Los Angeles FamilySource Network
Customer Satisfaction Survey
2013-2014 Program Year
Prepared for: City of Los Angeles
Authors:
Richard W. Moore. Ph.D.
Shanae Russell, M.A.
October 27, 2014
The College of Business & Economics
i
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 ................................................................................... 5
Satisfaction with Staff ............................................................................................................................... 6
Figure 3: Satisfaction with FSC Staff ..................................................................................................... 6
Satisfaction with Facilities......................................................................................................................... 7
Figure 4: Satisfaction with FSC Facilities ............................................................................................... 7
Satisfaction with Services ......................................................................................................................... 8
Figure 5: Satisfaction with FSC Services ................................................................................................ 9
Would Recommend Center .................................................................................................................... 10
Figure 6: Would You Recommend this Center .................................................................................... 10
How Clients Learned About FSC.............................................................................................................. 10
Figure 7: How did you First Learn About this FSC? ............................................................................. 11
Reason for Coming to FSC ....................................................................................................................... 11
Figure 8: Why did you Come to this Center Today? ........................................................................... 12
Start Services at FSC ................................................................................................................................ 12
Figure 9: When did you Start Receiving Services at this FSC? ............................................................ 13
Frequency of Visits to FSC ....................................................................................................................... 13
Figure 10: How Often have you Come to this FSC in the Past Month? .............................................. 14
Enrolled in Class at FSC ........................................................................................................................... 15
Figure 11: Are you Enrolled in a Class or Program at this FSC? .......................................................... 15
Demographics ......................................................................................................................................... 16
Figure 12: Surveys Completed by Language ....................................................................................... 17
Figure 13: Participant Gender ............................................................................................................. 17
ii
Figure 14: Participant Age ................................................................................................................... 18
Figure 15: Participant Education ......................................................................................................... 19
Figure 16: Participant Ethnicity ........................................................................................................... 20
Figure 17: Other Participant Characteristics ....................................................................................... 21
Executive and Program Directors’ Satisfaction with HCID .......................................................................... 21
Figure 18: Executive and Program Directors’ Overall Satisfaction with HCID .................................... 22
Figure 19: Executive and Program Directors’ Satisfaction with HCID Services ................................... 23
Figure 20: Executive and Program Directors’ Satisfaction with HCID Staff ........................................ 25
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................... 26
Appendices.................................................................................................................................................. 27
Appendix A: FSC Customer Satisfaction .................................................................................................. 27
Appendix A1: Questionnaire ............................................................................................................... 28
Appendix A2: Overall Satisfaction by Center ...................................................................................... 32
Appendix A3: Satisfaction with Staff................................................................................................... 33
Appendix A4: Satisfaction with Facilities ............................................................................................ 34
Appendix A5: Satisfaction with Services ............................................................................................. 35
Appendix A6: Recommend Center ...................................................................................................... 36
Appendix A7: First Learn about FSC by Center ................................................................................... 37
Appendix A8: “Why did you come to this FSC today?” by Center ...................................................... 38
Appendix A9: “How Often Have you come to this FSC in the Past Month?” by Center ..................... 39
Appendix A10: “Are you enrolled in a Class or Program at this FSC?” by Center ............................... 40
Appendix A11: Surveys completed by Language and Center ............................................................. 41
Appendix A12: Surveys completed by Gender and Center ................................................................. 42
Appendix A13: Surveys completed by Age and Center....................................................................... 43
Appendix A14: Other Participant Characteristics by Center ............................................................... 44
Appendix A15: Participant Highest Education Level Completed ........................................................ 45
Appendix A16: Ethnicity ...................................................................................................................... 46
Appendix B: Executive and Program Directors’ Satisfaction with HCID ................................................. 47
Appendix B1: Executive Director Questionnaire................................................................................. 48
iii
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 21 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 2013-2014 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 2013 a total of 1212 adults completed a customer satisfaction questionnaire. In Spring 2014, 1121 adults
completed the survey. (Note: no youth were surveyed in the 2013-2014 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 2012 through Spring 2014.
Consistent with previous years, clients report high satisfaction during the 2013-2014 program year. Across all
21 centers average adult satisfaction was 4.64 on a 5 point scale in both Fall 2013 and Spring 2014. Overall
satisfaction results for the 2013-14 program year increased slightly, compared to results from the 2012-13
program year. Across all four survey terms overall satisfaction and satisfaction with most program elements
have increased over time.
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
from 7.56 in 2013 to 8.18 in 2014, and is much higher than when surveying began in 2010 (6.70). Similar to FSC
customer satisfaction, FSC director satisfaction with CDD 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.
1
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 2013 adult surveys were conducted during October, November, and December. In Spring 2014 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 2013 we achieved a very high response rate,
with less than 3% of participants declining to complete a survey. However, in Spring 2014 the refusal rate
jumped to about 11%. Two centers that had large refusal rates also had food distribution events on the day the
surveys took place. In the survey field notes, the enumerator noted that both centers were busy, but the recipients
were focused on the food giveaway event rather than completing the satisfaction survey. This may explain the
unusual spike in refusals. 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 2010.
2
Figure 1: Total Surveys Completed by Round—Spring 2010 through Spring 2014
Table 1: Response Data by Center - Comparison by Year
Center
1736 FCC
Barrio Action YFC
Bradley Milken FSC
CCNP
CMHP
Community Build
Cypress Park FSC
El Centro De Ayuda
El Centro Del Pueblo
El Nido FSC
Lucille Beserra Roybal FSC
NEW Canoga Park
NEW Van Nuys
Oakwood FSC
Pacoima FSC
The Children's Collective
Toberman Neighborhood Ctr
Tom Bradley FSC
West LA FSC (LRC)
WLCAC
Youth Policy Institute
Adult Survey Total
S10
19
81
28
43
13
16
15
20
6
45
27
23
15
43
35
7
30
27
18
22
9
542
F10
38
63
52
65
32
48
56
80
47
96
25
94
55
35
35
29
44
58
2
16
27
997
S11
37
50
78
135
48
50
37
45
43
63
46
54
37
48
64
41
58
50
9
18
51
1062
F11
60
110
134
108
48
130
64
74
59
85
43
80
15
53
83
34
42
220
9
7
94
1552
3
S12
39
70
77
51
64
61
42
55
28
98
28
30
27
30
46
30
20
82
16
38
55
987
F12
43
57
112
69
103
114
53
70
54
66
64
53
52
33
69
38
34
220
16
41
83
1444
S13
74
60
80
95
115
92
17
70
45
86
40
78
55
84
62
41
76
206
21
48
52
1497
F13
51
42
90
41
56
94
48
61
18
70
56
52
38
47
28
31
24
142
67
117
39
1212
S14
26
46
61
92
73
56
41
45
29
63
69
25
34
52
32
42
59
90
73
65
48
1121
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
Spring 2014
Satisfaction Element
Response to your phone calls
Amount of paperwork required
Ability of staff to answer questions quickly
Respect the staff shows you
Waiting time for services
Availability of staff who speaks your language
The cleanliness of this FSC
The visibility of FSC signs
Access to this center by public transportation
Quality of computers and other equipment
Overall effectiveness of programs
Quality of workshops and classes
Quality of counseling
Help finding a job
Services to help your children
Mix of services available at FSC and its partners
The hours that this FSC is open
Fall 2013
% No
Response or
N/A
Correlation W/
Overall
Satisfaction
% No
Response or
N/A
Correlation W/
Overall
Satisfaction
15.8%
16.5%
9.5%
8.5%
11.9%
7.7%
5.4%
8.0%
21.1%
26.9%
15.7%
21.1%
27.1%
42.6%
37.6%
25.2%
16.4%
0.494
0.415
0.547
0.542
0.499
0.425
0.362
0.414
0.415
0.446
0.550
0.550
0.516
0.475
0.533
0.538
0.520
20.1%
20.9%
14.4%
12.9%
15.4%
11.7%
9.7%
11.4%
22.5%
28.5%
24.8%
30.3%
36.2%
46.5%
41.0%
31.8%
24.0%
0.467
0.435
0.495
0.474
0.482
0.407
0.385
0.343
0.391
0.466
0.523
0.562
0.548
0.483
0.551
0.483
0.547
All correlations were statistically significant at the .01 level for both Fall 2013 and Spring 2014. In both terms
the satisfaction element that was most tightly correlated with overall satisfaction was “quality of workshops
and classes,” which suggests that participants ’ satisfaction with FSC workshops and classes drives their overall
satisfaction more than their satisfaction with other service elements, such as staff and facilities. In Spring 2014
“overall effectiveness of programs” (0.550) was virtually tied with “quality of workshops and classes.” Other
important aspects of overall satisfaction for Spring 2014 include “ability of staff to answer questions quickly”
(0.547) and “respect staff shows you” (0.542). For Fall 2013 “services to help your children” (0.551) and
4
“quality of counseling” (0.548) were also influential in determining overall satisfaction. These correlations
suggest that FSC participants are most likely to rate their overall satisfaction highly if they are highly satisfied
with program elements, such as workshops/classes, the efficacy of available services, and the helpfulness of
staff. In Spring 2014 “cleanliness of facility” had the least influence on clients’ overall satisfaction (.362), while
“the visibility of FSC signs” had the least influence in Fall 2013 (.343).
The percent of respondents who chose NA or skipped a question was lower for each satisfaction question in
Spring 2014 compared to Fall 2013, which means that respondents answered the survey more thoroughly in
Spring 2014. A similar trend occurred during both PY 2011-12 and PY 2012-13. This may indicate that the mix
of services available differs between Fall and Spring, and participants are utilizing more services in Spring. In PY
2013-14 response rates were fairly high for each question except the “help finding a job” question (42.6%
skipped in S14 and 46.5% skipped in F13). However, help with job placement is not one of the primary services
that the FamilySource program provides, 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 2013 and Spring 2014.
Overall Satisfaction
As Figure 2 below demonstrates, adult overall satisfaction was identical for Fall 2013 and Spring 2014 (4.64).
These scores are exceptionally high, and represent a slight increase from the previous program year. This
increase shows that FSCs are responding to their clients’ feedback from our survey and increasing the quality
of their services, which is reflected in higher satisfaction. “Visit to center was valuable” and “services met
expectations” both show some fluctuation between survey terms, but in all instances the difference is less
than seven hundredths (.07) of a point. Overall, all measures of satisfaction increased since Spring 2013.
Figure 2: Average Overall Satisfaction with FSC
Spring 2014
Fall 2013
Spring 2013
Fall 2012
4.64
4.64
4.60
4.61
Overall Satisfaction
4.57
4.56
4.52
4.59
Services met Expectations
4.65
4.64
4.62
4.67
Visit to Center was Valuable
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
5
4.0
4.5
5.0
Satisfaction with Staff
Figure 3 shows that satisfaction with staff has also improved during program year 2013-2014. Clients are the
most satisfied with “staff’s ability to speak your language” (4.69 in Spring and 4.66 in Fall), 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 4.63 in Fall 2013 and 4.65 in Spring 2014. The respect category has been increasing over time.
Satisfaction ratings for “the amount of paperwork required,” previously the lowest ranked category, has
improved considerably over time, from 4.32 in Fall 2012 to 4.43 in Spring 2014.
“Waiting time for services” has fluctuated over time, with an unusually high satisfaction rating in Fall 2013.
Satisfaction with “waiting time for services” overall was higher in PY 2013-14 than PY 2012-13, but the
difference again is only a few hundredths of a point. Satisfaction with “staff’s response to phone calls” and
“staff response to questions” were the lowest in Fall 2012 out of the four survey terms (4.38 and 4.50,
respectively), and have steadily increased over time. Overall FSC clients are highly satisfied with most elements
of staff service, and satisfaction has either remained steady, or increased slightly over time.
Figure 3: Satisfaction with FSC Staff
Spring 2014
Fall 2013
Spring 2013
Fall 2012
4.51
4.48
4.41
4.38
Response to Phone Calls
4.43
4.42
4.34
4.32
Amount of Paperwork Required
4.58
4.55
4.53
4.50
Staff Response to Questions
4.65
4.63
4.63
4.61
Respect Staff Shows Client
4.38
4.44
4.36
4.39
Waiting time for services
4.69
4.66
4.63
4.63
Staff's ability to speak your language
2.00
2.50
3.00
6
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
Satisfaction with Facilities
Figure 4, below, shows that adult satisfaction with facilities has been rated highly since Fall 2012, and that all
scores have increased over time. “Quality of computers or equipment” has increased slowly over time—from
4.49 in F2012 to 4.54 in S2014. “Access to public transportation” remained virtually unchanged for the first
three survey terms (Fall 2012-Fall 2013), then increased in Spring 2014 from 4.51 to 4.57. Overall, satisfaction
with “cleanliness of facility” increased by one tenth (.10) in the 2013-2014 PY, as compared to 2012-2013. This
category received the highest score of the four facility aspects for all survey terms, indicating that respondents
are highly satisfied with the cleanliness of their FSC’s. Satisfaction with “visibility of center’s sign” fluctuated
across survey terms, but demonstrates an overall increase over time.
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
Spring 2014
Fall 2013
Spring 2013
Fall 2012
4.59
4.61
4.55
4.55
Cleanliness of Facility
Visibility of Center's Sign
4.55
4.56
4.47
4.51
Access to public transportation
4.57
4.51
4.50
4.49
Quality of computers or equipment
4.54
4.53
4.51
4.49
2.0
2.5
3.0
7
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
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 increased over time. In
Spring 2013 “services for your children” obtained the highest score of 4.64, with “quality or
workshops/classes” and “quality of counseling” tied for very close second at 4.63. The only score that
decreased in Spring 2014 was “hours center is open” and this decrease was marginal at two hundredths of a
point (.02).
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 4.33 in Fall 2012 to 4.48 in Spring 2014. This increase in satisfaction
may be related to FSCs managing their clients’ expectations. According to the American Customer Satisfaction
Index (ASCI)—which conducts research on customer satisfaction across several industries—customers’
expectations have the greatest influence on customer satisfaction. Job placement assistance is not a main
focus 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 .09 improvement 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.
8
Figure 5: Satisfaction with FSC Services
Spring 2014
Fall 2013
Spring 2013
Fall 2012
Overall program effectiveness
4.61
4.54
4.52
4.52
Quality of workshops/classes
4.63
4.60
4.57
4.56
Quality of counseling
4.63
4.56
4.51
4.50
4.48
4.43
4.35
4.33
Help finding a job
4.64
4.56
4.57
4.54
Services for your children
4.59
4.56
4.50
4.50
Mix of Services Available
4.61
4.63
4.55
4.53
Hours Center is Open
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
9
4.0
4.5
5.0
Would Recommend Center
Figure 6 shows that nearly all respondents would recommend their FSC. Fall 2013 holds the record for the
highest percentage of respondents indicating that they would recommend their FSC to someone like
themselves (98.3%). 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
Spring 2014
Fall 2013
Spring 2013
Fall 2012
97.4%
98.3%
97.7%
96.9%
Yes
No
1.2%
0.8%
1.2%
1.3%
Not Sure
1.4%
0.9%
1.1%
1.8%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
How Clients Learned About FSC
While client satisfaction scores have remained mostly steady during program year 2012-13, the manner that
clients first learned about their FSC has changed somewhat over time. In all survey terms at least 45% of
respondents indicated that they learned of their FSC from a friend, which is the largest of the seven categories
(see Figure 7, below, for a graphical representation of all 7 categories). Overall, all other categories, besides
“friend” decreased from PY 2013-2013 to PY 2013-2014. FSCs appear to be tapping into the social network of
existing clients to gain new clients. While this approach may be efficient it also suggests there may be
populations of potential clients who don’t know about FSC services, and that more aggressive outreach could
bring in new groups of clients.
10
Figure 7: How did you First Learn About this FSC?
Spring 2014
Fall 2013
Spring 2013
Fall 2012
51.2%
52.2%
Friend
45.3%
47.4%
5.9%
5.7%
8.4%
7.3%
College or School
5.0%
6.2%
6.2%
7.3%
Met a staff member at an event
7.6%
9.6%
13.3%
13.3%
Saw a flyer
10.2%
10.5%
14.0%
15.3%
Saw the building or sign and just came in
9.5%
8.2%
10.8%
9.3%
Referred by other agency
10.5%
7.6%
14.2%
15.1%
Other
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
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, so the totals
between the categories add up to more than 100%. The “other category” was actually the most common
response in Spring 2014, with 38%. This indicates the wide variety of services that go in FSCs.
11
Figure 8: Why did you Come to this Center Today?
Spring 2014
Fall 2013
Spring 2013
Fall 2012
35.8%
34.7%
Attend Class
41.0%
38.0%
11.7%
14.9%
12.4%
14.1%
Computer Access
9.4%
13.2%
9.0%
11.4%
Help Finding Job
15.8%
16.7%
18.8%
19.8%
Services for Children
6.9%
5.5%
5.4%
6.0%
Legal Services
1.0%
1.7%
0.7%
2.2%
Small Business Services
1.7%
2.0%
2.4%
3.3%
Child Care
31.3%
30.1%
29.7%
Other
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
38.3%
40%
45%
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 2014. This upward trend indicates that most clients are long term clients. At the same time, “in
the last month” is the second-highest category, which means that FSC’s are also consistently brining in new
clients in addition to the clients they maintain long term.
12
Figure 9: When did you Start Receiving Services at this FSC?
Spring 2014
Fall 2013
Spring 2013
19.6%
17.9%
18.8%
In the Last Month
Fall 2012
25.1%
12.0%
21.0%
15.9%
19.0%
2-3 Months
13.0%
12.6%
14.4%
9.4%
4-6 Months
13.6%
10.6%
13.8%
8.6%
7-12 Months
41.8%
37.8%
37.2%
37.8%
More than 1 Year
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
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 21.3%, but 19.3% say
they come four times a month and 16.6% say they visit ten or more times a month. While the distribution of
responses has varied somewhat over time there is not distinct pattern in the use of the Centers.
13
Figure 10: How Often have you Come to this FSC in the Past Month?
Spring 2014
Fall 2013
Spring 2013
Fall 2012
21.3%
25.4%
22.1%
23.8%
One Time
16.5%
18.1%
15.1%
14.7%
Two Times
10.9%
10.3%
10.3%
10.5%
Three Times
19.3%
17.2%
16.5%
15.4%
Four Times
15.4%
15.0%
14.0%
14.8%
Between Five and Nine Times
14.0%
Ten or More Times
0%
5%
10%
15%
14
16.6%
22.1%
20.7%
20%
25%
30%
Enrolled in Class at FSC
The percentage of participants who reported being enrolled in a class slightly decreased in the 2013-14
program year compared to the 2012-13 program year, especially in Fall.
Figure 11: Are you Enrolled in a Class or Program at this FSC?
Spring 2014
Fall 2013
Spring 2013
Fall 2012
47.9%
43.1%
Yes
49.1%
48.8%
47.8%
51.4%
48.2%
47.0%
No
4.4%
5.6%
2.7%
4.1%
Don't Know
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
15
50%
60%
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 (76.5% in Spring 14 and 70.7% in Fall 13), followed by
black (15.3% in Spring 14 and 20.7% in Fall 13), and then white (3.5% in Spring 14 and 3.8% in Fall13). The
percentage of white respondents increased 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 Fall 13
(32.5%) and a small rebound in Spring 14 (35.9%) , while the percentage of 18-25 year olds decreased from
12.6% in Spring 13 to 8.3% in Fall 13 and 11.4% in Spring 14. Most adult participants are unemployed and
seeking work, though this percentage decreased slightly in Spring 14 (34.2% compared to 36.3% in Fall 13).
Additionally, the percentage of clients who reported being employed full time increased from Fall to Spring,
however, the percentage overall is still lower as compared to the previous program year. The percentage of
clients employed part time dropped significantly to 14% during Fall 2013, but increased dramatically the
following Spring to 19.4%. which is more consistent with the previous program year.
There was a decrease in the percentage of clients with a Bachelor’s degree or higher in both Spring 14 and Fall
13, compared to the previous project year. There was an increase in high school diploma or equivalent (21.4%
in Spring 2014), and some college (18.6% in Spring 2013).
Demographic data from the survey indicate that FSCs continue to serve a highly disadvantaged population.
Between 53% and 63% of participants in the current project year do not have a high school diploma, and as
much as 47% of respondents did not advance past eighth grade. See Appendix A, Tables A11 through A16 for
adult demographic data by center.
16
Figure 12: Surveys Completed by Language
English
Spanish
39.9%
Spring 2014
60.1%
36.2%
Fall 2013
41.3%
Spring 2013
42.7%
Fall 2012
0%
20%
40%
63.8%
58.7%
57.3%
60%
80%
100%
Figure 13: Participant Gender
Male
Female
24.0%
Spring 2014
76.0%
21.8%
Fall 2013
78.2%
26.5%
Spring 2013
73.5%
24.0%
Fall 2012
76.0%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
17
100%
Figure 14: Participant Age
Spring 2014
Fall 2013
Spring 2013
Fall 2012
11.4%
8.3%
12.6%
13.5%
18-25
35.9%
32.5%
26-40
41.4%
37.9%
30.3%
30.7%
30.8%
31.2%
41-55
16.4%
56-70
12.6%
14.8%
21.0%
5.9%
7.6%
71+
2.6%
2.7%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
18
50%
Figure 15: Participant Education
Spring 2014
Fall 2013
Spring 2013
Fall 2012
20.4%
Elementary/Primary School
22.2%
23.6%
29.7%
16.7%
17.9%
18.2%
18.9%
8th Grade Completion
15.9%
15.4%
16.8%
Some High School
16.2%
18.2%
18.2%
High School Diploma or Equivalent
13.2%
14.9%
10.9%
Some College
21.5%
21.4%
18.6%
4.1%
4.1%
4.4%
2.8%
Associate's Degree
2.9%
3.5%
5.4%
4.1%
Bachelor's Degree or More
0%
5%
10%
19
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Figure 16: Participant Ethnicity
Spring 2014
Fall 2013
Spring 2013
Fall 2012
15.3%
20.7%
15.9%
18.4%
Black
3.5%
3.8%
2.4%
2.5%
White
76.5%
70.7%
74.7%
74.8%
Hispanic
Asian/Pacific Islander
1.0%
1.4%
2.1%
2.1%
Bi-Racial/Multi-Racial
2.0%
1.9%
2.8%
1.8%
Other
1.7%
1.5%
2.1%
1.5%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
20
60%
70%
80%
90% 100%
Figure 17: Other Participant Characteristics
Spring 2014
Fall 2013
Spring 2013
Fall 2012
I am employeed full-time
13.0%
10.7%
14.3%
13.3%
I am employeed part-time
14.0%
19.4%
18.3%
18.3%
34.2%
36.3%
36.6%
40.3%
I am unemployeed and seeking paid work
27.1%
29.2%
30.2%
32.2%
I have a child in school
11.1%
13.6%
12.9%
14.3%
I have a child who needs help in school
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
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 five 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 22
completed surveys from a possible 30. As Figure 18 indicates, Directors in 2014 reported an increase in overall
satisfaction, compared to all previous years. Their level of satisfaction with services has grown significantly,
reaching about 8.2 on the 10 point scale. In 2014, Directors also reported greater satisfaction with the
“guidance and support” they received, which increased by over half a point on the 10 point scale. One
respondent noted, “Our new program analyst has provided responsive guidance and technical assistance.”
21
Figure 18: Executive and Program Directors’ Overall Satisfaction with HCID
2014
2013
2012
2011
8.18
7.56
7.70
7.09
Overall, how satisfied are you with the
services you received from HCID?
8.34
7.75
7.52
7.15
Overall, how satisfied are you with the
guidance and support provided by HCID staff?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
In addition to overall satisfaction, we measured FSC Director satisfaction with 10 specific aspects of HCID’s
services. There has been a steady increase in satisfaction for half of the categories, while the others fluctuated.
Figure 19, below, shows that “the clarity of performance standards communicated by HCID” has increased
significantly (8.33) and is now the highest rated category. Another respondent shared, “There has been a
tremendous improvement in communication with HCID's accounting staff.” Aspects of “adequacy of the
information and training HCID has provided me and my staff,” “promptness of HCID’s response to my
questions”, and “user friendliness of the ISIS system” were also highly rated categories that increased over the
last program year. Although, one respondent suggested additional training by commenting, “Overall good
experience with staff, but we would like some more cross training among the field offices to see what tools
they use that we (new field offices) could perhaps utilize.” The “satisfaction with familiarity with the HCID
Regional Area Director” and “information provided about the Community Action Board” decreased
significantly, almost one full point on the 10 point scale. Satisfaction with the “timeliness of payments” also
decreased. The “value of the One E app” rating remains the lowest of the items in this question, with Directors
in 2013 scoring it an average of 3.73 on the 10 point scale.
Overall, it seems clear that satisfaction with HCID performance has continued to slowly improve overall and
satisfaction is now relatively high. A couple areas do seem to deserve attention from HCID. The decline in
satisfaction with “Information about the Community Action Board” and the “Timeliness of Payments” and
“Familiarity with my HCID Regional Area Director,” are areas that need to be investigated. The point of the
feedback this survey provides is to identify areas where services are strong and areas where improvement is
needed.
22
Figure 19: Executive and Program Directors’ Satisfaction with HCID Services
2014
2013
2012
2011
Adequacy of the information and training
HCID has provided me and my staff.
7.82
7.53
7.25
6.72
Promptness of HCID’s response to my
questions.
7.91
7.47
7.13
6.47
6.23
Information provided about the Community
Action Board.
6.06
HCID’s willingness to incorporate
recommendations I have made into FSC
program.
7.31
6.91
6.89
7.00
6.91
6.53
My familiarity with my HCID Regional Area
Director.
6.70
7.50
7.79
7.67
Timeliness of payments by HCID. (NA if City
Run Facility)
7.19
7.67
7.11
6.55
6.72
6.31
6.10
5.93
Timeliness with which HCID executed my
contract. (Choose NA if City Run Facility)
8.33
7.56
6.87
6.94
Clarity of performance standards
communicated by HCID.
User-friendliness of the ISIS system.
6.04
6.06
7.62
6.94
3.73
3.80
3.74
4.00
The value of One-E-App in relation to the
amount of time it takes to complete.
1
2
3
4
23
5
6
7
8
9
10
We also asked a series of questions regarding directors’ satisfaction with HCID staff performance. In general
satisfaction with staff is high and improving in most categories. Figure 20, below, demonstrates that FSC
directors were substantially more satisfied with HCID’s staff than they were with its services. “Respectfulness
HCID show me and my staff” was the highest rated item in 2014, at 9.09, followed closely by the accessibility of
HCID MIS staff, at 9.05, both of these categories increased from the previous year.
An area that may need attention is the monitoring process. The “accessibility of HCID monitors”, the highest
rated item for 2013, fell significantly, as did “usefulness of feedback from HCID monitors.” As one respondent
explained, “When the staff came to visit our facility we were given a two day notice. We would prefer a more
proactive approach in which we all are given the opportunity to select days and times for the visits. We would
appreciate feedback and follow up to reports that are submitted on our behalf. Overall, we appreciate
everything the staff does to support our programs. Thank you!”
A notable increase in satisfaction was with the accessibility and knowledge of HCID accounting staff, previously
the lowest rated item, increased to 8.21 and 8.42 respectively. This indicates that the accounting unit took last
year’s feedback seriously and made improvements over the year. A survey respondent pointed out, “As a long
time Independent Contractor with CDD, the biggest challenge was in our becoming familiar with HCID's
contractual / accounting requirements & procedures.”
Overall, HCID staff seems to deliver consistently high quality service to FSC Directors.
24
Figure 20: Executive and Program Directors’ Satisfaction with HCID Staff
2014
2013
2012
2011
Usefulness of feedback from HCID Monitors
about my Center’s operations.
8.73
9.44
8.48
7.79
Accessibility of HCID monitors.
8.91
9.63
9.39
8.26
9.09
8.81
9.09
8.82
Respectfulness HCID staff show me and my staff.
Knowledge of HCID MIS staff.
8.64
8.53
8.70
8.24
Accessibility of HCID MIS staff.
9.05
8.81
8.57
8.00
8.42
6.69
Knowledge of HCID accounting staff.
7.57
7.40
6.33
Accessibility of HCID accounting staff.
1
2
3
25
4
5
6
7
8.21
7.67
7.47
8
9
10
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 with time 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 the city. Overall 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.
26
Appendices
Appendix A: FSC Customer Satisfaction
27
Appendix A1: Questionnaire
FamilySource Center Survey – Adult Participants
On-site Questionnaire Administered by California State University, Northridge
Spring 2014
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
 Other: Describe:________________
4.
Why did you come to this center today?
(PLACE AN “X” IN ALL BOXES
THAT APPLY)
 Attend a class or workshop
 Access a computer
 Help finding a job
 Get services for my children
 Get legal services
 Small business services
 Child care
 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
28
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:
Terrible
Bad
OK
Good
Excellent
Don’t know
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:
Terrible
Bad
OK
Good
Excellent
Don’t know
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
29
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
30
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
 8th Grade Completion
 Some High School
 High School Diploma or Equivalent
 Some College
 Associate’s Degree
 Bachelor’s Degree or more
32. Which best describes you?
 Black
 White
 Hispanic
 Asian/Pacific Islander
 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!
31
Appendix A2: Overall Satisfaction by Center
Site Name
1736 Family Crisis Center
Barrio Action YFC
Bradley Milken FSC
Central City Neighborhood Partners
Coalition of Mental Health Professionals, Inc.
Community Build
Cypress Park FSC
El Centro de Ayuda, Inc.
El Centro del Pueblo
El Nido Family Centers
Latino Resource Center
Lucile Beserra Roybal FSC
NEW Canoga Park
NEW South Valley
Oakwood Family Resource Center
Pacoima FSC
The Children's Collective, Inc.
Toberman Neighborhood Center
Tom Bradley FSC
WLCAC
Youth Policy Institute
Total
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
32
Overall
Satisfaction
4.8
75
0.403
4.71
82
0.555
4.52
143
0.68
4.46
127
0.64
4.57
121
0.728
4.61
145
0.626
4.65
85
0.612
4.58
103
0.552
4.67
46
0.701
4.78
129
0.534
4.82
136
0.407
4.43
111
0.641
4.68
71
0.58
4.53
70
0.653
4.77
95
0.448
4.84
55
0.373
4.59
71
0.55
4.59
76
0.615
4.6
205
0.565
4.74
180
0.532
4.65
84
0.526
4.64
2210
0.586
Services met
Expectations
4.7
76
0.542
4.57
82
0.648
4.5
140
0.64
4.43
124
0.677
4.46
114
0.766
4.55
140
0.638
4.62
85
0.556
4.46
101
0.575
4.55
47
0.717
4.76
128
0.482
4.69
134
0.497
4.38
106
0.696
4.61
71
0.621
4.41
68
0.696
4.65
93
0.524
4.71
52
0.498
4.49
72
0.628
4.55
74
0.622
4.57
200
0.631
4.65
179
0.594
4.61
76
0.518
4.57
2162
0.619
Visit to Center was Valuable
4.8
76
0.433
4.73
83
0.52
4.55
141
0.67
4.45
128
0.821
4.49
119
0.812
4.59
143
0.642
4.77
84
0.421
4.51
101
0.576
4.7
47
0.623
4.87
128
0.355
4.81
137
0.412
4.52
112
0.6
4.68
74
0.685
4.41
66
0.679
4.72
95
0.63
4.88
57
0.331
4.51
72
0.671
4.64
75
0.65
4.65
204
0.536
4.72
179
0.638
4.62
85
0.69
4.65
2206
0.619
Appendix A3: Satisfaction with Staff
Response to
Phone Calls
Site Name
1736 Family Crisis Center
Barrio Action YFC
Bradley Milken FSC
Central City Neighborhood
Partners
Coalition of Mental Health
Professionals, Inc.
Community Build
Cypress Park FSC
El Centro de Ayuda, Inc.
El Centro del Pueblo
El Nido Family Centers
Latino Resource Center
Lucile Beserra Roybal FSC
NEW Canoga Park
NEW South Valley
Oakwood Family Resource
Center
Pacoima FSC
The Children's Collective, Inc.
Toberman Neighborhood Center
Tom Bradley FSC
WLCAC
Youth Policy Institute
Total
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
4.51
72
.787
4.53
73
.689
4.41
115
.782
4.38
115
.923
4.47
104
.800
4.53
124
.715
4.68
73
.550
4.31
96
.799
4.35
43
.686
4.49
120
.799
4.75
126
.579
4.36
97
.753
4.42
57
.731
4.41
59
.698
4.69
94
.587
4.71
49
.540
4.33
67
.766
4.30
67
.835
4.44
126
.722
4.57
162
.703
4.57
74
.684
4.49
1913
.740
Amount of
Paperwork
Required
4.42
72
.746
4.43
72
.747
4.26
112
.857
4.40
112
.811
4.20
109
.880
4.38
130
.751
4.61
75
.543
4.25
89
.758
4.45
44
.627
4.62
120
.568
4.74
113
.496
4.35
97
.778
4.45
58
.705
4.27
62
.705
4.50
86
.699
4.59
49
.574
4.33
66
.709
4.26
70
.879
4.44
124
.799
4.45
165
.761
4.36
70
.723
4.42
1895
.745
33
Staff
Response to
Questions
4.67
75
.723
4.59
75
.617
4.45
121
.847
4.51
120
.778
4.52
113
.757
4.58
136
.650
4.68
76
.522
4.54
94
.698
4.57
46
.583
4.57
128
.695
4.81
129
.512
4.35
109
.821
4.66
68
.563
4.56
64
.614
4.69
94
.549
4.73
52
.598
4.46
70
.716
4.43
76
.718
4.38
151
.886
4.62
173
.642
4.65
81
.551
4.57
2051
.699
Respect Staff
Shows
Clients
4.70
73
.739
4.72
78
.507
4.45
126
.806
4.50
121
.896
4.61
115
.684
4.70
136
.575
4.79
81
.467
4.61
98
.636
4.57
47
.651
4.72
130
.560
4.85
125
.382
4.47
110
.775
4.68
72
.552
4.55
65
.791
4.80
93
.563
4.72
54
.685
4.58
69
.553
4.61
76
.655
4.46
159
.953
4.71
175
.586
4.73
79
.499
4.64
2082
.678
Waiting time
for services
4.41
73
.831
4.42
74
.722
4.39
120
.759
4.27
118
.864
4.16
118
.857
4.56
132
.645
4.65
74
.560
4.35
97
.791
4.49
47
.804
4.49
118
.663
4.69
122
.631
4.25
102
.909
4.44
62
.802
4.40
63
.685
4.43
92
.700
4.67
52
.617
4.36
69
.685
4.03
75
1.000
4.21
156
.907
4.56
170
.670
4.46
79
.748
4.41
2013
.779
Staff's ability to
speak your
language
4.74
76
.719
4.75
76
.520
4.32
127
.925
4.64
122
.728
4.61
119
.665
4.71
134
.503
4.80
81
.431
4.73
101
.508
4.83
47
.433
4.81
131
.414
4.83
128
.534
4.62
112
.633
4.79
70
.478
4.58
66
.658
4.83
92
.526
4.79
56
.494
4.71
70
.486
4.58
77
.636
4.41
164
.892
4.74
176
.521
4.76
80
.601
4.68
2105
.635
Appendix A4: Satisfaction with Facilities
Cleanliness of
Facility
Site Name
1736 Family Crisis Center
Barrio Action YFC
Bradley Milken FSC
Central City Neighborhood
Partners
Coalition of Mental Health
Professionals, Inc.
Community Build
Cypress Park FSC
El Centro de Ayuda, Inc.
El Centro del Pueblo
El Nido Family Centers
Latino Resource Center
Lucile Beserra Roybal FSC
NEW Canoga Park
NEW South Valley
Oakwood Family Resource Center
Pacoima FSC
The Children's Collective, Inc.
Toberman Neighborhood Center
Tom Bradley FSC
WLCAC
Youth Policy Institute
Total
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
4.64
76
.687
4.68
81
.544
4.39
137
.843
4.49
122
.695
4.55
119
.634
4.65
137
.613
4.49
84
.668
4.44
96
.629
4.64
47
.529
4.70
130
.477
4.60
130
.642
4.64
118
.686
4.88
75
.366
4.62
68
.599
4.78
94
.419
4.55
56
.829
4.64
70
.539
4.24
76
1.199
4.62
175
.640
4.67
180
.669
4.68
84
.541
4.60
2155
.669
34
Visibility of
Center's Sign
4.36
76
.875
4.58
79
.591
4.44
135
.769
4.49
119
.780
4.51
117
.702
4.68
136
.497
4.50
80
.746
4.49
99
.660
4.58
45
.621
4.66
130
.591
4.66
127
.607
4.40
112
.811
4.75
69
.497
4.48
63
.715
4.73
91
.496
4.55
56
.784
4.38
69
.806
4.51
75
.645
4.49
170
.748
4.69
175
.633
4.55
82
.688
4.55
2105
.690
Access to public
transportation
4.29
65
.964
4.54
67
.636
4.37
112
.910
4.39
106
.775
4.55
106
.692
4.60
116
.696
4.59
71
.729
4.38
81
.699
4.57
42
.590
4.58
95
.708
4.68
116
.627
4.48
96
.781
4.68
57
.631
4.39
54
.878
4.60
83
.562
4.76
49
.434
4.49
63
.619
4.50
60
.624
4.56
155
.739
4.61
165
.640
4.69
65
.683
4.54
1824
.717
Quality of computers or
equipment
4.68
69
.500
4.57
53
.605
4.36
104
.913
4.32
93
.782
4.38
91
.866
4.61
125
.621
4.42
67
.801
4.45
77
.699
4.50
34
.663
4.55
92
.747
4.76
103
.453
4.49
84
.768
4.81
63
.470
4.64
61
.606
4.45
67
.658
4.66
47
.562
4.33
48
.859
4.38
58
.813
4.54
128
.720
4.61
150
.654
4.64
72
.635
4.53
1686
.709
Appendix A5: Satisfaction with Services
Overall program
effectiveness
Site Name
1736 Family Cri`sis Center
Barrio Action YFC
Bradley Milken FSC
Central City Neighborhood
Partners
Coalition of Mental Health
Professionals, Inc.
Community Build
Cypress Park FSC
El Centro de Ayuda, Inc.
El Centro del Pueblo
El Nido Family Centers
Latino Resource Center
Lucile Beserra Roybal FSC
NEW Canoga Park
NEW South Valley
Oakwood Family Resource
Center
Pacoima FSC
The Children's Collective,
Inc.
Toberman Neighborhood
Center
Tom Bradley FSC
WLCAC
Youth Policy Institute
Total
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
4.64
75
.650
4.68
74
.526
4.35
110
.829
4.45
110
.761
4.51
98
.763
4.57
124
.587
4.56
73
.577
4.57
87
.563
4.60
43
.541
4.68
118
.504
4.73
108
.485
4.45
91
.637
4.70
61
.495
4.41
56
.757
4.69
84
.465
4.77
47
.476
4.46
63
.692
4.54
69
.632
4.49
130
.685
4.66
162
.632
4.64
74
.563
4.57
1857
.634
Quality of
workshops/
classes
Quality of
counseling
4.64
73
.714
4.74
74
.525
4.39
99
.767
4.49
106
.680
4.51
82
.724
4.55
108
.602
4.55
73
.578
4.55
84
.629
4.58
36
.554
4.79
119
.449
4.74
90
.487
4.58
85
.585
4.75
57
.510
4.52
52
.852
4.75
80
.464
4.73
49
.700
4.63
63
.548
4.48
69
.779
4.62
110
.590
4.70
151
.542
4.64
69
.593
4.62
1729
.620
35
4.69
71
.600
4.68
63
.591
4.35
100
.809
4.50
92
.719
4.51
88
.743
4.56
111
.598
4.53
68
.634
4.53
77
.620
4.61
33
.556
4.76
112
.489
4.77
92
.471
4.52
66
.827
4.64
53
.558
4.53
47
.687
4.65
69
.480
4.72
36
.513
4.47
51
.674
4.55
55
.633
4.55
97
.693
4.70
149
.589
4.67
60
.705
4.60
1590
.643
Help finding
a job
4.33
58
.781
4.49
45
.661
4.30
93
.882
4.29
77
.916
4.62
63
.607
4.41
101
.737
4.40
58
.699
4.36
64
.897
4.45
20
.999
4.46
70
.774
4.78
77
.417
4.54
57
.734
4.51
43
.768
4.08
37
1.038
4.47
43
.702
4.65
34
.544
4.43
42
.668
4.41
44
.923
4.54
84
.702
4.50
137
.719
4.56
45
.659
4.46
1292
.764
Services for
your
children
4.46
55
.991
4.67
60
.542
4.37
92
.848
4.49
88
.773
4.63
64
.724
4.57
98
.626
4.51
57
.658
4.64
70
.539
4.64
22
.581
4.59
94
.679
4.81
88
.425
4.55
58
.776
4.77
43
.480
4.33
43
.808
4.76
74
.463
4.54
35
.657
4.52
50
.707
4.56
54
.718
4.58
81
.649
4.71
134
.586
4.78
54
.420
4.60
1414
.669
Mix of
Services
Available
4.49
67
.726
4.58
64
.612
4.42
101
.791
4.40
95
.843
4.61
89
.650
4.62
115
.571
4.46
67
.636
4.53
80
.595
4.47
34
.825
4.65
113
.547
4.80
98
.497
4.58
74
.597
4.71
52
.572
4.38
50
.697
4.63
81
.511
4.70
40
.564
4.48
56
.763
4.56
64
.664
4.54
106
.706
4.64
152
.615
4.65
66
.595
4.57
1664
.652
Hours
Center is
Open
4.55
75
.703
4.69
71
.523
4.48
110
.751
4.42
108
.908
4.60
101
.649
4.60
123
.597
4.68
74
.526
4.58
88
.562
4.46
41
.674
4.72
123
.504
4.81
104
.420
4.60
75
.545
4.74
62
.541
4.50
62
.621
4.67
86
.541
4.77
44
.476
4.51
65
.710
4.55
73
.646
4.61
140
.663
4.73
161
.536
4.69
72
.521
4.62
1858
.620
Appendix A6: Recommend Center
Site Name
1736 Family Crisis Center
Barrio Action YFC
Bradley Milken FSC
Central City Neighborhood Partners
Coalition of Mental Health
Professionals, Inc.
Community Build
Cypress Park FSC
El Centro de Ayuda, Inc.
El Centro del Pueblo
El Nido Family Centers
Latino Resource Center
Lucile Beserra Roybal FSC
NEW Canoga Park
NEW South Valley
Oakwood Family Resource Center
Pacoima FSC
The Children's Collective, Inc.
Toberman Neighborhood Center
Tom Bradley FSC
WLCAC
Youth Policy Institute
Total
Yes
No
Not Sure
Total
Count
% within Site
Count
76
98.7%
84
0
0.0%
0
1
1.3%
1
77
100.0%
85
% within Site
98.8%
0.0%
1.2%
100.0%
Count
% within Site
Count
140
96.6%
121
2
1.4%
5
3
2.1%
1
145
100.0%
127
% within Site
95.3%
3.9%
0.8%
100.0%
120
1
4
125
96.0%
0.8%
3.2%
100.0%
140
1
1
142
98.6%
0.7%
0.7%
100.0%
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
86
0
0
86
100.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
102
1
0
103
99.0%
1.0%
0.0%
100.0%
46
1
0
47
% within Site
97.9%
2.1%
0.0%
100.0%
Count
% within Site
Count
128
99.2%
133
0
0.0%
0
1
0.8%
0
129
100.0%
133
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
100.0%
111
96.5%
72
97.3%
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0.0%
4
3.5%
2
2.7%
100.0%
115
100.0%
74
100.0%
Count
% within Site
Count
68
97.1%
94
0
0.0%
1
2
2.9%
0
70
100.0%
95
% within Site
Count
98.9%
54
1.1%
2
0.0%
0
100.0%
56
% within Site
96.4%
3.6%
0.0%
100.0%
69
1
2
72
95.8%
1.4%
2.8%
100.0%
78
2
0
80
97.5%
2.5%
0.0%
100.0%
205
4
2
211
97.2%
1.9%
0.9%
100.0%
174
1
2
177
98.3%
0.6%
1.1%
100.0%
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
36
87
0
0
87
100.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
2188
22
26
2236
97.9%
1.0%
1.2%
100.0%
Appendix A7: First Learn about FSC by Center
Site Name
1736 Family Crisis
Center
Barrio Action YFC
Bradley Milken FSC
Friend
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Central City
Neighborhood Partners
Count
Coalition of Mental
Health Professionals,
Inc.
Count
Community Build
Cypress Park FSC
El Centro de Ayuda, Inc.
El Centro del Pueblo
El Nido Family Centers
Latino Resource Center
Lucile Beserra Roybal
FSC
NEW Canoga Park
NEW South Valley
Oakwood Family
Resource Center
Pacoima FSC
% within Site
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
The Children's
Collective, Inc.
Count
Toberman Neighborhood
Center
Count
Tom Bradley FSC
WLCAC
Youth Policy Institute
Total
% within Site
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
College or
School
Met a staff
member
at an
event
Saw the
building
or sign
and just
came in
Saw a
flyer
Referred
by other
agency
Other
19
6
3
6
1
27
14
25.0%
7.9%
3.9%
7.9%
1.3%
35.5%
18.4%
31
8
5
4
13
13
7
38.3%
9.9%
6.2%
4.9%
16.0%
16.0%
8.6%
84
1
13
7
8
18
14
57.9%
0.7%
9.0%
4.8%
5.5%
12.4%
9.7%
76
9
10
12
6
5
6
61.3%
7.3%
8.1%
9.7%
4.8%
4.0%
4.8%
42
3
6
24
18
9
12
36.8%
2.6%
5.3%
21.1%
15.8%
7.9%
10.5%
63
16
10
14
22
8
15
42.6%
10.8%
6.8%
9.5%
14.9%
5.4%
10.1%
38
5
10
10
10
3
9
44.7%
5.9%
11.8%
11.8%
11.8%
3.5%
10.6%
53
3
7
4
17
5
11
53.0%
3.0%
7.0%
4.0%
17.0%
5.0%
11.0%
18
4
5
4
4
8
2
40.0%
8.9%
11.1%
8.9%
8.9%
17.8%
4.4%
79
12
11
3
11
10
6
59.8%
9.1%
8.3%
2.3%
8.3%
7.6%
4.5%
91
0
9
6
6
5
13
70.0%
0.0%
6.9%
4.6%
4.6%
3.8%
10.0%
68
3
6
10
10
17
4
57.6%
2.5%
5.1%
8.5%
8.5%
14.4%
3.4%
39
4
2
7
15
3
5
52.0%
5.3%
2.7%
9.3%
20.0%
4.0%
6.7%
27
7
0
6
8
11
9
39.7%
10.3%
0.0%
8.8%
11.8%
16.2%
13.2%
61
10
0
9
6
4
6
63.5%
10.4%
0.0%
9.4%
6.3%
4.2%
6.3%
28
5
2
5
4
1
6
54.9%
9.8%
3.9%
9.8%
7.8%
2.0%
11.8%
39
13
4
4
3
3
3
56.5%
18.8%
5.8%
5.8%
4.3%
4.3%
4.3%
39
3
2
3
8
8
13
51.3%
3.9%
2.6%
3.9%
10.5%
10.5%
17.1%
152
2
5
20
28
5
13
67.6%
0.9%
2.2%
8.9%
12.4%
2.2%
5.8%
64
6
14
19
22
27
25
36.2%
3.4%
7.9%
10.7%
12.4%
15.3%
14.1%
37
9
1
15
10
6
6
44.0%
10.7%
1.2%
17.9%
11.9%
7.1%
7.1%
1148
129
125
192
230
196
199
51.7%
5.8%
5.6%
8.7%
10.4%
8.8%
9.0%
37
Appendix A8: “Why did you come to this FSC today?” by Center
Attend a
Class
Site Name
1736 Family Crisis Center
Barrio Action YFC
Bradley Milken FSC
Central City Neighborhood
Partners
Coalition of Mental Health
Professionals, Inc.
Community Build
Cypress Park FSC
El Centro de Ayuda, Inc.
El Centro del Pueblo
El Nido Family Centers
Latino Resource Center
Lucile Beserra Roybal FSC
NEW Canoga Park
NEW South Valley
Oakwood Family Resource
Center
Pacoima FSC
The Children's Collective,
Inc.
Toberman Neighborhood
Center
Tom Bradley FSC
WLCAC
Youth Policy Institute
Total
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
32
41.6%
51
58.0%
25
16.6%
64
48.1%
26
20.2%
22
14.7%
53
59.6%
29
27.4%
23
48.9%
88
66.2%
15
10.7%
50
40.0%
33
42.9%
28
38.9%
66
66.7%
21
35.0%
55
75.3%
25
30.1%
26
11.2%
56
30.8%
33
37.9%
821
35.2%
Access a
Computer
Help
Finding a
Job
31
40.3%
1
1.1%
19
12.6%
14
10.5%
13
10.1%
54
36.0%
3
3.4%
12
11.3%
7
14.9%
5
3.8%
7
5.0%
21
16.8%
33
42.9%
20
27.8%
4
4.0%
15
25.0%
1
1.4%
8
9.6%
18
7.8%
12
6.6%
13
14.9%
311
13.3%
16
20.8%
0
0.0%
23
15.2%
13
9.8%
18
14.0%
25
16.7%
12
13.5%
12
11.3%
4
8.5%
12
9.0%
7
5.0%
5
4.0%
18
23.4%
9
12.5%
7
7.1%
11
18.3%
3
4.1%
9
10.8%
27
11.6%
25
13.7%
9
10.3%
265
11.4%
38
Services
for my
Children
27
35.1%
24
27.3%
6
4.0%
31
23.3%
10
7.8%
35
23.3%
10
11.2%
29
27.4%
5
10.6%
20
15.0%
18
12.9%
8
6.4%
17
22.1%
15
20.8%
26
26.3%
11
18.3%
16
21.9%
13
15.7%
14
6.0%
28
15.4%
17
19.5%
380
16.3%
Legal
Services
5
6.5%
3
3.4%
6
4.0%
4
3.0%
14
10.9%
11
7.3%
0
0.0%
5
4.7%
9
19.1%
3
2.3%
24
17.1%
7
5.6%
9
11.7%
2
2.8%
1
1.0%
0
0.0%
4
5.5%
6
7.2%
9
3.9%
19
10.4%
3
3.4%
144
6.2%
Small
Business
1
1.3%
0
0.0%
1
0.7%
0
0.0%
2
1.6%
5
3.3%
1
1.1%
1
0.9%
2
4.3%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
3
2.4%
1
1.3%
0
0.0%
1
1.0%
1
1.7%
1
1.4%
1
1.2%
4
1.7%
6
3.3%
1
1.1%
32
1.4%
Child
Care
3
3.9%
1
1.1%
5
3.3%
1
0.8%
0
0.0%
3
2.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
1
2.1%
2
1.5%
3
2.1%
1
0.8%
1
1.3%
0
0.0%
5
5.1%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
5
6.0%
4
1.7%
5
2.7%
3
3.4%
43
1.8%
Other
22
28.6%
19
21.6%
78
51.7%
30
22.6%
78
60.5%
40
26.7%
21
23.6%
33
31.1%
19
40.4%
31
23.3%
67
47.9%
47
37.6%
18
23.4%
23
31.9%
12
12.1%
13
21.7%
11
15.1%
40
48.2%
114
49.1%
68
37.4%
24
27.6%
808
34.6%
Appendix A9: “How Often Have you come to this FSC in the Past Month?” by Center
Site Name
1736 Family Crisis Center
Barrio Action YFC
Bradley Milken FSC
One Time
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Central City Neighborhood
Partners
Count
Coalition of Mental Health
Professionals, Inc.
Count
Community Build
Cypress Park FSC
El Centro de Ayuda, Inc.
El Centro del Pueblo
El Nido Family Centers
Latino Resource Center
Lucile Beserra Roybal FSC
NEW Canoga Park
NEW South Valley
Oakwood Family Resource
Center
Pacoima FSC
The Children's Collective, Inc.
Toberman Neighborhood
Center
Tom Bradley FSC
WLCAC
Youth Policy Institute
Total
% within Site
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Two
Times
Three
Times
Between
Five and
Nine
Times
Four
Times
Ten or
More
Times
Total
4
17
14
23
12
6
76
5.3%
22.4%
18.4%
30.3%
15.8%
7.9%
100.0%
15
14
3
22
14
16
84
17.9%
16.7%
3.6%
26.2%
16.7%
19.0%
100.0%
41
16
22
14
20
23
136
30.1%
11.8%
16.2%
10.3%
14.7%
16.9%
100.0%
20
14
21
19
16
30
120
16.7%
11.7%
17.5%
15.8%
13.3%
25.0%
100.0%
47
26
11
4
13
5
106
44.3%
24.5%
10.4%
3.8%
12.3%
4.7%
100.0%
27
24
21
23
22
22
139
19.4%
17.3%
15.1%
16.5%
15.8%
15.8%
100.0%
17
7
2
21
7
25
79
21.5%
8.9%
2.5%
26.6%
8.9%
31.6%
100.0%
31
20
13
11
11
8
94
33.0%
21.3%
13.8%
11.7%
11.7%
8.5%
100.0%
12
2
1
10
6
10
41
29.3%
4.9%
2.4%
24.4%
14.6%
24.4%
100.0%
10
19
14
51
20
14
128
7.8%
14.8%
10.9%
39.8%
15.6%
10.9%
100.0%
27
22
13
39
18
5
124
21.8%
17.7%
10.5%
31.5%
14.5%
4.0%
100.0%
27
17
8
19
20
18
109
24.8%
15.6%
7.3%
17.4%
18.3%
16.5%
100.0%
13
10
3
18
11
14
69
18.8%
14.5%
4.3%
26.1%
15.9%
20.3%
100.0%
14
11
4
5
11
13
58
24.1%
19.0%
6.9%
8.6%
19.0%
22.4%
100.0%
14
15
10
23
16
14
92
15.2%
16.3%
10.9%
25.0%
17.4%
15.2%
100.0%
15
6
2
3
14
14
54
27.8%
11.1%
3.7%
5.6%
25.9%
25.9%
100.0%
3
4
4
3
28
22
64
4.7%
6.3%
6.3%
4.7%
43.8%
34.4%
100.0%
22
6
9
14
9
14
74
29.7%
8.1%
12.2%
18.9%
12.2%
18.9%
100.0%
59
77
17
10
18
22
203
29.1%
37.9%
8.4%
4.9%
8.9%
10.8%
100.0%
59
29
20
32
16
15
171
34.5%
17.0%
11.7%
18.7%
9.4%
8.8%
100.0%
16
8
10
19
17
11
81
19.8%
9.9%
12.3%
23.5%
21.0%
13.6%
100.0%
493
364
222
383
319
321
2102
23.5%
17.3%
10.6%
18.2%
15.2%
15.3%
100.0%
39
Appendix A10: “Are you enrolled in a Class or Program at this FSC?” by Center
Site Name
1736 Family Crisis Center
Barrio Action YFC
Bradley Milken FSC
Central City Neighborhood Partners
Coalition of Mental Health Professionals, Inc.
Community Build
Cypress Park FSC
El Centro de Ayuda, Inc.
El Centro del Pueblo
El Nido Family Centers
Latino Resource Center
Lucile Beserra Roybal FSC
NEW Canoga Park
NEW South Valley
Oakwood Family Resource Center
Pacoima FSC
The Children's Collective, Inc.
Toberman Neighborhood Center
Tom Bradley FSC
WLCAC
Youth Policy Institute
Total
Yes
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
40
Don't
Know
No
Total
58
18
0
76
76.3%
23.7%
0.0%
100.0%
57
24
5
86
66.3%
27.9%
5.8%
100.0%
39
94
12
145
26.9%
64.8%
8.3%
100.0%
70
49
4
123
56.9%
39.8%
3.3%
100.0%
30
86
5
121
24.8%
71.1%
4.1%
100.0%
33
103
12
148
22.3%
69.6%
8.1%
100.0%
54
33
1
88
61.4%
37.5%
1.1%
100.0%
41
46
14
101
40.6%
45.5%
13.9%
100.0%
28
15
4
47
59.6%
31.9%
8.5%
100.0%
103
26
3
132
78.0%
19.7%
2.3%
100.0%
39
70
16
125
31.2%
56.0%
12.8%
100.0%
59
55
2
116
50.9%
47.4%
1.7%
100.0%
39
35
3
77
50.6%
45.5%
3.9%
100.0%
37
32
2
71
52.1%
45.1%
2.8%
100.0%
66
24
5
95
69.5%
25.3%
5.3%
100.0%
28
28
0
56
50.0%
50.0%
0.0%
100.0%
60
10
1
71
84.5%
14.1%
1.4%
100.0%
27
48
4
79
34.2%
60.8%
5.1%
100.0%
33
182
6
221
14.9%
82.4%
2.7%
100.0%
75
94
9
178
42.1%
52.8%
5.1%
100.0%
41
41
4
86
47.7%
47.7%
4.7%
100.0%
1017
1113
112
2242
45.4%
49.6%
5.0%
100.0%
Appendix A11: Surveys completed by Language and Center
Site Name
1736 Family Crisis Center
Barrio Action YFC
Bradley Milken FSC
Central City Neighborhood Partners
Coalition of Mental Health Professionals, Inc.
Community Build
Cypress Park FSC
El Centro de Ayuda, Inc.
El Centro del Pueblo
El Nido Family Centers
Latino Resource Center
Lucile Beserra Roybal FSC
NEW Canoga Park
NEW South Valley
Oakwood Family Resource Center
Pacoima FSC
The Children's Collective, Inc.
Toberman Neighborhood Center
Tom Bradley FSC
WLCAC
Youth Policy Institute
Total
English
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
41
Spanish
Total
33
44
77
42.9%
57.1%
100.0%
24
64
88
27.3%
72.7%
100.0%
112
39
151
74.2%
25.8%
100.0%
15
118
133
11.3%
88.7%
100.0%
91
38
129
70.5%
29.5%
100.0%
86
64
150
57.3%
42.7%
100.0%
16
73
89
18.0%
82.0%
100.0%
25
81
106
23.6%
76.4%
100.0%
22
25
47
46.8%
53.2%
100.0%
10
123
133
7.5%
92.5%
100.0%
17
123
140
12.1%
87.9%
100.0%
34
91
125
27.2%
72.8%
100.0%
25
52
77
32.5%
67.5%
100.0%
29
43
72
40.3%
59.7%
100.0%
9
90
99
9.1%
90.9%
100.0%
19
41
60
31.7%
68.3%
100.0%
20
53
73
27.4%
72.6%
100.0%
52
31
83
62.7%
37.3%
100.0%
74
158
232
31.9%
68.1%
100.0%
148
34
182
81.3%
18.7%
100.0%
25
62
87
28.7%
71.3%
100.0%
886
1447
2333
38.0%
62.0%
100.0%
Appendix A12: Surveys completed by Gender and Center
Site Name
1736 Family Crisis Center
Barrio Action YFC
Bradley Milken FSC
Central City Neighborhood Partners
Coalition of Mental Health Professionals, Inc.
Community Build
Cypress Park FSC
El Centro de Ayuda, Inc.
El Centro del Pueblo
El Nido Family Centers
Latino Resource Center
Lucile Beserra Roybal FSC
NEW Canoga Park
NEW South Valley
Oakwood Family Resource Center
Pacoima FSC
The Children's Collective, Inc.
Toberman Neighborhood Center
Tom Bradley FSC
WLCAC
Youth Policy Institute
Total
Male
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
42
Female
Total
17
60
77
22.1%
77.9%
100.0%
16
67
83
19.3%
80.7%
100.0%
49
96
145
33.8%
66.2%
100.0%
24
104
128
18.8%
81.3%
100.0%
36
91
127
28.3%
71.7%
100.0%
49
89
138
35.5%
64.5%
100.0%
18
60
78
23.1%
76.9%
100.0%
9
95
104
8.7%
91.3%
100.0%
11
36
47
23.4%
76.6%
100.0%
12
119
131
9.2%
90.8%
100.0%
39
92
131
29.8%
70.2%
100.0%
22
92
114
19.3%
80.7%
100.0%
20
47
67
29.9%
70.1%
100.0%
10
58
68
14.7%
85.3%
100.0%
4
82
86
4.7%
95.3%
100.0%
11
47
58
19.0%
81.0%
100.0%
10
62
72
13.9%
86.1%
100.0%
16
64
80
20.0%
80.0%
100.0%
62
147
209
29.7%
70.3%
100.0%
48
122
170
28.2%
71.8%
100.0%
20
64
84
23.8%
76.2%
100.0%
503
1694
2197
22.9%
77.1%
100.0%
Appendix A13: Surveys completed by Age and Center
Site Name
1736 Family Crisis Center
Barrio Action YFC
Bradley Milken FSC
Central City Neighborhood Partners
Coalition of Mental Health
Professionals, Inc.
Community Build
Cypress Park FSC
El Centro de Ayuda, Inc.
El Centro del Pueblo
El Nido Family Centers
Latino Resource Center
Lucile Beserra Roybal FSC
NEW Canoga Park
NEW South Valley
Oakwood Family Resource Center
Pacoima FSC
The Children's Collective, Inc.
Toberman Neighborhood Center
Tom Bradley FSC
WLCAC
Youth Policy Institute
Total
18-25
26-40
41-55
56-70
71+
Total
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
1
1.3%
13
15.3%
22
15.1%
18
39
51.3%
37
43.5%
28
19.2%
62
21
27.6%
29
34.1%
25
17.1%
34
13
17.1%
5
5.9%
51
34.9%
14
2
2.6%
1
1.2%
20
13.7%
2
76
100.0%
85
100.0%
146
100.0%
130
% within Site
13.8%
47.7%
26.2%
10.8%
1.5%
100.0%
7
30
48
38
5
128
% within Site
5.5%
23.4%
37.5%
29.7%
3.9%
100.0%
Count
% within Site
27
18.6%
52
35.9%
41
28.3%
23
15.9%
2
1.4%
145
100.0%
Count
% within Site
Count
6
6.9%
7
26
29.9%
35
35
40.2%
40
18
20.7%
21
2
2.3%
0
87
100.0%
103
% within Site
6.8%
34.0%
38.8%
20.4%
0.0%
100.0%
Count
% within Site
Count
7
14.9%
11
17
36.2%
53
12
25.5%
48
9
19.1%
14
2
4.3%
4
47
100.0%
130
% within Site
8.5%
40.8%
36.9%
10.8%
3.1%
100.0%
Count
% within Site
Count
8
5.9%
2
33
24.4%
37
22
16.3%
39
28
20.7%
34
44
32.6%
10
135
100.0%
122
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
1.6%
13
17.3%
7
10.3%
5
5.4%
10
17.2%
5
6.9%
6
7.5%
5
2.3%
30
30.3%
20
26.7%
18
26.5%
63
67.7%
19
32.8%
28
38.9%
38
47.5%
39
18.1%
64
32.0%
31
41.3%
31
45.6%
22
23.7%
14
24.1%
35
48.6%
28
35.0%
49
22.8%
60
27.9%
11
14.7%
10
14.7%
1
1.1%
9
15.5%
4
5.6%
6
7.5%
79
36.7%
16
8.2%
0
0.0%
2
2.9%
2
2.2%
6
10.3%
0
0.0%
2
2.5%
43
20.0%
3
100.0%
75
100.0%
68
100.0%
93
100.0%
58
100.0%
72
100.0%
80
100.0%
215
100.0%
173
% within Site
Count
17.3%
11
37.0%
31
34.7%
23
9.2%
18
1.7%
1
100.0%
84
% within Site
13.1%
36.9%
27.4%
21.4%
1.2%
100.0%
Count
% within Site
221
9.8%
769
34.1%
687
30.5%
422
18.7%
153
6.8%
2252
100.0%
Count
43
Appendix A14: Other Participant Characteristics by Center
Employed
Full Time
Site Name
1736 Family Crisis Center
Barrio Action YFC
Bradley Milken FSC
Central City Neighborhood Partners
Coalition of Mental Health
Professionals, Inc.
Community Build
Cypress Park FSC
El Centro de Ayuda, Inc.
El Centro del Pueblo
El Nido Family Centers
Latino Resource Center
Lucile Beserra Roybal FSC
NEW Canoga Park
NEW South Valley
Oakwood Family Resource Center
Pacoima FSC
The Children's Collective, Inc.
Toberman Neighborhood Center
Tom Bradley FSC
WLCAC
Youth Policy Institute
Total
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
17
39
36
13
22.1%
50.6%
46.8%
16.9%
21
13
19
30
14
23.9%
14.8%
21.6%
34.1%
15.9%
23
26
50
20
10
15.2%
17.2%
33.1%
13.2%
6.6%
18
25
43
49
20
13.5%
18.8%
32.3%
36.8%
15.0%
18
15
41
38
17
14.0%
11.6%
31.8%
29.5%
13.2%
19
20
62
35
17
12.7%
13.3%
41.3%
23.3%
11.3%
17
20
31
25
14
19.3%
22.7%
35.2%
28.4%
15.9%
6
17
32
39
24
5.7%
16.0%
30.2%
36.8%
22.6%
9
11
19
13
6
19.1%
23.4%
40.4%
27.7%
12.8%
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
7
18
54
54
23
5.3%
13.5%
40.6%
40.6%
17.3%
21
23
15
23
12
15.0%
16.4%
10.7%
16.4%
8.6%
7
17
50
23
15
5.6%
13.6%
40.0%
18.4%
12.0%
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
13
13
36
21
11
16.9%
16.9%
46.8%
27.3%
14.3%
5
20
31
17
10
7.0%
28.6%
43.7%
23.9%
14.1%
6
15
32
48
18
6.1%
15.2%
32.3%
48.5%
18.2%
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
12
12
21
15
3
20.0%
20.0%
35.0%
25.0%
5.0%
9
10
26
42
11
12.3%
13.7%
35.6%
57.5%
15.1%
9
15
32
29
7
10.8%
18.1%
38.6%
34.9%
8.4%
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
I Have a
Child Who
Needs Help
in School
I Have a
Child in
School
12
Count
% within Site
Unemployed
and Seeking
Paid Work
15.6%
Count
% within Site
Employed
Part Time
10
28
87
31
12
4.3%
12.1%
37.7%
13.4%
5.2%
23
32
69
45
17
12.6%
17.6%
37.9%
24.7%
9.3%
10
20
33
23
14
11.5%
23.0%
37.9%
26.4%
16.1%
275
387
822
656
288
11.8%
16.6%
35.3%
28.2%
12.4%
44
Appendix A15: Participant Highest Education Level Completed
Elementary/
Primary
School
Site Name
1736 Family Crisis Center
Barrio Action YFC
Bradley Milken FSC
Central City Neighborhood
Partners
Coalition of Mental Health
Professionals, Inc.
Community Build
Cypress Park FSC
El Centro de Ayuda, Inc.
El Centro del Pueblo
El Nido Family Centers
Latino Resource Center
Lucile Beserra Roybal FSC
NEW Canoga Park
NEW South Valley
Oakwood Family Resource
Center
Pacoima FSC
The Children's Collective,
Inc.
Toberman Neighborhood
Center
Tom Bradley FSC
WLCAC
Youth Policy Institute
Total
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
13
18.1%
15
19.0%
20
14.5%
47
38.2%
11
9.6%
24
17.5%
24
30.0%
28
28.6%
13
27.7%
40
32.3%
50
41.7%
44
38.9%
13
18.8%
8
12.5%
28
31.1%
20
35.1%
22
31.9%
9
12.2%
67
34.7%
17
9.9%
21
25.3%
534
25.2%
8th Grade
Completion
16
22.2%
11
13.9%
16
11.6%
22
17.9%
11
9.6%
14
10.2%
17
21.3%
18
18.4%
6
12.8%
38
30.6%
29
24.2%
23
20.4%
14
20.3%
13
20.3%
19
21.1%
8
14.0%
18
26.1%
6
8.1%
39
20.2%
13
7.6%
16
19.3%
367
17.3%
45
Some
High
School
8
11.1%
15
19.0%
18
13.0%
18
14.6%
22
19.1%
20
14.6%
11
13.8%
16
16.3%
6
12.8%
23
18.5%
17
14.2%
13
11.5%
13
18.8%
14
21.9%
14
15.6%
9
15.8%
8
11.6%
13
17.6%
21
10.9%
40
23.4%
12
14.5%
331
15.6%
High
School
Diploma or
Equivalent
16
22.2%
18
22.8%
38
27.5%
21
17.1%
27
23.5%
31
22.6%
16
20.0%
28
28.6%
9
19.1%
11
8.9%
7
5.8%
13
11.5%
7
10.1%
15
23.4%
11
12.2%
9
15.8%
10
14.5%
22
29.7%
19
9.8%
48
28.1%
19
22.9%
395
18.7%
Some
College
15
20.8%
15
19.0%
32
23.2%
13
10.6%
34
29.6%
32
23.4%
7
8.8%
7
7.1%
9
19.1%
7
5.6%
11
9.2%
15
13.3%
14
20.3%
8
12.5%
10
11.1%
5
8.8%
4
5.8%
21
28.4%
27
14.0%
40
23.4%
8
9.6%
334
15.8%
Associate's
Degree
Bachelor's
Degree or
More
3
4.2%
3
3.8%
6
4.3%
2
1.6%
9
7.8%
10
7.3%
1
1.3%
1
1.0%
3
6.4%
3
2.4%
3
2.5%
3
2.7%
3
4.3%
4
6.3%
6
6.7%
3
5.3%
4
5.8%
1
1.4%
9
4.7%
10
5.8%
0
0.0%
87
4.1%
1
1.4%
2
2.5%
8
5.8%
0
0.0%
1
0.9%
6
4.4%
4
5.0%
0
0.0%
1
2.1%
2
1.6%
3
2.5%
2
1.8%
5
7.2%
2
3.1%
2
2.2%
3
5.3%
3
4.3%
2
2.7%
11
5.7%
3
1.8%
7
8.4%
68
3.2%
Appendix A16: Ethnicity
Site Name
1736 Family Crisis Center
Barrio Action YFC
Bradley Milken FSC
Black
White
Hispanic
Asian/
Pacific
Islander
Bi-Racial
/MultiRacial
Other
Total
Count
19
3
54
1
0
0
77
% within Site
.2
.0
.7
.0
.0
.0
1.0
Count
1
4
79
0
0
1
85
% within Site
.0
.0
.9
.0
.0
.0
1.0
Count
79
7
52
0
4
4
146
% within Site
.5
.0
.4
.0
.0
.0
1.0
130
Central City Neighborhood
Partners
Count
2
2
124
1
0
1
% within Site
.0
.0
1.0
.0
.0
.0
1.0
Coalition of Mental Health
Professionals, Inc.
Count
72
0
43
0
4
2
121
% within Site
.6
.0
.4
.0
.0
.0
1.0
Count
53
3
74
0
5
8
143
% within Site
.4
.0
.5
.0
.0
.1
1.0
Count
0
3
80
0
1
0
84
% within Site
.0
.0
1.0
.0
.0
.0
1.0
Community Build
Cypress Park FSC
El Centro de Ayuda, Inc.
El Centro del Pueblo
El Nido Family Centers
Latino Resource Center
Lucile Beserra Roybal FSC
NEW Canoga Park
NEW South Valley
Oakwood Family Resource
Center
Pacoima FSC
The Children's Collective, Inc.
Toberman Neighborhood
Center
Tom Bradley FSC
WLCAC
Youth Policy Institute
Total
Count
1
2
101
1
0
1
106
% within Site
.0
.0
1.0
.0
.0
.0
1.0
Count
1
3
37
0
6
0
47
% within Site
.0
.1
.8
.0
.1
.0
1.0
132
Count
1
1
129
0
0
1
% within Site
.0
.0
1.0
.0
.0
.0
1.0
Count
3
8
121
0
3
0
135
% within Site
.0
.1
.9
.0
.0
.0
1.0
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
4
.0
6
.1
7
.1
1
.0
2
.0
1
5
.0
4
.1
3
.0
2
.0
3
.1
1
109
.9
58
.8
51
.8
88
.9
48
.8
67
2
.0
1
.0
1
.0
2
.0
1
.0
0
1
.0
2
.0
1
.0
1
.0
0
.0
2
2
.0
2
.0
0
.0
1
.0
4
.1
1
123
1.0
73
1.0
63
1.0
95
1.0
58
1.0
72
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
Count
% within Site
.0
.0
.9
.0
.0
.0
1.0
13
.2
52
.2
87
.5
2
.0
407
.2
11
.1
8
.0
5
.0
4
.0
82
.0
47
.6
139
.7
75
.4
73
.8
1649
.7
5
.1
5
.0
1
.0
6
.1
27
.0
3
.0
4
.0
5
.0
1
.0
43
.0
1
.0
4
.0
2
.0
1
.0
36
.0
80
1.0
212
1.0
175
1.0
87
1.0
2244
1.0
46
Appendix B: Executive and Program Directors’ Satisfaction with HCID
47
Appendix B1: Executive Director Questionnaire
48
49