2014-2015 FSC Satisfaction Report_Final JC

i

Los Angeles FamilySource Network Customer Satisfaction Survey

2014-2015 Program Year

Prepared for: City of Los Angeles

Authors: Richard W. Moore. Ph.D. Julie A. Coveney, MA José D. Campos, B.S.

The College of Business & Economics

http://lahd.lacity.org/lahdinternet/Default.aspx

ii

Table of Contents Overview ....................................................................................................................................................... 1

Study Approach ............................................................................................................................................. 2

Sample....................................................................................................................................................... 2

Figure 1: Total Surveys Completed by Round—Spring 2010 through Spring 2014 .............................. 3

Table 1: Response Data by Center - Comparison by Year ..................................................................... 3

Response Analysis ..................................................................................................................................... 4

Table 2: Response Data – NA, Skipped, & Correlations with Overall Satisfaction ................................ 4

Survey Results ............................................................................................................................................... 5

Overall Satisfaction ................................................................................................................................... 5

Figure 2: Average Overall Satisfaction with FSC ................................................................................... 6

Satisfaction with Staff ............................................................................................................................... 7

Figure 3: Satisfaction with FSC Staff ..................................................................................................... 7

Satisfaction with Facilities ......................................................................................................................... 8

Figure 4: Satisfaction with FSC Facilities ............................................................................................... 8

Satisfaction with Services ......................................................................................................................... 9

Figure 5: Satisfaction with FSC Services .............................................................................................. 10

Would Recommend Center .................................................................................................................... 11

Figure 6: Would You Recommend this Center .................................................................................... 11

How Clients Learned About FSC .............................................................................................................. 12

Figure 7: How did you First Learn About this FSC? ............................................................................. 12

Reason for Coming to FSC ....................................................................................................................... 13

Figure 8: Why did you Come to this Center Today? ........................................................................... 14

Start Services at FSC ................................................................................................................................ 14

Figure 9: When did you Start Receiving Services at this FSC? ............................................................ 15

Frequency of Visits to FSC ....................................................................................................................... 15

Figure 10: How Often have you Come to this FSC in the Past Month? .............................................. 15

Enrolled in Class at FSC ........................................................................................................................... 17

Figure 11: Are you Enrolled in a Class or Program at this FSC? .......................................................... 17

Demographics ......................................................................................................................................... 18

Figure 12: Surveys Completed by Language ....................................................................................... 19

Figure 13: Participant Gender ............................................................................................................. 19

iii

Figure 14: Participant Age ................................................................................................................... 20

Figure 15: Participant Education ......................................................................................................... 21

Figure 16: Participant Ethnicity ........................................................................................................... 22

Figure 17: Other Participant Characteristics ....................................................................................... 23

Executive and Program Directors’ Satisfaction with HCID .......................................................................... 23

Figure 18: Executive and Program Directors’ Overall Satisfaction with HCID .................................... 24

Figure 19: Executive and Program Directors’ Satisfaction with HCID Services ................................... 25

Figure 20: Executive and Program Directors’ Satisfaction with HCID Staff ........................................ 27

Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................... 28

Appendices .................................................................................................................................................. 29

Appendix A: FSC Customer Satisfaction .................................................................................................. 29

Appendix A1: Questionnaire ............................................................................................................... 30

Appendix A2: Overall Satisfaction by Center ...................................................................................... 34

Appendix A3: Satisfaction with Staff ................................................................................................... 35

Appendix A4: Satisfaction with Facilities ............................................................................................ 36

Appendix A5: Satisfaction with Services ............................................................................................. 37

Appendix A6: Recommend Center ...................................................................................................... 38

Appendix A7: First Learn about FSC by Center ................................................................................... 39

Appendix A8: “Why did you come to this FSC today?” by Center ...................................................... 40

Appendix A9: “How Often Have you come to this FSC in the Past Month?” by Center ..................... 41

Appendix A10: “Are you enrolled in a Class or Program at this FSC?” by Center ............................... 43

Appendix A11: Surveys completed by Language and Center ............................................................. 44

Appendix A12: Surveys completed by Gender and Center ................................................................. 45

Appendix A13: Surveys completed by Age and Center ....................................................................... 46

Appendix A14: Other Participant Characteristics by Center ............................................................... 47

Appendix A15: Participant Highest Education Level Completed ........................................................ 48

Appendix A16: Ethnicity ...................................................................................................................... 49

Appendix B: Executive and Program Directors’ Satisfaction with HCID ................................................. 50

Appendix B1: Executive Director Questionnaire ................................................................................. 51

1

Overview

The FamilySource Network provides educational, financial, health, family, and youth services to low-income

residents throughout the City of Los Angeles. The Network operates 19 FamilySource Centers (FSCs)

throughout the City, and is overseen by the Housing and Community Investment Department (HCID). HCID is

committed to making the FamilySource Network a performance driven system. HCID measures each

contractor’s performance in four areas: Customer Satisfaction, Outcomes, Flow (volume of clients), and

Administrative Performance. This performance measurement system is often referred to as SOFA, to represent

the four dimensions of performance. The Northridge Consulting Group at the College of Business and

Economics, California State University, Northridge, contracted with HCID to evaluate customer satisfaction in

the system. To do so we surveyed adult FSC participants during the 2014-2015 program year in the fall and

spring. This report presents the results of these two surveys. The customer satisfaction data in this report are

designed to help individual FSCs track their clients’ satisfaction over time and to provide feedback to improve

service.

In Fall 2014 a total of 1027 adults completed a customer satisfaction questionnaire. In Spring 2015, 1130 adults

completed the survey. (Note: no youth were surveyed in the 2014-2015 project year). The number of

respondents has fluctuated since surveying began in Spring 2010 (see Figure 1 for time series data about the

number of respondents per survey term). In Spring 2011 we began visiting each FSC twice instead of once,

which partly accounts for the increase in surveys completed. In Fall 2011 we began using a 5 point scale

instead of a 10 point scale to simplify the survey and make it easier for clients to understand the rating system.

Finally, in Fall 2013 we returned to visiting each FSC only once because youth were no longer surveyed. In this

report we compare adult customer satisfaction data from Fall 2013 through Spring 2015.

Consistent with previous years, clients report high satisfaction during the 2014-2015 program year. Across all

19 centers average adult satisfaction was 4.64 on a 5 point scale for Fall 2014 and Spring 2015. Overall

satisfaction results for the 2014-15 program year decreased slightly, compared to results from the 2013-14

program year. Across all four survey terms overall satisfaction and satisfaction with most program elements

have remained relatively stable with minor decrease in the most recent cycle.

In addition to surveying adult program participants, we also asked executive directors from each FSC to rate

their satisfaction with the Housing and Community Investment Department services. Results show steady

improvement in director satisfaction with various elements of HCID’s service. Overall satisfaction increased

8.18 in 2014 to 8.21 in 2015, and is much higher than when surveying began in 2010 (6.70). Similar to FSC

customer satisfaction, FSC director satisfaction with HCID increased steadily over time, and several scores were

the highest to date.

This report presents the detailed results of both surveys. We begin with an analysis of the adult participant

survey and conclude with the Executive Director Satisfaction with HCID survey. In the adult surveys we

present overall findings for each population and then provide detailed results for individual FSCs as an

appendix. For the Executive Director survey we only present aggregated results in order to maintain

confidentiality for participants.

2

Study Approach

The study was designed to measure customer satisfaction for two key groups:

Adult clients in the FamilySource Center

Executive and Program directors of FamilySource Centers

We asked adult clients to rate their overall satisfaction with the services they received from their FSC, and to

also rate specific aspects of each FSC. In the adult surveys we collected data on the following dimensions of

FamilySource Centers:

Overall Satisfaction

Satisfaction with staff performance

Satisfaction with facilities

Satisfaction with center services.

Overall satisfaction was gauged by three questions, and the other three dimensions of satisfaction (staff,

facilities, and center services) had a total of 17 questions among them. All satisfaction questions used a scale

of 1 to 5. We also collected data on client demographics, why clients came to the center, and how often they

frequented the center. The full survey questionnaires for adult participants are presented in Appendix A.

Sample In Fall 2014 adult surveys were conducted during December and January. In Spring 2015 surveys were

conducted in February and March. In both periods we visited each FSC once, and our goal was to survey every

client who came through the door on that day. We collaborated with each FSC to choose typical day, so we

generally avoid Fridays, days before a holiday or days when FSCs held a special event. We planned to have

enumerators spend 7.5 hours at each site during their visit. In Fall 2014 we achieved a very high response rate,

with less than 5.0% of participants declining to complete a survey. However, in Spring 2015 the refusal rate

went even lower to 0.6% this low refusal rate could be credited to multiple factors. Some centers had

specifically invited their clients to attend the center that day to solely fill out the survey. Another center had a

food giveaway with 400 participants thereby exceeding the number of expected attendees for the day. The

enumerator couldn’t survey all 400 attendees thereby surveying as many as possible. As Figure 1, below,

indicates the total number of surveys collected has varied over time, and the largest response occurred in Fall

2011. Figure 1 and Table 1 display the total number of adult and youth surveys collected by center since Spring

2011.

3

Figure 1: Total Surveys Completed by Round—Spring 2011 through Spring 2015

Table 1: Response Data by Center - Comparison by Year

Center S11 F11 S12 F12 S13 F13 S14 F14 S15

1736 FCC 37 60 39 43 74 51 26 55 80

Barrio Action YFC 50 110 70 57 60 42 46 50 67

Bradley Milken FSC 78 134 77 112 80 90 61 64 42

CCNP 135 108 51 69 95 41 92 57 97

CMHP 48 48 64 103 115 56 73 60 47

Community Build 50 130 61 114 92 94 56 72 47

El Centro De Ayuda 45 74 55 70 70 61 45 31 37

El Centro Del Pueblo 43 59 28 54 45 18 29 27 26

El Nido FSC 63 85 98 66 86 70 63 43 51

Lucille Beserra Roybal FSC 46 43 28 64 40 56 69 109 55

NEW Canoga Park 54 80 30 53 78 52 25 23 138

NEW Van Nuys 37 15 27 52 55 38 34 24 32

Oakwood FSC 48 53 30 33 84 47 52 43 26

The Children's Collective 41 34 30 38 41 31 42 28 36

Toberman Neighborhood Ctr 58 42 20 34 76 24 59 91 32

Tom Bradley FSC 50 220 82 220 206 142 90 65 56

West LA FSC (LRC) 9 9 16 16 21 67 73 60 98

WLCAC 18 7 38 41 48 117 65 72 86

Youth Policy Institute 51 94 55 83 52 39 48 53 77

Adult Survey Total 1062 1552 987 1444 1497 1212 1121 1027 1130

1062

1552

987

1444

1497

12121121

1027

1130

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

Spring2011

Fall 2011 Spring2012




Grand Total

4

Response Analysis

To evaluate the effectiveness of the questionnaire we analyzed each satisfaction question in two ways. First,

we analyzed how many clients completed each question and how many skipped the question or chose “not

applicable.” Second, we calculated the correlation between the rating for each individual satisfaction question

with the overall satisfaction question. A significant positive correlation indicated that the element of service

being rated did drive overall satisfaction and thus center managers should pay attention to it. Similarly, if

correlation was low or a large percentage of respondents skipped the question, then we concluded that the

question was either confusing or irrelevant to overall satisfaction. Table 3, below, shows the correlation

between overall satisfaction and each elemental question on the adult survey, as well as the response rate for

each question.

Table 2: Response Data – NA, Skipped, & Correlations with Overall Satisfaction

Satisfaction Element

Fall 2014 Spring 2015

% No Response or

N/A

Correlation W/ Overall

Satisfaction

% No Response or

N/A

Correlation W/ Overall

Satisfaction

Response to your phone calls 20.4% 0.584 25.4% 0.397

Amount of paperwork required 18.5% 0.513 23.8% 0.425

Ability of staff to answer questions quickly 12.2% 0.629 16.5% 0.499

Respect the staff shows you 10.6% 0.698 14.6% 0.437

Waiting time for services 12.7% 0.612 17.0% 0.489

Availability of staff who speaks your language 10.3% 0.635 13.2% 0.490

The cleanliness of this FSC 7.4% 0.580 10.9% 0.528

The visibility of FSC signs 8.7% 0.568 13.1% 0.470

Access to this center by public transportation 18.2% 0.556 28.0% 0.500

Quality of computers and other equipment 26.6% 0.550 36.0% 0.447

Overall effectiveness of programs 16.0% 0.651 25.5% 0.580

Quality of workshops and classes 24.3% 0.696 33.1% 0.479

Quality of counseling 29.0% 0.660 39.1% 0.549

Help finding a job 41.4% 0.558 52.8% 0.503

Services to help your children 34.2% 0.660 47.7% 0.539

Mix of services available at FSC and its partners 24.9% 0.672 38.8% 0.570

The hours that this FSC is open 16.8% 0.631 27.5% 0.565

All correlations were statistically significant at the .01 level for both Fall 2014 and Spring 2015. In the Fall 2014

term the satisfaction elements that most highly correlated with overall satisfaction were “Respect the staff

shows you,” and “Quality of workshops and classes” which suggests that participants ’ satisfaction with these

two elements in the FSC services drove their overall satisfaction more than their satisfaction with other service

elements, such as facilities. In Spring 2015 the elements that drove satisfaction were “overall effectiveness of

programs” and “Mix of services available at FSC an its partners” this suggests that participants’ satisfaction was

most strongly driven by these two elements more than other elements. Items with a weaker correlation with

5

overall satisfaction in Spring 2015 included “response to your phone calls” 0.397, “Amount of paper work

required” 0.425. This just mean that overall satisfaction was driven less by these two factors. In Fall 2014

“amount of paperwork required” and “quality of computer and other equipment” had the least correlation

with clients’ overall satisfaction.

The percent of respondents who chose NA or skipped a question was lower for each satisfaction question in

Fall 2014 compared to Spring 2015, which means that respondents answered the survey more thoroughly in

Fall 2014. The opposite trend occurred during both PY 2011-12 and PY 2012-13. This may indicate that the mix

of services used differs between Fall and Spring, and participants use more services in in Fall. In PY 2014-15

response rates were fairly high for each question except the “help finding a job” question (41.4% skipped in

F14 and 52.8% skipped in S15). However, help with job placement is not a service used by many FamilySource

clients, which explains why over 40% of respondents did not answer this question in both terms, and is

consistent with previous program year results.

Survey Results In this section we analyze all questions from the adult survey conducted in Fall 2014 and Spring 2015.


As Figure 2 below demonstrates, adult overall satisfaction was almost identical for Fall 2014 (4.57) and Spring

2015 (4.65). These scores are exceptionally high, and represent a slight downward variation from the previous

program year. These scores show that FSCs are responding to their clients’ needs and generating high

satisfaction with services provided, despite continuing budget cuts which have reduced resources within the

centers.. “Visit to center was valuable” and “Services met expectations” both show some tiny downward

fluctuation between survey terms, but in all instances the difference is no less than one tenth (.10) of a point.

Overall, all measures of satisfaction have remained steady with slight decline, which may be random variety or

may reflect the impact of budget cuts but overall satisfaction is high and stable.

6

Figure 2: Average Overall Satisfaction with FSC

4.64

4.56

4.64

4.65

4.57

4.64

4.68

4.57

4.65

4.62

4.47

4.57

2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0

Visit to Center wasValuable

Services metExpectations


Spring 2015 Fall 2014 Spring 2014 Fall 2013

7

Satisfaction with Staff

Figure 3 shows that satisfaction with the staff remained high and fairly stable. Like ther overall satisfaction

scores, there is a slight decline, which may be attributable to reduced resources driven by budget cuts. Clients

are the most satisfied with “staff’s ability to speak your language” (4.66) compared to the other categories,

this item has consistently received the highest rating of the 6 staff categories since we began using the 5 point

rating scale in Fall 2011. Language ability is followed closely by “respect staff shows clients.” Respondents rate

respect of staff at 4.67 in Fall 2014 and 4.63 in Spring 2015. The respect category has been steadily high over

all four periods. Satisfaction ratings for “the amount of paperwork required,” is the lowest ranked category.

“Waiting time for services” has fluctuated over time, with the highest rating in Fall 2014. Satisfaction with

“waiting time for services” overall was higher in PY 2014-15 than PY 2013-14, but the difference again is only a

few hundredths of a point. Satisfaction with “Amount of Paperwork Required” and “waiting times for services”

were the lowest in Spring 2015 out of the four survey terms (4.34 and 4.36, respectively), and have steadily

remained over 4.

Figure 3: Satisfaction with FSC Staff

4.66

4.44

4.63

4.55

4.42

4.48

4.69

4.38

4.65

4.58

4.43

4.51

4.69

4.44

4.67

4.60

4.44

4.54

4.66

4.36

4.63

4.51

4.34

4.42

2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00

Staff's ability to speak yourlanguage

Waiting time for services

Respect Staff Shows Client

Staff Response to Questions

Amount of PaperworkRequired

Response to Phone Calls


8

Satisfaction with Facilities

Figure 4, below, shows that adult satisfaction with facilities. Again we see a pattern of high scores but a slight

decline from earlier periods. As noted before this may reflect the impact of budget cuts on FSCs. “Quality of

computers or equipment” has increased slowly over time—from 4.53 in F2013 to 4.55 in F2014 then in S2015 a

decrease to 4.45 “Cleanliness of Facility” received the highest rating in F2014 (4.64) of all survey terms then

down (4.54) in S2015. This category received the highest score of the four facility aspects for survey terms

S2015, indicating that respondents are highly satisfied with the cleanliness of their FSC’s. Satisfaction with

“visibility of center’s sign” fluctuated slightly across survey terms, but demonstrates an overall stable

satisfaction rating.

Ultimately, variations in scores of only a few hundredths of a point can often be attributed to sample variation

between terms. It is more important to look at trends over time, and in the instance of satisfaction with

facilities, scores have remained high and steady, indicating that individual FSCs are doing an excellent job of

maintaining their facilities.

Figure 4: Satisfaction with FSC Facilities

4.53

4.51

4.56

4.61

4.54

4.57

4.55

4.59

4.55

4.54

4.53

4.64

4.45

4.46

4.47

4.54

2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00

Quality of computers equipment

Access to public transportation

Visibility of Center's Sign

Cleanliness of Facility


9

Satisfaction with Services

We asked survey respondents to rate their satisfaction with seven elements of FSC services, such as

counseling, services for children, and center hours. Once again, scores in all categories had increased over

time, until the current period when they show a very small decline. In Spring 2015 “quality of workshops/

classes” obtained the highest score of 4.58, with “services for children” and “quality of counseling” both

received a score of 4.55. There was a decrease in the “Help Finding a Job” category with a score of 4.41 for

S2015 however in F2014 it received the highest rating (4.52) compared to all other terms, the current small

decline is hard to interpret and more data are needed to determine if it is on a downward trend.

The category with the lowest score for all 4 surveys terms was “help finding a job.” However, this category

does show improvement over time from 4.43 in Fall 2013 to 4.52 in Fall 2014. This increase in satisfaction may

be related to FSCs managing their clients’ expectations. Job placement assistance is not a central purpose of

the FamilySource program, which likely accounts for lower scores in the “help finding a job” category

compared to other service elements. However, if individual FSCs convey to their clients that job assistance is

not a core service, then clients do not have the expectation that FSC’s will focus on helping them find a job

(rather they focus on providing family services such as literacy, utility bill assistance, child care, and social

services qualifications). When clients’ expectations are managed efficiently then customer satisfaction tends to

go up, which may account for the steady increase in the “help finding a job” category.

Respondents also indicate high satisfaction in the remaining categories with increases over time. “Mix of

services available” and “overall program effectiveness,” each have a score of at least 4.50 for all survey terms,

with minor fluctuations of .10 across terms. These high and consistently improving scores indicate that FSCs

have been consistently providing excellent customer service in these categories for the last two program years.

10

Figure 5: Satisfaction with FSC Services

4.63

4.56

4.56

4.43

4.56

4.6

4.54

4.61

4.59

4.64

4.48

4.63

4.63

4.61

4.59

4.58

4.63

4.52

4.62

4.63

4.60

4.51

4.51

4.55

4.41

4.55

4.58

4.53

2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0

Hours Center is Open

Mix of Services Available

Services for your children

Help finding a job

Quality of counseling

Quality of workshops/classes

Overall programEffectiveness


11

Would Recommend Center Figure 6 shows that nearly all respondents would recommend their FSC. Fall 2014 had the highest of both most

recent terms with a score of 97.84%. Spring 2015 received a slightly lower score, which was still very high in

absolute terms, of 97%. Overall, the percentage of respondents who would recommend their center, as

compared to those who would not and those who were not sure, has remained about the same over time.

Figure 6: Would You Recommend this Center

0.09%

0.80%

98.30%

1.40%

1.20%

97.40%

0.92%

1.03%

97.84%

1.90%

0.80%

97%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Not Sure

No

Yes


12

How Clients Learned About FSC While client satisfaction scores have remained high and mostly steady during program year 2014-15, the

manner that clients first learned about their FSC has changed somewhat over time. In the most recent survey

terms 46.30% indicated that they learned of their FSC from a friend, down from 51% in the fall, but still the

largest of the seven categories (see Figure 7). Overall a decrease in this category is a good thing which

indicates that outreach programshave brought new clients into the center. The categories, “referred by other

agency” “saw a flyer”, and “learned through a school or College” all increased. The category “found it on the

internet” was introduced for the PY 2014-15 to monitor online outreach programs, almost doubled but is still a

very small 2.4%. Overall FSCs appear to working to reach clients beyond their existing client base.

Figure 7: How did you First Learn About this FSC?

6.20%

7.60%

5.70%

9.60%

10.50%

8.20%

52.20%

5.00%

10.50%

5.90%

7.60%

10.20%

9.50%

51.20%

1.3%

7.0%

8.8%

6.5%

6.3%

11.2%

7.9%

51.0%

2.40%

5.30%

6.60%

7.90%

9.10%

10.80%

11.60%

46.30%

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

Found it on the Internet

Met a staff member at anevent

Other

College or School

Saw a flyer

Saw the building or signand just came in

Referred by other agency

Friend


13

Reason for Coming to FSC

We ask clients why they came to the FSC on the day of the survey. Figure 8, below, shows that the most

common reason was to attend a class, followed by to get services for their children and to access computers.

For the “came to center question,” participants were allowed to choose more than one response since on any

given day they may participate in multiple activities, so the totals between the categories add up to more than

100%. Four new categories were introduced, “Food Assistance”, “Tax Preparation Assistance”, “assistance

with utility bill” and “find out what services are here” to decrease the high response rate in the “other “

category.

14

Figure 8: Why did you Come to this Center Today?

Start Services at FSC

During all four survey terms, at least 37% of respondents indicated that they started receiving services more

than one year ago, which is the largest category. Furthermore, this category increased significantly from Fall

2013 to Spring 2015. This upward trend indicates that most clients are long term clients. At the same time, “4-

6 months ago” followed by 15.9 “In the last moth” which means that FSC’s are also consistently brining in new

clients in addition to the clients they maintain long term.

1.7%

2.0%

5.5%

13.2%

14.9%

31.3%

16.7%

34.7%

1.0%

1.7%

6.9%

9.4%

11.7%

38.3%

15.8%

35.8%

1.7%

3.4%

5.8%

6.8%

13.9%

11.8%

13.8%

19.8%

18.4%

5.0%

23.4%

30.8%

1.2%

2.9%

4.9%

5.1%

6.6%

8.2%

9.5%

12.3%

14.3%

15.0%

21.3%

35.6%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%

Small Business Services

Child Care

Get Legal Services

Find Out What services are here

Assistance With Utility Bill

Help Finding a job

Access a Computer

Other

Get Services for my Children

Tax Preparation Assistance

Food Assistance

Attend Class


15

Figure 9: When did you Start Receiving Services at this FSC?

Frequency of Visits to FSC

We also ask clients how often they visit their FSC. As the figure below illustrates there is a wide variation in how often clients visit the FSC. The most common response is once in the last month 23.9%, but 18.2% say they come “ten or more times” a month and 17.8% say they visit “two times” a month. While the distribution of responses has varied somewhat over time there is not distinct pattern in the use of the Centers.

Figure 10: How Often have you Come to this FSC in the Past Month?

37.80%

10.60%

12.60%

21.00%

17.90%

41.80%

13.60%

13.00%

12.00%

19.60%

39.7%

12.9%

13.9%

17.3%

16.0%

39.2%

13.7%

17.6%

13.5%

15.9%

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

More than oneyear ago

7-12 months ago

4-6 months ago

2-3 months ago

In the last month


16

14.0%

15.0%

17.2%

10.3%

18.1%

25.4%

16.6%

15.4%

19.3%

10.9%

16.5%

21.3%

16.6%

13.4%

15.3%

12.8%

19.0%

22.9%

18.2%

14.3%

15.4%

10.4%

17.8%

23.9%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

Ten or more times

Between five andnine times

Four times

Three times

Two times

One time


17

Enrolled in Class at FSC The percentage of participants who reported being enrolled in a class slightly decreased in the 2014-15

program year compared to the 2013-15 program year, especially in Fall. First, the number of classes could

have been reduces or FSC clients may primarily go to the centers to get more specific individual services such

as tax preparation and /or help with utility bills versus attempting to enroll in a class.

Figure 11: Are you Enrolled in a Class or Program at this FSC?

5.6%

51.4%

43.1%

4.4%

47.8%

47.9%

3.8%

55.1%

40.7%

4.4%

56.7%

38.9%

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

Don't Know

No

Yes


18

Demographics

We collected various demographic data about the participants, including language preference, gender, age,

education level, ethnicity, and employment status (see Figures 12 through 17). Over the two project years

studied the demographics of clients were mostly stable, with the most variation in the “highest level of

education completed” category. In both project years, the majority of adult clients preferred to complete the

Spanish version of the questionnaire, and about three-quarters of the respondents were female. The vast

majority of program participants remained Hispanic (78.5% in Spring 15 and 75.1% in Fall 14), followed by

black (12.9% in Spring 15 and 17.9% in Fall 14), and then white (3.8% in Spring 15 and 3.0% in Fall13). The

percentage of white respondents decreased slightly when comparing project year 2013-14 to the previous

project year, while the other categories fluctuated throughout.

The most common age group was 26-40 in both project years, with a slight dip in this age group in Spring 15

(31.9%) in Fall 2014 it stayed relatively the same when compared to Spring 2014 (35.8%), while the percentage

of 18-25 year olds increased slightly in Spring 15 from 12.2% in Fall 13 to 11.5% this could indicate a growing

trend. Most adult participants are unemployed and seeking work, for PY 2014-15 this category has received

the highest percentage when compared to the same period last year (36.6% spring 2015 and 38.4% in fall

2014). Additionally, the percentage of clients who reported being employed full time increased from Fall to

Spring, spring 2015 has the highest percentage when compared to the other periods 14.2%. This may evidence

the slow but conintuing economic recovery is finally reaching the FSC client population. The percentage of

clients employed part time decreased slightly from 19.8% Fall 2014 to 18.9% spring 2015.

Over the two years there appears to be a small increase in the level of education in the client population.

There was an increase in the percentage of clients with a Bachelor’s degree from 5.5% in Fall 2014 to 7.3% in

spring 2015, when compared to the two previews periods, this category has increased consecutively for PY

2014-15. There was an also a slight increase in clients with an associates degree from 3.4% in fall 2014 to 5.1%

in Spring 2015. There was a decrease on most of the other categories (Elementary/Primary School 27.0%, 8th

Grade completion 13.6%, Some High School 16.4%, and High School Diploma or equivalent 18.5%

Demographic data from the survey indicate that FSCs continue to serve a highly disadvantaged population.

Between 57% and 59% of participants in the current project year do not have a high school diploma, and as

much as 40% of respondents did not advance past eighth grade for the Spring 2015. See Appendix A, Tables

A11 through A16 for adult demographic data by center.

19

Figure 12: Surveys Completed by Language

Figure 13: Participant Gender

63.8%

60.1%

59.8%

62.4%

36.2%

39.9%

40.2%

37.6%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Fall 2013

Spring 2014

Fall 2014

Spring 2015

English Spanish

78.2%

76.0%

77.4%

70.0%

21.8%

24.0%

22.6%

29.9%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Fall 2013

Spring 2014

Fall 2014

Spring 2015

Male Female

20

Figure 14: Participant Age

7.6%

21.0%

30.7%

32.5%

8.3%

5.9%

16.4%

30.3%

35.9%

11.4%

5.7%

14.0%

33.0%

35.8%

11.5%

7.8%

17.2%

30.7%

31.9%

12.2%

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

71+

56-70

41-55

26-40

18-25


21

Figure 15: Participant Education

3.5%

4.1%

13.2%

16.2%

15.4%

17.9%

29.7%

2.9%

4.1%

18.6%

21.4%

15.9%

16.7%

20.4%

5.5%

3.4%

9.9%

21.6%

18.2%

15.9%

25.4%

7.3%

5.1%

12.2%

18.5%

16.4%

13.6%

27.0%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

Bachelor’s Degree or more

Associate’s Degree

Some College

High School Diploma or Equivalent

Some High School

8th Grade Completion

Elementary/Primary School


22

Figure 16: Participant Ethnicity

1.5%

1.9%

1.4%

70.7%

3.8%

20.7%

1.7%

2.0%

1.0%

76.5%

3.5%

15.3%

1.0%

1.0%

0.1%

1.8%

75.1%

3.0%

17.9%

1.2%

1.2%

0.6%

1.7%

78.5%

3.8%

12.9%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Other

Bi-racial/Multiracial

Native American

Asian/PacificIslander

Hispanic

White

Black


23

Figure 17: Other Participant Characteristics

Executive and Program Directors’ Satisfaction with HCID

As part of HCID’s commitment to continuous improvement, the agency asked our team to conduct a study of Executive and Program Director satisfaction with HCID’s management of the FamilySource Network. Originally we conducted focus groups with Executive Directors and HCID staff to identify program features and services that were important to Executive Director satisfaction. An online questionnaire was developed to measure satisfaction with these features, and satisfaction was rated on a scale of 1 to 10. While FSC participants were surveyed twice a year, Directors were surveyed only once a year. A total of six director satisfaction surveys have been administered online since Spring 2010. A copy of the Director questionnaire is available in Appendix C.

We invited both Program and Executive Directors from each center to participate. We received a total of 19 completed surveys from a possible 28. As Figure 18 indicates, Directors in 2015 reported an increase in overall satisfaction, compared to all previous years. Their level of satisfaction with services has grown significantly, reaching about 8.21 on the 10 point scale. In 2015, Directors also reported the satisfaction with the “guidance and support” they received, which decreased slightly from the previous year by .15 of a point. Over all scores are within levels when compared to previous years.

24

Figure 18: Executive and Program Directors’ Overall Satisfaction with HCID

In addition to overall satisfaction, we measured FSC Director satisfaction with 10 specific aspects of HCID’s services. Two service categories showed substantial increases in satisfaction (see Figure 19).They were “Timeliness of payments by HCID” which increased significantly from 7.19 to 8.41 and is now the highest rated category and “information about the Community Action Board” which rose from 6.23 to 7.26. “HCID’s willingness to incorporate recommendations I have made into the program”, showed a small increase as well. Conversely, four categories showed measurable declines. They included: “promptness of HCID’s responses to may questions”, “my familiarity with my HCID regional directors”, “timelyness of contract execution” “clarity of performance standards”. This decline is satisfaction with specific services may reflect the transistion from the old Community Development Department to the HCID or there may other issues. These data should be opportunity for HCID review their practices and look for ways to improve. Despite some declins with specific services the overall longer term trend shows HCID performance has continued to slowly improve overall and satisfaction is now relatively high. Looking as openended commens we see some indications of great satisfaction with HCID monitors, “Our monitor is great!! Thank you for all of the support that is given” and other comments that show the program analyst’s performance has been very helpful. Continuous improvement to HCID administration should be a main focus in order to achieve greater satisfaction in the years to come.

7.52

7.70

7.75

7.56

8.34

8.18

8.16

8.21

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Overall, how satisfied are you with the guidanceand support provided by HCID staff?

Overall, how satisfied are you with the servicesyou received from HCID?

2015 2014 2013 2012

25

Figure 19: Executive and Program Directors’ Satisfaction with HCID Services

3.74

6.04

6.87

6.10

7.11

7.79

6.91

6.91

7.13

7.25

3.80

6.94

7.56

6.31

7.67

7.50

7.00

7.31

7.47

7.53

3.73

7.62

8.33

6.72

7.19

6.70

6.89

6.23

7.91

7.82

4.22

7.42

7.68

6.12

8.41

6.56

7.00

7.26

7.11

7.74

1 3 5 7 9

The value of One-E-App in relation to the amount oftime it takes to complete.

User-friendliness of the ISIS system.

Clarity of performance standards communicated byHCID.

Timeliness with which HCID executed my contract.(Choose NA if City Run Facility)

Timeliness of payments by HCID. (N/A if City RunFacility)

My familiarity with my HCID Regional Area Director.

HCID’s willingness to incorporate recommendations I have made into FSC program.

Information provided about the Community ActionBoard.

Promptness of HCID’s response to my questions.

Adequacy of the information and training HCID hasprovided me and my staff.

2015 2014 2013 2012

26

We also asked a series of questions regarding directors’ satisfaction with HCID staff performance. In general

satisfaction with staff is higher than in is with services (see Figure 20). Directors were substantially more

satisfice with four specific aspects of staff performance. They include: “accessibility of accounting staff”,

“Knowledge of accounting staff” “Knowledge of MIS staff” and to a lesser degree “accessibility of HCID

monitors”. “Knowledge of HCID MISS staff” received the highest rating for the year at 9.21 followed by

“Accessibility of HCID MIS staff” and “Knowledge of HCID accounting staff” with both receiving a score of 9.00,

followed closely by “Accessibility of HCDI accounting staff” with a rating score of 8.94. Overall accounting

rating has continuously improved when compared to its previous years.

The results show only one small declines in satisfaction with staff. They are

“Usefulness of feedback from HCID Monitors about my Center’s operations”, this rating declined from a high

of 9.44 in the 2013 cycle to a 8.68 score. This question received lower scores on two consecutive cycles and

should be monitored on future cycles to avoid future declines.

Overall, HCID staff seems to deliver consistently high quality service to FSC Directors.

27

Figure 20: Executive and Program Directors’ Satisfaction with HCID Staff

7.67

7.57

8.57

8.70

9.09

9.39

8.48

6.33

6.69

8.81

8.53

8.81

9.63

9.44

8.21

8.42

9.05

8.64

9.09

8.91

8.73

8.94

9.00

9.00

9.21

8.89

9.05

8.68

1 3 5 7 9

Accessibility of HCID accounting staff.

Knowledge of HCID accounting staff.

Accessibility of HCID MIS staff.

Knowledge of HCID MIS staff.

Respectfulness HCID staff show me and my staff.

Accessibility of HCID monitors.

Usefulness of feedback from HCID Monitors about my Center’s operations.

2015 2014 2013 2012

28

Conclusion

The FamilySource Network continues to generate high satisfaction among its clients in both periods measured. On average, FSC participants are highly satisfied with FamilySource Staff, Programs, and Facilities. Satisfaction has increased or remained fairly high on nearly all questions, and respondents seem to be most satisfied with the services available in the centers. The FamilySource network continues to serve the target population of low-income, low-education families with children. The satisfaction of FSC Directors has improved steadily over the three years we have studied FamilySource. Directors report high satisfaction with City staff. Directors remain more satisfied with the City staff themselves than they are with various services and programs provided by HCID. HCID staff should take time to examine their practices and the feedback provided by the survey to find ways to continuously improve services to the FSCsOverall it appears that City Staff are working hard to partner with the FSCs but there is still room to improve City processes and systems. In conclusion the FSC programs continue to uphold an outstanding record of generating customer satisfaction among its clients.

29

Appendices

Appendix A: FSC Customer Satisfaction

30

Appendix A1: Questionnaire

FamilySource Center Survey – Adult Participants

On-site Questionnaire Administered by California State University, Northridge

Spring 2015

Fill out this questionnaire and tell us how satisfied you are with the services of this FamilySource

Center and how it could be improved!

Your answers will be kept strictly confidential and will be combined only with those of other FamilySource Center users.

You will not be individually identified.

1. Is this your first visit to this FamilySource

Center?

Yes Skip to Q3

No

2. When, approximately, did you first start

receiving services at this center?

In the last month

2-3 months

4-6 months

7-12 months

More than one year

3. How did you first learn about this

FamilySource Center?

Friend

College or School

Met a staff member at an event

Saw a flyer

Saw the building or sign and just

came in

Referred by other agency

Found it on the Internet

Other: Describe:________________

4. Why did you come to this center today?

(PLACE AN “X” IN ALL BOXES

THAT APPLY)

Attend a class or workshop

Food assistance

Assistance with utility bill

Tax preparation assistance

Access a computer

Help finding a job

Get services for my children

Get legal services

Small business services

Child care

Find out what services are here

Other (PLEASE

SPECIFY):_____________________

5. How often have you come to this

FamilySource Center in the past

month?

One time

Two times

Three times

Four times

Between five and nine times

Ten or more times

6. Are you enrolled in a class or program at

this FamilySource Center?

Yes Please describe

______________________________

No

Don’t know

CONTINUE INSIDE ON PAGE 2

31

Please rate how satisfied you are with each service. Use the scale of 1 to 10 by CIRCLING THE APPROPRIATE

NUMBER ON THE SCALE. If you have no experience with a service, or do not have an opinion, just CIRCLE NA

for Does Not Apply.

SATISFACTION WITH FAMILYSOURCE CENTER STAFF Please tell us how satisfied you are with:

Terrible Bad OK Good Excellent Don’t know

7. Response to your phone calls. 1 2 3 4 5 NA

8. The amount of paperwork required. 1 2 3 4 5 NA

9. Ability of staff to answer questions quickly. 1 2 3 4 5 NA

10. Respect the staff shows you. 1 2 3 4 5 NA

11. Waiting time for services. 1 2 3 4 5 NA

12. The availability of staff who speaks your language. 1 2 3 4 5 NA

SATISFACTION WITH FAMILYSOURCE CENTER FACILITIES Please tell us how satisfied you are with:


13. The cleanliness of this FamilySource Center. 1 2 3 4 5 NA

14. The visibility of “FamilySource Center” signs. 1 2 3 4 5 NA

15. Access to this center by public transportation. 1 2 3 4 5 NA

16. Quality of computers and other equipment. 1 2 3 4 5 NA

SATISFACTION WITH FAMILYSOURCE CENTER SERVICES Please tell us how satisfied you are with:


17. Overall effectiveness of programs. 1 2 3 4 5 NA

18. Quality of workshops and classes. 1 2 3 4 5 NA

19. Quality of counseling. 1 2 3 4 5 NA

20. Help finding a job. 1 2 3 4 5 NA

21. Services to help your children. 1 2 3 4 5 NA

22. Mix of services available at this center and its partners. 1 2 3 4 5 NA

23. The hours that this FamilySource Center is open 1 2 3 4 5 NA

32

You are almost done. Just a few more questions…

24. Overall, how satisfied are you with the services you received at this FamilySource Center?

1 =

Terrible

2= Bad 3 =

OK

4 =

Good

5 = Excellent

1 2 3 4 5 NA

25. To what extent have services at this FamilySource Center met your expectations?

1 =

Terrible

2= Bad 3 =

OK

4 =

Good

5 = Excellent

1 2 3 4 5 NA

26. My visit today to this FamilySource Center today was valuable.

1 =

Terrible

2= Bad 3 =

OK

4 =

Good

5 = Excellent

1 2 3 4 5 NA

27. Would you recommend this center to someone like yourself?

Yes

No

Not sure

CONTINUE ON BACK

33

TELL US ABOUT YOURSELF

28. Gender

Male

Female

29. Age

18-25

26-40

41-55

56-70

71 or more

30. Please check all that apply

I am employed full-time

I am employed part-time

I am unemployed and seeking paid work

I have a child in school

I have a child who needs help in school

31. Highest Level of Education Completed

Elementary/Primary School


Some High School

High School Diploma or Equivalent

Some College

Associate’s Degree

Bachelor’s Degree or more

32. Which best describes you?

African American

White

Hispanic

Asian/Pacific Islander

Native American

Bi-racial/Multiracial

Other:________________

33. Are there any other comments you would like to make about the center?

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME!

34

Appendix A2: Overall Satisfaction by Center

Site Name


Services met Expectations

Visit to Center was Valuable

1736 Family Crisis Center

Mean 4.72 4.57 4.74

N 129 130 129

Std. Deviation .612 .777 .616

Barrio Action YFC

Mean 4.56 4.56 4.67

N 113 114 114


Bradley Milken FSC

Mean 4.58 4.53 4.61

N 101 99 101


CCNP

Mean 4.82 4.38 4.54

N 142 137 140

Std. Deviation 4.296 .655 .639

CMHP, Inc.

Mean 4.56 4.45 4.59

N 98 95 98


Community Build

Mean 4.71 4.63 4.74

N 116 115 116


El Centro de Ayuda Corp.

Mean 4.71 4.64 4.67

N 65 64 64


El Centro del Pueblo

Mean 4.60 4.58 4.73

N 52 52 52


El Nido Family Centers

Mean 4.63 4.63 4.78

N 89 84 90


Latino Resource Center (West LA FSC)

Mean 4.78 4.74 4.84

N 109 104 108


Lucile Beserra Roybal FSC

Mean 4.56 4.46 4.63

N 214 205 215


Canoga Park

Mean 4.37 4.25 4.39

N 51 48 51


NEW South Valley

Mean 4.63 4.52 4.54

N 46 44 46


Oakwood

Mean 4.68 4.55 4.65

N 73 71 74


The Children's Collective, Inc.

Mean 4.55 4.42 4.71

N 55 53 55


Toberman Neighborhood Center

Mean 4.66 4.60 4.62

N 137 134 136


Tom Bradley FSC

Mean 4.58 4.50 4.64

N 144 143 147


WLCAC

Mean 4.65 4.54 4.63

N 149 147 147


Youth Policy Institute

Mean 4.55 4.35 4.57

N 113 113 114


Total

Mean 4.63 4.52 4.65

N 1996 1952 1997

Std. Deviation 1.287 .649 .580

35

Appendix A3: Satisfaction with Staff

Site Name Response to Phone Calls

Amount of Paperwork Required

Staff Response to Questions

Respect Staff

Shows Clients

Waiting time for services

Staff's ability to speak your

language

1736 Family Crisis Center Mean 4.57 4.52 4.72 4.84 4.54 4.84

N 122 124 127 129 129 128

Std. Deviation .833 .715 .629 .512 .839 .529

Barrio Action YFC Mean 4.41 4.36 4.43 4.61 4.43 4.70

N 105 102 111 109 105 110

Std. Deviation .927 .701 .770 .576 .691 .551

Bradley Milken FSC Mean 4.40 4.27 4.43 4.57 4.44 4.41

N 72 81 91 89 85 95

Std. Deviation .781 .837 .791 .672 .851 .917

CCNP Mean 4.39 4.13 4.44 4.55 4.22 4.64

N 118 118 129 130 128 138

Std. Deviation .692 .911 .728 .683 .869 .603

CMHP, Inc. Mean 4.50 4.36 4.55 4.63 4.42 4.61

N 78 88 92 94 92 93

Std. Deviation .679 .664 .732 .604 .730 .643

Community Build Mean 4.59 4.51 4.76 4.74 4.74 4.77

N 107 103 112 114 110 111

Std. Deviation .644 .712 .573 .610 .536 .504

El Centro de Ayuda Corp. Mean 4.66 4.50 4.59 4.74 4.56 4.80

N 65 60 64 66 64 65

Std. Deviation .477 .597 .555 .474 .560 .403

El Centro del Pueblo Mean 4.38 4.28 4.58 4.61 4.34 4.62

N 45 47 50 51 50 52

Std. Deviation .936 .852 .731 .666 .848 .631

El Nido Family Centers Mean 4.52 4.52 4.57 4.70 4.43 4.75

N 81 81 87 87 84 89

Std. Deviation .573 .550 .542 .485 .645 .459

Latino Resource Center (West LA FSC)

Mean 4.86 4.63 4.84 4.87 4.71 4.90

N 99 101 103 104 105 104

Std. Deviation .350 .561 .390 .343 .532 .296

Lucile Beserra Roybal FSC Mean 4.40 4.35 4.43 4.52 4.34 4.63

N 156 171 195 200 195 209

Std. Deviation .871 .801 .786 .730 .767 .616

Canoga Park Mean 4.00 4.13 4.20 4.22 3.98 4.44

N 40 38 44 45 42 45

Std. Deviation 1.155 1.018 1.002 1.042 1.093 .893

NEW South Valley Mean 4.33 4.26 4.58 4.60 4.30 4.67

N 42 42 45 47 47 45

Std. Deviation 1.052 1.037 .657 .577 .689 .564

Oakwood Mean 4.56 4.38 4.63 4.70 4.41 4.74

N 72 69 71 73 73 74

Std. Deviation .690 .545 .541 .570 .620 .498


Mean 4.48 4.20 4.62 4.81 4.43 4.69

N 52 49 53 54 53 55

Std. Deviation .671 .676 .562 .392 .572 .505


Mean 4.57 4.49 4.61 4.67 4.39 4.73

N 119 117 127 130 126 131

Std. Deviation .619 .677 .592 .640 .748 .493

Tom Bradley FSC Mean 4.63 4.55 4.56 4.61 4.18 4.36

N 80 80 104 119 114 116

Std. Deviation .560 .654 .708 .678 .955 .955

WLCAC Mean 4.50 4.38 4.62 4.73 4.50 4.71

N 122 137 139 140 134 140

Std. Deviation .826 .768 .726 .633 .811 .640

Youth Policy Institute Mean 3.99 4.19 4.33 4.48 4.04 4.66

N 84 89 101 101 98 101

Std. Deviation 1.275 .915 .981 .820 1.004 .605

Total Mean 4.48 4.39 4.56 4.65 4.40 4.67

N 1659 1697 1845 1882 1834 1901

Std. Deviation .799 .758 .711 .642 .790 .626

36

Appendix A4: Satisfaction with Facilities

Site Name Cleanliness of

Facility Visibility of

Center's Sign Access to public

transportation Quality of computers or

equipment


Mean 4.73 4.36 4.37 4.64

N 133 129 115 114

Std. Deviation .592 1.015 .932 .693

Barrio Action YFC

Mean 4.55 4.61 4.41 4.49

N 110 108 99 91

Std. Deviation .724 .561 .808 .766

Bradley Milken FSC

Mean 4.40 4.45 4.38 4.33

N 100 98 82 79

Std. Deviation .739 .705 .780 .780

Central City Neighborhood Partners

Mean 4.52 4.35 4.28 4.34

N 143 142 114 94

Std. Deviation .680 .946 .857 .849

Coalition of Mental Health Professionals, Inc.

Mean 4.53 4.48 4.42 4.52

N 97 97 79 65

Std. Deviation .631 .694 .709 .752

Community Build

Mean 4.70 4.59 4.70 4.62

N 114 113 102 111

Std. Deviation .531 .622 .523 .604

El Centro de Ayuda, Inc.

Mean 4.74 4.74 4.66 4.53

N 65 65 56 45

Std. Deviation .477 .477 .478 .548


Mean 4.56 4.62 4.54 4.55

N 52 52 48 44

Std. Deviation .826 .718 .743 .761


Mean 4.41 4.34 4.61 4.41

N 86 85 64 44

Std. Deviation .675 .765 .492 .693

Latino Resource Organization

Mean 4.68 4.62 4.78 4.69

N 102 103 92 86

Std. Deviation .511 .612 .440 .559


Mean 4.59 4.50 4.43 4.36

N 211 205 190 165

Std. Deviation .628 .704 .771 .827

NEW Canoga Park

Mean 4.48 4.37 4.21 4.43

N 46 46 34 37

Std. Deviation .836 .903 1.122 .801

NEW South Valley

Mean 4.67 4.43 4.35 4.63

N 46 46 34 35

Std. Deviation .519 .720 .812 .646

Oakwood Family Resource Center

Mean 4.57 4.52 4.53 4.39

N 75 73 64 51

Std. Deviation .640 .580 .534 .532


Mean 4.55 4.49 4.36 4.25

N 53 53 44 36

Std. Deviation .574 .669 .750 .604


Mean 4.61 4.50 4.66 4.66

N 136 133 113 111

Std. Deviation .547 .714 .561 .531

Tom Bradley FSC

Mean 4.55 4.53 4.55 4.46

N 134 125 111 71

Std. Deviation .742 .725 .735 .753

WLCAC

Mean 4.66 4.60 4.63 4.54

N 145 141 123 119

Std. Deviation .639 .643 .592 .699


Mean 4.54 4.43 4.42 4.49

N 109 105 89 78

Std. Deviation .660 .732 .823 .679

Total

Mean 4.59 4.50 4.50 4.50

N 1957 1919 1653 1476

Std. Deviation .646 .733 .731 .711

37

Appendix A5: Satisfaction with Services

Site Name Overall

program effectiveness

Quality of workshops/

classes

Quality of counseling

Help finding a

job

Services for your children

Mix of Services Available

Hours Center is

Open 1736 Family Crisis Center

Mean 4.72 4.66 4.74 4.43 4.60 4.54 4.60

N 126 119 113 84 85 109 121

Std. Deviation .615 .655 .624 .840 .790 .788 .736

Barrio Action YFC Mean 4.58 4.72 4.69 4.48 4.60 4.54 4.62

N 106 101 95 80 92 97 102

Std. Deviation .599 .512 .566 .746 .680 .613 .598

Bradley Milken FSC Mean 4.49 4.53 4.49 4.62 4.55 4.51 4.52

N 86 78 73 66 69 73 88

Std. Deviation .715 .679 .729 .627 .654 .729 .678


Mean 4.37 4.39 4.31 4.11 4.89 4.23 4.26

N 115 109 90 73 85 97 120

Std. Deviation .778 .746 .816 .921 5.566 .872 .815


Mean 4.61 4.70 4.67 4.43 4.60 4.61 4.53

N 85 71 69 53 63 69 81

Std. Deviation .579 .571 .533 .888 .708 .712 .691

Community Build Mean 4.68 4.66 4.74 4.64 4.75 4.67 4.65

N 112 97 95 89 95 103 108

Std. Deviation .588 .593 .569 .678 .525 .567 .631


Mean 4.60 4.68 4.69 4.57 4.57 4.60 4.61

N 55 47 52 37 46 53 57

Std. Deviation .531 .515 .506 .555 .583 .566 .590

El Centro del Pueblo Mean 4.47 4.65 4.67 4.62 4.67 4.68 4.59

N 43 34 36 34 33 37 41

Std. Deviation .667 .485 .478 .493 .479 .475 .631

El Nido Family Centers Mean 4.71 4.73 4.66 4.41 4.67 4.70 4.65

N 70 67 59 46 45 69 77

Std. Deviation .455 .479 .545 .832 .564 .464 .480


Mean 4.69 4.73 4.80 4.76 4.80 4.78 4.78

N 93 78 79 76 76 81 90

Std. Deviation .625 .475 .435 .458 .433 .447 .444


Mean 4.49 4.53 4.48 4.44 4.55 4.50 4.51

N 191 174 154 134 133 165 180

Std. Deviation .656 .614 .679 .781 .621 .631 .656

NEW Canoga Park Mean 4.19 4.37 4.25 4.05 4.28 4.33 4.18

N 37 38 28 21 29 33 38

Std. Deviation .995 .942 1.076 1.161 1.066 .957 1.01

NEW South Valley Mean 4.56 4.61 4.60 4.26 4.52 4.38 4.64

N 36 28 30 23 27 29 36

Std. Deviation .558 .497 .675 .915 .700 .622 .543


Mean 4.56 4.63 4.56 4.16 4.69 4.45 4.56

N 68 68 57 32 64 62 68

Std. Deviation .557 .544 .598 1.019 .500 .694 .583


Mean 4.36 4.53 4.53 4.16 4.42 4.45 4.47

N 42 40 34 19 33 33 43

Std. Deviation .533 .506 .662 .958 .614 .564 .909


Mean 4.61 4.72 4.70 4.66 4.73 4.70 4.74

N 119 111 102 87 96 105 117

Std. Deviation .652 .508 .541 .626 .513 .521 .476

Tom Bradley FSC Mean 4.59 4.50 4.34 4.41 4.47 4.30 4.35

N 100 68 68 46 55 73 91

Std. Deviation .653 .611 .891 .748 .742 .811 .766

WLCAC Mean 4.64 4.60 4.65 4.53 4.67 4.68 4.63

N 133 122 118 96 93 110 126

Std. Deviation .569 .612 .632 .767 .681 .605 .588

Youth Policy Institute Mean 4.46 4.49 4.35 4.23 4.47 4.42 4.43

N 87 82 65 39 47 64 88

Std. Deviation .728 .671 .759 .872 .776 .773 .740

Total Mean 4.57 4.60 4.59 4.47 4.63 4.54 4.55

N 37 30 31 27 27 30 37

Std. Deviation .599 .490 .425 .465 .362 .407 .417

38

Appendix A6: Recommend Center

Site Name Yes No Not Sure Total

1736 Family Crisis Center Count 128 0 2 130

% within Site 98.5% 0.0% 1.5% 100.0%

Barrio Action YFC Count 114 0 1 115

% within Site 99.1% 0.0% 0.9% 100.0%

Bradley Milken FSC Count 99 0 3 102

% within Site 97.1% 0.0% 2.9% 100.0%

Central City Neighborhood Partners Count 144 1 2 147

% within Site 98.0% 0.7% 1.4% 100.0%


Count 100 0 2 102

% within Site 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 100.0%

Community Build Count 114 1 0 115

% within Site 99.1% 0.9% 0.0% 100.0%

El Centro de Ayuda, Inc. Count 64 0 1 67

% within Site 95.5% 0.0% 1.5% 100.0%

El Centro del Pueblo Count 51 2 0 53

% within Site 96.2% 3.8% 0.0% 100.0%

El Nido Family Centers Count 89 0 1 90

% within Site 98.9% 0.0% 1.1% 100.0%

Latino Resource Organization Count 106 1 1 108

% within Site 98.1% 0.9% 0.9% 100.0%

Lucile Beserra Roybal FSC Count 209 5 4 219

% within Site 95.4% 2.3% 1.8% 100.0%

NEW Canoga Park Count 48 1 3 52

% within Site 92.3% 1.9% 5.8% 100.0%

NEW South Valley Count 46 1 1 48

% within Site 95.8% 2.1% 2.1% 100.0%

Oakwood Family Resource Center Count 73 0 1 74

% within Site 98.6% 0.0% 1.4% 100.0%

The Children's Collective, Inc. Count 53 0 2 55

% within Site 96.4% 0.0% 3.6% 100.0%

Toberman Neighborhood Center Count 141 1 0 142

% within Site 99.3% 0.7% 0.0% 100.0%

Tom Bradley FSC Count 144 3 2 150

% within Site 96.0% 2.0% 1.3% 100.0%

WLCAC Count 143 2 2 148

% within Site 96.6% 1.4% 1.4% 100.0%

Youth Policy Institute Count 114 1 2 117

% within Site 97.4% 0.9% 1.7% 100.0%

Total Count 1980 19 30 2034

% within Site 97.3% 0.9% 1.5% 100.0%

39

Appendix A7: First Learn about FSC by Center

SiteName Friend College

or School

Met a staff member at an event

Saw a flyer

Saw the building or sign and just came in

Referred by other

agency

Found it on the

Internet Other

1736 Family Crisis Center Count 21 2 6 15 3 54 4 16

% within Site 17.4% 1.7% 5.0% 12.4% 2.5% 44.6% 3.3% 13.2%

Barrio Action YFC Count 31 20 17 8 8 5 0 15

% within Site 29.8% 19.2% 16.3% 7.7% 7.7% 4.8% 0.0% 14.4%

Bradley Milken FSC Count 45 3 3 5 12 18 2 10

% within Site 45.9% 3.1% 3.1% 5.1% 12.2% 18.4% 2.0% 10.2%

Central City Neighborhood Partners Count 87 17 4 8 8 9 2 6

% within Site 61.7% 12.1% 2.8% 5.7% 5.7% 6.4% 1.4% 4.3%


Count 28 7 3 25 12 7 3 13

% within Site 28.6% 7.1% 3.1% 25.5% 12.2% 7.1% 3.1% 13.3%

Community Build Count 43 9 9 12 19 6 1 8

% within Site 40.2% 8.4% 8.4% 11.2% 17.8% 5.6% 0.9% 7.5%

El Centro de Ayuda, Inc. Count 16 2 7 1 23 7 2 2

% within Site 26.7% 3.3% 11.7% 1.7% 38.3% 11.7% 3.3% 3.3%

El Centro del Pueblo Count 18 4 5 5 10 6 0 2

% within Site 36.0% 8.0% 10.0% 10.0% 20.0% 12.0% 0.0% 4.0%

El Nido Family Centers Count 48 5 6 5 5 11 4 5

% within Site 53.9% 5.6% 6.7% 5.6% 5.6% 12.4% 4.5% 5.6%

Latino Resource Organization Count 59 5 13 6 12 5 1 5

% within Site 55.7% 4.7% 12.3% 5.7% 11.3% 4.7% 0.9% 4.7%

Lucile Beserra Roybal FSC Count 144 8 13 8 30 3 3 5

% within Site 67.3% 3.7% 6.1% 3.7% 14.0% 1.4% 1.4% 2.3%

NEW Canoga Park Count 25 4 2 6 8 2 1 3

% within Site 49.0% 7.8% 3.9% 11.8% 15.7% 3.9% 2.0% 5.9%

NEW South Valley Count 16 5 5 3 3 6 1 7

% within Site 34.8% 10.9% 10.9% 6.5% 6.5% 13.0% 2.2% 15.2%

Oakwood Family Resource Center Count 32 7 2 6 6 9 1 8

% within Site 45.1% 9.9% 2.8% 8.5% 8.5% 12.7% 1.4% 11.3%

The Children's Collective, Inc. Count 25 11 3 13 1 2 0 4

% within Site 42.4% 18.6% 5.1% 22.0% 1.7% 3.4% 0.0% 6.8%

Toberman Neighborhood Center Count 82 6 6 3 12 9 2 13

% within Site 61.7% 4.5% 4.5% 2.3% 9.0% 6.8% 1.5% 9.8%

Tom Bradley FSC Count 112 5 4 4 12 5 1 8

% within Site 74.2% 3.3% 2.6% 2.6% 7.9% 3.3% 0.7% 5.3%

WLCAC Count 60 6 7 7 21 21 4 11

% within Site 43.8% 4.4% 5.1% 5.1% 15.3% 15.3% 2.9% 8.0%

Youth Policy Institute Count 57 15 5 11 10 7 4 9

% within Site 48.3% 12.7% 4.2% 9.3% 8.5% 5.9% 3.4% 7.6%

Total Count 949 141 120 151 215 192 36 150

% within Site 48.6% 7.2% 6.1% 7.7% 11.0% 9.8% 1.8% 7.7%

40

Appendix A8: “Why did you come to this FSC today?” by Center

Site Name Attend a

Class

Tax Preparation Assistance

Food Assistance

Help Finding Job

Assistance on Utility

Bills

Access a Computer


Count 71 11 11 28 12 28

% within Site 52.6% 8.1% 8.1% 20.7% 8.9% 20.7%

Barrio Action YFC

Count 51 12 4 9 6 7

% within Site 44.0% 10.3% 3.4% 7.8% 5.2% 6.0%

Bradley Milken FSC

Count 32 5 31 16 7 11

% within Site 30.8% 4.8% 29.8% 15.4% 6.7% 10.6%


Count 71 30 6 11 7 17

% within Site 46.1% 19.5% 3.9% 7.1% 4.5% 11.0%


Count 24 15 4 12 40 9

% within Site 22.6% 14.2% 3.8% 11.3% 37.7% 8.5%

Community Build

Count 19 16 17 37 16 45

% within Site 16.0% 13.4% 14.3% 31.1% 13.4% 37.8%


Count 16 10 10 7 17 6

% within Site 23.9% 14.7% 14.7% 10.3% 25.0% 8.8%


Count 6 15 9 10 6 5

% within Site 11.3% 28.3% 17.0% 18.9% 11.3% 9.4%


Count 47 15 2 6 9 0

% within Site 51.1% 16.3% 2.2% 6.5% 9.8% 0.0%


Count 5 27 24 7 15 3

% within Site 4.3% 23.5% 20.9% 6.1% 13.0% 2.6%


Count 89 12 168 8 16 34

% within Site 36.0% 4.9% 68.0% 3.2% 6.5% 13.8%

NEW Canoga Park

Count 15 8 2 6 1 8

% within Site 27.3% 14.5% 3.6% 10.9% 1.8% 14.5%

NEW South Valley

Count 12 11 6 5 2 12

% within Site 24.0% 22.0% 12.0% 10.0% 4.0% 24.0%


Count 48 0 0 0 0 2

% within Site 60.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.5%


Count 37 7 4 6 3 2

% within Site 61.7% 11.7% 6.7% 10.0% 5.0% 3.3%


Count 38 6 43 16 18 27

% within Site 25.9% 4.1% 29.3% 11.0% 12.2% 18.4%

Tom Bradley FSC

Count 23 1 122 6 3 5

% within Site 14.2% 0.6% 75.3% 3.7% 1.9% 3.1%

WLCAC

Count 54 10 7 22 37 12

% within Site 34.2% 6.3% 4.4% 13.9% 23.4% 7.6%


Count 60 9 10 2 3 16

% within Site 46.2% 6.9% 7.7% 1.5% 2.3% 12.3%

Total

Count 718 220 480 214 218 249

% within Site 33.4% 10.2% 22.3% 10.0% 10.1% 11.6%

41

Appendix A8: “Why did you come to this FSC today?” by Center (cont.)

Site Name Services for

Children Legal

Services Small

Business Child Care

What Services are

Here Other


Count 23 16 2 4 6 27

% within Site 17.0% 11.9% 1.5% 3.0% 4.4% 20.0%

Barrio Action YFC

Count 25 6 2 3 6 30

% within Site 21.6% 5.3% 1.7% 2.6% 5.2% 25.6%

Bradley Milken FSC

Count 21 7 2 6 9 27

% within Site 20.2% 6.7% 1.9% 5.8% 8.7% 25.5%


Count 34 8 2 1 5 29

% within Site 22.4% 5.2% 1.3% 0.6% 3.2% 18.8%


Count 15 4 2 2 9 5

% within Site 14.2% 3.8% 1.9% 1.9% 8.6% 4.7%

Community Build

Count 29 11 5 13 13 20

% within Site 24.4% 9.2% 4.2% 10.9% 10.9% 16.8%


Count 16 7 0 2 11 14

% within Site 23.5% 10.3% 0.0% 2.9% 16.2% 20.6%


Count 17 1 1 1 6 4

% within Site 32.7% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 11.3% 7.5%


Count 9 2 1 2 10 14

% within Site 9.8% 2.2% 1.1% 2.2% 10.9% 15.2%


Count 18 7 1 1 7 43

% within Site 15.7% 6.1% 0.9% 0.9% 6.1% 37.4%


Count 17 9 1 3 6 8

% within Site 6.9% 3.7% 0.4% 1.2% 2.4% 3.2%

NEW Canoga Park

Count 14 2 2 3 4 18

% within Site 25.5% 3.6% 3.6% 5.5% 7.3% 32.7%

NEW South Valley

Count 16 2 0 1 4 6

% within Site 32.0% 4.0% 0.0% 2.0% 8.0% 12.0%


Count 27 1 0 5 1 6

% within Site 34.2% 1.3% 0.0% 6.3% 1.3% 7.6%


Count 13 3 2 8 3 10

% within Site 21.7% 5.0% 3.3% 13.3% 5.1% 16.7%


Count 16 7 0 4 5 29

% within Site 10.9% 4.8% 0.0% 2.7% 3.4% 19.7%

Tom Bradley FSC

Count 10 4 2 2 6 11

% within Site 6.2% 2.5% 1.2% 1.2% 3.7% 6.8%

WLCAC

Count 15 13 4 2 14 21

% within Site 9.5% 8.2% 2.6% 1.3% 8.9% 13.3%


Count 15 5 1 5 3 20

% within Site 11.5% 3.8% 0.8% 3.8% 2.3% 15.4%

Total

Count 350 115 30 68 128 342

% within Site 16.3% 5.4% 1.4% 3.2% 6.0% 15.9%

42

Appendix A9: “How Often Have you come to this FSC in the Past Month?” by Center

Site Name One Time Two

Times Three Times

Four Times

Between Five and

Nine Times

Ten or More Times

Total

1736 Family Crisis Center Count 26 31 17 25 20 9 128

% within Site 20.3% 24.2% 13.3% 19.5% 15.6% 7.0% 100.0%

Barrio Action YFC Count 20 19 15 12 16 28 110

% within Site 18.2% 17.3% 13.6% 10.9% 14.5% 25.5% 100.0%

Bradley Milken FSC Count 22 11 8 17 17 20 95

% within Site 23.2% 11.6% 8.4% 17.9% 17.9% 21.1% 100.0%


Count 34 24 11 13 21 29 132

% within Site 25.8% 18.2% 8.3% 9.8% 15.9% 22.0% 100.0%


Count 28 12 13 8 8 22 91

% within Site 30.8% 13.2% 14.3% 8.8% 8.8% 24.2% 100.0%

Community Build Count 9 15 18 13 26 30 111

% within Site 8.1% 13.5% 16.2% 11.7% 23.4% 27.0% 100.0%

El Centro de Ayuda, Inc. Count 21 11 10 9 3 3 57

% within Site 36.8% 19.3% 17.5% 15.8% 5.3% 5.3% 100.0%

El Centro del Pueblo Count 15 9 5 9 5 6 49

% within Site 30.6% 18.4% 10.2% 18.4% 10.2% 12.2% 100.0%

El Nido Family Centers Count 20 14 9 14 15 4 76

% within Site 26.3% 18.4% 11.8% 18.4% 19.7% 5.3% 100.0%

Latino Resource Organization Count 33 14 17 14 15 10 103

% within Site 32.0% 13.6% 16.5% 13.6% 14.6% 9.7% 100.0%

Lucile Beserra Roybal FSC Count 43 26 25 54 17 48 213

% within Site 20.2% 12.2% 11.7% 25.4% 8.0% 22.5% 100.0%

NEW Canoga Park Count 7 7 7 11 10 7 49

% within Site 14.3% 14.3% 14.3% 22.4% 20.4% 14.3% 100.0%

NEW South Valley Count 10 5 5 3 11 9 43

% within Site 23.3% 11.6% 11.6% 7.0% 25.6% 20.9% 100.0%


Count 7 8 10 17 22 6 70

% within Site 10.0% 11.4% 14.3% 24.3% 31.4% 8.6% 100.0%

The Children's Collective, Inc. Count 15 4 5 7 8 9 48

% within Site 31.3% 8.3% 10.4% 14.6% 16.7% 18.8% 100.0%


Count 36 21 16 16 21 24 134

% within Site 26.9% 15.7% 11.9% 11.9% 15.7% 17.9% 100.0%

Tom Bradley FSC Count 30 80 9 6 8 12 145

% within Site 20.7% 55.2% 6.2% 4.1% 5.5% 8.3% 100.0%

WLCAC Count 44 31 16 29 9 15 144

% within Site 30.6% 21.5% 11.1% 20.1% 6.3% 10.4% 100.0%

Youth Policy Institute Count 26 8 4 16 13 41 108

% within Site 24.1% 7.4% 3.7% 14.8% 12.0% 38.0% 100.0%

Total Count 446 350 220 293 265 332 1906

% within Site 23.4% 18.4% 11.5% 15.4% 13.9% 17.4% 100.0%

43

Appendix A10: “Are you enrolled in a Class or Program at this FSC?” by Center

Site Name Yes No Don't Know

Total

1736 Family Crisis Center Count 68 44 7 119

% within Site 57.1% 37.0% 5.9% 100.0%

Barrio Action YFC Count 66 26 7 99

% within Site 66.7% 26.3% 7.1% 100.0%

Bradley Milken FSC Count 45 48 2 95

% within Site 47.4% 50.5% 2.1% 100.0%

Central City Neighborhood Partners Count 66 63 6 135

% within Site 48.9% 46.7% 4.4% 100.0%

Coalition of Mental Health Professionals, Inc. Count 25 67 6 98

% within Site 25.5% 68.4% 6.1% 100.0%

Community Build Count 34 70 7 111

% within Site 30.6% 63.1% 6.3% 100.0%

El Centro de Ayuda, Inc. Count 22 36 5 63

% within Site 34.9% 57.1% 7.9% 100.0%

El Centro del Pueblo Count 10 29 6 45

% within Site 22.2% 64.4% 13.3% 100.0%

El Nido Family Centers Count 41 45 0 86

% within Site 47.7% 52.3% 0.0% 100.0%

Latino Resource Organization Count 15 83 5 103

% within Site 14.6% 80.6% 4.9% 100.0%

Lucile Beserra Roybal FSC Count 85 114 1 200

% within Site 42.5% 57.0% 0.5% 100.0%

NEW Canoga Park Count 21 27 5 53

% within Site 39.6% 50.9% 9.4% 100.0%

NEW South Valley Count 17 30 0 47

% within Site 36.2% 63.8% 0.0% 100.0%

Oakwood Family Resource Center Count 41 22 2 65

% within Site 63.1% 33.8% 3.1% 100.0%

The Children's Collective, Inc. Count 38 15 2 55

% within Site 69.1% 27.3% 3.6% 100.0%

Toberman Neighborhood Center Count 30 99 4 133

% within Site 22.6% 74.4% 3.0% 100.0%

Tom Bradley FSC Count 9 124 5 138

% within Site 6.5% 89.9% 3.6% 100.0%

WLCAC Count 67 75 6 148

% within Site 45.3% 50.7% 4.1% 100.0%

Youth Policy Institute Count 64 56 3 123

% within Site 52.0% 45.5% 2.4% 100.0%

Total Count 764 1073 79 1916

% within Site 39.9% 56.0% 4.1% 100.0%

44

Appendix A11: Surveys completed by Language and Center

Site Name English Spanish Total

1736 Family Crisis Center Count 65 70 135

% within Site 48.1% 51.9% 100.0%

Barrio Action YFC Count 50 67 117

% within Site 42.7% 57.3% 100.0%

Bradley Milken FSC Count 66 40 106

% within Site 62.3% 37.7% 100.0%

Central City Neighborhood Partners Count 28 126 154

% within Site 18.2% 81.8% 100.0%

Coalition of Mental Health Professionals, Inc. Count 58 49 107

% within Site 54.2% 45.8% 100.0%

Community Build Count 105 14 119

% within Site 88.2% 11.8% 100.0%

El Centro de Ayuda, Inc. Count 15 53 68

% within Site 22.1% 77.9% 100.0%

El Centro del Pueblo Count 20 33 53

% within Site 37.7% 62.3% 100.0%

El Nido Family Centers Count 16 78 94

% within Site 17.0% 83.0% 100.0%

Latino Resource Organization Count 36 79 115

% within Site 31.3% 68.7% 100.0%

Lucile Beserra Roybal FSC Count 19 228 247

% within Site 7.7% 92.3% 100.0%

NEW Canoga Park Count 26 29 55

% within Site 47.3% 52.7% 100.0%

NEW South Valley Count 20 30 50

% within Site 40.0% 60.0% 100.0%

Oakwood Family Resource Center Count 14 65 79

% within Site 17.7% 82.3% 100.0%

The Children's Collective, Inc. Count 8 52 60

% within Site 13.3% 86.7% 100.0%

Toberman Neighborhood Center Count 79 68 147

% within Site 53.7% 46.3% 100.0%

Tom Bradley FSC Count 64 98 162

% within Site 39.5% 60.5% 100.0%

WLCAC Count 115 43 158

% within Site 72.8% 27.2% 100.0%

Youth Policy Institute Count 34 96 130

% within Site 26.2% 73.8% 100.0%

Total Count 838 1318 2156

% within Site 38.9% 61.1% 100.0%

45

Appendix A12: Surveys completed by Gender and Center

Site Name Male Female Total

1736 Family Crisis Center Count 24 105 129

% within Site 18.6% 81.4% 100.0%

Barrio Action YFC Count 25 88 113

% within Site 22.1% 77.9% 100.0%

Bradley Milken FSC Count 31 69 100

% within Site 31.0% 69.0% 100.0%

Central City Neighborhood Partners Count 33 114 147

% within Site 22.4% 77.6% 100.0%

Coalition of Mental Health Professionals, Inc. Count 27 77 104

% within Site 26.0% 74.0% 100.0%

Community Build Count 44 69 113

% within Site 38.9% 61.1% 100.0%

El Centro de Ayuda, Inc. Count 19 47 66

% within Site 28.8% 71.2% 100.0%

El Centro del Pueblo Count 14 37 51

% within Site 27.5% 72.5% 100.0%

El Nido Family Centers Count 16 75 91

% within Site 17.6% 82.4% 100.0%

Latino Resource Organization Count 23 84 107

% within Site 21.5% 78.5% 100.0%

Lucile Beserra Roybal FSC Count 54 175 229

% within Site 23.6% 76.4% 100.0%

NEW Canoga Park Count 12 41 53

% within Site 22.6% 77.4% 100.0%

NEW South Valley Count 14 35 49

% within Site 28.6% 71.4% 100.0%

Oakwood Family Resource Center Count 11 65 76

% within Site 14.5% 85.5% 100.0%

The Children's Collective, Inc. Count 14 43 57

% within Site 24.6% 75.4% 100.0%

Toberman Neighborhood Center Count 36 101 137

% within Site 26.3% 73.7% 100.0%

Tom Bradley FSC Count 45 103 148

% within Site 30.4% 69.6% 100.0%

WLCAC Count 68 85 153

% within Site 44.4% 55.6% 100.0%

Youth Policy Institute Count 31 90 121

% within Site 25.6% 74.4% 100.0%

Total Count 541 1503 2044

% within Site 26.5% 73.5% 100.0%

46

Appendix A13: Surveys completed by Age and Center

Site Name 18-25 26-40 41-55 56-70 71+ Total

1736 Family Crisis Center Count 9 47 46 24 3 129

% within Site 7.0% 36.4% 35.7% 18.6% 2.3% 100.0%

Barrio Action YFC Count 34 39 28 8 4 113

% within Site 30.1% 34.5% 24.8% 7.1% 3.5% 100.0%

Bradley Milken FSC Count 25 39 22 9 3 98

% within Site 25.5% 39.8% 22.4% 9.2% 3.1% 100.0%

Central City Neighborhood Partners Count 18 51 52 22 4 147

% within Site 12.2% 34.7% 35.4% 15.0% 2.7% 100.0%


Count 10 40 29 17 7 103

% within Site 9.7% 38.8% 28.2% 16.5% 6.8% 100.0%

Community Build Count 24 41 32 14 4 115

% within Site 20.9% 35.7% 27.8% 12.2% 3.5% 100.0%

El Centro de Ayuda, Inc. Count 4 20 23 17 4 68

% within Site 5.9% 29.4% 33.8% 25.0% 5.9% 100.0%

El Centro del Pueblo Count 7 12 14 14 5 52

% within Site 13.5% 23.1% 26.9% 26.9% 9.6% 100.0%

El Nido Family Centers Count 5 36 40 10 0 91

% within Site 5.5% 39.6% 44.0% 11.0% 0.0% 100.0%

Latino Resource Organization Count 14 26 31 23 14 108

% within Site 13.0% 24.1% 28.7% 21.3% 13.0% 100.0%

Lucile Beserra Roybal FSC Count 8 48 92 55 27 230

% within Site 3.5% 20.9% 40.0% 23.9% 11.7% 100.0%

NEW Canoga Park Count 6 18 22 7 0 53

% within Site 11.3% 34.0% 41.5% 13.2% 0.0% 100.0%

NEW South Valley Count 3 18 19 7 2 49

% within Site 6.1% 36.7% 38.8% 14.3% 4.1% 100.0%

Oakwood Family Resource Center Count 13 40 19 3 1 76

% within Site 17.1% 52.6% 25.0% 3.9% 1.3% 100.0%

The Children's Collective, Inc. Count 2 24 25 0 1 52

% within Site 3.8% 46.2% 48.1% 0.0% 1.9% 100.0%

Toberman Neighborhood Center Count 21 53 42 17 7 140

% within Site 15.0% 37.9% 30.0% 12.1% 5.0% 100.0%

Tom Bradley FSC Count 2 24 44 34 43 147

% within Site 1.4% 16.3% 29.9% 23.1% 29.3% 100.0%

WLCAC Count 27 68 45 9 4 153

% within Site 17.6% 44.4% 29.4% 5.9% 2.6% 100.0%

Youth Policy Institute Count 11 46 25 30 7 119

% within Site 9.2% 38.7% 21.0% 25.2% 5.9% 100.0%

Total Count 243 690 650 320 140 2043

% within Site 11.9% 33.8% 31.8% 15.7% 6.9% 100.0%

47

Appendix A14: Other Participant Characteristics by Center

Site Name Employed Full Time

Employed Part Time

Unemployed and Seeking Paid Work

I Have a Child in School

I Have a Child Who Needs Help in School

1736 Family Crisis Center Count 11 25 69 60 17

% within Site 8.5% 19.2% 53.1% 46.2% 13.1%

Barrio Action YFC Count 16 31 37 39 21

% within Site 14.0% 27.2% 32.5% 34.5% 18.4%

Bradley Milken FSC Count 18 18 37 36 14

% within Site 18.0% 18.0% 37.0% 36.0% 14.0%

Central City Neighborhood Partners Count 24 27 51 67 21

% within Site 15.9% 17.9% 33.8% 44.4% 13.9%

Coalition of Mental Health Professionals, Inc. Count 18 20 37 32 19

% within Site 17.0% 18.9% 34.9% 30.2% 17.9%

Community Build Count 23 16 53 39 22

% within Site 19.3% 13.4% 44.5% 32.8% 18.5%

El Centro de Ayuda, Inc. Count 9 10 24 22 12

% within Site 13.4% 14.9% 35.8% 32.8% 17.9%

El Centro del Pueblo Count 12 13 19 15 6

% within Site 22.6% 24.5% 35.8% 28.3% 11.3%

El Nido Family Centers Count 7 26 40 24 17

% within Site 7.6% 28.3% 43.5% 26.1% 18.5%

Latino Resource Organization Count 9 24 44 28 18

% within Site 8.3% 21.8% 40.0% 25.5% 16.4%

Lucile Beserra Roybal FSC Count 11 43 86 68 22

% within Site 4.6% 18.0% 36.0% 28.5% 9.2%

NEW Canoga Park Count 6 9 17 18 12

% within Site 11.5% 17.0% 32.1% 34.0% 22.6%

NEW South Valley Count 7 9 18 19 12

% within Site 14.0% 18.0% 36.0% 38.0% 24.0%

Oakwood Family Resource Center Count 13 9 23 37 13

% within Site 16.7% 11.5% 29.5% 47.4% 16.7%

The Children's Collective, Inc. Count 8 11 19 27 9

% within Site 13.8% 19.0% 32.8% 46.6% 15.5%

Toberman Neighborhood Center Count 17 26 59 39 10

% within Site 11.6% 17.8% 40.4% 26.7% 6.8%

Tom Bradley FSC Count 6 24 56 25 16

% within Site 3.7% 14.9% 34.8% 15.5% 9.9%

WLCAC Count 24 40 69 36 19

% within Site 15.6% 26.0% 44.8% 23.4% 12.3%

Youth Policy Institute Count 13 26 33 40 16

% within Site 10.5% 21.0% 26.6% 32.3% 12.9%

Total Count 252 407 791 671 296

% within Site 12.0% 19.3% 37.6% 31.9% 14.1%

48

Appendix A15: Participant Highest Education Level Completed

Site Name Elementary/

Primary School


Some High

School

High School

Diploma or Equivalent

Some College

Associate's Degree

Bachelor's Degree or

More

1736 Family Crisis Center Count 20 12 20 21 20 5 12

% within Site 18.2% 10.9% 18.2% 19.1% 18.2% 4.5% 10.9%

Barrio Action YFC Count 22 12 20 24 13 1 2

% within Site 23.4% 12.8% 21.3% 25.5% 13.8% 1.1% 2.1%

Bradley Milken FSC Count 9 15 11 22 13 7 7

% within Site 10.7% 17.9% 13.1% 26.2% 15.5% 8.3% 8.3%


Count 42 18 19 25 9 0 9

% within Site 34.4% 14.8% 15.6% 20.5% 7.4% 0.0% 7.4%


Count 25 10 13 19 12 4 5

% within Site 28.4% 11.4% 14.8% 21.6% 13.6% 4.5% 5.7%

Community Build Count 14 5 18 34 19 13 5

% within Site 13.0% 4.6% 16.7% 31.5% 17.6% 12.0% 4.6%

El Centro de Ayuda, Inc. Count 19 11 11 9 1 1 3

% within Site 34.5% 20.0% 20.0% 16.4% 1.8% 1.8% 5.5%

El Centro del Pueblo Count 14 3 8 8 4 1 6

% within Site 31.8% 6.8% 18.2% 18.2% 9.1% 2.3% 13.6%

El Nido Family Centers Count 17 29 10 12 10 1 3

% within Site 20.7% 35.4% 12.2% 14.6% 12.2% 1.2% 3.7%

Latino Resource Organization Count 27 14 20 18 7 6 5

% within Site 27.8% 14.4% 20.6% 18.6% 7.2% 6.2% 5.2%

Lucile Beserra Roybal FSC Count 83 38 26 22 9 7 4

% within Site 43.9% 20.1% 13.8% 11.6% 4.8% 3.7% 2.1%

NEW Canoga Park Count 5 5 7 8 12 3 5

% within Site 11.1% 11.1% 15.6% 17.8% 26.7% 6.7% 11.1%

NEW South Valley Count 8 7 7 9 5 5 2

% within Site 18.6% 16.3% 16.3% 20.9% 11.6% 11.6% 4.7%


Count 19 11 12 13 6 3 6

% within Site 27.1% 15.7% 17.1% 18.6% 8.6% 4.3% 8.6%

The Children's Collective, Inc. Count 20 8 8 7 3 0 3

% within Site 40.8% 16.3% 16.3% 14.3% 6.1% 0.0% 6.1%

Toberman Neighborhood Center Count 23 19 28 29 18 6 5

% within Site 18.0% 14.8% 21.9% 22.7% 14.1% 4.7% 3.9%

Tom Bradley FSC Count 38 19 10 19 10 5 11

% within Site 33.9% 17.0% 8.9% 17.0% 8.9% 4.5% 9.8%

WLCAC Count 16 9 39 40 19 5 8

% within Site 11.8% 6.6% 28.7% 29.4% 14.0% 3.7% 5.9%

Youth Policy Institute Count 40 14 17 13 5 2 12

% within Site 38.8% 13.6% 16.5% 12.6% 4.9% 1.9% 11.7%

Total Count 461 259 304 352 195 75 113

% within Site 26.2% 14.7% 17.3% 20.0% 11.1% 4.3% 6.4%

49

Appendix A16: Ethnicity

Site Name African

American White Hispanic

Asian/ Pacific

Islander

Native America

n

Bi-racial/ Multiraci

al Other Total


Count 28 3 78 10 0 1 2 122

% within Site 23.0% 2.5% 63.9% 8.2% 0.0% 0.8% 1.6% 100.0%

Barrio Action YFC

Count 1 2 104 1 1 0 3 112

% within Site 0.9% 1.8% 92.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.0% 2.7% 100.0%

Bradley Milken FSC

Count 27 3 67 0 0 1 0 98

% within Site 27.6% 3.1% 68.4% 0.0% 0.0% 1.0% 0.0% 100.0%


Count 3 4 137 1 0 0 1 146

% within Site 2.1% 2.7% 93.8% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.7% 100.0%


Count 34 0 59 0 2 2 3 100

% within Site 34.0% 0.0% 59.0% 0.0% 2.0% 2.0% 3.0% 100.0%

Community Build

Count 67 0 38 1 0 5 1 112

% within Site 59.8% 0.0% 33.9% 0.9% 0.0% 4.5% 0.9% 100.0%


Count 0 0 66 0 0 0 0 66

% within Site 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%


Count 6 1 43 1 0 0 1 52

% within Site 11.5% 1.9% 82.7% 1.9% 0.0% 0.0% 1.9% 100.0%


Count 2 2 87 0 0 0 0 91

% within Site 2.2% 2.2% 95.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%


Count 11 9 85 0 0 0 1 106

% within Site 10.4% 8.5% 80.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.9% 100.0%


Count 3 9 210 0 0 3 3 228

% within Site 1.3% 3.9% 92.1% 0.0% 0.0% 1.3% 1.3% 100.0%

NEW Canoga Park

Count 3 7 40 1 0 0 0 51

% within Site 5.9% 13.7% 78.4% 2.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

NEW South Valley

Count 7 5 33 0 1 0 1 47

% within Site 14.9% 10.6% 70.2% 0.0% 2.1% 0.0% 2.1% 100.0%


Count 0 0 73 1 0 0 1 75

% within Site 0.0% 0.0% 97.3% 1.3% 0.0% 0.0% 1.3% 100.0%


Count 4 1 51 0 0 0 0 56

% within Site 7.1% 1.8% 91.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%


Count 15 9 109 3 0 2 0 138

% within Site 10.9% 6.5% 79.0% 2.2% 0.0% 1.4% 0.0% 100.0%

Tom Bradley FSC

Count 23 6 100 10 1 2 2 144

% within Site 16.0% 4.2% 69.4% 6.9% 0.7% 1.4% 1.4% 100.0%

WLCAC

Count 71 3 68 2 0 4 3 151

% within Site 47.0% 2.0% 45.0% 1.3% 0.0% 2.6% 2.0% 100.0%


Count 2 5 96 4 2 3 1 113

% within Site 1.8% 4.4% 85.0% 3.5% 1.8% 2.7% 0.9% 100.0%

Total

Count 307 69 1544 35 7 23 23 2008

% within Site 15.3% 3.4% 76.9% 1.7% 0.3% 1.1% 1.1% 100.0%

50

Appendix B: Executive and Program Directors’ Satisfaction with HCID

51

Appendix B1: Executive Director Questionnaire

2014-2015 FSC Satisfaction Report_Final JC

Documents

Transcript of 2014-2015 FSC Satisfaction Report_Final JC