more hours of service than male participants. Building on developing trends in FY2012-2013, female participants received more hours of service than their male counter parts (100 versus 88 hours). Over the past three years, represents a shift from male participants receiving more services to female participants receiving more services.13  African American youth participated at the highest levels overall and in several areas. Continuing trends from previous years, African American youth continued to receive the most hours of service overall (114) as well as in academics (45), art and culture (26), and business and entrepreneurship (17). Asian/Pacific Islanders received the most hours in civic engagement and youth leadership (35), possibly through their participation in YEF programs sponsored by ethnic- specific agencies (e.g., Common Roots: Youth Organizing Program at the Chinese Progressive Association and Youth Organizing Home and Neighborhood Action at the Filipino-American Development Foundation). White participants, who made up the smallest percentage of participants by ethnicity, received the fewest hours of service (71).  Hours of service varied by age with youth in the target age range receiving the most hours. Youth aged 13 to 17 received significantly more hours of service than older or younger youth (98

13 In FY2011-2012, although not statistically significant, males participants received 69 hours of service, compared to 64 hours for female participants. In FY2012-2013, females received 87 hours compared to 84 for males, also not significant. FY2013-2014 was the first year in which there were significant differences in hours of service by gender.

10 |Prepared by Social Policy Research Associates versus 74 hours), reflecting the success of Teen programs in providing intensive services to their target population. Total hours of service peaked for 14-year olds and declined with age, reflecting trends for academic service hours. Participation in civic engagement and youth leadership, however, ran counter to this trend with hours of service increasing with age and peaking and surpassing hours of academic services at age 17.  Youth in smaller programs received, on average, more intensive services than youth in larger programs. Youth in programs with annual budgets of less than $100,000 received significantly more hours of service than youth in larger programs, both in terms of total hours (134 versus 83 hours) and in all service areas except academics. Youth in larger programs received half of their services in academics (43 hours).14 Although not as dramatic a difference, participants in programs that served fewer than 50 youth received more hours of service than youth in programs that served more youth (104 versus 91 hours). Youth in programs with fewer participants received considerably more hours in arts and culture and civic engagement and youth leadership. Taken together, these findings suggest that programs with smaller budgets serve a smaller number of youth but provide those youth with a more intensive level of service while larger programs serve more youth and may provide a broader range of activities, including lighter touch services.

PERFORMANCE AND QUALITY

[An important part] is building agency around their own narrative, which turns into a social power rather than a social shame. Community-wise one of the goals is that it’s really important to have these [youth] voices to speak not only about their narrative but broader patterns and broader issues. -Program Staff, 67 Suenos

The DCYF performance measures and youth survey are important feedback mechanisms for DCYF staff and Teen programs. Each year, Teen programs receive reports summarizing program performance and youth satisfaction compared to other programs in their funding strategy. This section summarizes progress towards meeting performance measures and summarizes findings related to program quality, including trends by program and youth characteristics.

During FY2013-2014, 2,28615 surveys were submitted by youth participants in Teen programs, representing just over a third of all Teen participants who received at least an hour of services (36%). As in previous years,16 the relatively low response rate for the youth survey limits the quality and comprehensiveness of the data. While the youth who completed the survey were similar to all Teen participants in some ways, they also differed in several important ways.17 For example, average age was

14 This finding may be skewed by the Summer Transition program, which provides very intensive academic services to a large number of participants. 15 Of the 75 programs included in this report, 65 programs submitted youth surveys. The number of youth surveys per program ranged from 3 to 189 with an average of 35. 16 Although still relatively low, the survey response rate for youth in Teen programs has continued to increase over the past few years. In FY2012-2013, 1,410 youth submitted surveys, representing approximately 31% of youth who received an hour of service. In FY2011-2012, 1,489 youth submitted surveys, representing roughly 23% of participants. 17 To check the representativeness of the youth survey data for all Teen participants, we examined ethnicity, gender, English fluency, and average age. For the 70% of surveys that were matched to the CMS, we also explored variation in dosage across youth who completed a survey and those who did not.

Prepared by Social Policy Research Associates | 11 very similar, but African American participants were underrepresented and Asian/Pacific Islander youth were overrepresented among survey respondents. Perhaps more importantly, dosage varied considerably: Youth who completed a survey received, on average, twice as many hours as youth who did not: 156 compared to 72 hours. Given their higher levels of participation in Teen programs , youth who completed a survey may have had a more positive view of program quality and more opportunities to take on leadership roles in programs than youth who did not complete a survey.

Because the youth survey serves as the basis for three of five performance measures and is the most consistent source for understanding program quality, it is critical that DCYF continue to support programs in improving their youth survey data collection. Continued support to programs will help ensure response rates continue to rise in coming years and improve the representativeness of the youth survey data for all youth who participate in Teen programs.

Program Performance There are six DCYF performance measures, five of which apply to all Teen programs and one of which applies to Youth Empowerment Fund programs only. Four of the measures draw on the youth survey data to assess participants’ perceptions of their learning, engagement, and involvement in the program. The remaining two measures draw on the CMS data to assess the number of hours of service core youth receive and the percentage of core youth who complete a survey, a new performance measure for the FY2013-2016 funding cycle.

For the FY2013-2016 funding cycle, DCYF introduced the formal distinction between core and non-core participants in the CMS, with important implications for program performance. Also in FY2013-2014, DCYF set and entered the projected number of core youth to be served based on the grant award as contrasted with previous years when programs set and entered their own projections. Projected core participants represent the number of youth programs aim to provide with 80 hours or more of service while non-core participants represent additional youth the program intends to serve but does not expect to receive 80 hours of service. During FY2013-2014, programs varied considerably in their projections for core and non-core participants, reflecting the diverse approach of programs to providing services: 30% of programs projected to serve only core participants, 15% projected to serve fewer non- core than core participants, 11% projected to serve the same numbers of core and non-core, and 43% projected to serve more non-core than core participants, ranging all the way up 68 times the number of core participants. Programs are not instructed to report non-core participants participation in activities in CMS.

Following are key findings on the performance of Teen programs in FY2013-2014, illustrated in Exhibit 6.

 Program performance improved in most areas. Compared to FY2012-2013, a greater percentage of programs supported youth in learning new things (92% versus 88%), providing leadership opportunities (65% versus 53%), and providing 80 hours of service to projected core participants (59% versus 24%). Greater success in providing intensive services to projected core participants is likely due to both overall increases in the intensity of services provided to all participants (as described in the previous section) as well as to improved clarity and consistency in the CMS and communications around program expectations. On-going guidance around core and non-core participants from DCYF and improvements to the CMS likely contributed to programs’ improved ability to meet the performance measure related to providing 80 hours of service.

12 |Prepared by Social Policy Research Associates Exhibit 6: Percent of Programs Meeting Performance Measures: Overall and By Funding Stream

 Programs were most successful in (1) supporting youth in learning new things and (2) collecting surveys from core participants. As in previous years, programs continued to be most successful in teaching youth something new that they wanted to know about. Over 90% of programs met this standard, including all YEF programs. Nearly 75% of programs also met the goal of collecting DCYF surveys from 65% of their projected core youth, reflecting the increased capacity of programs to collect surveys as well as improved ability to estimate the core number of youth they plan to serve. Over the past three years, DCYF has invested considerable time and effort in supporting survey data collection at programs, and the percentage of all youth—core or non-core—who complete surveys has continued to increase.  Programs were most challenged in meeting the goals for enhancing enjoyment in learning. Youth in just over half or programs (57%) reported enhanced enjoyment and engagement in learning as a result of the program, a decrease of over 20% from FY2012-2013. Given the increase in the performance target from 60% of youth to 75% of youth, the decrease in overall performance is not surprising as programs adjust to DCYF’s greater expectations around youth engagement in learning. Had the benchmark remained the same as previous years, 89% of programs would have met the performance target.  No clear trends in performance emerged by funding stream or strategy. Although more YEF programs meet the goals for all performance measures than Teen programs, these differences were not statistically significant. Programs in newer strategies like ELL and LGBTQQ were less likely to meet performance goals than other Teen strategies although the variation was not significant and returning Teen programs, as a whole, were not more likely to meet performance goals than new programs.  Although suggestive of trends, most differences in performance by measures of program size were not statistically significant. Programs with budgets under $100,000 were more successful in providing greater hours of services to core participants than larger programs, but this difference was not statistically significant. From an enrollment perspective, programs that served fewer students were more successful in enhancing youth engagement and enjoyment in learning. Almost 70% of programs that served fewer than 50 participants met this performance goal while only 41% of programs that served 50 or more participants met this standard. Conversely, however, programs that served more participants were more successful in providing 80 hours of service to projected core participants (77% versus 47%). This could be due, in part, to better ability on the part of large programs to accurately project core participants rather than provide more intensive services. As described in the previous section, smaller programs provided more intensive services, on average, to their participants than larger programs. Finally, programs with more

Prepared by Social Policy Research Associates | 13 than 2.5 FTE were more successful at providing 80 hours of service to projected core participants (almost significant).

Quality I’ve never been excluded from anything. I’ve never felt weird or outcast. I don’t really see any discrimination against people. I’ve actually had instances where they tell us to create a box if what we identify as isn’t included in the form and tell them they should think about adding that to the form. It’s very welcoming. -Focus Group Participant, Project WHAT! DCYF draws on multiple data sources to assess program quality, including the CMS data, structured observations by program officers, and the annual youth surveys. Both the structured observation tool and the youth surveys are aligned to five dimensions of program quality that DCYF has identified as important for ensuring high quality youth workforce development programs. These dimensions are: 1) program environment and safety; 2) youth development (consisting of engagement, interaction, and supportive environments); 3) promoting diversity, access, equity, and inclusion; 4) intentional skill building; and 5) linkages to the school day. Because structured observations do not occur every year or at all programs, the youth survey is the most consistent data source for examining trends in program quality over time.

The youth survey is completed by Teen participants at the end of each program cycle. The survey consists of 33 ratings questions, program activities questions, basic demographic questions, and space for youth to provide feedback on how to improve the program. The ratings questions, which map to DCYF’s dimensions of program quality, are on five-point scale, ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5).

Building on Exhibit 7, following are key findings related to quality and the relationship between quality, youth characteristics, and program characteristics:

 On average, youth continued to have a positive view of program quality across all dimensions. As in previous years, youth rated all dimensions of program quality above a 4.0 except for linkages to the school day (3.89). Youth in Youth Empowerment programs rated all aspects of program quality higher than youth in Specialized Teen programs with the exception of linkages to the school day. On average, youth in the newer strategies—LGBTQQ, ELL, and Summer- Transitions—rated program quality lower than youth in other Specialized Teen programs.  Programs continued to provide youth with safe spaces. Consistent with FY2012-2013 results, youth rated program environment and safety the highest, reflecting the success of Teen programs in providing youth with emotional and physical safety.  Female participants experienced programs as higher quality than male participants in almost all areas. In a shift from previous years, female participants rated program quality significantly higher than their male counterparts for supportive environment, engagement, diversity, program safety, and skill-building. Higher quality ratings could be due to participation in more intensive services or the type of program female participants join. A deeper exploration of the kinds of programs females participated in during FY2013-2014 might yield further insight into the higher ratings they provided for program quality.

14 |Prepared by Social Policy Research Associates Exhibit 7: Program Quality Based on Youth Surveys (n = 2,286)

Program Environment/Safety 4.34 Youth feel respected by other participants and program 4.34 programstaff andand stafffeel feel they theyand are arefeel safesafe they and andare treatedsafetreated and fairly fairly treated in in the the 4.33 fairlyprogram. in the program. 4.47

InteractionDiversity, Access, Equity 4.15 4.154.2 Youth enjoyfeel programprogram coming staff tostaff the understand understand program and their their feel familiies' familiies' 4.15 theyculture have and opportunities that they can to share lead aspectsactivities of and their culture toand improve background their ability with program to work with staff others. and their peers. 4.14 4.40 Youth Development: Supportive Environment 4.11 4.11 Youth dofeel things there thatare adultsinterest in them the programand make that them care 4.11 thinkabout. Youththem, knowalso learn when how they to are get upset, the help and they believe that 4.09 need,they will manage succeed. their time, and set goals. 4.33 Youth Development: SupportiveInteraction Environment 4.14.09 4.14.09 All Youth feelenjoy there coming are adultsto the programin the program and feel that they care 4.09 abouthave opportunities them, know when to lead they activities are upset, and and to improve believe thattheir they ability will to succeed. work with others. 4.06 All 4.39 Specialized Teen Youth Development: Engagement 4.08 YEF 4.08 Youth are asked their opinion, have opportunities to 4.08 talk about what they are learning, and make choices 4.06 about what they do. Youth also have opportunities to identify, understand, and address problems in their 4.40 community.

EngagementIntentional Skill Building 4.03 4.034.0 Youth do things that interest them and make them think. 4.03 Youth also learn how to get the help they need, manage their time, and set goals. 4.02 4.19

Diversity,Linkages toAccess, the School Equity Day 3.89 Youth feelare more program interested staff understand inin theirtheir education education their familiies' and and 3.89 cultureconfident and in that their they school can work. share Program aspects staffof their check in 3.88 cultureinwith with youth youth and and background and their their parents parents with and program and teachers teachers staff about and about school. theirschool. peers. 3.94

Overall Youth Satisfaction 4.07 4.07 4.07 4.05 4.26

Strongly1.00 Disagree2.00 Neutral3.00 Agree4.00 Strongly5.00 Disagree Agree

Prepared by Social Policy Research Associates | 15  Consistent with previous years, older youth experienced Teen programs more positively than younger youth. Youth older than 16 rated program quality higher for all dimensions than younger participants. Youth aged 14 provided the lowest ratings in almost all categories and were the only youth to rate program quality, on average, below a 4.0. Youth aged 18 and above provided the highest ratings for program quality, perhaps reflecting their level of choice in participating in or not participating in Teen programs.  Overall, African American and Latino/Hispanic youth rated programs the highest while White youth provided the lowest ratings. African American youth rated programs most favorably for supportive environments, skill-building, and linkages to the school-day while Asian/Pacific Islander youth provided the highest ratings for engagement and interaction and Latino/Hispanic youth rated diversity highest. In contrast, White youth provided the lowest ratings in all categories except diversity and safety, which were rated lowest by African American youth.  Youth who received 80 hours or more of services rated quality significantly higher than you who received fewer hours of service. Youth who received the DCYF goal of 80 hours of service or more rated program quality higher for all areas except safety. Differences were particularly large for supportive environments, reflecting the strong relationships youth are able to build with adults through intensive participation in programs.  Smaller programs were perceived as higher quality programs by youth participants. Youth in programs with annual budgets of less than $100,000 rated their programs significantly higher in all areas except safety than youth in programs with budgets of $100,000 or more. Dimensions of youth development, including supportive environments, interaction, and engagement, along with linkages to the school day showed the greatest difference, indicating that youth may find smaller programs more engaging and supportive with greater opportunities for interaction and leadership. Similarly, programs that served fewer than 50 youth were rated higher for all dimensions of program quality, including safety. Finally, along similar lines, youth in programs with 2.5 or fewer FTE as well as youth in programs with youth-to-staff ratios below 10: 1 rated program quality significantly higher than youth in larger programs.

OUTCOMES

Our programs focus on building core academic skills so that students who might not see college as an option complete high school and access post-secondary opportunities. -100% College Prep Institute, Bayview Association For Youth (website)

DCYF’s vision is that its Teen programs help enable the youth of San Francisco to reach their educational, career, and personal life goals. This section summarizes the progress of Teen programs towards intermediate and long-term outcomes, including readiness to learn and succeeding in school.18 For this report, progress towards these outcomes is measured using youth survey data. The same limitations apply to findings presented here as to findings in the previous section on program quality and performance, including the relatively low response rate, the timing of the administration, and differences between the sample of youth who completed the surveys and all youth who participated in DCYF Teen programs. Despite these drawbacks, the youth survey provides an important and consistent youth perspective on the extent to which programs are exhibiting progress towards the stated intermediate and long-term outcomes for DCYF-funded programs.

18 This report assess readiness to learn and not success in school, based on guidance from DCYF. 16 |Prepared by Social Policy Research Associates Intermediate Outcomes To serve as tangible indicators of progress towards long-term outcomes, DCYF has focused on four intermediate outcomes:

1) Participants demonstrate motivation and readiness to learn; 2) Participants develop knowledge and skills to promote their own emotional and mental health; 3) Participants are confident in applying critical thinking and problem solving skills; and 4) Youth have knowledge, skills, and opportunities to make progress toward reaching educational and career goals. During FY2013-2014, programs continued to show strong progress towards DCYF’s intermediate outcomes, illustrated in Exhibit 8. For all questions related to intermediate outcomes, youth agreement ranged from 60% and 84%, with overall slight decreases in progress toward intermediate outcomes compared to FY2012-2013.19 Similar to FY2012-2013, programs scored highest for participants developing the knowledge and skills to promote their own emotional and mental health (Intermediate Outcome #2), particularly participants’ ability to work with others. Following are other key findings for intermediate outcomes, many of which mirror trends in perceived program quality by youth and program characteristics:  YEF programs continued to show greater progress toward all outcomes. Building on trends in FY2012-2013, youth in YEF programs reported experiencing significantly higher outcomes in all outcome areas. In particular, youth in the Youth-led Philanthropy programs reported the highest outcomes, exceeding 90% for three of four outcomes. Consistent with findings in the previous section, youth in the newer programs—LGBTQQ, ELL, and Summer-Transitions—provided the lowest ratings for outcome areas, ranging from 65% to 69%.  Older youth and female participants reported higher intermediate outcomes than their counterparts. Consistent with quality ratings, youth older than 16 reported significantly higher outcomes than youth aged 16 and younger for all areas. The difference was largest confidence in applying critical thinking and problem solving skills (Intermediate Outcome #3). Female participants also reported higher outcomes than male participants for all intermediate outcomes by 3% to 4%.  Trends by ethnicity were not statistically significant. Multiracial and other20 youth consistently rated all four outcome areas the lowest, but there was variation in the ethnic backgrounds of youth who provided the highest ratings. In a shift from the previous year, outcomes reported by White youth were among the highest, along with Asian/Pacific Islander and Hispanic/Latino youth. None of the differences by ethnicity, however, were statistically significant.21

19 For the four outcome areas, differences between FY2012-2013 and FY2013-2014 ranged from 1% to 3%. Although small, these difference were statistically significant except for Outcome #3: Participants are confident in applying critical thinking and problem solving skills. 20 The other category includes: Other, Missing, Declined to state, Native Alaskan, Middle Eastern. 21 Asian/Pacific Islanders made up the largest group (38%, 871 surveys), followed by Hispanic/Latino (22%, 508 surveys), African American youth (14%, 331 surveys), multiracial youth (13%, 306 surveys), other (8%, 181 surveys), and White youth (4%, 89 surveys). Other included: Native Alaskan/American, Middle Eastern, other ethnicities, declined to state, and youth who did not indicate an ethnicity.

Prepared by Social Policy Research Associates | 17 Exhibit 8: Progress toward Intermediate Outcomes22 (n = 2,286)

out1 Intermediate Outcome 1: Students demonstrate motivation and readiness to learn 74% out1

In this program, I learned a new skill that I am excited about. dq15 79% In this program, I learned new information about a topic that interests me. dq33a 77% This program makes learning fun. dq16 76% Things I learn in this program make me want to learn more. dq18 74% This program helps me feel more confident about my school work. dq11 69% I am more interested in my education because of this program. dq17 66%

out2 Intermediate Outcome 2: Participants develop knowledge and skills to promote their own 81% emotional and mental health out2

At this program, I improved my ability to work with others. dq24 85%

I feel comfortable asking for help from someone in this program. dq19 79% I am comfortable sharing my cultural background or other aspects of my identitydq25 with the people in this program. 79%

out3 Intermediate Outcome 3: Participants are confident in applying critical thinking and 74% problem solving skills out3

I get the opportunity to talk about what I’m learning at this program. dq7 81% In this program, I do things that really make me think. dq8 79% At this program, I make choices about what I will do when I am here. dq12 78% I have been asked for my opinion about how to make this program better. dq10 76% At this program, I learned how to identify and understand problems affectingdq20 my community. 73%

This program taught me how I can make improvements to my community. dq21 71% I am asked to help lead activities at this program. dq13 60%

out4 Intermediate Outcome 4: Participants have knowledge, skills, and opportunities to make 75% progress toward reaching educational and career goals out4

At this program, I improved my ability to work with others. dq19 79%

In this program, I learned new information about a topic that interests me. dq15 79% In this program, I learned a new skill that I am excited about. dq33a 77% Because of this program, I have a better understanding of what I would like dodq31 for a career. 64%

22 Scores for each individual question were calculated as the percentage of youth who agreed or strongly agreed with the statement. Scores for the overall intermediate outcomes were calculated as the number of questions mapped to the outcome that respondents agreed to, divided by the number of questions rated.

18 |Prepared by Social Policy Research Associates  Youth who received 80 hours or more of service reported higher intermediate outcomes. There were significant differences in reported outcomes for youth who received the DCYF goal of 80 hours of service compared to youth who received fewer hours. This finding, however, should be interpreted with care for two reasons: 1) the matched sample represented only 25% of all Teen participants; and 2) 70% of the surveys that were matched came from youth who received 80 hours or more of service.23  Similar to program quality, youth in smaller programs reported higher outcomes than youth in larger programs. Regardless of the measure of program size—annual budget, enrollment, or number of FTE—youth in smaller programs consistently reported higher outcomes than youth in larger programs. On average, youth in programs with annual budgets below $100,000, enrollments below 50, and 2.5 or fewer staff all reported higher outcomes than their peers in larger programs.

Long-term Outcome: Readiness to Learn In order for youth to succeed in school, they must first be ready to learn. Readiness to learn was measured using youth survey questions that mapped to two core indicators: productivity, including time management and goal setting; and navigation skills. While programs continued to exhibit strong progress towards readiness to learn indicators and questions , programs scored 3% to 5% lower on these indicators than in FY2012-2013.24 Exhibit 9 summarizes progress towards readiness to learn.

Exhibit 9: Progress toward Long-term Outcome: Students are Ready to Learn (n = 2,286)

longterm Long-term Outcome 1: Students are ready to learn 72% longterm

Students are prepared to be productive productive 71%

In this program, I learned how to set goals and meet them dq29 72%

Because of this program, I have a better sense of how to manage my time in order todq27 get things done 70% Students have the skills and tools to navigate through challengesnavigate 74% Because of this program, I learned how to get the help I need to succeed dq22 76%

Because of this program, I am better able to handle problems and challenges whendq32 they arise 71%

The overarching results for readiness to learn were similar to those for the intermediate outcomes, with some differences. While older youth again reported higher outcomes than younger youth, there were no significant differences by gender. African Americans and Hispanics reported the highest readiness to learn while White and multiracial youth reported the lowest. For indicators for readiness to learn, the differences in reported outcomes of youth with 80 or more hours compared to those with fewer was even greater than intermediate outcomes. Finally, mirroring trends in intermediate outcomes by program characteristics, youth in smaller programs reported greater progress on indicators for readiness to learn than youth in larger programs in terms of budget, staffing, and enrollment.

23 Of the 1,591 surveys that could be matched to dosage data, 70% (1116) came from youth who had received 80 hours or more of service during FY2013-2014 and 30% (475) came from youth who had received fewer than 80 hours of service. 24 These differences were statistically significant, due in part, to the large sample size (nearly 4,000 youth surveys).

Prepared by Social Policy Research Associates | 19 CONCLUSION

On November 4, 2014, voters in San Francisco extended the Children’s Fund another 25 years, underscoring and deepening the commitment on the part of community members, policymakers, and service providers to offer innovative and holistic support for the city’s most vulnerable youth. DCYF’s funding for Teen programs is a vital part of the city’s efforts to positively engage Teens and to support their transition to healthy adulthood. As has been true in previous years, DCYF provides foundational funding for Teen programs: Over a quarter of Teen programs (27%) relied exclusively on DCYF funding and three quarters (75%) received half or more than half of their program funding from DCYF.

In FY2013-2014, Teen programs made noteworthy gains in several key areas. Programs increased the total number of participants served while at the same time increasing the average number of hours of service that participants received. Thus, in FY2013-2014, both the reach and the intensity of Teen programs increased, reflecting the success of a multiple year effort on the part of DCYF to promote more intensive youth programming. Similarly, program performance improved in most areas with a greater percentage of programs supporting youth in learning new things, providing leadership opportunities, and providing 80 hours of service to projected core participants. These changes are a sign of stronger programs and also suggest that programs have a better understanding of DCYF’s expectations and reporting requirements.

As they have in the past, Teen programs reached DCYF’s target population by engaging diverse youth, the majority of whom live in underserved areas of the city, such as Bayview, Ingleside-Excelsior, and Visitacion Valley, and the Mission. With support from new funding strategies, Teen programs also expanded their reach to English learner and newcomer youth, LGBTQQ youth, and youth transitioning from middle to high school (Summer Transitions). As in previous years, African American youth received the most hours of service and also rated the programs most positively while female, older youth, and youth in YEF programs report the most positive outcomes. The predominantly positive outcomes highlighted in this report suggest that the DCYF Teen programs are supporting San Francisco youth in developing as leaders, change makers, and community members.

20 |Prepared by Social Policy Research Associates APPENDIX A: LIST OF FY2013-2014 PROGRAMS, AGENCIES, AND STRATEGIES

Program Agency Strategy CYC Newcomer Club Community Youth Center of San ELL Francisco (CYC) Latinas Unidas Instituto Familiar de La Raza, Inc. ELL Aptos Diversity and Leadership Health Initiatives for Youth LGBTQQ Denman Diversity and Leadership Health Initiatives for Youth LGBTQQ LGBTQQ Leadership and Allyship Initiative Lavender Youth Recreation and LGBTQQ Information Center (LYRIC) Presidio Diversity and Leadership Health Initiatives for Youth LGBTQQ Summer Youth Academic and Employment Young Community Developers Summer- Program Trans 100% College Prep Institute Bayview Association For Youth Teen 3rd Street Youth Center and Clinic Larkin Street Youth Services Teen ACCC Youth Empowerment Program Arab Cultural & Community Center Teen Arts-in-Education & Youth Development Youth Speaks Inc. Teen Bayview Hunters Point Youth Development Literacy for Environmental Justice Teen Just Choizes YMCA - Bayview Hunter's Point Teen College Track College Track Teen Community Building Program Lavender Youth Recreation and Teen Information Center (LYRIC) Empowering Southeast Asian Youth Vietnamese Youth Development Center Teen Excelsior Community Center - Youth Bernal Heights Neighborhood Center Teen Development and Empowerment Program Experiment in Diversity Potrero Hill Neighborhood House Teen Families In Transition Program (FIT) Charity Cultural Services Center Teen Kalpulli Leadership Program Arriba Juntos Teen Hunters Point Family Leadership Institute Hunters Point Family Teen Japantown Youth Leaders (JYL) Japanese Community Teen Jovenes Education & Empowerment Program Horizons Unlimited of San Francisco, Inc. Teen Kabataan Filipino-American Development Teen Foundation Latino Student Union Good Samaritan FRC Teen Latinos en Extasis Mission Neighborhood Health Center Teen Make Your Path (MY Path) Mission SF Community Financial Center Teen Meridian Gallery Interns Program Society for Art Publications Teen Oasis for Girls - RISE Tides Center Teen Omega Leadership Academy Omega Boys Club Teen OMI Youth Resurgence Project for Teens Inner City Youth Teen Youth Art Exchange Tides Center Teen Pin@y Educational Partnerships (PEP) Filipino-American Development Teen Foundation

Prepared by Social Policy Research Associates | 21 Program Agency Strategy ROOTS at Balboa High School Community Works Teen African American Art & Culture Complex African American Art & Culture Complex Teen Specialized Teen Specialized Teen Program Booker T. Washington Community Teen Service Center Boys & Girls Clubs Specialized Teen Program Boys & Girls Clubs of San Francisco Teen Digital Arts Program Sunset District Community Development Teen Teen Programming United Playaz Teen Magic Zone Teen Program @ Ella Hill Hutch Collective Impact Teen Teen Top Chef Program YMCA - Mission Teen Tenderloin Youth Development Program YMCA - Shih Yu-Lang Teen WritersCorps San Francisco Arts Commission Teen CCDC Youth Leadership Chinatown Community Development Teen Center Youth Powered Media - Specialized Teen BAYCAT Teen Balboa Teen Program YMCA - Urban Services Teen Bayview Youth Advocacy - Teens Community Youth Center of San Teen Francisco (CYC) Digital Pathways Bay Area Video Coalition Teen First Exposures Tides Center Teen Future Track for Diamond Youth Shelter and Larkin Street Youth Services Teen Larkin Drop In Center, and Future Track for the LOFT Huckleberry Wellness Academy (HWA) Huckleberry Youth Programs Teen Intensive Academic Support Program at June Boys & Girls Clubs of San Francisco Teen Jordan School for Equity Mission Academy of Performing Arts at Brava Brava! For Women in the Arts Teen (MAPA@Brava) On The Rise: Empowering Girls to Build GirlVentures Teen Leadership Skills, Confidence and Cross- Cultural Allies Peer Resources Community Initiatives Teen Primed and Prepped YMCA - Bayview Hunter's Point Teen San Francisco Mime Troupe's Youth Theater San Francisco Mime Troupe Teen Program Sunset Media Wave Aspiranet Teen Supporting Transitions and Aspirations Community Youth Center of San Teen Mentorship Program Francisco (CYC) Tel-Hi's Teen Learner's Pathway (TLP) Telegraph Hill Neighborhood Center Teen Theater Arts as a Tool for Change American Conservatory Theater (A.C.T.) Teen Transition Program for Youth with Hearing Hearing and Speech Center of Northern Teen Loss California XTech: STEM Academic Enrichment & Exploratorium Teen Leadership Development for Youth

22 |Prepared by Social Policy Research Associates Program Agency Strategy Youth in Government YMCA of San Francisco Teen Youth Job Skills/Mentoring/Training Renaissance Parents of Success Teen Common Roots: Youth Organizing Program Chinese Progressive Association YLOrg New ERA (Economic Rights for All) Organizing Mission SF Community Financial Center YLOrg Project Youth Commission & Youth Empowerment Community Youth Center of San YLOrg Fund Support Francisco (CYC) Youth in Power People Organized to Win Employment YLOrg Rights Campaign Academy Chinatown Community Development YLOrg Center 67 Suenos San Francisco American Friends Service Committee YLOrg Project WHAT! Community Works YLOrg Youth Organizing Home and Neighborhood Filipino-American Development YLOrg Action Foundation YFYI Youth Philanthropy Bay Area Community Resources YLPhil BLING - Building Leaders in Innovative New Youth Leadership Institute YLPhil Giving

APPENDIX B: MAPPING OF YOUTH SURVEY QUESTIONS TO QUALITY DIMENSIONS

The 33 ratings questions from the Youth survey were mapped to seven dimensions of program quality, summarized below. Scores for each dimensions were calculated as the sum of an individual youth’s responses for all rating questions mapped to the dimension, ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5), divided by the number of question rated for each dimension.  Youth Development-Support: Average of Q9, Q6, Q14, Q24, and Q28 averaged across youth respondents o Q9: The adults in this program believe I will become a success. o Q6: There is an adult in this program who notices when I am upset about something. o Q14: There is an adult at this program who really cares about me. o Q24: I feel comfortable asking for help from someone in this program. o Q28: At least one adult here understands what my life is like outside of the program.  Youth Development-Engagement: Average of Q7, Q8, Q10, Q20, and Q21, averaged across youth respondents o Q7: I get the opportunity to talk about what I’m learning at this program. o Q8: At this program, I make choices about what I will do when I am here. o Q10: I have been asked for my opinion about how to make this program better. o Q20: At this program, I learned how to identify and understand problems affecting my community. o Q21: This program taught how I can make improvements to my community.

Prepared by Social Policy Research Associates | 23  Youth Development-Interaction: Average of Q1, Q13, and Q19, averaged across youth respondents o Q1: I like coming to this program. o Q13: I am asked to help lead activities at this program. o Q19: At this program, I improved my ability to work with others.  Promoting Diversity, Access, Equity, and Inclusion: Average of Q5, Q23, and Q25 averaged across youth respondents o Q5: The people who work at this program understand my family's culture. o Q23: Program staff promote respect for diversity, including race, ethnicity, immigrant-status and sexual orientation. o Q25: I am comfortable sharing my cultural background or other aspects of my identity with the people in this program.  Program Environment and Safety: Average of Q2, reversed Q3, and Q4, averaged across youth respondents o Q2: The adults in this program treat all youth fairly. o Q3: I feel physically unsafe when I am at this program. o Q4: Youth at this program respect each other.  Linkages with School Day: Average of Q11, Q16, Q17, Q18, Q26, and Q30 averaged across youth respondents o Q11: This program helps me feel more confident about my school work. o Q16: This program makes learning fun. o Q17: I am more interested in my education because of this program. o Q18: Things I learn in this program make me want to learn more. o Q26: The adults in this program ask me about how I am doing in school. o Q30: The adults in this program talk with my parents or teachers about how I am doing in school.  Intentional Skill Building: Average of Q15, Q12, Q22, Q27, Q29, Q31, Q32, and Q33a, averaged across youth respondents o Q15: In this program, I learned new information about a topic that interests me. o Q12: In this program, I do things that really make me think. o Q22: Because of this program, I learned how to get the help I need to succeed. o Q27: Because of this program, I have a better sense of how to manage my time in order to get things done. o Q29: In this program, I learned how to set goals and meet them. o Q31: Because of this program, I have a better understanding of what I would like do for a career. o Q32: Because of this program, I am better able to handle problems and challenges when they arise. o Q33a: In this program, I learned a new skill that I am excited about.

24 |Prepared by Social Policy Research Associates