agenda€¦ · · 2016-05-272016 to receive appeals from applicants that did not receive funding...

In compliance with Oakland’s policy for people with chemical allergies, please refrain from wearing strongly scented products to meetings. In compliance with the American Disabilities Act, if you need assistance to participate in the meetings for the Oakland Fund for Children and Youth

Planning & Oversight Committee, please contact the Oakland Fund for Children and Youth at 510-238-6379. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City of Oakland to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility. If you have questions regarding this agenda or

related materials, please contact our office at the number above.

Oakland Fund for Children and Youth

Meeting of the Planning and Oversight Committee (POC)

June 1st, 2016 – 6:00 p.m. – 9:00 p.m. Oakland City Hall, Hearing Room #4

1 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Oakland, CA 94612

AGENDA

1. Call to Order

Introductions &Announcements

Agenda Review/Modifications

2. Adoption of Prior Meeting Minutes from April 20th 2016 action

3. Recognition of POC Youth Members informational

4. Ad-Hoc Appeals Subcommittee Report of Findings informational

5. Update on Life Enrichment Committee meeting May 24, 2016 Action for OFCY FY2016-2017 Grant Awards

informational

6. OFCY Interim Evaluation Presentation

Report on All Other Strategies Presented by Social Policy Research Associates

Report on School Based After School Programs Presented by Public Profit

action

7. Administrative Matters

General Announcements

Upcoming Meetings/ Scheduling

informational

8. Open Forum

9. Adjournment action

Public Comment: The POC welcomes you to its meetings and your interest is appreciated.

If you wish to speak before the POC, please fill out a speaker card and hand it to the staff of the POC.

If you wish to speak on a matter not on the agenda, please sign up for Open Forum and wait for your name to be called.

If you wish to speak on a matter on the agenda, please approach the Committee when called, give your name, and your comments.

Please be brief and limit your comments to the specific subject under discussion. Only matters within the POC’s jurisdiction may be addressed. Time limitations shall be at the discretion of the Chair.

MINUTES TO BE APPROVED Oakland Fund for Children and Youth (OFCY)

Planning and Oversight Committee (POC) Meeting

Oakland City Hall, 1 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, City Council Chambers, Oakland, CA 94612 Wednesday, April 20, 2016

6:00 p.m. – 9:00 p.m.

Committee Members present: Kathy Teng Dwyer, Steven Wirt, M Shawn Cunningham II, Julie Waters, Gerald Williams, Kevin Wong, Ajani Torres-Cedillo, Anakarita Allen, Marcus Montague, Karen Lara, Kisha Jackson and Jared Utley

Committee Members absent: Bolor-Erdene-Erdenebat and Fred Price

Staff Members present: Sandy Taylor, Mike Wetzel, Scott Kim and Sachelle Heavens

1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 6:20 p.m.

2. Open Forum for Youth and Parents of Young Children The following youth members of grantee organizations spoke:

AYPAL: Building API Community Power

Bay Area Girls Rock Camp

Youth Together

Beyond Emancipation

East Bay Spanish Speaking Citizen’s Foundation

Health Initiatives for Youth, Inc.

BAY-Peace

Girls Inc. 3. Adoption of Prior Meeting Minutes from February 3, 2016

Ajani Torres-Cedillo made a motion, seconded by Jared Utley, to approve the meeting minutes from the February 3rd POC meeting. The POC unanimously approved the minutes of the meeting. (12 Ayes, 0 Nays)

4. Adoption of POC Ad-Hoc Review Subcommittee OFCY Grant Funding Recommendations for

FY2016-2019 Steven Wirt made a motion, seconded by Kisha Jackson, to approve the POC Ad-Hoc Review Subcommittee OFCY Grant Funding Recommendations for FY2016-2019 as presented in the memo, recommending funding to support 150 programs with $14.8M in grant awards in FY2016-2017. (10 Ayes, 0 Nays, 2 Abstentions [Anakarita Allen, Marcus Montague])

5. Administrative Matters

Appeals Process OFCY staff described the appeals process for organizations who did not receive a funding recommendation from the POC. The POC was reminded of the importance of the

MINUTES TO BE APPROVED Oakland Fund for Children and Youth (OFCY)

Planning and Oversight Committee (POC) Meeting

Oakland City Hall, 1 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, City Council Chambers, Oakland, CA 94612 Wednesday, April 20, 2016

6:00 p.m. – 9:00 p.m.

Strategic Investment Plan, which guides the strategies that govern proposals that are submitted within a particular category. Gerald Williams asked a question regarding scoring criteria for the application review. Sandy Taylor referred to the RFP and its listed criteria for how organizations are scored relative to the section of the proposal narrative.

General Announcements There were no announcements.

Upcoming Meetings/Scheduling The ad-hoc Appeals subcommittee will meet on May 5, 2016 to hear appeals. The next full POC meeting will take place on the third Wednesday of May (5/18/2016).

6. Open Forum

Individuals representing or supporting the following agencies and programs spoke:

Attitudinal Healing Connection, Inc.

Fresh Lifelines for Youth (FLY)

East Bay College Fund

BAY-Peace

Bay Area Girls Rock Camp

AYPAL: Building API Community Power

Beyond Emancipation

Health Initiatives for Youth, Inc.

Prescott Circus Theatre

Boys and Girls Club of Oakland

Rising Sun Energy Center

Acta Non Verba

Girls Inc.

Youth Together

American Indian Child Resource Center

Oakland Parents Together

OUSD – Early Childhood

Biotech Partners

7. Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 9:10pm.

City of Oakland, Human Services Department


Page 1 of 2

To: Planning and Oversight Committee (POC), OFCY

From: OFCY Staff

Date: May 18, 2016

Re: Ad-Hoc Appeals Subcommittee Report of Findings

Summary The Ad-Hoc Appeals Subcommittee held a hearing on May 5th 2016 to receive appeals from applicants that did not receive funding recommendations from the Planning and Oversight Committee (POC) for grant awards for FY2016-2017. The Ad-Hoc Appeals Subcommittee received written and oral appeals from two agencies in regards to three applications. The committee determined that the two agencies did not have sufficient grounds for appeals in regards to the three applications. The appeals were denied by the Ad-Hoc Appeals Subcommittee. Appeals Process and Report of Findings As stated in the RFP released in November 2015, applicants have the right to appeal the POC’s preliminary funding recommendations to the Ad-Hoc Appeals Subcommittee.

An appeal must be based on one or more of three criteria:

Unfair process (e.g., the appellant’s proposal was treated differently than others)

Material error (e.g., the appellant’s proposal was reviewed under the wrong funding category or based on some other objective error occurred), or

Conflict of interest potentially leading to financial gain by a POC member or their immediate families.

Appeals instructions noted that substantive disagreement with the funding recommendations is not grounds for appeal, and that no appeals would be accepted that challenge the review process as a whole. In addition, the appellants were not to submit any new or updated information about their proposal in their appeal.

OFCY received appeals from two agencies for three applications submitted.

Businesses United in Investing, Lending, and Development (BUILD) o BUILDing 21st Century Skills Through Entrepreneurship

Youth Together o One Land One People o Summer Enrichment

of 2

Each appellant provided a written response to establish one of the three bases for appeal and how, as a result, the appellant’s proposal was affected negatively.

Each of the appellants was afforded fifteen minutes to provide an oral presentation to the Ad-Hoc Appeals Subcommittee to support their written appeal for each application. After completion of the oral presentation, OFCY staff provided their response to the appeal. The Ad-Hoc Appeals Subcommittee then made their determination as to the validity of the appeal. The subcommittee found that none of the appellants had grounds for appeals based on the criteria established and included in the RFP.

City of Oakland, Human Services Department


Page 1 of 1

To: Planning and Oversight Committee (POC), OFCY

From: OFCY Staff

Date: June 1, 2016

Re: Oakland City Council Life Enrichment Committee Action on OFCY FY2016-2017 Grant Awards

Summary

The Oakland City Council Life Enrichment Committee (LEC) met on May 24th 2016 to receive the Planning and Oversight Committee (POC) funding recommendations for programs in FY2016-2017. The LEC forwarded the POC recommendations to fund 150 programs for $14.8M to the City Council for final approval and made a motion for the City Administrator to find additional funding, outside of OFCY, to fund Youth Together programs at Skyline and Castlemont High Schools. The Committee additionally requested that a legal opinion to be provided regarding how the City Charter governs City Council approval of OFCY funding. The full body of the Oakland City Council will receive the funding recommendation and motion from the LEC for consideration on the June 7, 2016 Council meeting.

Mid-Year Report

FY2015-2016

Prepared by:

Castle Sinicrope

Mika Clark

Social Policy Research

Associates (SPR)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Social Policy Research Associates (SPR) would like to thank the Oakland Fund for Children

and Youth staff members who have worked with us on this evaluation project, including

Sandra Taylor, Mike Wetzel, Scott Kim, Debra Chester, and Terry Hill. Thanks also to the

OFCY Planning and Oversight Committee for their ongoing feedback and support.

SPR staff who supported the data collection, analysis, and writing of this report include:

Heather Lewis-Charp, Rachel Estrella, Miloney Thakrar, Verenice Chavoya-Perez, Mayte Cruz,

and Allie Bollella.

Finally, we would like to give a special thanks to the staff, participants, and volunteers of the

OFCY programs for completing program surveys, hosting site visits, tracking their data in

Cityspan, and generously sharing insights about their programs.

OFCY Programs

Mid-Year Evaluation Summary FY2015-2016 S O C I A L P O L I C Y R E S E A R C H

A S S O C I A T E S

Background

The Oakland Fund for Children and Youth (OFCY), created in 1996 through

a ballot initiative, represents a large investment on the part of Oakland

residents to support the dreams and voices of young people and their

families. OFCY provides strategic funding to programs for children and

youth, with the goal of helping them to become healthy, happy, educated,

engaged, powerful, and loved community members.

This Mid-Year Evaluation Report provides an overview of the 65

community-based programs funded by OFCY. The report includes a

description of the children, youth, and adults served by these programs

during the first half of FY2015-2016, services provided, and program

quality. Data was drawn from Cityspan, program director surveys, and

observations of 34 programs using the Program Quality Assessment

(PQA).

OFCY funds a wide variety of programs in order to meet the diverse needs

of youth and families. While they share a common focus on empowering

Oakland residents, programs vary considerably along many dimensions,

including their size, target populations, and approaches to youth

development. The 65 programs summarized in this report include

programs with a focus on early childhood, student success in school,

youth leadership and community safety and the transition to adulthood,

including youth workforce development.

“It’s really about helping to

empower our youth…

whether it’s at school,

whether it’s trying to find a

job, whether it’s about

behaviors and attitudes and

just trying to develop them

as a person and prepare

them so that when they’re

with their friends or their

peer circles, they really

emerge as a leader.”

–Program Staff


Mid-Year Evaluation Summary - March 2016

FY2015-2016

Overview of Programs

Key findings on programs:

During FY2015-2016, OFCY

committed $6,734,081 to

programs, excluding school-

based after school programs.

On average, OFCY programs

received $103,601 in funding,

with grants ranging from

$30,000 to $321,875.

OFCY funding made up, on

average, 49% of programs’

projected budgets, reflecting

the pivotal role OFCY plays in

supporting early childhood and

youth programming in Oakland.

While projected annual budgets

averaged just under $250,000,

the budgets ranged from

$40,000 to almost

$1,000,000.

Most programs met their

targets for enrollment and units

of service. Larger programs

(those that served at least 100

youth) were more likely to

reach their units of service

targets than smaller programs.

OFCY Programs

Mid-Year Evaluation Summary FY2015-2016 S O C I A L P O L I C Y R E S E A R C H

A S S O C I A T E S

During the first half of FY2015-2016, OFCY programs evaluated by SPR

served 12,906 youth and 1,330 adults across all neighborhoods in

Oakland, with over 20% of participants coming from 94601, around

Fruitvale and along International Boulevard, and over 50% coming from

other neighborhoods in East Oakland, reflecting where the majority of

OFCY program sites are located.

During Summer and Fall 2015, 34 of the 65 community-based programs

(54%) were observed by evaluators, using the Weikart Program Quality

Assessment (PQA) tool. The tool captures program quality along four key

dimensions for youth development programs: safety, supportive

environment, interaction, and engagement. The Final Report will draw on

additional sources of data to assess program quality, including in-depth

site visits and participant surveys.

Overview of Participants

Key findings on participants:

The vast majority of OFCY youth

participants were children and

youth of color, with Hispanic

(36%) and African American

(34%) children and youth

making up most of the

participants, followed by

Asian/Pacific Islander (14%),

multiracial (3%), and Caucasian/

White (4%) children and youth.

Just over 30% of youth receiving

services from OFCY-funded

programs received “light touch”

services (fewer than 10 hours),

while about one in five received

“intensive” services (120 hours

or more).

The Youth Leadership and

Community Safety funding area

served the most participants

(30%), followed by Student

Success in School (30%), and

Healthy Development of Young

Children (22%).

Key findings for program quality:

Programs were consistently

rated higher in the areas of

safety and supportive

environment than they were in

the areas of interaction and

engagement.

Areas of strength included

providing emotional safety, a

healthy environment, and an

accommodating environment.

Areas for improvement included

planning and youth leadership.

About two-thirds were rated as

performing and one-third were

given the highest rating of

thriving.

Programs that served least 100

participants in Q1 and Q2 of

FY2015-2016 received higher

PQA scores on average than

programs that served fewer

participants.

Quality

1 | Prepared by Social Policy Research Associates

INTRODUCTION

It’s really about helping to empower our youth…whether it’s at school, whether it’s trying to

find a job, whether it’s about behaviors and attitudes and just trying to develop them as a

person and prepare them so that when they’re with their friends or their peer circles, they

really emerge as a leader.

- Program Staff

This Mid-Year Report provides an overview of children and youth programs funded by the Oakland Fund

for Children and Youth (OFCY), with the exception of school-based afterschool programs. The report

includes a description of the children, youth, and adults served by these programs during the first

half of FY2015-2016, services provided, and program quality. The report covers a broad range of

programs, from early childhood to youth workforce development: In total, 65 programs are included

in the Mid-Year Report, representing 51% of the programs funded by OFCY in FY2015-2016.1

Data Sources

The Mid-Year Report draws on predominantly quantitative data sources, summarized in Exhibit 1.

These data are used to describe OFCY programs and their participants, measure program quality,

and assess programs’ progress towards meeting service projections at the mid-point of FY2015-

2016.

Exhibit 1: Data Sources

Data

Source

Description

Cityspan OFCY’s client management system, Cityspan, is used to track youth and adult characteristics and

hours and types of services received. Youth and adults enrolled in at least one program activity

were included in the Mid-Year Report. During the first half of FY2015-2016, data were available

for 12,906 children and youth and 1,330 adults that received program services.

Program

Quality

Assessment

(PQA)

Observations

Certified site visitors conducted structured observations at 34 of OFCY’s 65 community-based

programs (54%) using the Weikart Program Quality Assessment (PQA) tool.2 The PQA tool

captures four key dimensions of program quality: safety, supportive environment, interaction,

and engagement using over 60 questions, which observers rate on a scale of 1, 3, or 5. Quality

at programs that did not receive a PQA visit in Fall 2015 will be assessed through interviews or

in-depth site visits in Spring 2016.

Program

Survey

In Fall 2015, 64 of 65 program directors completed the program survey. The survey captured

information about program resources, staff (including race/ethnicity, gender, and tenure),

funding, partnerships, and evaluation practices.

1 During FY2015-2016, OFCY funded 127 programs, including 65 community- and school-based programs and 62 school-

based, afterschool programs. A full list of the 65 programs included in this report, along with program-level information, is

included in Appendix A.

2 All Early Childhood strategy, Career and Youth Workforce Development, and Youth Leadership and Community Safety

programs will be assessed through interviews or in-depth site visits in Spring 2016. In addition, one program from the

following strategies will be assessed through an in-depth site visit in lieu of PQA observations: Academic Support for Older

Youth, Community-Based Out-of-School Time, and Safe Community Spaces for LGBTQ Youth. These in-depth site visits will

enable the collection of richer information about program quality and best practices than is possible through the PQA visits.


Overview of the Report

The report is structured as follows:

Programs: Provides an overview of OFCY community-based programs, including size, location,

and progress towards projections.

Participants: Summarizes characteristics and hours of service of OFCY program participants.

Quality: Summarizes program quality drawing on structured site visits using the PQA tool.

PROGRAMS

What makes us successful is that we have a blend of community leaders and early childhood

experts and educators that help run the playgroups so it comes from a community-driven

model that is culturally, linguistically appropriate for the neighborhood. We try to hire people

within the neighborhood so people that are working here can relate to and are reflective of the

community. It really helps the participants have a deeper connection and stay in the program.

- Program Staff

For FY2015-2016, OFCY committed to investing $11.1 million to support programs located

throughout Oakland.3 All programs aim to support Oakland’s children and youth, from birth to 20

years of age, to become healthy, happy, educated, engaged, powerful, and loved community

members. Programs vary considerably, however, along many dimensions, including their size, target

population, and approaches to youth development. The 65 programs summarized in this report fall

under four main areas, each comprising multiple funding strategies:

Healthy Development of Young Children programs include early interventions and supports

for families and young children to set the stage for healthy development and future

outcomes. Specific funding strategies in this area include: Mental Health and Developmental

Consultations in Early Childhood Care (3 programs), Parent and Child Engagement in Early

Learning and Development (8 programs), and Pre-Kindergarten Summer Camp (1 program).

Student Success in School programs support the transformative goals of the community

schools movement in Oakland and contribute to positive outcomes for children and youth.

Specific funding strategies in this area include: Transition Programs for Youth into Middle

and High School (4 programs) and Youth Leadership in Community Schools (3 programs).4

Youth Leadership and Community Safety programs are designed to provide safe and

supportive environments for youth while providing enriching, high quality programming, and

to nurture youth and community leadership. Specific funding strategies in this area include:

Community-Based Out-of-School Time (11 programs), Summer (10 programs) and Youth

Leadership and Community Safety (6 programs).

Transition to Adulthood programs address two critical needs facing youth as they grow into

self-sufficient adults: 1) understanding of and connections to the workforce; and 2) the skills

and qualifications to be able to achieve their career goals. Specific funding strategies in this

3 Of the $11.1 million invested by OFCY, $6.7 million supported the 65 youth programs covered in this report, and $4.4

million supported the 62 school-based after school programs covered in a separate report, prepared by Public Profit.

4 This area also includes programs under the School-Based After School Programming for Elementary and Middle School

Children funding strategy (62 programs), which are not included in this report.


area include: Youth Career and Workforce Development (10 programs), Academic Support

for Older Youth (4 programs), and Safe Community Spaces for LGBTQ Youth (5 programs).

Community-Based Out-of-School Time made up the largest percentage of grantees (17%), followed

by Youth Career and Workforce Development and Summer Programs (15% each). As in the previous

year, the smallest funding strategies in terms of number of programs continued to be Pre-

Kindergarten Summer Camp (2%; 1 program), Mental Health and Developmental Consultations in

Early Care and Education (5%; 3 programs), and Youth Leadership in Community Schools (5%; 3

programs).

Exhibit 2 illustrates key characteristics of OFCY programs, including the location of their sites, OFCY

funding, program budget, and OFCY grant as a percentage of program budget. With some exceptions,

programs maintained the same funding, budget, and reliance on OFCY as in FY2014-2015 as well as

many of the same locations.

Location

OFCY programs, excluding school-based afterschool programs,5 continued to be hosted at sites

located throughout Oakland in the last year of the 2013-2016 grant. As in 2014-2015, the greatest

concentration (19%) of program sites is located in the 94601 zip code, clustered along International

Boulevard and in Fruitvale. Uptown and Downtown Oakland (94612, 12%) are home to a large

concentration of programs, as is Chinatown and West Oakland (94607, 12%). Healthy Development

of Young Children programs had the widest distribution across Oakland as a whole, with many sites

in Downtown and Fruitvale as well throughout neighborhoods in the Southeast edges of Oakland,

including Eastmont and Elmhurst. Program sites are clustered in areas participants live in (East

Oakland, Fruitvale) or that are readily accessible by public transportation networks (Downtown and

Chinatown).

Between the second and third year of the grant, the total number of program sites, including

placement sites for jobs and internships, decreased by about 10%. Youth Career and Workforce

Development6 and Transition Programs for Youth into Middle and High School dropped the most

sites while Community-based Out-of-School Time added the most sites. Youth Career and Workforce

Development, despite dropping some placement sites, continued to have the most sites due to a

wide variety of placement opportunities for youth, including transportation (Caltrans, BART), hospital

and health clinics (e.g., Alta Bates, Kaiser Permanente, and Children's Hospital & Research Center

Oakland), parks and recreation (YMCA, O.Co Coliseum, Metro Golf Links), and city agencies (e.g.,

East Bay Municipal Utilities District (EBMUD), City of Oakland - Public Works Agency).

5 Throughout the remainder of the Mid-Year Report, we refer to OFCY programs, excluding school-based afterschool

programs, as OFCY programs. School-based afterschool programs are summarized in a separate Mid-Year Report, prepared

by Public Profit.

6 Placement sites for Youth Career and Workforce Development programs vary year-to-year based on relationships with

local organizations and youth placements.


Exhibit 2: Overview of OFCY Programs in FY2015-2016


Foundation and government grants are the

most common types of external support for

OFCY programs. On the program survey,

14% of programs reported receiving

foundation support, and 11% reported

receiving government funding. Examples of

external funding sources for OFCY-funded

programs include Wells Fargo Foundation,

The California Endowment, College Bound

Brotherhood, Gap Foundation, the East Bay

College Fund, SAMHSA, Workforce

Innovation Opportunity Act, and Alameda

County.

Many programs receive in-kind support and

funding from their sponsoring agencies. For

example, the YouthBridge Career and

Workforce Development Program received

funding from Better Health East Bay, a

foundation supported by the Alta Bates

Summit Medical Center, Eden Medical

Center and Sutter Delta Medical Center.

OFCY Funding

During FY2015-2016, OFCY is providing its continuing portfolio of programs with a total funding

amount of $6,734,081. This declined slightly (2%) from FY2014-2015 because OFCY did not renew

one program’s funding and decreased one program’s funding.7 On average, programs received

$103,601 in funding, with grants ranging from $30,000 (Prescott Circus Theatre, a Summer

Program) to $321,875 (Integrated Early Childhood Consultation Program at the Jewish Family &

Children's Services of the East Bay, a Mental Health and Developmental Consultations in Early Care

and Education program). A total of nine programs received grants of less than $50,000, and only

four programs received grants of $200,000 or more.

OFCY programs are expected to diversify their funding

sources and draw on outside funding to augment their

program budgets, with a targeted match of at least

25% of their total OFCY grant. Examples of projected

matches include leveraged support from sponsoring

agencies and grant funding from foundations or

government agencies. Of 65 programs, at the mid-point

of FY2015-2016, 64 anticipated match of 25% or

more, with one program just shy of the target.8

During FY2015-2016, OFCY programs continued to rely

extensively on OFCY with OFCY grants making up, on

average, 49% of programs’ projected budgets. This

illustrates the important role that OFCY plays in

supporting early childhood and youth programming in

Oakland, as well as the challenges programs face in

procuring other sources of funding. Given that FY2015-

2016 represents the third and final year of the current

OFCY funding cycle, it is important for programs to

assess their ability to bring in non-OFCY funding to

sustain their programs beyond the ending grant cycle.

Programs in the funding strategies under Healthy Development of Young Children were most reliant

on OFCY funding (69% of program budget on average) while programs in the funding strategies

under Transitions to Adulthood, excluding Safe Community Spaces for LGBTQ Youth programs, were

the least reliant (34% of program budget on average).9 As in the previous year, smaller programs

with budgets under $150,000 (29% of programs) were significantly more likely to rely on OFCY

funding than larger programs with budgets over $350,000 (20% of programs): OFCY grants

comprised, on average, 58% of smaller program budgets versus 34% of larger program budgets.

7 Youth Uprising’s YU Excel program was not re-funded in FY2015-2016 and AIDS Project East Bay’s Save Our LGBTI-Youth

(SOL) grant decreased from $150,000 to $90,000.

8 The only program whose project match was not at least 25% of its OFCY grant was program Health Initiatives for Youth's

LGBTQIQ Youth Safe Space Initiative (24.22%)

9 Programs under two of the strategies in Transitions to Adulthood did not rely as heavily on OFCY funding: Academic

Support for Older Youth (32%) and Youth Career and Workforce Development (34%).However, programs under Safe

Community Spaces for LGBTQ Youth relied considerably on OFCY funding (67% of program budget).


Program Size

Programs supported by OFCY funding ranged considerably in size, with an average projected annual

budget of just under $250,000, on par with FY2014-2015 program budgets. In the final year of the

grant cycle, Prescott Circus Theatre Summer Program ($40,000) and La Clinica de La Raza’s Juntos

program ($60,931) remained the smallest programs with relatively constant budgets while the

largest programs, Alameda Health System’s Model Neighborhood Program ($694,196) and College

Track-Oakland ($995,660), grew 22% and 14% respectively.10 As OFCY moves forward with the

selection and planning process for the FY2016-2019 grantees, it will be critical to keep in mind that

programs of different sizes vary in the kinds of supports that will help them reach their target

populations and their programmatic goals.

Progress Towards Projections

The mid-point of each year offers an opportune time to monitor the progress of programs in meeting

their recruitment and service goals. Two important standards for grant renewal are program

enrollment and progress towards projected units of service (total hours of service). At the beginning

of each fiscal year, programs set their anticipated enrollment and units of service in their work plans.

Each quarter, programs are checked against targets for enrollment and units of service for that

quarter. The specific targets at the mid-year are the following:

OFCY Standards for Enrollment at Mid-Year: By the end of Quarter 2, full-year programs have

enrolled at least 35% of projected unduplicated youth11 for the fiscal year. By the end of

Quarter 1, programs that operate only during the summer have enrolled at least 80% of

projected unduplicated youth to be served for the fiscal year.12

OFCY Standards Units of Service at Mid-Year: By the end of Quarter 2, full-year programs

have achieved at least 80% of their projected Units of Service for the first half of the year. By

the end of Quarter 1, programs that operate only during the summer have achieved at least

80% of their projected units of service for the fiscal year.13

A majority of programs had met the targets for enrollment and units of service at the midpoint of

FY2015-2016. Additional findings related to progress towards projections at the mid-point of

FY2015-2016, summarized in Exhibit 3, include:14

Similar to FY2014-2015, programs made greater progress toward enrollment than units of

service projections. Across all programs, 95% met the standard for enrollment, and 85% met

the standard for units of service. All summer programs met their both their enrollment and

units of service projections while 94% of year-round programs met enrollment targets and

80% met units of service targets. This mirrors findings from the FY2014-2015 Mid-Year

Report, reflecting that some year-round programs still have room to improve in terms of

either providing higher levels of service to youth they enroll and/or setting more realistic and

attainable projections for the youth they intend to serve. One possible explanation for less

10 The larger program budgets in FY2015-2016 could be due, in part, to inconsistencies in reporting match funds.

11 OFCY asks programs to project the number of unduplicated youth and adult participants. The term youth is used for

participants ranging from birth to 20, including children served by programs under Healthy Development of Young Children.

12 During FY2015-2016, there were 15 programs that operated during the summer: ten programs under the Summer

funding strategy as well as three Youth Career and Workforce Development programs (Exploring College & Career Options

in Oakland (ECCO!), Career Try-Out, and Hack the Hood Summer Boot Camp), one Youth Leadership and Community Safety

Program (Friday Night in the Park Program Support), and the Pre-K Summer Camp).

13 Progress towards projected units of service includes both youth and adult hours of service.

14 For progress toward enrollment and units of service goals by individual program, see Appendix A.


Exhibit 3: Progress Towards Projections at Mid-Year

progress towards projected units of service among year-round programs, particularly for

programs under Student Success in School, is that many school-based programs have slower

recruitment in the beginning of the year, with programming starting as late as October.

There was some variation in progress towards enrollment and units of service by funding

strategy but no clear patterns for missing units of service targets. In terms of enrollment, all

programs except three programs within the Safe Community Spaces for LGBTQ Youth (under

Transitions to Adulthood) met targets for enrollment. Compared to FY2014-2015, programs

in the Parent and Child Engagement in Early Learning and Development strategy showed

considerable progress in meeting their units of service, perhaps as a result of improved


tracking of adult participation. Only one of these programs fell short of meeting its target of

80% of projected units of service (reaching 79% of projected units of service delivered). As in

FY2014-2015, programs under the newest funding strategy, Safe Community Spaces for

LGBTQ Youth, were least likely to reach enrollment and units of service targets for the mid-

year: Only 40% met enrollment and units of service standards (2 out of 5 programs).

Programs that served more youth were more likely to reach their units of service targets.

Programs that enrolled 100 or more youth were more likely to provide 80% of their projected

units of service by the mid-year point than programs that enrolled fewer than 100 youth: 92%

of programs that enrolled 100 or more youth met their units of service targets compared to

75% of programs that enrolled fewer than 100 youth.15 Unlike previous years, there did not

seem to be any relationship between program budget and meeting projected units of service.

PARTICIPANTS

Our service model is called Creative, Connected, Resourceful and Whole. And those words

are very intentionally chosen, because that’s how we believe our young people are: creative,

connected, resourceful and whole. Our work is really to help connect them with that identity

of themselves.

- Program Staff

During the first half of FY2015-2016, 12,906 youth and 1,330 adults participated in the OFCY

programs summarized in this Mid-Year Report. As at the mid-point of FY2014-2015, programs under

the area of Youth Leadership and Community Safety served the most participants (33%), with

programs under Student Success in School (29%) and Healthy Development of Young Children

(27%) also contributing large percentages of participants. Together, the three funding strategies

under Transitions to Adulthood served about 12% of participants.

This section describes the characteristics of participants in OFCY programs and the hours of services

they received. For the most part, this section’s discussion of participant characteristics focuses on

children and youth served by OFCY programs, summarized in Exhibit 4. Thanks to improvements in the

completeness of adult participant data, we include a brief section on adult participants in the Parent

and Child Engagement in Early Learning and Development programs.

Characteristics

OFCY programs provide direct services to children and youth from birth to 20 years and their parents.

Within this broad age group, specific OFCY funding strategies have a more focused target population

including children from birth to 5 and their parents, middle school students transitioning to high

school, and LGBTQ youth. During the first half of FY2015-2016, OFCY programs served participants

from all neighborhoods in Oakland. OFCY programs draw the most participants from neighborhoods

in East Oakland: Over a fifth (22%) of youth participants came from 94601, around Fruitvale and

along International Boulevard, mirroring where a large portion of program sites are located. Another

quarter of program participants come from other neighborhoods in East Oakland, including 13% from

Webster Tract and East of Coliseum (94621) and 12% from Highland Park, San Antonio, and East

Lake (94606). Continuing trends from previous years, fewer participants live in Chinatown and

Downtown (10% total) although these locations are home to nearly a quarter of program sites.

15 At 0.06, this finding was just shy of being statistically significant at the 0.05 level.


Exhibit 4: Overview of Participants


Program staff are diverse but

do not mirror the

race/ethnicity of

participants. During FY2015-

2016, a third of staff were

African American (33%),

followed by Hispanic (22%)

and White (16%). Mental

Health and Developmental

Consultations in Early Care

and Education programs had

the highest proportion of

White staff (55%) while

programs under Youth

Leadership and Community

Safety had the highest

percentage of Hispanic staff

(43%) and Safe Community

Spaces for LGBTQ Youth had

the highest percentage of

African American staff (59%).

For the most part, programs

serving predominantly one

racial/ethnic group were led

by staff of the same

race/ethnicity.

Most program staff are

female, but staff gender

varies by strategy and

program. Across all OFCY-

funded programs 70% of

program staff were female.

Over 90% of staff at early

childhood programs under

Healthy Development of

Young Children were female

while males made up roughly

half of staff members at

Youth Leadership and

Community Safety (50%),

Youth Career and Workforce

Development (46%), and

Safe Community Spaces for

LGBTQ Youth (45%)

programs. A total of 5

programs were led entirely by

male staff while 13 programs

were led by all female staff

during FY2015-2016.

OFCY programs continue to reach a very diverse population. As

in previous years, the vast majority of OFCY youth participants

were children and youth of color. At the mid-point of FY2015-

2016, Hispanic youth made up the largest percentage (36%),

a change from FY2014-2015, followed by African American

(34%) and Asian/Pacific Islander (14%). Although Hispanic

youth were still underrepresented in OFCY programs relative to

OUSD, they now make up the largest group of children and

youth served by OFCY programs. White children are also

underrepresented relative to OUSD, making up only 4% of

OFCY program participants compared to 11% of OUSD

students while African American youth are slightly

overrepresented. At the mid-point of FY15-16, 10 programs

(15%) served predominantly one racial/ethnic group, defined

as 75% or more of participants being from the same

racial/ethnic group. These programs included programs

sponsored by ethnic-specific agencies [Leading the

Independence of our Barrios for Raza Empowerment (LIBRE)

at Spanish Speaking Citizens' Foundation, 93% Hispanic; API

Youth Promoting Advocacy and Leadership (AYPAL) at EBAYC,

93% Asian/Pacific Islander] as well as programs that serve

predominantly African American youth (Oakland Freedom

School and Summer Cultural Enrichment Program, 92% and

94% African American) and parent programs (Listening to

Children Parent Cafes, 76% African American; and Parent Child

Education Support Program, 83% Hispanic)].

Although overall participation was split evenly between male

and female participants, some programs targeted specific

genders and a few programs served predominantly one

gender. Across all programs, 50% of children and youth

participants were female and 50% were male, with less than

1% transgender or missing gender information. In terms of

funding strategies, programs under Safe Community Spaces

for LGBTQ Youth continued to be predominantly female (68%).

Pre-Kindergarten Summer Camp was 60% female while

programs under Youth Leadership and Community Safety

were, overall, 57% male. Gender-specific programs continued

to focus on their target populations: Concordia Park Summer

Program and Girls in Oakland Achieve and Lead at Girls

Incorporated of Alameda County (100% female); and Brothers,

UNITE! at Brothers on the Rise (100% male). Programs that

served predominantly one gender group at the mid-point of

both FY2014-2015 and FY2015-2016 were: Rites of Passage

(94% and 92% female), Moving in the Movement (71% and

82% female), and Friday Night in the Park (78% and 84%

male). Programs with considerable shifts in the balance of

participants’ gender at the mid-point of the year from FY2014-

2015 to FY2015-2016 include: Get Active Urban Arts Program

(93% versus 65% male), Hack the Hood (56% versus 76%

male), and Health Initiatives for Youth's LGBTQIQ Youth Safe

Space Initiative (56% female versus 76% female).


Ages of participating children and youth continued to vary greatly by funding strategy. Across

all programs, the age ranges most frequently served were 13-14 year olds (22%), 3-4 year

olds (15%), and 15-16 year olds (15%). The vast majority of children under the age of 5

continued to be served through programs funded through Healthy Development of Young

Children (98%), with an average age of 4. On the other end of the spectrum, a majority of

youth aged 19 and above (55%) were served through programs under Transitions to

Adulthood--the average age for participants in these programs was 16.6. Across all

programs, just over 1% of youth participants were older than 20 years old, the upper range of

OFCY’s target age range for youth.

Improved adult participant data suggests OFCY programs are reaching diverse, but mostly

female, parents in their thirties. With demographic data available for 65%-75% of adult

parents in Parent and Child Engagement in Early Learning and Development programs, a

picture of parent participants is beginning to emerge. At the mid-point of FY2015-2016,

parents were mostly Hispanic/Latino (48%) or African American (24%) and predominantly

female (81%). Across all parent play group programs, the average age was 35, and nearly

half of all parent participants were between 30 and 40 years of age (49%). Important to note

is that while Parent and Child Engagement in Early Learning and Development programs, as

a strategy, serve a diverse group of parents, the individual programs themselves seem to

attract a specific population and are less diverse themselves. Chatterbox and Listening to

Children Parent Cafes served predominantly African American parents (90% and 85%) while

Parent Child Education Support Program served mostly Hispanic parents (88%). Nearly half

of parents in Building Strong Children in LGBTQ Families were White (48%). Of the eight

programs, Parent Child Education Support Program was the most balanced in terms of

gender, serving 66% female and 34% male. In terms of age, Chatterbox served the youngest

parent population (average age of 28) while Building Strong Children in LGBTQ Families

served the oldest (average age of 39). Although the completeness of demographic data for

parents improved considerably over the previous year, 86% of zip codes were missing.

Services Received

At the mid-point of FY2015-2016, OFCY participants had received an average of 62.4 hours of

service, with children and youth averaging 65.9 hours and adults averaging 28.6 hours. Across all

programs, 43% of youth received at least 40 hours of program services, and 20% of adult

participants received at least 40 hours of service.

As shown in Exhibit 5, participants received services that fell into nine broad service categories,

ranging from academics and arts to family engagement and vocational training.16 As in FY2014-

2015, youth received the most hours in academics (23.6 hours), followed by health and recreation

(9.6), civic engagement and youth leadership (9.3), and arts and culture (8.9). Adult participants

received the most hours in academics (9.2) and family engagement (8.1), followed by supportive

services (6.4).

16 Each funding area has between 19 and 26 specific service categories. To allow for high-level comparisons of types of

services across programs and funding areas, we recoded specific service categories into nine broad categories: 1)

academics; 2) arts and culture; 3) civic engagement and youth leadership; 4) family engagement; 5) health and recreation;

6) life skills; 7) supportive services; 8) vocational; and 9) other.


Exhibit 5: Average Hours of Service Received for Children and Youth

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

Median hours of service increased although service dosage continued to be unevenly

distributed across participants. At the midpoint of FY2015-2016, the average hours of

service for youth participants was 65.9, and the median was 24 hours, an increase of 33%

from FY2014-2015 (18 hours). The funding strategies that experienced the highest increase

in median service hours include Youth Leadership in Community Schools, Youth Leadership

and Community Safety, and Parent and Child Engagement in Early Learning and

Development. Data show that programs continued to provide about a third of participants

with light-touch services (32% received fewer than 10 hours, averaging 3.3 hours) and a fifth

receive more intensive services (21% received over 120 hours, averaging of 209.7).

There was considerable variation in hours of service by both funding area and funding

strategy. Summer programs had completed their offerings for FY2015-2016 and had the

highest average hours of service (164.4), pulling up the average for its funding area, Youth

Leadership and Community Safety (130.0). Children and youth participants received the

fewest hours under Healthy Development of Young Children (22.3) and only slightly more

hours, on average, in programs under Student Success in School (26.0). As noted at the mid-

year of FY2014-2015, adults in programs funded under Healthy Development of Young


Children received more hours than children and youth (35.4 versus 22.34), which makes

sense given two of the strategies under this funding area target adults. Funding strategies

that had provided a high level of services at the mid-point of FY2015-2016 included Youth

Career and Workforce Development (104.2), Youth Leadership and Community Safety

(89.5), and Community-Based Out-of-School Time Programs (86.5). Across all of the

programs, average hours of service per child or youth participant ranged from below 5 hours

(Health Initiatives for Youth's LGBTQIQ Youth Safe Space Initiative and Peer Restorative

Justice Program at OUSD) to over 200 hours (East Oakland Boxing Association’s SmartMoves

Education and Enrichment Program and the City of Oakland - Office of Parks and

Recreation’s Summer Camp Explosion). The percentage of youth who received 40 hours or

more of services also ranged: 10 programs provided 10% of youth with at least 40 hours of

service and 12 programs provided 90% of youth with at least 40 hours of service.

As in previous years, there was no overall difference in number of hours of service by gender,

though male and females received different types of services. Overall, male participants

received 65.1 hours of service, and female participants received 66.8 hours of service.

Similar to FY2014-2015, female participants received more services in arts than males (10.0

versus 7.8) while males received more hours in academics (24.4 versus 22.7). Female

participants also received, on average, more hours in vocational training and life services

compared to males.

Children and youth in the smallest racial/ethnic groups received, on average, the most hours

of service. Children and youth identified as Other and Native Alaskan/American made up just

3% of program participants but received high levels of services (137.6 and 110.3 hours). The

high overall average for Native Alaskan/American youth comes from participation in

Indigenous Youth Voices: 60% of Native Alaskan/American youth participated in this program

and averaged 125 hours of service. Multiracial, African American, and Asian/Pacific Islander

youth also received more than the average hours of service. However, Hispanic youth, who

made up the largest group, received on average, less than all other ethnic groups (54.1)

except White youth. White youth, who made up the smallest percentage of youth

participants, received the fewest hours of service on average (29.4), even fewer hours than

at the midpoint of FY2014-2015.

Hours of service was highest for children aged 9-10 and decreased with age. At the midpoint

of FY2015-2016, average hours of service peaked for children aged 9-10 (134.4) and youth

aged 5-8 (124.8) before declining and remaining between 40-55 hours for youth aged 13

and up. The finding that youth between the ages of 5 and 10 received the most intensive

services at the midpoint of the year is likely due to the fact that roughly 60% of these youth

participated programs that operated during the summer and had received all of their hours

of service by the midpoint of the year. Not only have summer programs completed their

operations by the midpoint of the year, but they also provide more intensive services on

average. Following trends from the previous year, younger youth were more likely to receive

academic services while older youth were more likely to participate in youth leadership and

civic engagement activities and vocational training. The drop in average house of service for

13-14 year olds could reflect the nature of the Transition Programs for Youth into Middle and

High School, which tend to provide lighter touch services.17

17 At the mid-point of FY2015-2016, 50% of 13-14 year olds were enrolled in Transition Programs for Youth into Middle

and High School. During FY2014-2015, many 13-14 year olds received lower intensity services at Transition Programs for

Youth into Middle and High School in the spring. In FY2015-2016, some of this programming may have shifted to the fall,

resulting in lower average hours of service in the fall.


Types of services received varied by program budget. While there was no overall difference in

total hours received across large and small programs, there were significant differences in

the types of services provided. Children and youth in programs with budgets under $150,000

received more hours of art and culture, civic engagement and youth leadership, family

engagement, and other services. In contrast, youth in programs with budgets greater than

$150,000 received, on average, more hours of academics, health and recreation, life skills,

support services, and vocational training.

Children and youth in programs that enrolled fewer students received more hours of service.

Children and youth in programs that enrolled fewer than 100 students received, on average,

77.7 hours of service, compared to 64.4 hours for children and youth in programs that

enrolled 100 students or more. Children and youth in smaller programs received, on average,

more hours of service in all areas services except youth leadership and family engagement.

These findings are consistent with FY2014-2015 reporting which found that programs

serving fewer youth are able to provide a more intensive level of service.

The level of service received by parents in the playgroups varied by race/ethnicity but not by

gender or age. On average, adult participants in Parent and Child Engagement in Early

Learning and Development programs received 34.1 hours of services, more than any other

strategy with a significant number of adult participants except Mental Health and

Developmental Consultations in Early Care and Education (41.5 hours).18 Across all

playgroup programs, 30% of adult participants received 40 hours or more of services, and

academic and family engagement services accounted for almost all services received. Unlike

youth participants, however, White adult participants received more than the average hours

of service (45.6), while Hispanic adults received about the average (34.9) and African

American parents received less intensive services (27.9). Similar to youth, there were no

significant differences in the hours of service received by male and female adult participants.

By age, there was some, but not much, variation in the intensity of services received: Adult

participants under 20 years of age received the lowest intensity of services (26.7 hours) and

adults aged 30 to 40 received the highest intensity (37.2).

QUALITY

I think it’s important to note that the experience in the program is not only about job placement

and career readiness but about individual youth empowerment. We want them to understand

that tech is an ecosystem that’s in their community. It’s not just in San Francisco or Silicon

Valley. That they have the inherent ability to play a substantial role in it if they want to.

- Program Staff

During Summer and Fall 2015, 34 of the 65 community-based programs (54%) were observed by

evaluators, using the Weikart Program Quality Assessment (PQA) tool.19 The tool captures program

18 There were four adult participants in Youth Career and Workforce Development programs who averaged 98 hours of

services but are not discussed here because those programs do not target adult participants. Among adult participants in

Mental Health and Developmental Consultations in Early Care programs, three are recorded as having received more than

1,000 hours of service. Excluding those three individuals, the average hours of service for adult participants was 17.4

hours.

19 All Early Childhood strategy, Career and Youth Workforce Development, and Youth Leadership and Community Safety

programs will be assessed through interviews or in-depth site visits in Spring 2016. In addition, one program from the

following strategies will be assessed through an in-depth site visit: Academic Support for Older Youth, Community-Based

Out-of-School Time, and Safe Community Spaces for LGBTQ Youth. One program (Alternatives in Action-Life


quality along four key dimensions for youth development programs: safety, supportive environment,

interaction, and engagement. This section summarizes PQA scores, identifies areas of strength and

weakness and investigates variation in program quality by funding strategy, program budget, and

enrollment.

The Program Quality Assessment tool is a structured observation conducted by certified site visitors.

During a 2-3.5 hour visit, site visitors rate programs on over 60 questions that make up the four key

dimensions.20 While the version of the tool for younger youth (School-Aged PQA) differs from the

version for older youth (Youth PQA) for some questions and subdimensions, both tools capture the

same underlying dimensions of safety, supportive environment, interaction, and engagement.

Almost all programs visited in Summer and Fall 2015 received overall scores of either Performing or

Thriving, the two highest categories of performance.21 Only one program received a score of

Emerging. Other findings related to program quality include:

Programs were rated consistently higher for safety and supportive environment than

interaction and engagement in FY2015-2016. This finding is in line with the findings from

FY2014-2015, as well as national trends, and reflects the challenge of providing opportunities

for peer collaboration and youth leadership. Programs consistently received high scores for

providing emotional and physical safety and healthy and accommodating environments but

many were less successful in providing opportunities for youth to act as group facilitators and

mentors, help shape program planning, and reflect on what they have done. Programs that

received high scores in these areas utilized different tactics to promote engagement and

interaction among youth. For example, the Peer Restorative Justice Program at OUSD asked

youth to rotate and take turns leading different activities every week and provided

opportunities for older youth to mentor the younger youth. As another example, participants

from Rites of Passages at Dimensions Dance Theater had frequent opportunities to meet as

a group and discuss what they had learned through their activities as a reflection process.

Programs received similar scores on their program quality assessments compared to

previous years. On average, programs that received PQA visits in both years received an

overall score of 4.32 in FY2015-2016 and 4.40 in FY2014-2015. The difference was only

statistically significant in the area of interaction, which was lower in FY2015-2016 than in

the previous year (4.12 in FY2015-2016 versus 4.31 in FY2014-2015).

Funding strategy does not seem to play a large or consistent role in program quality

assessment scores. Although there was modest variation in program strengths and areas of

improvement by funding strategy in both FY2014-2015 and FY2015-2016, these strengths

and weaknesses within strategies were inconsistent across the two years. This inconsistency

Academy/McClymonds) received three separate PQA scores, one for each component of its program. All three scores are

included in this analysis.

20 The tool uses a scale of 1, 3, and 5 with descriptions of the ratings at each level for each of the questions. In general,

rating of 1 indicates that the practice was not observed while the visitor was on site, or that the practice is not a part of the

program, a rating of 3 indicates that the practice is implemented relatively consistently across staff and activities, and a

rating of 5 indicates that the practice was implemented consistently and well across staff and activities.

21 Programs that received overall scores of 4.5 or higher across all four dimensions were categorized as Thriving and

defined as programs that provide high quality services across all four quality domains and practice areas. Programs that

received average scores between from 3.0 up to 4.5 were categorized Performing and defined as programs that provide high

quality service in almost all program quality domains and practice areas and have a few areas for additional improvement.


may be driven by a small difference in the pool of programs that received PQA visits between

the two years.22

Exhibit 6: Program Quality

22 Seven programs that received PQA visits in FY2014-2015 will instead participate in in-depth site visits or phone

interviews in FY2015-2016. One program from each of the following strategies will participate in an in-depth site visit in the

spring in lieu of the PQA visit this year: Academic Support for Older Youth, Community-Based Out-of-School Time, and Safe

Community Spaces for LGBTQ Youth. In addition, three Youth Career and Workforce Development programs and one Youth

Leadership and Community Safety program that operate in the summer received PQA visits in FY2014-2015 and will

instead participate in interviews in FY2015-2016.


The relationship between program quality and program size is unclear, especially when

considering trends over time. As we observed last year, programs with budgets of less than

$150,000 generally received higher program quality assessment scores. For example,

smaller programs received an average overall score of 4.50 compared to 4.25 for larger

programs. However, the specific quality dimensions that were related to budget size were not

consistent from year to year. Finally, while total enrollment was not related to program quality

assessment scores in FY2014-2015, programs that served at least 100 participants in Q1

and Q2 of FY2015-2016 received higher scores on average than programs that served fewer

participants.

The Final Report for FY2015-2016 will further explore program quality by identifying specific

strategies and best practices utilized by a sample of high performing programs, as well as

highlighting participant perspectives on program quality drawn from focus groups and surveys.

CONCLUSION

I definitely think that JUMA has helped me see myself differently. Before JUMA, I was like,

“I’m not even gonna finish high school, let alone go on to college.” I thought I was gonna be

that typical stereotype. I was thinking of myself as a stereotype because I was just going

down the wrong path and stuff wasn’t really going good in my life. But then coming here, we

get a lot of motivation and inspiration and opportunities as well.

- Participant

In FY2015-2016, OFCY continues to provide vital funding to community-based organizations serving

a diverse group of children and youth from birth to 20 years of age. OFCY-funded programs provide a

range of services to children and youth from across the city, particularly from Fruitvale, East Oakland,

Chinatown, and West Oakland.

Many of the trends identified at the mid-point of FY2014-2015 are still relevant in FY2015-2016. For

example, progress toward units of service goals is similar to the progress made by the midpoint in

FY2014-2015. While OFCY community-based programs are generally on track to provide their

anticipated levels of service to participants, programs in the newest funding strategy, Safe

Community Spaces for LGBTQ Youth, continued to have difficulty recruiting youth and providing

anticipated levels of service. In addition, the level and types of service provided to youth continued to

vary, with younger school-aged youth more likely to receive more hours of service and participate in

academic services, while older youth were more likely to participate in youth leadership and civic

engagement activities and vocational training. Demonstrating the different program models offered

across OFCY’s funding portfolio, the level of service continues to vary across funding area and

funding strategy.

The FY2015-2016 Mid-Year report builds on the previous report with some new observations. For

example, we observed that the type of service offered to participants in FY2015-2016 varied by

program budget size. Programs with smaller budgets tended to offer services in art and culture, civic

engagement and youth leadership, and family engagement, while larger programs tended to offer

more hours of academic support, health and recreation, life skills, support services, and vocational

training. This report also includes information on adult participants of OFCY programs, most of whom

are enrolled in Parent and Child Engagement in Early Learning and Development programs. While

these programs served a diverse group of predominantly female parents, the demographic

composition of parents varied significantly across programs, suggesting that playgroup programs

often target specific populations.


Moving forward, the Final Report will explore these themes in more depth by including information

from in-depth interviews, focus groups, and program observations to deepen our analysis of program

quality and surface best practices. We will also explore progress towards outcomes using the

participant survey data.


APPENDIX 1: PROGRAM-LEVEL INFORMATION

The following table provides program-level information at the mid-point of FY2015-2016, including the number of unduplicated youth who

participated in program activities and progress towards projected enrollment for the fiscal year; actual units of service and progress towards

projected units of service (for the fiscal year for programs that operate during the summer, for Q1 and Q2 for full-year programs); average

hours of service per youth participant at the mid-point of the year (includes adults for programs under the Parent and Child Engagement in

Early Learning and Development strategy); and overall PQA score, if applicable. Progress towards projected enrollment and units of service

draws on the Cityspan Administrative Reports and includes adult hours of service while enrollment only includes children and youth.

Red shading indicates programs that did not meet their enrollment or units of service targets at the mid-point of the year, defined as:

OFCY Standards for Enrollment at Mid-Year: By mid-year and end of Quarter 2, full-year programs have enrolled at least 35% of

projected unduplicated children and youth for the fiscal year. By the end of Quarter 1, programs that operate during summer have

enrolled at least 80% of projected unduplicated youth to be served for the fiscal year.23

OFCY Standards Units of Service at Mid-Year: By mid-year and end of Quarter 2, full-year programs have achieved at least 80% of

their projected Units of Service for the first half of the year. By the end of Quarter 1, programs that operate during summer have

achieved at least 80% of their projected units of service for the fiscal year.

OFCY Quality Standard.: Programs categorized as ‘emerging’ (receive an overall score below 3.0 for YPQA/SAPQA site visit) are

flagged for quality.

Agency

Program

Strategy

Enrollment Units of Service Average

Hours Projected Actual % Projected Projected Actual % Projected

Lincoln Child Center Early Childhood Mental

Health Consultation

Mental Health and Developmental

Consultations in Early Care and Education 350 320 91% 1186 1020 86% 42.0

Jewish Family &

Children's Services

of the East Bay

Integrated Early Childhood

Consultation Program



Family Paths The Early Childhood Mental

Health Collaborative



Note: Units of Service for Mental Health and Developmental Consultations in Early Care and Education programs represent consultation

hours provided at sites instead of service hours each child received.

23 During FY2015-2016, there were 15 programs that operated during the summer: 10 programs under the Summer funding strategy as well as 3 Youth Career and

Workforce Development programs (Exploring College & Career Options in Oakland (ECCO!), Career Try-Out, and Hack the Hood Summer Boot Camp), 1 Youth Leadership

and Community Safety Program (Friday Night in the Park Program Support), and the Pre-K Summer Camp.


Agency

Program

Strategy


Hours

Overall

PQA Projected Actual % Projected Projected Actual % Projected

Our Family Coalition Building Strong

Children in LGBTQ

Families

Parent and Child Engagement in

Early Learning and Development 110 103 94% 1424 4363 306% 16.3 N/A

Through the

Looking Glass

Chatterbox Parent and Child Engagement in


Children's Hospital

& Research Center

Oakland

Integrated

Developmental

Playgroups Program



Oakland Parents

Together

Listening to Children

Parent Cafes



Lotus Bloom Child

& Family Center

Multicultural

Playgroups



East Bay Agency for

Children

Parent Child

Education Support

Program



Safe Passages Safe Passages Baby

Learning

Communities



City of Oakland -

Office of Parks and

Recreation

Sandboxes to

Community

Empowerment



Oakland Unified

School District

OUSD Summer Pre-K Pre-Kindergarten Summer Camp 36 35 97% 1690 1500 89% 42.9 N/A

East Bay Asian

Youth Center

(EBAYC)

Break The Cycle Transition programs for youth

into middle and high school 200 262 131% 7650 11136 146% 42.5 3.93

Alternatives in

Action

Fremont Initiative for

Reaching Success

Together (FIRST)

Transitions Program

Transition programs for youth


Oakland Kids First PASS-2 Peer

Mentoring Program



Safe Passages Safe Passages

Transitions Program




Agency

Program

Strategy


Hours

Overall


Spanish Speaking

Citizens' Foundation

Leading the

Independence of our

Barrios for Raza

Empowerment

(LIBRE)

Youth Leadership in Community

Schools

115 85 74% 4048 2638 65% 24.0 3.38

Alternatives in

Action

Life Academy High

School24


Schools 650 789 121% 94551 44612 47% 55.5 4.90

Life Academy Middle

School

4.01

McClymonds 4.32

Oakland Unified

School District

OUSD Peer

Restorative Justice

Program


Schools 1376 668 49% 1656 3259 197% 4.9 4.97

San Francisco

Study Center

(Brothers on the

Rise)

Brothers, UNITE! Community-based Out-of-School

Time Programs 50 102 204% 5657 6151 109% 60.3 4.55

American Indian

Child Resource

Center

Culture Keepers Community-based Out-of-School

Time Programs 30 33 110% 2792 2597 93% 77.7 3.99

Girls Incorporated

of Alameda County

Girls in Oakland

Achieve and Lead

Community-based Out-of-School

Time Programs 140 195 139% 2365 5014 212% 25.7 4.42

Native American

Health Center

Indigenous Youth

Voices


Time Programs 160 169 106% 16732 17750 106% 102.6 4.29

East Bay Asian

Local Development

Corporation

Lion's Pride

Afterschool and

Summer Youth

Program


Time Programs 80 84 105% 15980 12743 80% 151.4 4.10

Community

Initiatives

Media After School

(MAS)


Time Programs 100 117 117% 2716 5524 203% 47.2 4.50

24 Alternatives in Action Life Academy/McClymonds has one Cityspan account but received three separate PQA visits for its separate programs at Life Academy High

School, Life Academy Middle School, and McClymonds High School.


Agency

Program

Strategy


Hours

Overall


Refugee Transitions Newcomer

Community

Engagement Program


Time Programs 200 164 82% 7322 7924 108% 33.2 3.99

City of Oakland -

Office of Parks and

Recreation

Oakland Discovery

Centers


Time Programs 450 315 70% 15574 17022 109% 54.0 3.80

Dimensions Dance

Theater, Inc.

Rites of Passage Community-based Out-of-School

Time Programs 120 152 127% 7205 12738 177% 83.8 4.76

East Oakland

Boxing Association

SmartMoves

Education and

Enrichment Program


Time Programs 600 273 46% 38178 55355 145% 202.8 N/A

Bay Area Outreach

& Recreation

Program

Sports & Recreation

for Youth with

Physical Disabilities


Time Programs 45 32 71% 2225 1987 89% 52.2 4.48

Aim High for High

School

Aim High / Oakland -

3 Sites

Summer Program 395 395 100% 56681 61716 109% 156.2 4.53

Destiny Arts Center Camp Destiny Summer Program 140 143 102% 6528 6008 92% 42.0 4.40

College Track College Track

Summer Program

Summer Program 76 194 255% 8816 13109 149% 67.6 4.83

Girls Incorporated

of Alameda County

Concordia Park

Summer Program

Summer Program 74 113 153% 12578 14646 116% 129.6 4.65

Family Support

Services of the Bay

Area

Kinship Summer

Youth Program

Summer Program

55 55 100% 8413 9161 109% 166.6 4.63

Lincoln Child Center Oakland Freedom

School

Summer Program 100 140 140% 17655 22515 128% 160.8 4.40

Prescott Circus

Theatre

Prescott Circus

Theatre Summer

Program

Summer Program

30 42 140% 3750 5234 140% 124.6 4.57

City of Oakland -

Office of Parks and

Recreation

Summer Camp

Explosion

Summer Program

300 617 206% 72170 109073 151% 176.8 4.18

East Oakland Youth

Development

Summer Cultural

Enrichment Program

Summer Program 200 224 112% 34810 91630 263% 409.1 4.41


Agency

Program

Strategy


Hours

Overall


Center

East Bay Asian

Youth Center

(EBAYC)

Summer Matters Summer Program

350 566 162% 43200 76091 176% 134.4 4.40

East Bay Asian

Youth Center

(EBAYC)

API Youth Promoting

Advocacy and

Leadership (AYPAL)


Community Safety 100 117 117% 14418 16493 114% 141.0 N/A

Peace Development

Fund

BAY-Peace: Better

Alternatives for Youth



Human Services

Department

Friday Night in the

Park Program Support



Safe Passages Get Active Urban Arts

Program



Project Re-Connect Project Re-Connect Youth Leadership and


La Clinica de La

Raza

Youth Brigade Youth Leadership and


East Side Arts

Alliance

ArtWorks at ESAA Youth Career and Workforce

Development 150 77 51% 10865 8093 74% 103.2 N/A

Youth Employment

Partnership

Career Try-Out Youth Career and Workforce

Development 72 75 104% 11397 13284 117% 177.1 N/A

OUSD College &

Career Readiness

Office

Exploring College &

Career Options in

Oakland (ECCO!)


Development 87 93 107% 14102 14106 100% 151.7 N/A

Beyond

Emancipation

Gaining Resources

and Opportunities for

Work (GROW)


Development 25 34 136% 3073 2515 82% 74.0 N/A

Center for Media

Change

Hack the Hood

Summer Boot Camp


Development 18 21 117% 2108 1965 93% 93.5 N/A

Alameda Health

System

Model Neighborhood

Program


Development 220 93 42% 5357 5534 103% 59.5 N/A

The Unity Council Oakland Youth

Engaged (OYE)


Development 53 57 108% 7240 4512 62% 74.9 N/A


Agency

Program

Strategy


Hours

Overall


Juma Ventures Pathways to

Advancement


Development 67 86 128% 3577 3020 84% 35.1 N/A

Youth Radio Pathways to Digital Youth Career and Workforce

Development 70 89 127% 7146 8106 113% 91.1 N/A

Alta Bates Summit

Foundation

Youth Bridge Career

and Workforce

Development

Program


Development 90 118 131% 14664 16708 114% 141.6 N/A

College Track College Track

Oakland

Academic Support for Older

Youth 276 285 103% 10601 15101 142% 53.0 4.67

Youth Radio Pathways to Higher

Education and

Careers


Youth 80 145 181% 2070 2230 108% 15.4 4.67

Centro Legal de la

Raza

Youth Law Academy Academic Support for Older

Youth 74 63 85% 1484 1491 100% 23.6 N/A

Youth Together, Inc. Youth Together's

Academic Support For

Older Youth


Youth 203 232 114% 1792 2294 128% 9.9 4.17

Health Initiatives for

Youth (HIFY)

Health Initiatives for

Youth's LGBTQIQ

Youth Safe Space

Initiative


LGBTQ Youth 85 66 78% 698 283 41% 3.9 2.94

La Clinica de La

Raza

Juntos Safe Community Spaces for

LGBTQ Youth 73 14 19% 651 280 43% 20.0 4.45

Destiny Arts Center Moving in the

Movement


LGBTQ Youth 29 11 38% 848 602 71% 54.7 N/A

AIDS Project East

Bay

Save Our LGBTI-Youth

(SOL)


LGBTQ Youth 150 48 32% 1040 1302 125% 26.7 4.05

Youth UpRising YU's Queer & Allies

Initiative


LGBTQ Youth 118 33 28% 429 515 120% 15.3 3.97

2015-16 School-Based After School Interim Evaluation Report P R E P A R E D F O R T H E O A K L A N D F U N D F O R C H I L D R E N A N D Y O U T H

M A R C H 2 0 1 6

Prepared by Public Profit Page 1

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We thank all the individuals and agencies who contributed to this evaluation report. We are first and foremost grateful to the non-profit and public agencies that serve children and youth in Oakland. Their active participation in the evaluation is key to the success of this report. We would also like to thank the OFCY Planning and Oversight Committee, who we name individually below. The City of Oakland Human Services Department staff greatly contributed to the design and structure of the interim evaluation report. We thank Children and Youth Services Director Sandy Taylor, OFCY Program Planner Mike Wetzel and Oakland Unified School District, After School Programs Office Coordinator Julia Fong Ma for their support. Finally we’d like to thank the children and youth of Oakland, and the parents, caregivers, teachers, and service providers who support them so that they become healthy, happy, educated, engaged, powerful and loved community members. 2015-16 OFCY PLANNING AND OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE (POC) AND STAFF*

Adult Appointee Youth Appointee

Mayor Marcus Montague

At Large Julie Waters Vacant

District 1 Gerald Williams Bolor-Erdene Erdenebat

District 2 Kathy Teng Dwyer Kevin Wong

District 3 Vacant Jared Utley

District 4 Steven Wirt Ajani Torres-Cedillo

District 5 Isaac Ruelas Karen Lara

District 6 Frederick Price M. Shawn Cunningham II

District 7 Kisha Jackson Vacant

*As of November 2015.


O F C Y S T A F F

Sandra Taylor – Children and Youth Services Manager Mike Wetzel – Program Planner Scott Kim – Program Analyst Terry Hill – Program Analyst Debra Chester – Program Analyst Tabia Norris – Administrative Assistant Sachelle Heavens – Administrative Assistant

P U B L I C P R O F I T E V A L U A T I O N T E A M

Corey Newhouse – Project Director Femi Vance – Senior Research Associate Julie Lo – Senior Research Assistant Amy Goldman – Research Assistant Saili Willis – Office Manager

This report evaluates the performance and quality of the Oakland Fund for Children and Youth grantees for the first half of the 2015-16 program year.

This report is prepared for the Planning and Oversight Committee of the

Oakland Fund for Children and Youth.


Table of Contents

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ....................................................................................... 1

OVERVIEW OF THE OFCY INTERIM GRANTEE EVALUATION REPORT ............................... 4 SCHOOL-BASED AFTER SCHOOL PROGRAMS ................................................................... 4 ABOUT THE INTERIM REPORT ................................................................................. 5

YOUTH SERVED .............................................................................................. 6 YOUTH SERVED BY HOME ZIP CODE ........................................................................... 6 GENDER AND RACE/ETHNICITY ............................................................................... 7

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE ................................................................................. 8

POINT-OF-SERVICE QUALITY ............................................................................ 12

APPENDIX A. PROGRAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT ...................................................... 20 SITE VISITS USING THE SAPQA & YPQA TOOLS ............................................................ 20 PROGRAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT (PQA) DOMAINS .......................................................... 20 PROGRAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT SCORING .................................................................. 21 POINT-OF-SERVICE QUALITY CATEGORIES ................................................................... 22

APPENDIX B. PARTICIPANTS’ HOME ZIP CODES ...................................................... 23


OVERVIEW OF THE OFCY INTERIM GRANTEE EVALUATION REPORT

School-Based After School Programs

The Oakland Fund for Children and Youth (OFCY), through Strategy Area 2: Student Success in School, funds 62 school-based after school programs that collectively support children and youth in their development towards becoming healthy, happy, educated, engaged, powerful and loved community members. The after school programs funded through OFCY Strategy Area 2 are the focus of this Interim Report. . FIGURE 1: THE OFCY SCHOOL BASED AFTER SCHOOL STRATEGY

OFCY Strategy Area 2: Student Success in School

School-based after school programming for elementary & middle schools

Support for high-quality enrichment, academic, and family support programming through school-based after school programs at elementary and middle school sites receiving state After School Education and Safety (ASES) funding.

Image: Bay Area Community Resources at Howard Elementary TABLE 1: OFCY SCHOOL-BASED AFTER SCHOOL PROGRAMS BY GRADE LEVEL SERVED

Grade Level Number of Programs

Elementary Schools 44

Middle Schools 18

Total 62

Source: Program roster provided by OFCY.


About the Interim Report

The Interim Report summarizes program participation and point-of-service quality data for OFCY-funded school-based after school programs. Program participation data in the Interim Report includes records collected during the first half of the program year, between July 1 and December 31, 2015. Data collected for the second half of the program year will be reported in the Annual Evaluation Findings Report, to be delivered to OFCY in October 2016. Table 2 below summarizes the data sources used in the evaluation, noting which elements appear in the Interim Report and which appear in the more comprehensive annual School-Based After School Programs Findings Report (Annual Report). TABLE 2: DATA PRESENTED IN THE INTERIM AND ANNUAL REPORTS

Data Source Used to Assess… Interim Report

Annual Report

Participation records Program performance � �

Program Quality Assessment (PQA) Point-of-service quality � �

Youth surveys Point-of-service quality; youth outcomes � �

Academic records Academic outcomes � �

Key

� Complete

� Mid-Year Status

� Not yet collected


YOUTH SERVED Youth Served by Home Zip Code

As shown in Figure 2, nearly three-quarters (71%) of participants reside in five Zip codes: 94601, 94621, 94603, 94605 and 94606. The remaining 29% of participants reside in all other zip codes served by OFCY school-based after school grantees. FIGURE 2: PROPORTION OF YOUTH SERVED BY ZIP CODE

Source: Cityspan records for 9,106 youth who attended an OFCY-funded school-based after school program between July and December 2015 and had a valid zip code available.


Gender and Race/Ethnicity

Latino/a youth make up just under half (45%) of the youth attending OFCY-funded school-based after school programs in the first half of the program year. African American youth represent about one-third (35%) of all youth attending the same programs. The proportion of females (49%) and males (51%) is roughly equal among race/ethnicity categories, as shown in Table 3. TABLE 3: OFCY PARTICIPANTS’ GENDER BY RACE/ETHNICITY

Youth Ethnicity Female Male Overall

Latino/a 46% 44% 45%

Black/African American 36% 34% 35%

Asian/Pacific Islander 12% 14% 13%

White 4% 4% 4%

Unknown 2% 2% 2%

American Indian/Alaskan Native 0% 1% 1%

Other / Multi-racial1 <1% <1% <1%

Total 49% 51% 100%

Source: Cityspan records for youth who attended an OFCY-funded school-based after school program between July and December 2015.

1 This represents youth in the categories of “Middle East/North Africa,” “Two or More Races” and “Some Other Race,” which sum is less than 1% of total youth.


PROGRAM PERFORMANCE School-based after school programs set goals for the number of youth they plan to serve each grant year as one measure of the programs’ reach in the community. As a whole, OFCY school-based after school grantees are exceeding their targeted number of youth. All (100%) of the 62 programs met or exceeded their minimum mid-year threshold for the number of enrolled youth. Similarly, nearly all (97%) programs met or exceeded mid-year target of their Units of Service goals. Table 4 on the following page provides an overview of program performance for the first half of the program year, between July 1 and December 31, 2015. Program performance is assessed by the following two measures:

• Enrollment - The number of children and youth served. In the course of

the program year, programs aim to reach their full target enrollment; 80% is the minimum performance threshold. At the mid-point in the school year, programs that reached a mid-year target of 35% of their total annual enrollment are considered to be on-track.

• Units of Service (UOS) - The number of service hours provided to

youth during the program year, a key indicator of program capacity. School-based programs should reach 100% of their mid-year UOS goal; 80% is the minimum performance threshold.

At the mid-point of the program year, all 62 programs have met or exceeded the minimum enrollment standard. Moreover, 60 of 62 programs have met or exceeded the mid-year target of their UOS goals.


TABLE 4: PROGRAM PERFORMANCE BY OFCY GRANTEE

E N R O L L M E N T U N I T S O F S E R V I C E

Lead Agency / Program Goal Actual

Progress Towards Mid-year

Goal (Shaded if

< 35%)

Goal Actual

Progress Toward Mid-year Target

(Shaded if < 80%)

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PROGRAMS

Bay Area Community Resources

Bridges Academy 117 92 79% 14,150 13,970 99%

Emerson 115 93 81% 23,483 40,644 173%

Esperanza Academy 120 112 93% 22,081 26,976 122%

Fred T. Korematsu 116 105 91% 22,766 26,970 118%

Global Family School 110 114 104% 21,453 24,839 116%

Grass Valley Elementary 116 114 98% 22,678 28,323 125%

Greenleaf 95 111 117% 17,085 19,456 114%

Hoover 115 131 114% 22,857 24,790 108%

Howard 100 107 107% 24,183 27,435 113%

Lafayette 120 158 132% 26,040 44,803 172%

Markham 90 104 116% 15,337 13,415 87%

Martin Luther King, Jr. 166 165 99% 26,705 32,212 121%

PLACE @ Prescott 125 136 109% 25,215 23,283 92%

Reach Academy 83 148 178% 22,057 29,157 132%

Sankofa Academy 210 231 110% 28,180 29,767 106%

Eagle Village Community Center Youth and Family Services, Inc.

Parker 100 127 127% 26,377 25,366 96%

East Bay Agency for Children

Achieve Academy 100 105 105% 19,645 26,314 134%

East Oakland Pride 100 119 119% 20,100 20,668 103%

East Bay Asian Youth Center

Bella Vista 75 109 145% 19,269 23,876 124%

Cleveland 75 99 132% 18,769 22,071 118%

Franklin 100 137 137% 25,025 31,973 128%

Garfield 140 218 156% 35,035 40,217 115%

La Escuelita 75 86 115% 19,269 20,004 104%

Lincoln 120 164 137% 30,531 38,284 125%

Manzanita Community School 75 98 131% 18,769 19,744 105%

East Oakland Youth Development Center

Futures Elementary 120 116 97% 24,390 25,817 106%





Goal (Shaded if

< 35%)

Goal Actual


(Shaded if < 80%)

Girls Incorporated of Alameda County

Acorn Woodland 115 112 97% 21,420 22,118 103%

Horace Mann 120 128 107% 26,864 26,265 98%

Higher Ground Neighborhood Development Corp.

Allendale 100 95 95% 21,359 19,029 89%

Brookfield 100 90 90% 19,844 17,199 87%

New Highland Academy 100 87 87% 21,275 18,897 89%

Rise Community School 100 64 64% 20,875 13,405 64%

Sobrante Park 100 93 93% 21,275 22,144 104%

Oakland Leaf Foundation

EnCompass Academy 85 193 227% 17,655 28,908 164%

International Community School 85 85 100% 9,505 15,523 163%

Learning Without Limits (Jefferson) 85 70 82% 15,758 17,449 111%

Think College Now 120 97 81% 14,385 17,241 120%

Safe Passages

Community United 120 128 107% 24,780 29,703 120%

SFBAC, Learning for Life

Carl B. Munck 130 117 90% 25,620 21,633 84%

Fruitvale 100 148 148% 24,011 28,535 119%

Laurel 84 91 108% 23,756 21,867 92%

Manzanita Seed 120 179 149% 35,594 39,733 112%

Ujimaa Foundation

Burckhalter 100 128 128% 28,987 29,209 101%

YMCA of the East Bay

Piedmont 105 103 98% 23,188 19,454 84%

Elementary School Overall/Average 4,747 5,307 112% 987,595 1,108,681 112%

MIDDLE SCHOOL PROGRAMS


Alliance Academy 110 149 135% 23,395 18,432 79%

Claremont 95 224 236% 23,549 19,677 84%

Elmhurst Community Prep 220 214 97% 20,913 21,947 105%

Madison 280 307 110% 26,474 28,092 106%

Melrose Community Bridges Program 120 130 108% 23,283 20,462 88%





Goal (Shaded if

< 35%)

Goal Actual


(Shaded if < 80%)

Urban Promise Academy 120 267 223% 20,334 20,859 103%


Westlake 120 146 122% 17,495 23,921 137%


Roosevelt 160 307 192% 43,040 73,632 171%


Roots International Academy 120 182 152% 17,878 17,428 97%

Lighthouse Community Charter School

Lighthouse Community Charter 200 201 101% 25,665 28,301 110%


ASCEND 131 144 110% 16,219 21,076 130%

Bret Harte 112 220 196% 22,347 27,803 124%

Safe Passages

Coliseum College Prep Academy 179 211 118% 10,270 18,576 181%

Edna Brewer 171 176 103% 15,154 16,834 111%

Frick 95 133 140% 7,567 9,111 120%

United For Success 120 215 179% 20,819 29,522 142%

Spanish Speaking Citizens' Foundation

Lazear Charter Academy 160 160 100% 23,827 22,247 93%


West Oakland Middle School 144 159 110% 15,190 15,587 103%

Middle School Overall/Average 2,657 3,545 133% 373,416 433,505 116%

Source: Cityspan records for OFCY-funded school-based after school programs between July and December 2015.


POINT-OF-SERVICE QUALITY Point-of-service quality captures youths’ experience in after school activities. High quality after school programming in Oakland is defined in the Youth Program Quality Assessment as programs that provide youth with a safe and supportive environment, positive interactions between staff and youth and between youth and their peers, and opportunities for engagement.

FIGURE 3: ASSESS, PLAN AND IMPROVE CYCLE

Source: Adapted from Youth PQA Handbook by High/Scope Educational Research Foundation, 2013.

OFCY programs participate in the three-step program quality improvement process shown in Figure 3:

• Assess: Programs assess the quality of their programs using the age-

appropriate Program Quality Assessment (PQA) tool. Programs receive two quality assessments; a self-assessment conducted by program staff and an external assessment conducted by a Public Profit site visitor.

• Plan: Programs create Quality Action Plans based on collected observational data to identify specific target areas to strengthen their program.

• Improve: Programs take the steps identified in the Quality Action Plan

to strengthen staff practices and program design. The PQA observation tool, a research-based point-of-service quality observation tool used by out-of-school time programs nationally, is used to assess the quality of services provided by OFCY-funded school-based after school programs. The PQA is based on extensive literature about program features and practices that are most likely to positively affect young people’s development2. Site visits using

2 Smith, C. & Hohmann, C. (2005). Full findings from the Youth PQA validation study. Ypsilanti , MI: High/Scope Educational Research Foundation.


the PQA focus on the observable behaviors of staff and youth. Public Profit site visitors are certified as statistically reliable raters by the Weikart Center for Youth Program Quality.

Public Profit conducted site visits to OFCY-funded school-based after school programs using the School-Age Program Quality Assessment (SAPQA) for programs serving elementary-age youth, and the Youth Program Quality Assessment (YPQA) for those programs serving middle school youth.3 School-based after school grantees receive one site visit during the 2015-16 cycle; at the time of this report Public Profit has conducted 62 PQA site visits between October 2015 and February 2016. Programs also conducted a self-assessment, using the SAPQA or the YPQA to supplement external site visit data. See Appendix A starting on page 20 for additional information about the PQA tools. PQA ratings of 1 (lowest rating), 3, or 5 (highest rating) are assigned based on the extent to which a particular practice is implemented. Available evidence suggests that overall school-based after school programs provide a safe environment for children and youth scoring an average of 4.86 for elementary programs and 4.73 for middle school programs. Additionally, 26 out of 62 observed programs had overall PQA scores of 4.5 or higher and are considered to be “Thriving,” indicating that they implemented research-based youth development practices consistently and well. Forty-two percent (42%) of after-school programs are in the Thriving category in 2015-16, compared to 34% the prior year. Thirty-five (35) programs had overall PQA scores between 3 and under 4.5 and are considered to be “Performing,” indicating that they are providing quality service overall and can continue to improve in specific areas. One program included in this year’s Interim Report is considered to be “Emerging” or received an overall PQA score of 3 or lower, while no programs were in the Emerging category in 2014-15. See Appendix A for additional information about the point-of-service quality categories.

3 Two programs, Parker and Sankofa, serve both elementary and middle school youth. Although they received funding as elementary-based programs, they elected to use the YPQA for their visit since they primarily serve students in 3rd grade and higher.


FIGURE 4: POINT-OF-SERVICE QUALITY STATUS FOR OFCY-FUNDED SCHOOL-BASED AFTER SCHOOL PROGRAMS

Sources: Site visits conducted by Public Profit representing 62 OFCY-funded school-based after school programs, October 2015 through February 2016. Compared to 2014-15 PQA scores, OFCY-funded school-based after school programs serving elementary-aged youth have fairly steady observed quality ratings, as shown in Figure 5. Scores for programs serving middle school programs indicate modest declines in the Engagement and Academic Climate domains.4 Overall scores for middle school-based programs held steady, however.

4 Drawing on advice from the developers of the PQA, we focus on domains with a year-over-year change of .2 points or greater.

Emerging 2%

Performing 56%

Thriving 42%


FIGURE 5: COMPARISON OF OFCY SCHOOL-BASED AFTER SCHOOL PROGRAMS BY YEAR – SAPQA

*Overall PQA scores exclude Academic Climate domain. Sources: Site visits conducted by Public Profit to OFCY-funded school-based after school programs, October 2015 through February 2016, n=42,for the 2015-2016 year and October 2014 through February 2015, n=47, for the 2014-2015 year.

2015-16 4.87

4.56

4.38

3.94

3.87

4.44

2014-15 4.84

4.38

4.14

3.87

3.71

4.31

1 2 3 4 5

I. Safe Environment

II. Supportive Environment

III. Interaction

IV. Engagement

V. Academic Climate

Overall


FIGURE 6: COMPARISON OF OFCY SCHOOL-BASED AFTER SCHOOL PROGRAMS BY YEAR – YPQA

*Overall PQA scores exclude Academic Climate domain. Sources: Site visits conducted by Public Profit to OFCY-funded school-based after school programs October 2015 through February 2016, n=20, for the 2015-2016 year and October 2014 through February 2015, n=15, for the 2014-2015 year.

Site-level point-of-service quality scores for OFCY-funded school-based after school programs whose site visits were conducted between October 2015 and February 2016 appear in Table 5 (starting on page 17), organized by program type and lead agency.

2015-16 4.72

4.41

3.54

3.12

3.27

3.95

2014-15 4.66

4.42

3.64

3.58

3.61

4.07

1 2 3 4 5

I. Safe Environment

II. Supportive Environment

III. Interaction

IV. Engagement

V. Academic Climate*

Overall**


TABLE 5: POINT-OF-SERVICE QUALITY RATINGS BY GRANTEE

Lead Agency/Program

Point of Service Quality Status

2015-16

Overall - Excludes Academic Climate

(Shaded if < 3)

I. Safe Environment

II. Supportive

Environment

III. Interaction

IV. Engagement

V. Academic Climate

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PROGRAMS


Bridges Academy Performing 4.26 4.84 4.08 4.44 3.67 2.61

Emerson Thriving 4.86 4.92 5.00 4.83 4.67 4.56

Esperanza Academy

Performing 4.40 4.90 4.37 4.50 3.83 2.67

Fred T. Korematsu Performing 3.96 4.84 4.32 4.44 2.25 2.67

Global Family School Thriving 4.69 5.00 4.65 4.44 4.67 3.72

Grass Valley Elementary Thriving 4.93 4.92 4.80 5.00 5.00 5.00

Greenleaf Performing 3.90 4.67 4.31 3.29 3.33 3.78

Hoover Performing 3.64 4.52 4.00 3.06 3.00 2.28

Howard Performing 4.13 5.00 4.17 4.00 3.33 3.83

Lafayette Performing 3.68 4.70 3.61 4.39 2.00 1.94

Markham Performing 4.15 4.80 4.03 4.17 3.58 3.28

Martin Luther King, Jr. Thriving 4.58 4.92 4.87 4.61 3.92 4.22

PLACE Elementary School After School Program (Prescott)

Performing 4.03 4.72 4.65 3.67 3.08 3.61

Reach Academy Performing 3.99 4.92 3.59 4.06 3.42 3.00

Sankofa Academy Performing 3.49 4.40 4.22 2.17 3.17 3.67


Parker Performing 4.03 4.90 4.45 4.08 2.67 2.89

East Bay Agency for Children

Achieve Academy Thriving 4.71 4.84 5.00 5.00 4.00 5.00

East Oakland Pride Thriving 4.81 5.00 4.75 5.00 4.50 4.39


Bella Vista Performing 4.24 5.00 4.39 4.39 3.17 3.94

Cleveland Thriving 4.90 4.92 5.00 4.83 4.83 5.00

Franklin Thriving 4.75 5.00 4.73 4.28 5.00 4.11

Garfield Thriving 4.93 5.00 4.73 5.00 5.00 4.56

La Escuelita Performing 4.36 5.00 4.80 4.22 3.42 4.11

Lincoln Thriving 4.96 5.00 5.00 5.00 4.83 4.39

Manzanita Community School Performing 3.96 4.51 3.96 4.06 3.33 2.67



Lead Agency/Program


2015-16


(Shaded if < 3)

I. Safe Environment

II. Supportive

Environment

III. Interaction

IV. Engagement

V. Academic Climate

Futures Elementary Performing 3.65 4.59 3.67 3.50 2.83 3.39

Girls Incorporated of Alameda County

Acorn Woodland Thriving 4.66 4.92 5.00 4.39 4.33 3.94

Horace Mann Thriving 4.56 4.87 5.00 4.22 4.17 3.56

Higher Ground Neighborhood Development Corp.

Allendale Performing 4.45 5.00 4.20 4.11 4.50 2.89

Brookfield Performing 4.38 5.00 4.67 5.00 2.83 3.28

New Highland Academy Thriving 4.63 5.00 4.79 4.06 4.67 3.39

Rise Community School Thriving 4.81 4.92 5.00 5.00 4.33 5.00

Sobrante Park Thriving 4.58 5.00 4.64 4.58 4.08 3.94


EnCompass Academy Thriving 4.77 4.92 5.00 4.17 5.00 5.00

International Community School Thriving 4.51 4.92 4.80 4.33 4.00 4.56

Learning Without Limits (Jefferson) Performing 4.34 4.79 4.45 3.78 4.33 3.94

Think College Now Performing 4.32 4.76 4.11 4.83 3.58 4.00

Safe Passages

Community United Thriving 4.81 5.00 4.87 4.88 4.50 5.00

SFBAC, Learning for Life

Carl B. Munck Thriving 4.52 4.72 4.80 4.54 4.00 3.78

Fruitvale Performing 4.38 4.92 4.71 3.89 4.00 3.78

Laurel Thriving 4.57 4.92 4.76 4.11 4.50 4.39

Manzanita Seed Thriving 4.79 5.00 4.65 5.00 4.50 4.17

Ujimaa Foundation

Burckhalter Thriving 4.72 4.76 5.00 4.78 4.33 5.00


Piedmont Performing 4.13 4.76 4.39 4.06 3.33 4.39

Elementary School Overall/Average 4.41 4.86 4.55 4.32 3.90 3.85

MIDDLE SCHOOL PROGRAMS


Alliance Academy Performing 3.77 4.70 4.37 3.33 2.67 3.72

Claremont Emerging 2.85 3.56 2.91 2.25 2.67 1.67


Lead Agency/Program


2015-16


(Shaded if < 3)

I. Safe Environment

II. Supportive

Environment

III. Interaction

IV. Engagement

V. Academic Climate

Elmhurst Community Prep Performing 3.56 4.33 3.71 3.54 2.67 2.11

Madison Performing 3.80 4.84 4.74 2.79 2.83 4.22

Melrose Community Bridges Program Thriving 4.59 5.00 4.69 4.50 4.17 3.72

Urban Promise Academy Performing 3.88 4.92 4.69 3.42 2.50 3.50


Westlake Performing 3.42 4.93 4.01 2.42 2.33 2.28


Roosevelt Thriving 4.77 5.00 4.65 4.58 4.83 4.44


Roots International Academy

Thriving 4.75 4.67 4.93 4.42 5.00 5.00

Lighthouse Community Charter School

Lighthouse Community Charter Performing 4.06 4.72 4.51 4.00 3.00 2.50


ASCEND Performing 4.17 4.72 4.69 3.58 3.67 3.19

Bret Harte Thriving 4.66 4.92 4.90 4.83 4.00 3.89

Safe Passages

Coliseum College Prep Academy

(Middle School) Performing 4.37 4.92 4.71 3.33 4.50 3.72

Edna Brewer Performing 4.03 5.00 4.70 3.75 2.67 3.22

Frick Performing 4.17 4.70 4.77 4.38 2.83 4.56

United For Success Performing 3.78 4.59 4.60 3.58 2.33 3.56

Spanish Speaking Citizens' Foundation

Lazear Charter Academy Performing 3.07 4.70 3.54 2.54 1.50 1.83


West Oakland Middle School Performing 3.73 4.90 4.34 3.33 2.33 1.61

Middle School Overall/Average 3.97 4.73 4.41 3.59 3.14 3.26

Source: Site visits conducted by Public Profit to OFCY-funded school-based after school programs, October 2015 through February 2016, n=62.


APPENDIX A. PROGRAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT

Site Visits Using the SAPQA & YPQA Tools

Site visits provide observational data about key components of program quality, as research has demonstrated that higher quality programs are more likely to promote positive outcomes for youth.5 Public Profit conducted site visits using the School-Age Program Quality Assessment (SAPQA) for programs serving elementary-age youth or the Youth Program Quality Assessment (YPQA) for programs serving middle school-age youth. In K-8 school sites, Public Profit used the PQA tool that reflected the majority of program participants. The Program Quality Assessments are research-based point-of-service quality observation tools used by out-of-school time programs nationally. Site visitors are certified as statistically reliable raters by the Weikart Center for Youth Program Quality.

Program Quality Assessment (PQA) Domains

The PQA tools include five domains:

1) Safe Environment – Youth experience both physical and emotional safety. The program environment is safe and sanitary. The social environment is safe.

2) Supportive Environment – Adults support youth with opportunities

for active learning, for skill building, and to develop healthy relationships.

3) Interaction – Adults encourage and support a positive peer culture in the program. Youth support each other. Youth experience a sense of belonging. Youth participate in small groups as members and as leaders. Youth have opportunities to partner with adults.

4) Engagement – Youth experience positive challenges and pursue

learning. Youth have opportunities to plan, make choices, reflect, and learn from their experiences.

5) Academic Climate – Activities in the program intentionally promote

the development of key academic skills and content-area knowledge. This

5 Mahoney, J. L., Parente, M. E., & Zigler, E. F. (2010). After-school program participation and children’s development. In J. Meece & J. S. Eccles (Eds.), Handbook of research on schools, schooling, and human development (pp. 379-397). New York, NY: Routledge.


domain was developed specifically for use in Oakland, and is not used nationally.

The quality domains are inter-related and build upon one another. Broadly speaking, programs need to assure that youth enjoy a Safe and Supportive environment before working to establish high quality Interaction and Engagement. For example, a program in which young people are afraid to try new things for fear of being ridiculed by others - an example of an unsupportive environment - is not likely to be an interactive, engaging place for young people. Figure 7 characterizes the relationship between the PQA quality domains and illustrates that physical and emotional safety (described in the Safe and the Supportive Environment domains) are foundational programmatic elements that support high quality practice in other domains. In general, programs’ ratings will be higher for the foundational domains than for Interaction or Engagement. FIGURE 7: PROGRAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT DOMAINS

Source: Adapted from Youth PQA Handbook by High/Scope Educational Research Foundation, 2013.

Program Quality Assessment Scoring

Program quality elements are rated according to visitors’ observations and staff responses to follow-up questions. Ratings of 1, 3, or 5 are assigned based on the extent to which a particular practice is implemented. The PQA is a rubric-based assessment, with brief paragraphs describing different levels of performance for each program quality area. Though the specific language varies by practice and version of the tool, the ratings indicate the following levels of performance: • A rating of one (1) indicates that the practice was not observed while the

visitor was on site, or that the practice is not a part of the program;

Academic Climate Target Specific Academic Skills Support Individual Learners Link to Prior Knowledge Connect to the School Day


• A rating of three (3) indicates that the practice is implemented relatively consistently across staff and activities; and

• A five (5) rating indicates that the practice was implemented consistently and well across staff and activities.

Point-of-Service Quality Categories

Sites are categorized by three point-of-service quality categories: Thriving – Program provides high quality services across all four quality domains and practice areas. Defined as a site with an overall average score of 4.5 or higher. Performing – Program provides high quality service in almost all program quality domains and practice areas, and has a few areas for additional improvement. Defined as a site with an overall average score between 3 and 4.5. Emerging – Program is not yet providing high-quality service. Defined as a site that has an overall average lower than 3.


APPENDIX B. PARTICIPANTS’ HOME ZIP CODES TABLE 6: YOUTH SERVED BY ZIP CODE

Zip Code Number of Youth Served Percent

94601 1,778 19%

94621 1,578 17%

94603 1,317 14%

94605 1,029 11%

94606 907 10%

94607 711 8%

94602 354 4%

94619 315 3%

94609 248 3%

94608 247 3%

94612 185 2%

94610 143 2%

94618 59 1%

94611 56 1%

All Others 179 2%

Total 9,106 100%

Source: Cityspan records for 9,106 youth who attended an OFCY-funded school-based after school program between July and December 2015 and had a valid zip code available.

agenda€¦ · · 2016-05-272016 to receive appeals from applicants that did not receive funding...

Documents