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

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
1212
1121
1027
1130
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
Spring
2011
Fall 2011 Spring
2012
Fall 2012 Spring
2013
Fall 2013 Spring
2014
Fall 2014 Spring
2015
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.
Overall Satisfaction
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 was
Valuable
Services met
Expectations
Overall Satisfaction
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 your
language
Waiting time for services
Respect Staff Shows Client
Staff Response to Questions
Amount of Paperwork
Required
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 program
Effectiveness

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 an
event
Other
College or School
Saw a flyer
Saw the building or sign
and 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 one
year 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 and
nine 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/Pacific
Islander
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 guidance
and support provided by HCID staff?
Overall, how satisfied are you with the services
you 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 of
time it takes to complete.
User-friendliness of the ISIS system.
Clarity of performance standards communicated by
HCID.
Timeliness with which HCID executed my contract.
(Choose NA if City Run Facility)
Timeliness of payments by HCID. (N/A if City Run
Facility)
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 Action
Board.
Promptness of HCID’s response to my questions.
Adequacy of the information and training HCID has
provided 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
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
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
 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?
 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
Overall
Satisfaction
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
The Children's Collective,
Inc.
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
Toberman Neighborhood
Center
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
The Children's Collective,
Inc.
Mean 4.55 4.49 4.36 4.25
N 53 53 44 36
Std. Deviation .574 .669 .750 .604
Center
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
Central City
Neighborhood Partners
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
Coalition of Mental
Health Professionals,
Inc.
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
El Centro de Ayuda,
Inc.
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
Latino Resource
Organization
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
Lucile Beserra Roybal
FSC
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
Oakwood Family
Resource Center
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
The Children's
Collective, Inc.
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
Toberman
Neighborhood Center
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
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%
Professionals, Inc.
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%
Count 64 0 1 67
% within Site 95.5% 0.0% 1.5% 100.0%
Count 51 2 0 53
% within Site 96.2% 3.8% 0.0% 100.0%
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%
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%
Count 53 0 2 55
% within Site 96.4% 0.0% 3.6% 100.0%
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%
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%
Professionals, Inc.
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%
Partners
Count 71 30 6 11 7 17
% within Site 46.1% 19.5% 3.9% 7.1% 4.5% 11.0%
Professionals, Inc.
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%
Center
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%
Center
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%
Partners
Count 34 8 2 1 5 29
% within Site 22.4% 5.2% 1.3% 0.6% 3.2% 18.8%
Professionals, Inc.
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%
Center
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%
Center
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
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%
Partners
Count 34 24 11 13 21 29 132
% within Site 25.8% 18.2% 8.3% 9.8% 15.9% 22.0% 100.0%
Professionals, Inc.
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%
Count 21 11 10 9 3 3 57
% within Site 36.8% 19.3% 17.5% 15.8% 5.3% 5.3% 100.0%
Count 15 9 5 9 5 6 49
% within Site 30.6% 18.4% 10.2% 18.4% 10.2% 12.2% 100.0%
Count 20 14 9 14 15 4 76
% within Site 26.3% 18.4% 11.8% 18.4% 19.7% 5.3% 100.0%
Count 33 14 17 14 15 10 103
% within Site 32.0% 13.6% 16.5% 13.6% 14.6% 9.7% 100.0%
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%
Center
Count 7 8 10 17 22 6 70
% within Site 10.0% 11.4% 14.3% 24.3% 31.4% 8.6% 100.0%
Count 15 4 5 7 8 9 48
% within Site 31.3% 8.3% 10.4% 14.6% 16.7% 18.8% 100.0%
Center
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%
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
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%
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%
Count 22 36 5 63
% within Site 34.9% 57.1% 7.9% 100.0%
Count 10 29 6 45
% within Site 22.2% 64.4% 13.3% 100.0%
Count 41 45 0 86
% within Site 47.7% 52.3% 0.0% 100.0%
Count 15 83 5 103
% within Site 14.6% 80.6% 4.9% 100.0%
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%
Count 41 22 2 65
% within Site 63.1% 33.8% 3.1% 100.0%
Count 38 15 2 55
% within Site 69.1% 27.3% 3.6% 100.0%
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%
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
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%
Count 28 126 154
% within Site 18.2% 81.8% 100.0%
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%
Count 15 53 68
% within Site 22.1% 77.9% 100.0%
Count 20 33 53
% within Site 37.7% 62.3% 100.0%
Count 16 78 94
% within Site 17.0% 83.0% 100.0%
Count 36 79 115
% within Site 31.3% 68.7% 100.0%
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%
Count 14 65 79
% within Site 17.7% 82.3% 100.0%
Count 8 52 60
% within Site 13.3% 86.7% 100.0%
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%
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
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%
Count 33 114 147
% within Site 22.4% 77.6% 100.0%
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%
Count 19 47 66
% within Site 28.8% 71.2% 100.0%
Count 14 37 51
% within Site 27.5% 72.5% 100.0%
Count 16 75 91
% within Site 17.6% 82.4% 100.0%
Count 23 84 107
% within Site 21.5% 78.5% 100.0%
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%
Count 11 65 76
% within Site 14.5% 85.5% 100.0%
Count 14 43 57
% within Site 24.6% 75.4% 100.0%
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%
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
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%
Count 18 51 52 22 4 147
% within Site 12.2% 34.7% 35.4% 15.0% 2.7% 100.0%
Coalition of Mental Health Professionals,
Inc.
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%
Count 4 20 23 17 4 68
% within Site 5.9% 29.4% 33.8% 25.0% 5.9% 100.0%
Count 7 12 14 14 5 52
% within Site 13.5% 23.1% 26.9% 26.9% 9.6% 100.0%
Count 5 36 40 10 0 91
% within Site 5.5% 39.6% 44.0% 11.0% 0.0% 100.0%
Count 14 26 31 23 14 108
% within Site 13.0% 24.1% 28.7% 21.3% 13.0% 100.0%
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%
Count 13 40 19 3 1 76
% within Site 17.1% 52.6% 25.0% 3.9% 1.3% 100.0%
Count 2 24 25 0 1 52
% within Site 3.8% 46.2% 48.1% 0.0% 1.9% 100.0%
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%
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
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%
Count 24 27 51 67 21
% within Site 15.9% 17.9% 33.8% 44.4% 13.9%
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%
Count 9 10 24 22 12
% within Site 13.4% 14.9% 35.8% 32.8% 17.9%
Count 12 13 19 15 6
% within Site 22.6% 24.5% 35.8% 28.3% 11.3%
Count 7 26 40 24 17
% within Site 7.6% 28.3% 43.5% 26.1% 18.5%
Count 9 24 44 28 18
% within Site 8.3% 21.8% 40.0% 25.5% 16.4%
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%
Count 13 9 23 37 13
% within Site 16.7% 11.5% 29.5% 47.4% 16.7%
Count 8 11 19 27 9
% within Site 13.8% 19.0% 32.8% 46.6% 15.5%
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%
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
8th Grade
Completion
Some
High
School
High
School
Diploma or
Equivalent
Some
College
Associate'
s Degree
Bachelor's
Degree or
More
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%
Partners
Count 42 18 19 25 9 0 9
% within Site 34.4% 14.8% 15.6% 20.5% 7.4% 0.0% 7.4%
Professionals, Inc.
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%
Count 19 11 11 9 1 1 3
% within Site 34.5% 20.0% 20.0% 16.4% 1.8% 1.8% 5.5%
Count 14 3 8 8 4 1 6
% within Site 31.8% 6.8% 18.2% 18.2% 9.1% 2.3% 13.6%
Count 17 29 10 12 10 1 3
% within Site 20.7% 35.4% 12.2% 14.6% 12.2% 1.2% 3.7%
Count 27 14 20 18 7 6 5
% within Site 27.8% 14.4% 20.6% 18.6% 7.2% 6.2% 5.2%
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%
Center
Count 19 11 12 13 6 3 6
% within Site 27.1% 15.7% 17.1% 18.6% 8.6% 4.3% 8.6%
Count 20 8 8 7 3 0 3
% within Site 40.8% 16.3% 16.3% 14.3% 6.1% 0.0% 6.1%
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%
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%
Professionals, Inc.
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

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (8)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (18)

Similar to 2014-2015 FSC Satisfaction Report_Final JC

Similar to 2014-2015 FSC Satisfaction Report_Final JC (20)

2014-2015 FSC Satisfaction Report_Final JC