CLIENT FEEDBACK

SUMMARY REPORT 2015

April 30, 2015

1

Table of Contents AGENCY-WIDE FEEDBACK .............................................................................................................................. 2

USE OF SERVICES ................................................................................................................................... 4

RACE/ETHNICITY AND LANGUAGES SPOKEN ......................................................................................... 5

HOUSEHOLD SIZE ................................................................................................................................... 6

POVERTY LEVELS .................................................................................................................................... 7

PARENT EDUCATION LEVEL ................................................................................................................... 8

YOUTH EDUCATION LEVEL ..................................................................................................................... 9

YOUTH AGE, SEX, BORN IN U.S. ........................................................................................................... 10

OVERALL EXPERIENCE .......................................................................................................................... 11

Notes

Agency-wide results are broken out by region, division, site, and type of respondent (parent or youth)

where helpful. Explanations of how questions were asked, how to read charts and what the results show

are included.

For additional information on survey questions, methodology, or results, please contact Martha Snow in

the Office of Performance Management.

Martha Snow

msnow@childrensaidsociety.org

347-778-5397

2

AGENCY-WIDE FEEDBACK

In February 2015, The Children’s Aid Society distributed client feedback surveys to thousands of youth and

parents in New York City. These surveys were distributed across multidisciplinary services and sites

including, but not limited to, community based schools, health clinics, foster care services, after school

programs, pregnancy prevention programs, early childhood services, and so on. Surveys were provided in

both English and Spanish at a fourth grade reading level to further bolster the accessibility and

comprehension of the survey by both youth and parents. Additionally, surveys were anonymous and

confidential which allowed respondents to provide frank and honest feedback about the effectiveness of

CAS services. This feedback enables Children’s aid to continuously improve the effectiveness of services in

alignment to the Children’s Aid Keeping the Promise Theory of Change.

Through the accessibility and anonymity of the survey, Children’s Aid collected a representative sample of

client feedback from 4,421 youth and parents across dozens of programs located within 38 sites in New

York City. Aggregate results across all respondents are presented here and broken out by region, division,

site, and type of respondent (parent or youth) where helpful.

The charts on this page illustrate

the distribution of feedback

received from clients utilizing

services from each division and

site. For example, Milbank had a

total of 307 surveys completed,

primarily from Health and

Wellness. The chart on the right

shows the distribution of surveys

across divisions including sites

with multiple programs.

3

Two nearly identical versions of

surveys were distributed to

parents and youth. The charts on

this page illustrate the

distribution of feedback received

by parent and youth across

divisions and sites. Variations in

parent and youth feedback are

elaborated on further throughout

this report.

4

AGENCY-WIDE: USE OF SERVICES

Both parent and youth surveys asked respondents to identify all Children’s Aid services that they have used

in the past and present.

These charts illustrate the number

of responses to using each type of

Children’s Aid service and the length

of time respondents had been using

CAS services.

The chart to the right explores the

integration of Children’s Aid services

by identifying how many respondents

reported using services from more

than one division. For example, 1,560

respondents identified using services

from one division, and 61% of

respondents reported using services

from two or more programming areas.

5

AGENCY-WIDE: RACE/ETHNICITY AND LANGUAGES SPOKEN

The survey allowed clients to provide information about their race/ethnicity, language, household, income,

education, history of using Children’s Aid services, and overall feedback on those services.

The race/ethnicity charts

separate out Hispanic/Latino and

show the racial distribution of

respondents who did not identify

as Hispanic/Latino only.

Surveys were distributed in English

and Spanish. Prior assessment of

spoken languages at the division

level during survey development

showed little need for surveys in

other languages.

6

AGENCY-WIDE: HOUSEHOLD SIZE

1 2 3 4 or 5 6+ Total

1 130 137 79 45 10 23%

2 191 291 160 80 6 42%

3 110 93 52 24 4 15%

4 or 5 39 104 77 31 8 16%

6+ 4 6 14 32 4 2%

Total 27% 36% 22% 12% 2% 1731

Number of Children Living in Household

Nu

mb

er o

f A

du

lts

Livi

ng

in

Ho

use

ho

ld

Key (n=1731)

n= 1-50

n= 51-100

n= 101+

The chart below details the composition of households (i.e., number of children vs number of adults). The

darker shaded boxes demonstrate the most commonly reported combination of adults and children living in a

household. For example, 1-2 adults and 1-2 children in a household was commonly reported.

Only parent surveys asked the

number of adults and youth

living in the household. Parents

most typically reported 3-5

people living in the household.

Based on region, Harlem and

Washington Heights

demonstrate higher rates of

nine of more people living in a

household.

7

AGENCY-WIDE: POVERTY LEVELS

# in Household

2015 Federal Poverty Line (per month)

1 $981

2 $1,378

3 $1,674

4 $2,021

5 $2,368

6 $2,714

7 $3,061

8 $3,408

9 $3,754

10 $4,101

11 $,448

12 $4,794

13 $5,141

14 $5,488

15 $5,834

16 $6,181

The chart above shows the distribution of families across the 2015 federal poverty line. For example, 16% of respondents live in deep poverty with a household size of four persons. Deep poverty is defined as having an income less than 50% of the federal poverty line. Living in poverty is defined as living within 50-100% of the federal poverty line.

Parents were asked to share their households’ monthly income. Income

results may have been skewed due to a lack of knowledge of income for

all adults living in a household by respondent. The table on the right

shows the 2015 federal poverty line for income based on the number

living in the household. This was used to determine the poverty levels of

survey respondents in the chart below.

CAS Average: $2,020/month

8

AGENCY-WIDE: PARENT EDUCATION LEVEL

A quarter of parents reported completing less than 12th grade and had not received their GED.

Another quarter of parents reported completing 12th grade or receiving their GED. The

remaining 50% of parents reported having completed some college or higher.

9

AGENCY-WIDE: YOUTH EDUCATION LEVEL

Only youth in fourth grade or higher were asked to complete this survey. Therefore, there are

no response options below third grade identified for last grades completed by youth.

Furthermore, the majority of youth respondents are currently enrolled in school. Subsequently,

very few respondents identified as having completed high school or a GED.

10

AGENCY-WIDE: YOUTH AGE, SEX, BORN IN U.S.

Only in the youth survey was there a question asking if the client was born in the U.S. The majority of

youth reported being born in the U.S. Washington Heights had the largest representation of youth that

reported being born outside of the U.S.

Only in the youth survey was there a question about the age and sex of youth receiving

services. Most youth reported being between 11 and 14 years old.

11

AGENCY-WIDE: OVERALL EXPERIENCE

Youth and parents responded to nine questions rating their overall experience with Children’s Aid on a

four-point scale (1-strongly disagree, 2-disagree, 3-agree, and 4-strongly agree). The questions varied

slightly where appropriate; see below for a complete list of questions.

We received an overwhelmingly positive response on overall experiences with Children’s Aid. Although

results were positive, the area with the most room for improvement is for parents and youth feel that

Children’s Aid is committed to helping them achieve their goal of going to college. Additional analysis

was conducted on this feedback to further identify and address methods to improve the effectiveness

of services across regions, programs, and sites.