Life Enrichment Committee
September 12, 2023
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Jestin D. Johnson FROM: Scott Means
City Administrator Interim Director, Human
Services
SUBJECT: OFCY 2021-2022 Year End
Evaluation Report
DATE: August 8, 2023
City Administrator Approval Date:
RECOMMENDATION
Staff Recommends That The City Council Adopt A Resolution Adopting The Oakland Fund For Children And Youth (OFCY) Final Evaluation Report For Fiscal Year (FY) 2021- 2022.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Adoption of the proposed Resolution will fulfill the Oakland City Charter requirement for the OFCY Planning and Oversight Committee (POC) to submit annual independent evaluation reports to the Oakland City Council for adoption. The OFCY Final Evaluation Report FY 2021- 2022 was prepared by Social Policy Research Associates (SPR) and is included here as Attachment A.
The comprehensive final evaluation report includes an overall analysis of program performance, outcomes achieved, impact at the fund-level, and contributions towards city-wide goals and outcomes.
BACKGROUND / LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
The Kids First! Oakland Fund for Children and Youth (OFCY) was established by a voter approved ballot Measure K in 1996 to set money aside for programs and services benefiting children and youth. The Oakland City Charter establishes the Fund for the purpose of addressing the well-being of Oakland children and youth from birth through age 21 for the period July 1, 2009, through June 30, 2033.
Article XIII
Section 1305.04 assigns the Planning and Oversight Committee (POC) the responsibility to adopt a Strategic Plan, solicit grants through an open and fair application process, send recommendations for grant awards to the City Council for approval, and submit an annual independent evaluation of OFCY to the Oakland City Council for adoption.
OFCY Fiscal Year (FY) 2021-2022 grants were approved for the 3rd year of funding in the three-year grant cycle established under the OFCY Strategic Investment Plan 2019-2022 and Aug 25, 2023
Jestin D, Johnson, City Administrator
Subject: OFCY 2020-2021 Year End Evaluation Report
Date: August 8, 2023 Page 2
Life Enrichment Committee
September 12, 2023
were approved by the City Council on May 20, 2021, Resolution No. 88678 C.M.S. The 149 grant awards in FY 2021-2022 totaled $17,690,900, representing funding for Summer Programs and Full Year Programs.
SPR presented the Year-End Evaluation Report for FY 2021-22, to the POC Evaluation Sub- Committee on November 1, 2022, and to the full body of the POC on December 7, 2022, where it was both reviewed and approved.
ANALYSIS AND POLICY ALTERNATIVES
Programs funded by OFCY provided direct services to 18,082 children, youth, and young adults from birth to 21 years of age and 2,196 parents and caregivers during the FY20 21-22 program year. OFCY Program Participants predominately live in neighborhoods with high levels of community stress in West, Central, and East Oakland.
Guided by the OFCY’s Strategic Investment Plan for FY 2019-2022 , programs were funded to
address OFCY’s legislated goals and contribute to the elimination of racial disparities in outcomes for children, youth, and their families. Most participants were youth of color, with 47% percent identifying as African American/ Black, 28% identifying as Latinx, and 10% identifying as Asian or Pacific Islander; 15% of participants identified as other categories.
Citywide Priorities are built into the OYC Strategic Planning areas as described below:
Holistic Community Safety. Preventing violence and reducing youth involvement in crime and gangs and helping youth transition to productive adulthood.
Housing, Economic, and Cultural Security. Supporting the healthy development of young children and helping children and youth succeed in school and graduate high school,
There are no policy alternatives for consideration.
FISCAL IMPACT
OFCY’s evaluation costs for FY 2021-2022 totaled $182,000 for Social Policy Research Associates services and were funded through the OFCY – Kids First! Oakland Children’s Fund (1780), as an administrative cost of OFCY. There was no impact on the General Fund. Council adopted Resolution No. 88189 C.M.S
. on June 30, 2020, which authorized an agreement with
Social Policy Research Associates in an amount not-to-exceed $240,000.
PUBLIC OUTREACH / INTEREST
The POC Evaluation Subcommittee met on November 1, 2022, in a public meeting hosted virtually to review and provide feedback to the evaluation firm regarding the draft 2021-2022 evaluation report. The OFCY Planning and Oversight Committee met on December 7, 2022, in Jestin D, Johnson, City Administrator
Subject: OFCY 2020-2021 Year End Evaluation Report
Date: August 8, 2023 Page 3
Life Enrichment Committee
September 12, 2023
a virtual public meeting to review and accept the 2021-2022 final evaluation report and to receive public comments prior to forwarding to the City Council for consideration.
COORDINATION
This report and legislation have been reviewed by the Office of the City Attorney, the Budget Bureau, and the City Administrator's Office.
PAST PERFORMANCE, EVALUATION AND FOLLOW-UP
The OFCY evaluation supports a continuous improvement process with annual evaluation and follow-up through program improvement planning. Past performance, as cited in the third-party evaluation reports, is used in part in the determination of funding renewals.
SUSTAINABLE OPPORTUNITIES
Economic: Social Policy Research Associates is an Oakland-based organization that employs Oakland residents. OFCY programs provide free and low-cost programming that supports thousands of Oakland’s low-income children and families that would otherwise be inaccessible to families in poverty.
Environmental: Programs build youth leadership and engage youth in the physical environment through environmental justice and restoration projects, neighborhood arts, and through community building projects that improve the overall quality of life and community safety in Oakland neighborhoods.
Race & Equity: OFCY prioritizes services and programming for children, youth, and families with a specific intentionality and focus to address race and equity as reflected in the evaluation report.
Jestin D, Johnson, City Administrator
Subject: OFCY 2020-2021 Year End Evaluation Report
Date: August 8, 2023 Page 4
Life Enrichment Committee
September 12, 2023
ACTION REQUESTED OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Staff Recommends That The City Council Adopt A Resolution Adopting The Oakland Fund For Children And Youth (OFCY) Final Evaluation Report For Fiscal Year (FY) 2021-2022.
For questions regarding this report, please contact Robin Love, Manager, Children, and Youth Services Division, at (510) 238-3231.
Respectfully submitted,
SCOTT MEANS
Interim Director, Human Services
R
eviewed by:
Robin Love, Manager, Children & Youth
Services Division
Prepared by:
Cindy King, H & HS Program Planner
Human Services Division
Attachment (1):
A: OFCY Final Evaluation Report FY 2021-2022
FY21-22 Final Evaluation Report
Attachment A
FY21-22 Final Evaluation Report
Social Policy Research Associates (SPR) would like to thank the Oakland Fund for Children and Youth (OFCY) staff members who have worked with us on this evaluation project and the OFCY Planning and Oversight Committee for their ongoing feedback and support. We would also like to give a special thanks to the staff, participants, and volunteers for sharing their thoughts and experiences to inform this report. Cover photo courtesy of Communities United for Restorative Youth Justices CURYJ Leadership Development Program.
FY21-22 Final Evaluation Report
Introduction.................................................................................................................................. 1OFCY Participants ...................................................................................................................... 4How Much Did Programs Do? ................................................................................................. 9How Well Did Programs Do It?...............................................................................................16Is Anyone Better Off?...............................................................................................................20Funded Programs ..................................................................................................................... 23Conclusion ................................................................................................................................. 28 FY21-22 Final Evaluation Report
The Oakland Fund for Children and Youth (OFCY) funds community-based organizations and public agencies to support children and youth to lead safe, healthy, and productive lives. This report describes these programs and the experiences of the children and youth who participated in them during FY2021-2022.Who Was Funded? Who Was Served?Programs served the groups prioritized by OFCY.How Much Did Programs Do? Is Anyone Better Off?youth placed in internships and jobsin wages/stipendsearned by youthof surveyed youthlearned about jobsthey can have in the future. *How Well Did Programs Do It?of surveyed youth felt safein their program. of surveyed youth wereinterested in what they didin their programof surveyed parents/caregivers agree that staffworked well with families of different backgroundsof surveyed youth feltmore connected to their community.*of surveyed youth learned skills thathelp with their schoolwork.*of surveyed parents/caregivers agreed that their program helped them .** Among participants in relevant strategies. children and youth served
parents/caregivers servedtotal hours of service (excluding Comprehensive Afterschool Programs) 6%22%28% 31%12%< 5 5-8 9-12 13-16 17+Age of Child/Youth ParticipantsAge of Child/Youth Participants47%28%10%15%8,528 Hispanic/Latinx youth5,049 African American/Black youth1,826 Asian/Pacific Islander youth2,679 Other Youth days attended by students in Comprehensive Afterschool Programs FY21-22 Final Evaluation Report
How Much Did OFCY Programs Do?Unduplicated Number of Youth Served 18,082Unduplicated Number of Parents/Caregivers Served 2,196Total Hours of Service Provided(excluding Comprehensive Afterschool Programs)1889,611Average Hours of Service per Youth Participant(excluding Comprehensive Afterschool Programs)71Total Days of Attendance (Comprehensive Afterschool Programs only)790,127Average Days of Attendance per Student (Comprehensive Afterschool Programs only)115Number of Youth Placed in Jobs or Internships 1,456Total Hours of Work Experience 142,909Total Wages and Stipends Earned by Youth in Workforce Programs $2,122,342Agencies Funded 77Programs Funded 149Early Childhood Sites Receiving Mental Health Consultation 50K-12 Schools Receiving Support 69How Well Did OFCY Programs Do It?Average Progress towards Projected Youth Served 127%Average Progress towards Projected Hours of Service 102%Average Progress towards Target Average Daily Attendance (Comprehensive Afterschool Programs)78%Safety: Youth who report feeling safe in their program85%Caring Adults: Youth who respond that there is an adult at their program who cares about them 82%Positive Engagement: Youth who respond that they are interested in their program81%Supportive Environment: Parents/caregivers who say staff make them feel comfortable and supported94%Diversity & Inclusion: Parents/caregivers who say staff work well with families of different backgrounds94%Is Anyone Better Off?2Career Goals: Youth who learned about jobs they can have in the future 93%Employment Skills: Youth who learned what is expected of them in a work setting92%Interpersonal Skills: Youth who learned how to get along with others in a work setting91%Support with School: Youth who report that they learned skills that help with their schoolwork75%Community Connectedness: Youth who feel more connected to their community 73%Motivated to Learn: Youth who report that they are more motivated to learn in school69%Youth Leadership: Youth who view themselves as more of a leader61%Connection to Resources: Adults who report that staff refer them to other programs and resources that can help their family89%Knowledge of Development: Adults who say their program taught them to 89%Skills to Manage Behavior: Adults who say the program helped them to respond effectively when their child is upset86%1OFCY tracks days of attendance instead of hours of attendance to align with how these programs report to stateand federal grant programs. 2Some survey questions in this section were only answered by participants in relevant strategies. 1 FY21-22 Final Evaluation Report
The vision of OFCY is that all children and youth in Oakland will thrive and lead safe, healthy, and productive lives. To this end, OFCY funds programs that promote racial and social equity; create safe spaces for children, youth, and families; and , and leadership development. Grants are provided goals (listed below).
Student Success - $5,606,800 investedHelps children and youth succeed in elementary and middle school: Engagement and Success for Elementary and Middle School StudentsComprehensive Afterschool Programs Positive Youth Development - $5,237,200 investedPromotes leadership and connection to community: Summer Programming Youth Development and Leadership Transitions to Adulthood $3,516,100 investedHelps youth transition to a productive adulthood: High School & Postsecondary Student SuccessCareer Awareness & Employment Support Early Childhood - $3,330,800 investedSupports the healthy development of young children:Parent Engagement and Support Family Resource CentersSocioemotional Well-being in Preschool and Early Childhood Education 2 FY21-22 Final Evaluation Report
Working closely with Oakland Unified School District (OUSD), city agencies, and community-based partners, OFCY aims to move the needle on key city-wide goals and measure progress toward population-level indicators of equity in health, education, safety, and housing.3 The figure below highlights how OFCY strategies support relevant city-wide goals. 3See JPA Impact Tables: Update on Oakland Citywide Dashboard. September 13, 2018.
City RBA Goal
OFCY Impact
86% of parents attending Parent Engagement & Support Programs and Family Resource Centers agreed that their program taught them how to help their child be ready for school. 80% (1,456) of Career Awareness and Employment Support participants worked in an internship or job placementduring their program. 78% of High School and Postsecondary Success participants agreed that their program helps them feel more confident going to college. 80% of 3rd-5thgraders in Comprehensive Afterschool Programs agreed that they learned how to do things at their program that help with their schoolwork. 73% of High School and Postsecondary Success participants agreed that their program increased their desire to stay in school. 72% of Youth Development and Leadership participants agreed that they were better at saying know are wrongsince coming to their program.
Children are ready for kindergarten
3rd grade students read at grade level
Students graduate high school
Older youth are connected to school or work
Youth are not caught in the justice system
3 FY21-22 Final Evaluation Report
To assess its contribution toward the city-wide goals, OFCY has adopted a Results Based Accountability (RBA) framework which serves as a guide for its evaluation. The RBA model is a comprehensive approach for assessing the quantity of services provided by programs, the quality of those services, and the effect of those services on the lives of children, youth, and families. It does this by addressing three guiding questions: How much did OFCY programs do? How well did OFCY programs do it? Is anyone better off? This report discusses progress in each of these indicators. independent evaluation. experiences of the children, youth, and parents/caregivers who participated in them during FY21-22, beginning with an overview of OFCY funding and cross-strategy findings and concluding with strategy-level summaries. SPR draws on a variety of data to inform the evaluation of OFCY programs, including: Administrative Records: Programs tracked demographics and attendance for 18,082 children and youth and 2,196 adult participants in Surveys: 5,981 youth, 637 parents/caregivers in early childhood programs, 1,870 parents/caregivers whose children attend Comprehensive Afterschool Programs, and 34 educators completed surveys to share their perspectives on program quality and outcomes. Staff from 111 programs completed an online survey about program characteristics, staffing, and partnerships.Interviews: SPR held focus groups and interviews with program line staff, managers, and directors from 25 programs and held focus groups with youth and adult participants from 5 programs. 4 FY21-22 Final Evaluation Report
In alignment with its goals, OFCY supports programs that Native American, and Asian and Pacific Islander children and youth. OFCY programs also specifically prioritize serving immigrant and refugee youth, LGBTQ youth, children with disabilities, foster youth, and youth and young adults disconnected from school and employment. During FY21-22, 18,082 unduplicated children and youth participated in OFCY programs, with 85% of them identifying as Latinx (47%), Black (28%) or Asian and Pacific Islander (10%). Programs served children and youth across the age spectrum. Children and youth between 5 and 16 years old represented 82% of participants served.Race/EthnicityAgeGender GenderMale50%Female49%Non-binary <1%Prefer not to say <1% 47%28%10%5%3%2%2%2%1%Hispanic/LatinxAfrican American/BlackAsian/Pacific IslanderCaucasian/WhiteMultiracial or BiracialMiddle East/North AfricaOtherUnknown/MissingNative American/Alaska Native 5 FY21-22 Final Evaluation Report
A comparison between OFCY participants and the general population of children and youth aged 0-19 indicates that population than other groups.4For example, while OFCY -19, they served 71% of American Indian/Alaska Native children and youth, 24% of Black children and youth, and 22% of Latinx children and youth.
Moreover, as illustrated in the map on the following page, most participants live in neighborhoods with high unemployment, housing-cost burden, and percentage of 4City of Oakland youth data from American Community Survey (ACS) 2018 5-year Estimate. Some categories shown may be underestimated because provides the option for participants to select Middle Eastern/North African as their race/ethnicity, which is not represented in racial/ethnic categories collected by the ACS. Because ACS reports race and Hispanic/Latino identification separately, we re-categorized children and youth as Hispanic/Latino regardless of which race they selected. As a result, the number ofHispanic/Latino children and youth may be overestimated and the number of children in other race categories may be underestimated. 5%6%19%22%24%62%71%WhiteTwo or More RacesAsian or Pacific IslanderHispanic/LatinxBlack/African AmericanOther RaceAmerican Indian or Alaska Native
6 FY21-22 Final Evaluation Report
children and youth enrolled in OUSD who qualify for free-and reduced-price meals.5 5Oakland Community Stressors Index (2019):www.oaklandca.gov/resources/oakland-community-stressors-index 94601: Fruitvale
94621: Webster Tract, Coliseum
94603: Sobrante Park, Elmhurst
94605: Eastmont, Havenscourt
94606: Highland Park, East Lake
94607: West Oakland, Chinatown
7%
8%
10%
11%
14%
24%
24%
11%
10%
14%
3%
8%
7%
3%
3%
2%
2%
2%
1%
4%
I guess the reason I like TNT is it's a safe space for us. I feel really comfortable when we're there in the moment, knowing that we have people who can also listen to us, knowing that we have an actual adult who will listen to us and who can help us with certain things and help us financially, be stable, and them giving us information that we are not going to learn in school, but we're still learning what we have going on within the program.- Teens on Target 7 FY21-22 Final Evaluation Report
Looking more closely at race and ethnicity across different age groups reveals that participation rates varied across age and race. As shown below, Latinx children were more represented among children 0-12 than youth 13 and up. In comparison, Black and Asian and Pacific Islander participants comprised a higher proportion of children and youth over 5 years old than younger children. This mirrors larger city demographic trends showing a growing Latinx population among younger generations in the city.
Photo courtesy of Prescott-Joseph Center for Community EnhancementSVD Pre-Pre-School Program OFCY participants under 5 were less likely to be Asian/Pacific Islander or African American/Black than older youth.
8 FY21-22 Final Evaluation Report
Given the importance of families for supporting positive outcomes for children and youth, programs also provided diverse services for parents and caregivers, such as parent workshops and connections to community resources. Programs in two strategies focused on early childhood development tracked parent/caregiver enrollment and attendance. In FY21-22, 2,196 parents and caregivers attended Parent Engagement and Supportand Family Resource Centerprograms. As shown below, 92% of adult participants in early childhood strategies identified as Latinx, Black, Asian and Pacific Islander, or North African/Middle Eastern.Race/Ethnicity Gender 51%23%9%8%3%2%2%1%1%Hispanic/LatinxAfrican American/BlackMiddle East/North AfricaAsian/Pacific IslanderMultiracial or BiracialCaucasian/WhiteOtherNative American/Alaska NativeUnknown/Missing Non-binary <1%Prefer not to say 1%
Male14%Female85%
9 FY21-22 Final Evaluation Report
Programs provided 889,611 hours of service, excluding hours provided by the Comprehensive Afterschoolstrategy,and students attended Comprehensive Afterschool Programs fora combined total of 790,127 days.6With the end of remote learning and the loosening of COVID restrictions, programs offered a combination of virtual, hybrid, and in-person activities depending on the needs of the participants and the type of services offered. For example, Comprehensive Afterschool Programsbegan the year with fully in-person programming to support the reopening of schools. Many programs offered most services in person and offered services like one-on-one check-ins and tutoring virtually. Some Career Awareness and Employment Supportprograms, for instance, developed hybrid approaches to allow youth to safely participate in work experience, such as offering virtual orientations and job readiness training and a combination of in-person and virtual work opportunities. The flexibility to offer services in different formats allowed programs to provide a sense of consistency to children, youth, and families through another challenging, unpredictable year. For some participants, particularly parents who attended early childhood programming, virtual programming proved an effective and convenient way to engage, and several programs reported that they will continue to offer some services virtually.While the loosening of COVID restrictions allowed programs to serve more youth than they could in FY20-21, 6 Because of changes in state policy, comprehensive afterschool programs began to report on daily attendance rather than hours of services.
10 FY21-22 Final Evaluation Report
the pandemic continued to limit the quantity of programming that some programs could offer for myriad reasons:Staffing challenges plagued many programs, particularly at the beginning of the year when the high case rate led to frequent staff shortages and many potential staff members felt wary of employment in in-person youth programs.Some programs reported that they reduced their enrollment in indoor activities to abide by public safety requirements, particularly early in the year. Programs operating out of health centers or government buildings were not allowed to serve youth on their premises and had to continue virtual programming or find alternative places to meet. Others decided to limit in-person engagement to keep their participants and staff safe. These programs often found it difficult to engage youth and families virtually. Remote learning during the 2020-2021 school year hindered traditional recruitment efforts because programs could not present in classes or attend school-based or other public events.Some programs reported that students experienced apathy and disengagement after their prolonged isolation during the pandemic, leading to lower participation in programming and school attendance.
The biggest challenge has been the inconsistency around how the pandemic has impacted our students and how it's impacting schools and programsWe can't fully support them to commit when they all have to quarantine or when their instructor's out for two weeks.- Staff, 11 FY21-22 Final Evaluation Report
The number of participants served in FY21-22 compared to the previous years of this grant cycle is displayed on the following page in Figure 4. As shown, Summer Programming, Comprehensive Afterschool Programs, and Engagement and Success for Elementary and Middle School Studentshad the lowest enrollment relative to FY19-20. Change between FY19-20 and FY21-22104%98%79%78%35%91%130%118% Change between FY191,8621,6809366,8699994,6673,0641,820 1,7481,6091,1966,0506393,6582,0471,778
1,787 1,723 1,188 8,839 2,880 5,144 2,362 1,548
Parent Engagement and SupportFamily Resource CentersEngagement and Success forElementary and Middle SchoolStudentsComprehensive AfterschoolProgramsSummer ProgrammingYouth Development andLeadershipHigh School and PostsecondaryStudent SuccessCareer Awareness andEmployment Support FY21-22FY20-21FY19-20
12 FY21-22 Final Evaluation Report
Despite the challenges posed by the pandemic, programs provided 889,611 hours of service, and youth spent an average 71 hours in programming. (This excludes the hours that students attended Comprehensive Afterschool Programs, which tracked daily, but not hourly, attendance.) diverse interests and needs, programs provided a broad range of services that varied in intensity and focus,and which depended on the target population and goals of the program. As shown in Figure 5 below, 43% of youth attended programs for at least 40 hours. Over the year, 8% of youth attended more than one OFCY program.children and youth only, not including hours in Comprehensive Afterschool Programs Comprehensive Afterschool Program participants only
34%10%13%18%10%16%Less than 10 hrs10 up to 20 hrs20 up to 40 hrs40 up to 80 hrs80 up to 120 hrs120+ hours12199Students at Elementary/K-8SchoolsStudents at Middle Schools
13 FY21-22 Final Evaluation Report
To meet the diverse needs of children and youth, some programs are designed to provide intensive services over the course of the year, while others have a shorter duration or provide drop-in services. Figure 7 below shows average hours of service for each strategy. As observed last year in FY20-21, participants in Engagement and Success for Elementary and Middle School Studentsspent the most time in programming on average, but this is primarily driven by intensive engagement in Elev8 Youth, a program that served half of all participants in that strategy. On average, Elev8 participants spent 758 hours in programming, compared to an average of 87 hours at other programs in the strategy. Overall, children engaged in early childhood strategies (Parent Engagement and Support and Family Resource Centers) spent the least amount of time in their program. Most of these children joined their parents/caregivers in playgroups and other short learning activities appropriate for their age. 18110910360282517Engagement and Support for Elementary and Middle School StudentsSummer ProgrammingCareer Awareness and Employment SupportYouth Development and LeadershipHigh School and Post-Secondary Student SuccessFamily Resource CenterParent Engagement and Support
14 FY21-22 Final Evaluation Report
An analysis of attendance by participant characteristics did not reveal a discernable pattern in the levels of participation by age, as shown in Figure 8 on the following page.children and youth only, not including hours in Comprehensive Afterschool Programs) afterschool program at ASCEND
345069788111155707274134710-2 years old3-4 years old5-6 years old7-8 years old9-10 years old11-12 years old13-14 years old15-16 years old17-18 years old19-20 years oldOver 20 years oldAverage
15 FY21-22 Final Evaluation Report
On the other hand, there was some variation in the amount of time youth spent in programming across race and ethnicity. Asian and Pacific Islander, multiracial, and Black youth spent more time in programming than the average participant. Some of this difference is related to the ages of participants. For example, Middle Eastern/North African children were most likely to participate in early childhood programs, where average hours of service tend to be lower.(children and youth only, not including hours in Comprehensive Afterschool Programs)92908785787160594631African American/Black (n=3,322)Native American/Alaska Native (n=169)Multiracial or Biracial (n=507)Unknown/Missing (n=165)Asian/Pacific Islander (n=1,128)AverageHispanic/Latinx (n=5,418)Caucasian/White (n=603)Middle East/North Africa (n=412)Other (n=346)community, and that helps lead to strengthening communities with folks and making people feel like, I have people over here so I can talk to an adult.If anyone who's been in the playgroup, sometimes the parents just need to talk and they're tired of being in baby world- 16 FY21-22 Final Evaluation Report
OFCY tracks a series of indicators to assess how wellgrantees implemented their programming. The first three indicators include progress toward (1) projected number of youth served, 2) projected total hours of service, and (3) average hours of attendance per participant.7As shown in Figure 10 below, attendance and enrollment were strongon average, programs enrolled 127% of the youth they anticipated and provided 102% of the hours of service they projected. Further, on average, each youth participated in programs for about the amount of time that programs planned (see average hours of attendance).
However, there was a lot of variability in progress toward the number of youth served: 13 programs served more than double the number of youth they projected enrolling, while 12 programs served less than 60%. 7At the start of the year, programs estimate the units of service they will provide and the number of participants they will enroll. tracks a series of indicators to assess grantees implemented their programming. 127%111%102%100%
Average Hours of Attendance
Hours of Service Provided
Total Adults Served
Total Youth Served
17 FY21-22 Final Evaluation Report
In addition to these indicators, the evaluation investigates participant perceptions of critical aspects of program quality that are tailored for each strategy, as measured through participant surveys. Research has shown that these indicators are foundational positive youth development practices that encourage youth to thrive in programming. As shown in Figure 11, most participants felt safe, identified adults who cared about them, and engaged in activities that interest them at their programs.
Parents and Caregivers (n=637 )
Safety85%Youth who agree that they feel safe in their program.Caring Adults 82%Youth who agree that there is an adult who cares about them at their program.Positive Engagement81%Youth who agree that they are interested in what they do at their program.Supportive EnvironmentParents/caregivers who say staff make them feel comfortable and supportedDiversity and InclusionParents/caregivers who agree that the program staff work well with families from different backgrounds.
18 FY21-22 Final Evaluation Report
Early Childhood Educators (n=34 )
The strategy-level summaries in Appendix B describe how the programs in each strategy build a culture of safety, positive engagement, supportive relationships, and a respect for diversity and inclusion. For example, youth-serving programs fostered a sense of safety and connections to caring staff by hosting frequent one-on-one check-ins with youth, providing a safe space to discuss personal or program-related issues, and meeting youth where they were. Youth and families also often received basic needs support, such as bus passes, access to food pantries, and help applying for community services. To promote positive engagement, programs offered opportunities for youth to showcase what they learned, tomentor and lead their peers, and to provide feedback to guide the program, among other strategies. Early childhood programs created a supportive environment by creating a home-like feel to their spaces, taking the time necessary to build trust, and creating a judgement-free space that encouraged openness.
Supportive EnvironmentThe consultant works as a partner with me to meet Diversity and InclusionThe consultant has a good understanding of our community and how to effectively and appropriately support them.
I feel like I belong at the program because the counselors really care about you. The counselors would hit me on my personal time and check on how I'm doing. So it made me not feel like it was just a program and like people actually care.- Participant, Lao Family Community DevelopmentOakland Youth Industries Exploration 19 FY21-22 Final Evaluation Report
We observed some variation in survey responses related to these indicators of quality:On average, Black children and youth were more likely than their peers to report that they were interested in what they do at their program and that there was an adult at the program who cared about them. Asian and Pacific Islander youth were less likely than their peers to report that they were interested in what they do at their program. Middle school students were less likely to report positively to survey questions related to all three areas of quality.These findings were consistent both within and across programs.
Photo courtesy of the Music is eXtraordinaryExplorations in Music Program
20 FY21-22 Final Evaluation Report
Participant survey results also demonstrate that most participants met key outcomes aligned to the strategy in which they participated. For example, 73% of survey respondents from Youth Development and Leadershipand Summer programs felt more connected to their community because of their program. Other survey results are listed in Figure 12 on the following page. The strategy summaries include more information about how programs supported strategy-specific outcomes, including outcomes for parents and caregivers.
In addition to these key RBA indicators, participant survey data tell a more comprehensive story about the ways that programs support the mindsets, competencies, values, and social skills that help youth become successful adults. The following page presents survey results related to four key youth development goals that are relevant to all youth-serving programs.
Career GoalsYouth learned about jobs they can have in the futureEmployment SkillsYouth learned what is expected in a work settingInterpersonal Skills91%Youth who feel they know how to get along with others in a work settingCommunity Connectedness73%Youth who agree that they feel more connected to their community.
Youth Leadership Youth who view themselves as more of a leaderMotivation to Learn Youth who report that they are more motivated to learn in schoolSupport with School75%Youth who report that they learned skills that help with their schoolworkKnowledge of Child Development89%Parents/caregivers who say their program helped them identify 21 FY21-22 Final Evaluation Report
Increased Confidence and Self-EsteemSince coming to this program, I feel more comfortable sharing my opinion.*71%Since coming to this program, I feel I have more control over things that happen to me.*68%Since coming to this program, I feel I can make more of a difference.*67%Development of SkillsIn this program, I try new things.85%At this program, I get the opportunity to talk about what I have learned.79%In this program, I learned new information about a topic that interests me.79%Increased Persistence and ResilienceIn this program, I have a chance to learn from my mistakes.82%Since coming to this program, I am better at something that I used to think was hard.76%Because of this program, I am better able to handle problems and challenges when they arise.70%Improved Decision-Making and Goal SettingIn this program, I learned how to set goals and meet them.77%This program helps me to think about the future.67%Since coming to this program, I am better at saying 'no' to things I know are wrong.68%Since coming to this program, I am better at staying out of situations that make me feel uncomfortable.68%* These items were not included on the survey give to students in grades 3-5. eing a part of (this program) is knowing your surroundings, knowing how to handle situations with violencen the future, it'll help me, because, one, they help me with my mental health. Two, they're able to teach me things that... Not a lot of people have the confidence or the knowledge to teach kids.-Teens on Target Youth Leadership This program helped me with my people skills. It helped me to understand other backgrounds and cultures. Because I'm used to being inside a box, so being in the program it was really nice to be around a lot of people. And I now know how to operate and present myself around others.- Participant, Lao Family Community DevelopmentOakland Youth Industries Exploration 22 FY21-22 Final Evaluation Report
We observed some variation in survey responses related to these outcomes:8Youth in high school and out-of-school youth were more likely to report positive outcomes in all areas of youth development. Black children and youth were more likely than their peers to report progress toward all youth development outcome areas. LGBTQ+ youth were less likely to report progress toward improved self-confidence and self-esteem than their peers. 8All findings were consistent both within and across programs and were statistically significant at p<.01.
Participating in this program did help me as a mom to be more attentive to my children, and to let them talk. I learned how to be a better listener to my little children. Something I haven't always done in the past. But that program taught me, No, you better give time to your kids to talk. You better wait, listen to them, listen to their needs.- Participant, Safe Passages
23 FY21-22 Final Evaluation Report
Program capacity allows organizations and their leaders to develop competencies and skills that make them more effective in serving children, youth, and families and supporting the mission of OFCY. This section describes four foundational components of program capacity, including a description of program budgets, staffing, training and professional development, and partnerships. BudgetPrograms combine OFCY grants with other resources to fund the services they offer. Program budgets vary significantly in size, depending on the design and scale of the program. Half of programs operated on a budget under $250,000, while 17% had a budget of over $350,000.9 The average program budget was $276,507. Budgets ranged from $33,087 (Prescott Circus Theatre Summer Program) to $1,627,555to and Through College).9Complete budget information was missing for six programs: Aim High for High School's Aim High Oakland, Alameda County Health Care Services Agency's Career Exploration Program, Bay Area Community East Side Arts Alliance's Youth Community Culture Builders, Oakland Unified School District's Exploring College and Career Options (ECCO), andPrescott-Joseph Center for Community Enhancement, Inc.'s Fr. Charles D. Burns, SVD Pre-Pre-School Program 15%34%30%17%4%Less than $150K$150K-$250K$250K-$350K$350K+Unknown
24 FY21-22 Final Evaluation Report
OFCY requires that programs bring in additional funding to cover at least 20% of their total program budget. In FY21-22, programs brought in $24,559,289 to fund services for children, youth, and families. The type of funding source is displayed in Figure 15. More than half of these matched funds (59%) came from government grants and contracts, with $7,915,786 million coming from ASES/21stCentury contracts in support of comprehensive afterschoolprograms. The largest donations came from the CrankstartFoundation (a total of $789,561 in funding for 12 programs) and the Google Foundation ($500,000 donated to College Empowering Oakland Students to and Through College).
Strong, high-quality programming requires qualified and trained professionals. Through an annual survey completed in the early spring of 2022, OFCY programs reported information on the staff that helps them to effectively serve Oakland communities.Research suggests that employing staff who are representative of the community strengthens programming for children and youth and that relationships between adults and youth based on cultural- and interest-based connections is foundational to positive youth $56,263$1,286,023$2,297,764$6,370,706$14,548,533Program FeesIndividual/Private DonationsCorporate DonationsPhilanthropic GrantsGovernment Grants and Contracts
25 FY21-22 Final Evaluation Report
development.10On the survey, 59% of programs reported on the race/ethnicity of their staff. Most staff at those programs identified as Latinx (37%), Black (34%), or white (11%). In total, 89% identified as BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, and people of color). In addition, half of programs were led by Executive Directors or CEOs who identified as Black(28%) or Latinx (22%). On average, 55% of program staff were Oakland residents.11As mentioned previously, many programs struggled to staff their programs amid the pandemic. Slightly less than half of year-round and school-year programs that completed the annual survey were fully staffed at the start of the year(48%) and at the time of the survey in the spring, 56% were fully staffed. On average, 67% of staff from programs had been employed at their agency for more than 18 months at the time of the survey, compared to 45% in FY2019-2020. Overall, 40% of programs reported that it was difficult of very difficult to hire staff who represent the children, youth and families served; 27% reported that it was difficult or very difficult to retain staff. Some of the barriers that programs faced included fears of working in person during the COVID-19 pandemic; a lack of BIPOC candidate applicants; difficulty recruiting and hiring multilingual candidates, particularly those who speak Mam; filling part-time positions; the high cost of living in the Bay Area; and competition with private companies and mental health practices that can pay more than community-based organizations. Successful staff recruitment strategies 10(https://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/highered/racial-diversity/state-racial-diversity-workforce.pdf ) (https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0044118X10386077)11Of 68% of programs that reported on staff residency in the survey.
26 FY21-22 Final Evaluation Report
included hiring former participants and networking with community partners. Maintaining a skilled workforce and high-quality servicesrequires training and professional development to support the staff that servesPrograms reported that the most important areas of professional development in the last year were behavioral management, youth development practices, social emotional development, and trauma-informed care. These opportunities were particularly important as children and youth transitioned back to in-person instruction after months of isolation caused by the pandemic. Oakland has a rich network of organizations that work toward improving outcomes for children, youth, and families. In addition to partnering with other community-based agencies, OFCY programs work closely with key public agencies. The table below presents the percent of programs that reported partnering with key public partners in the annual staff survey.
27 FY21-22 Final Evaluation Report
Half of the programs that responded to the survey reported partnering with Oakland Unified School District. For example, programs reported working with OUSD on recruitment and referrals to OFCY programs, providing support during the school day in classrooms or school-based health centers, and increasing school day and after school program alignment. Programs also participated in OUSD trainings and professional development opportunities.Oakland Unite/Department of Violence Prevention provided funding to some OFCY programs and partnership on participant recruitment and referrals.Early childhood programs collaborated with Oakland Human Services Head Start on literacy programs, family events, parent education workshops, and programming for young children; programs also continued to leverage trainings led by First 5 Alameda County. 50%16%14%13%10%10%OUSDOakland Unite/Department ofViolence PreventionFirst 5 Alameda CountyOakland Department of Parks,Recreation, and Youth DevelopmentCity of Oakland Human Services HeadStartOakland Workforce DevelopmentBoard
28 FY21-22 Final Evaluation Report
Lastly, the Oakland Workforce Development Board co-funds summer jobs programs with OFCY, serves as a referral source for youth employment, and funds several programs in the Youth Development and Leadership strategy, Career Awareness and Employment strategy, and OUSD after school programs. children, youth, and families.As a result of $17,690,900 million, 149 programs delivered vital resources to support 18,082particularly in neighborhoods facing the greatest stressors and serving populations most deeply and Latinx youth(23%), groups that face some of the highest levels of inequity in access to employment and educational opportunity. Despite the loosening of COVID-19 restrictions, the pandemic continued to pose challenges for programs. Programs found that many participants and prospective staff members did not feel comfortable meeting in person; agencies faced staffing shortages, programs housed in certain venues had to comply with strict public health regulations, often limiting enrollment; and students faced significant social emotional learning needs after the isolation and stress caused by the pandemic. In response to these challenges, programs demonstrated creativity and adaptability as they offered a combination of virtual and safe in-person opportunities for engagement. In response to the stressors families faced during the shelter-in-place, programs continued to offer more individualized services, including wellness checks andconnections to resources. Notably, despite the enrollment challenges listed above,programs served 127% of the children and youth they projected to serve. The experiences of programs, staff members, youth, and adult participants demonstrate the critical role that community-based programming plays in creating a city where all children and youth are safe, supported, and able to thrive, particularly given the increasing economic, social inequities, and racial injustices that disproportionately impact African Americans, Latinx communities, immigrants, and refugees.