final outcomes report for art & creativity for … · dnc then downloaded data spreadsheets in...

P . O . B O X 3 0 9 0

F U L L E R T O N , C A . 9 2 8 3 4

D O C T O R S C O N S U L T I N G . O R G

FINAL OUTCOMES REPORT FOR ART &

CREATIVITY FOR HEALING, INC

HOMELESS PROGRAMS

JULY 2014 – JUNE 2016

D O C T O R S N O N P R O F I T C O N S U L T I N G

DoctorS Nonprofit Consulting Art & Creativity for Healing

2

INTRODUCTION

DoctorS Nonprofit Consulting (DNC) was hired by Art & Creativity for Healing, Inc. (A4H) in

June of 2014 to provide an outcome evaluation for the program’s 2011-2014 Homeless Program

(HP) data for participants in A4H workshops. A4H facilitates these “Art4Healing®” workshop

programs at more than 40 hospitals, treatment centers, military bases, and non-profit agencies

throughout Southern California. Since 2000, more than 60,000 children and adults have

participated in these classes and workshops.

METHOD

For this project, A4H staff entered the data from their surveys into an online computer program.

DNC then downloaded data spreadsheets in both excel and SPSS formats. DNC reviewed the

data and addressed any data entry concerns with A4H staff. SPSS statistical software was used

for the evaluation process which was conducted by consultants in July and August of 2016. For

this project, the program’s data collection procedures were reviewed. Additionally, since

previous 2011-2014 data was available, a comparison of the data was completed. Initially, a

series of frequency tables were run to establish basic program statistics. Following this, a series

of correlations and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests were computed on the data. A

full statistical report of the test outcomes is included in appendix A. Correlations are useful in

determining how closely one variable relates to another variable. ANOVAs are useful for

comparing differences between groups.

KEY FINDINGS

Overall, it is significant to say that 98% of Homeless Program participants reported that they

were satisfied with their workshop.

From the questionnaire, 89% of participants strongly agreed that the workshop was great. Eighty

three percent of participants strongly agreed that the workshop helped them express their

emotions. Eighty two percent of participants strongly agreed that they felt better after the

workshop. Eighty eight percent of adults strongly agreed that the instructor was approachable.

For future workshops, 83% of participants strongly agreed that they would refer a friend or

family member to this workshop. Furthermore, 88% of participants strongly agreed that they

themselves would take another workshop from the program.

The top reason that the participants took workshops was Own Interest (45%) followed by

Homelessness (37%).

Overall, adults tended to have a higher response rate average compared to children. In particular,

there was significant difference was that adults were more likely to report that the workshop

helped express emotions compared to the child participants. However, the child participants were

more likely to be interested in taking another Art & Creativity for Healing workshop within the

year.


3

There were four significant differences among the 7 workshop locations and 8 outcome

variables. First, Project Hope participants had significantly lower than the average beliefs that

the workshop helped express emotions. In fact, the OC Rescue Mission had the highest reported

belief that the workshop helped express emotions.

Second, American Family Housing participants had significantly lower than the average beliefs

that they felt better after taking the workshop. In fact, LA CADA-Allen House had the strongest

beliefs next with Illumination Foundation.

Third, Regina House believed they would refer a friend/family member to attend the workshop

the strongest along with the OC Rescue Mission compared to the average of all others.

Fourth, the Illumination Foundation participants believed the strongest that they would be

interested in taking another Art & Creativity for Healing workshop within the next year

compared to the average of all others.

There was one significant difference among the different primary reasons for taking the class.

All of the clients that reported the reason for taking the class for either divorce, abuse or

anxiety/stress strongly agreed that they would be interested in taking another Art & Creativity for

Healing Workshop within the next year. This was higher than the average. Those that reported

the reason for participating due to depression/sadness were the least likely

RESULTS

Overall Data Statistics

This data set consists of responses by 787 Homeless Program referred individuals who received

A4H services between the period of June 2011 and June 2014. The majority of participants were

children (59.6%). Generally when working with statistical evaluation, we like to see a large

sample. Data sets of this size (n=787) are generally regarded to be an accurate indicator of the

measured items.

Frequency Tables

Forty percent of Homeless Program participants completed the adult participant questionnaire.

The remaining 60% were completed by children/teens. Participant ages ranged from 5-63, with

the average age being 16.26.

Hispanic/Latino(a) American made up 63.8% of adult participants followed by Caucasians at

19.1%. Six percent of the participants did not list their ethnicity (see fig. 1). Please note that the

actual ethnicity is included in the figure below is for those that reported their ethnicity.


4

Figure 1: Ethnicity in 2014-2016

N=740

Santa Fe Springs was the city of residence for 21.0% of the adult workshop participants followed by

Santa Ana at 18.1%. These locations were used by participants due to the location of the shelter they

were living in at the time. There were however 13.5% of participants not indicating a city of residence. “Expressing Feelings with Color” was the title of 82% of workshops (see fig.).

Figure 2: Workshop Title in 2014-2016

N=760

The participants generally have multiple psychological reasons for attending the workshops.

Each participant was asked to select their top reason for taking the class. Participants however

selected multiple reasons for taking the class and thus those individuals were removed from

dataset. The top reason that the participants took workshops was Own Interest (44.8%) followed

by Homelessness (37.2%). See figure 3 on the next page.


5

Figure 3: Reasons for Attending in 2014-2016

From the questionnaire, 89.2% of participants strongly agreed that the workshop was great.

Eighty three percent of participants strongly agreed that the workshop helped them express their




family member to this workshop. Furthermore, 87.8% of participants strongly agreed that they


Overall, it is significant to say that 97.8% of Homeless Program participants reported that they

were satisfied with their workshop (see figure 4).

Figure 4: Overall Satisfaction in 2014-2016

N=785


6

The participants were primarily referred by an agency (92.3%). The majority of participants were

referred by Illumination Foundation (44%), Project Hope Alliance (17.7%), or OC Rescue

Mission (15%).

Figure 5: Referral Source in 2014-2016

N=787

Correlations

Correlation (Pearson r) tests were run for data from the eight questions answered on the

participant survey with a rating. Correlations are useful in determining how closely one variable

relates to another variable. Tests were run comparing: 1) How Great the Workshop, 2)

Emotional Expression, 3) Instructor Characteristics, 4) Instructor Efficiency, 5) Effect of

Workshop, 6) Willingness to refer a friend, 7) Interest in additional workshops, and 8) Overall

Satisfaction.

In all of the eight rating variables listed above, there was a significant correlation for the adults.

This indicates that there is a strong correlation between each question and a reliable

questionnaire measuring workshop outcomes. For the adults, the strongest correlations was the

relationship between if they felt better after the workshop and if they would refer a friend/family

member (r=.755, p<.01). For the children, all of the eight rating variables listed above were

significant but one (instructor was on time and the workshop was great). Similar to the adults,

the strongest correlation was the relationship between if they felt better and if they would take

another workshop (.r=584, p<.01). Additionally, they reported a very strong relationship

between if they rated the workshop great and their overall satisfaction (r=.715, p<.05).

Overall, adults tended to have a higher response rate average compared to children (see figure 6

on next page). Furthermore, the results indicate that the trend over the past 5 years response

averages to eight outcome questions in 2011-2014 data years (see fig 7 on the next page).


7

Figure 6: Outcome Questionnaire Response Trend 2014-2016

N=787

Figure 7: Outcome Questionnaire Response Trend 2011 – 2014

N=335

ANOVA’s

One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests were computed on five categorical variables and

eight numerical values for the 2014-2016 data participants. ANOVAs use statistics to compare

categorical variables and numerical variables. The five categorical variables were: 1) Workshop


8

Title, 2) Workshop Location, 3) Reason for Participating, 4) Ethnicity, and 5) Type of Client

(Adult/Child). The eight numerical values were rates of: 1) How Great the Workshop, 2)

Emotional Expression, 3) Caring Instructor, 4) Instructor Time Management/Comfortable

Sharing, 5) Effect of Workshop, 6) Willingness to refer a friend, 7) Interest in additional

workshops, and 8) Overall Satisfaction.

When looking at the significance of ANOVA results, anything less than .05 is generally

acceptable in research. A score at less than .05 indicates that the differences in the mean values

between these groups, given the sample size, is so large that similarly strong findings would be

unlikely to recur by chance, even if we were replicated this study a thousand times.

Categorical Variable: Workshop Title

There was a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) test computed for the categorical variable

of Homeless Program location for the 2014-2016 participant data. The 14 Workshop titles for the

homeless programs were 1) Expressing Feelings with Color, 2) Camp Pendleton Wounded

Warriors, 3) Camp Pendleton Child Workshop, 4) Fear/Anger, 5)Incredible Shrinking Machine,

6) My Life (Bilingual), 7) Love 3/8, 8)Up in the Sky 1/8, 9) Friends 6/8, 10) What's Going On?,

11) Color Beneath the Sea 7/8, 12) A Window to my Heart, 13) Lifes up & down and 14)

Melting Colors. There were no significant differences among the workshop titles

Categorical Variable: Workshop Location


of Homeless Program location for the 2014-2016 participant data. The seven homeless programs

were 1) American Family Housing, 2) Illumination Foundation, 3) LA CADA-Allen House, 4)

OC Rescue Mission 5) Project Hope Alliance, 6) IF Recuperative and Recovery Care Center and

7) Regina House. The Art and Creativity for Healing staff indicated the workshop location on the

client survey. There were 4 significant differences in the outcome areas. First, Project Hope

participants had significantly lower (M=4.53, n=137) than the average (M=4.72, N=781) beliefs

that the workshop helped express emotions. In fact, the OC Rescue Mission had the highest

reported belief (M=4.85, n=118) that the workshop helped express emotions.

Second, American Family Housing participants had significantly lower (M=4.42, n=50) than the

average (M=4.71, N=777) beliefs that they felt better after taking the workshop. In fact, LA

CADA-Allen House had the strongest beliefs (M=4.85, n=71) next with Illumination Foundation

(M=4.83, n=317).


the strongest (M=4.86, n=22) along with the OC Rescue Mission (M=4.84, n=118) compared to

the average of all others (M=4.70, N=786)

Fourth, the Illumination Foundation participants believed the strongest (M=4.90, n=321) that

they would be interested in taking another Art & Creativity for Healing workshop within the next

year compared to the average of all others (M=4.81, N=785). See the graphs below for all the

eight outcome areas among the seven homeless programs.


9


10

Categorical Variable: Reason for Participating

There was a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests computed for the categorical variable

of Type of Workshop for the 2014-2016 data. There was one significant difference among the

different primary reasons for taking the class. All of the clients that reported the reason for taking

the class for either divorce (M=5.0, n=5), abuse (M=5.0, n=2) or PTSD (M=5.0, n=21) strongly

agreed that they would be interested in taking another Art & Creativity for Healing Workshop

within the next year. This was higher than the average (M=4.80, N=687). Those that reported the

reason for participating due to depression/sadness (M=4.66, n=35) were the least likely. See

graph below.


11

Categorical Variable: Ethnicity


client ethnicity for the 2014-2016 combined adult and child data. The six types of client

ethnicities were 1) Caucasian, 2) African American, 3) Hispanic/Latino(a) American, 4) Asian

American/Vietnamese, 5) Other (including bi-racial). The client indicated their ethnicity on their

client survey. There was one significant difference in the eight outcome measures among the five

ethnic groups. Asian American participants highly rated that the workshop was great (M=5.0,

n=10) compared to the group average (M= 4.86, N=740). See figure below.

Categorical Variable: Type of Participant (Child/Adult)

There was a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests computed for the categorical variable

of the age of clients. In all areas they reported strong agreement. However, it should be noted

that two areas there were significant differences among the ages. Adults were more likely to

report that the workshop helped express emotions (M=4.81, n=315) compared to the child

participants (M=4.66, n=466). However, the child participants were more likely to be interested

in taking another Art & Creativity for Healing workshop within the year (M=4.74, n=317) than

the adults (M=4.85, n=468) See below the graphs for the two outcome questions:


12

LIMITATIONS

While the data was evaluated by consultants independently from program management and staff,

the program staff did collect all responses and enter the data into SurveyMonkey. Overall, this

data evaluation has a respectable sample size and can generally be regarded to be an accurate

indicator of the measured items.

It is important to emphasize that while correlations show the degree to which two numerical

variables co-relate, they cannot measure other types of relationships. Because two variables are

correlated does not necessarily mean that one variable causes the other to occur. The one

significant correlation we did find was for the eight rating variables on the participant

questionnaire which are all highly face valid.

ANOVAs can only be used when the groups are independent from each other. When completing

a one-way ANOVA we are not able to see the possible interactions between the multiple

numerical variable. Finally we are not able to find the actual cause of the difference in means,

only that there is a difference.

SUMMARY

DoctorS Nonprofit Consulting (DNC) was hired by Art & Creativity for Healing, Inc. (A4H) in

June of 2014 to provide an outcome evaluation for the program’s 2011-2014 Homeless Program

(HP) data for participants in A4H workshops. A4H facilitates these “Art4Healing®” workshop

programs at more than 40 hospitals, treatment centers, military bases, and non-profit agencies

throughout Southern California. Since 2000, more than 60,000 children and adults have

participated in these classes and workshops.

This data set consists of responses by 787 Homeless Program referred individuals who received

A4H services between the period of June 2011 and June 2014. The majority of participants were

children (60%). Generally when working with statistical evaluation, we like to see a large


13

sample. Data sets of this size (n=787) are generally regarded to be an accurate indicator of the

measured items.

Forty percent of Homeless Program participants completed the adult participant questionnaire.

The remaining 60% were completed by children/teens. Participant ages ranged from 5-63, with

the average age being 16.26.

Hispanic/Latino(a) American made up 64% of adult participants followed by Caucasians at 19%.

Six percent of the participants did not list their ethnicity.

Santa Fe Springs was the city of residence for 21.0% of the adult workshop participants followed by

Santa Ana at 18.1%. These locations were used by participants due to the location of the shelter they

were living in at the time. There were however 13.5% of participants not indicating a city of residence. “Expressing Feelings with Color” was the title of 82% of workshops. The top reason that the

participants took workshops was Own Interest (45%) followed by Homelessness (37%).

From the questionnaire, 89% of participants strongly agreed that the workshop was great. Eighty

three percent of participants strongly agreed that the workshop helped them express their




family member to this workshop. Furthermore, 88% of participants strongly agreed that they


Overall, it is significant to say that 98% of Homeless Program participants reported that they

were satisfied with their workshop.

Correlation (Pearson r) tests were run for data from the eight questions answered on the

participant survey with a rating. Correlations are useful in determining how closely one variable

relates to another variable. In all of the eight rating variables listed above, there was a significant

correlation for the adults. This indicates that there is a strong correlation between each question

and a reliable questionnaire measuring workshop outcomes. Overall, adults tended to have a

higher response rate average compared to children.

One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests were computed on two categorical variables and

eight numerical values for the 2014-2016 data participants. ANOVAs use statistics to compare

categorical variables and numerical variables. There were 8 significant differences in the

outcome measures.

There were four significant differences among the 7 workshop locations and 8 outcome

variables. First, Project Hope participants had significantly lower (M=4.53, n=137) than the

average (M=4.72, N=781) beliefs that the workshop helped express emotions. In fact, the OC

Rescue Mission had the highest reported belief (M=4.85, n=118) that the workshop helped

express emotions.


14

Second, American Family Housing participants had significantly lower (M=4.42, n=50) than the

average (M=4.71, N=777) beliefs that they felt better after taking the workshop. In fact, LA

CADA-Allen House had the strongest beliefs (M=4.85, n=71) next with Illumination Foundation

(M=4.83, n=317).


the strongest (M=4.86, n=22) along with the OC Rescue Mission (M=4.84, n=118) compared to

the average of all others (M=4.70, N=786)

Fourth, the Illumination Foundation participants believed the strongest (M=4.90, n=321) that

they would be interested in taking another Art & Creativity for Healing workshop within the next

year compared to the average of all others (M=4.81, N=785). See the graphs below for all the

eight outcome areas among the seven homeless programs.

There was one significant difference in the eight outcome measures among the five ethnic

groups. Asian American participants highly rated that the workshop was great (M=5.0, n=10)

compared to the group average (M= 4.86, N=740).

There were two areas there were significant differences among the ages. Adults were more likely

to report that the workshop helped express emotions (M=4.81, n=315) compared to the child

participants (M=4.66, n=466). However, the child participants were more likely to be interested

in taking another Art & Creativity for Healing workshop within the year (M=4.74, n=317) than

the adults (M=4.85, n=468).

There was one significant difference in the eight outcome measures among the five ethnic

groups. Asian American participants highly rated that the workshop was great (M=5.0, n=10)

compared to the group average (M= 4.86, N=740).


15

Appendix A


16

Full Data Report 2011-2014

I. Correlations

Correlations

The workshop was great

This workshop helped me express my emotions.

The instructor was

approachable and

appeared to care about

the participants.

The instructor was on time and valued

my time

I feel better after taking

this workshop.

I would refer a

friend/family member to attend the workshop.

I am interested in

taking another Art & Creativity for

Healing workshop within the next year.

Overall, I am satisfied with

this Art & Creativity for

Healing worshop.


Pearson Correlation

1 .552** .405** .502** .580** .457** .576** .710**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 785 780 784 783 776 785 784 784


Pearson Correlation

.552** 1 .470** .461** .616** .570** .418** .538**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 780 781 780 779 773 781 781 781

The instructor was approachable and appeared to care about the participants.

Pearson Correlation

.405** .470** 1 .524** .403** .361** .345** .482**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 784 780 785 783 776 785 784 784

The instructor was on time and valued my time

Pearson Correlation

.502** .461** .524** 1 .409** .405** .374** .549**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 783 779 783 784 775 784 783 783

I feel better after taking this workshop.

Pearson Correlation

.580** .616** .403** .409** 1 .583** .558** .631**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 776 773 776 775 777 777 777 777

I would refer a friend/family member to attend the workshop.

Pearson Correlation

.457** .570** .361** .405** .583** 1 .490** .511**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 785 781 785 784 777 786 785 785

I am interested in taking another Art & Creativity for Healing workshop within the next year.

Pearson Correlation

.576** .418** .345** .374** .558** .490** 1 .655**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 784 781 784 783 777 785 785 785

Overall, I am satisfied with this Art & Creativity

Pearson Correlation

.710** .538** .482** .549** .631** .511** .655** 1


17

Correlations



The instructor was

approachable and

appeared to care about

the participants.

The instructor was on time and valued

my time

I feel better after taking

this workshop.

I would refer a

friend/family member to attend the workshop.

I am interested in

taking another Art & Creativity for


Overall, I am satisfied with

this Art & Creativity for

Healing worshop.

for Healing worshop. Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 N 784 781 784 783 777 785 785 785

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

II. ANOVAs Category: Workshop Title

Descriptives

N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error

95% Confidence Interval for Mean

Minimum Maximum Lower Bound Upper Bound

The workshop was great Expressing Feelings with Color

622 4.85 .474 .019 4.81 4.89 1 5

Camp Pendleton Wounded Warriors

1 5.00 . . . . 5 5

Camp Pendleton Child Workshop

1 5.00 . . . . 5 5

Fear/Anger 21 5.00 .000 .000 5.00 5.00 5 5

Incredible Shrinking Machine

8 5.00 .000 .000 5.00 5.00 5 5

My Life (Bilingual) 14 4.79 .802 .214 4.32 5.25 2 5

Love 3/8 22 4.91 .294 .063 4.78 5.04 4 5

Up in the Sky 1/8 28 4.93 .378 .071 4.78 5.08 3 5

Friends 6/8 6 5.00 .000 .000 5.00 5.00 5 5

What's Going On? 3 5.00 .000 .000 5.00 5.00 5 5

Color Beneath the Sea 7/8 13 5.00 .000 .000 5.00 5.00 5 5

A Window to my Heart 4 4.50 .577 .289 3.58 5.42 4 5

Lifes up & down 8 4.75 .707 .250 4.16 5.34 3 5

Melting Colors 7 4.86 .378 .143 4.51 5.21 4 5

Total 758 4.86 .461 .017 4.83 4.89 1 5


Expressing Feelings with Color

617 4.71 .742 .030 4.65 4.77 1 5


18

Descriptives





1 5.00 . . . . 5 5


1 5.00 . . . . 5 5

Fear/Anger 21 5.00 .000 .000 5.00 5.00 5 5


8 5.00 .000 .000 5.00 5.00 5 5


Love 3/8 22 4.82 .588 .125 4.56 5.08 3 5

Up in the Sky 1/8 28 4.61 .832 .157 4.28 4.93 2 5

Friends 6/8 7 4.86 .378 .143 4.51 5.21 4 5

What's Going On? 3 5.00 .000 .000 5.00 5.00 5 5


A Window to my Heart 4 3.75 1.893 .946 .74 6.76 1 5

Lifes up & down 8 4.63 .518 .183 4.19 5.06 4 5

Melting Colors 7 4.86 .378 .143 4.51 5.21 4 5

Total 754 4.72 .727 .026 4.67 4.77 1 5



622 4.83 .520 .021 4.79 4.87 1 5


1 5.00 . . . . 5 5


1 5.00 . . . . 5 5

Fear/Anger 21 5.00 .000 .000 5.00 5.00 5 5


8 5.00 .000 .000 5.00 5.00 5 5


Love 3/8 22 4.73 .550 .117 4.48 4.97 3 5

Up in the Sky 1/8 28 4.64 .911 .172 4.29 5.00 2 5

Friends 6/8 7 4.71 .756 .286 4.02 5.41 3 5

What's Going On? 3 5.00 .000 .000 5.00 5.00 5 5



Lifes up & down 8 4.88 .354 .125 4.58 5.17 4 5

Melting Colors 7 5.00 .000 .000 5.00 5.00 5 5

Total 758 4.82 .541 .020 4.79 4.86 1 5



621 4.88 .448 .018 4.84 4.91 1 5


1 5.00 . . . . 5 5


1 5.00 . . . . 5 5


19

Descriptives




Fear/Anger 21 4.86 .359 .078 4.69 5.02 4 5


8 5.00 .000 .000 5.00 5.00 5 5


Love 3/8 22 4.77 .528 .113 4.54 5.01 3 5

Up in the Sky 1/8 28 5.00 .000 .000 5.00 5.00 5 5

Friends 6/8 7 5.00 .000 .000 5.00 5.00 5 5

What's Going On? 3 5.00 .000 .000 5.00 5.00 5 5


A Window to my Heart 4 4.50 1.000 .500 2.91 6.09 3 5

Lifes up & down 8 4.63 1.061 .375 3.74 5.51 2 5

Melting Colors 7 4.71 .756 .286 4.02 5.41 3 5

Total 758 4.87 .460 .017 4.84 4.91 1 5



620 4.70 .718 .029 4.65 4.76 1 5


1 5.00 . . . . 5 5


1 5.00 . . . . 5 5

Fear/Anger 18 5.00 .000 .000 5.00 5.00 5 5


6 5.00 .000 .000 5.00 5.00 5 5


Love 3/8 20 4.55 1.234 .276 3.97 5.13 1 5

Up in the Sky 1/8 28 4.89 .315 .060 4.77 5.01 4 5

Friends 6/8 7 4.71 .756 .286 4.02 5.41 3 5

What's Going On? 3 5.00 .000 .000 5.00 5.00 5 5



Lifes up & down 8 4.75 .463 .164 4.36 5.14 4 5

Melting Colors 7 5.00 .000 .000 5.00 5.00 5 5

Total 750 4.72 .710 .026 4.67 4.77 1 5



622 4.68 .815 .033 4.61 4.74 1 5


1 5.00 . . . . 5 5


1 5.00 . . . . 5 5

Fear/Anger 21 4.90 .436 .095 4.71 5.10 3 5


8 4.75 .463 .164 4.36 5.14 4 5



20

Descriptives




Love 3/8 22 4.86 .351 .075 4.71 5.02 4 5

Up in the Sky 1/8 28 4.75 .928 .175 4.39 5.11 1 5

Friends 6/8 7 4.86 .378 .143 4.51 5.21 4 5

What's Going On? 3 5.00 .000 .000 5.00 5.00 5 5


A Window to my Heart 4 4.00 2.000 1.000 .82 7.18 1 5

Lifes up & down 8 5.00 .000 .000 5.00 5.00 5 5

Melting Colors 7 5.00 .000 .000 5.00 5.00 5 5

Total 759 4.70 .789 .029 4.65 4.76 1 5



621 4.78 .643 .026 4.73 4.83 1 5


1 5.00 . . . . 5 5


1 5.00 . . . . 5 5

Fear/Anger 21 5.00 .000 .000 5.00 5.00 5 5


8 5.00 .000 .000 5.00 5.00 5 5


Love 3/8 22 4.86 .351 .075 4.71 5.02 4 5

Up in the Sky 1/8 28 5.00 .000 .000 5.00 5.00 5 5

Friends 6/8 7 5.00 .000 .000 5.00 5.00 5 5

What's Going On? 3 5.00 .000 .000 5.00 5.00 5 5



Lifes up & down 8 5.00 .000 .000 5.00 5.00 5 5

Melting Colors 7 5.00 .000 .000 5.00 5.00 5 5

Total 758 4.81 .599 .022 4.77 4.85 1 5

Overall, I am satisfied with this Art & Creativity for Healing worshop.


621 4.88 .439 .018 4.85 4.92 1 5


1 5.00 . . . . 5 5


1 5.00 . . . . 5 5

Fear/Anger 21 5.00 .000 .000 5.00 5.00 5 5


8 5.00 .000 .000 5.00 5.00 5 5


Love 3/8 22 4.91 .294 .063 4.78 5.04 4 5

Up in the Sky 1/8 28 4.93 .262 .050 4.83 5.03 4 5

Friends 6/8 7 5.00 .000 .000 5.00 5.00 5 5

What's Going On? 3 5.00 .000 .000 5.00 5.00 5 5


21

Descriptives






Lifes up & down 8 4.88 .354 .125 4.58 5.17 4 5

Melting Colors 7 5.00 .000 .000 5.00 5.00 5 5

Total 758 4.89 .423 .015 4.86 4.92 1 5

ANOVA

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

The workshop was great Between Groups 1.993 13 .153 .717 .748

Within Groups 159.184 744 .214 Total 161.177 757


Between Groups 7.684 13 .591 1.122 .336



Between Groups 2.839 13 .218 .743 .721



Between Groups 2.355 13 .181 .856 .600



Between Groups 5.416 13 .417 .824 .635



Between Groups 6.614 13 .509 .814 .646



Between Groups 4.109 13 .316 .878 .577



Between Groups 1.570 13 .121 .673 .791



22

II. ANOVAs Category: Workshop Location

Descriptives




The workshop was great American Family Housing (Homeless Program)

52 4.75 .519 .072 4.61 4.89 3 5

Illumination Foundation (Homeless Program)

321 4.91 .412 .023 4.86 4.95 1 5

LA CADA-Allen House (Homeless Program)

71 4.86 .457 .054 4.75 4.97 2 5

OC Rescue Mission (Homeless Program)

118 4.85 .406 .037 4.77 4.92 3 5

Project Hope Alliance (Homeless Program)

139 4.78 .611 .052 4.68 4.89 1 5

IF Recuperative and Recovery Care Center (Homeless Program)

62 4.79 .631 .080 4.63 4.95 1 5

Regina House (Homeless Program)

22 4.91 .294 .063 4.78 5.04 4 5

Total 785 4.85 .482 .017 4.82 4.89 1 5


American Family Housing (Homeless Program)

52 4.52 .852 .118 4.28 4.76 1 5


319 4.76 .709 .040 4.68 4.84 1 5


71 4.87 .445 .053 4.77 4.98 2 5


118 4.82 .622 .057 4.71 4.94 1 5


137 4.53 .924 .079 4.37 4.68 1 5


62 4.73 .682 .087 4.55 4.90 1 5


22 4.68 .646 .138 4.40 4.97 3 5

Total 781 4.72 .734 .026 4.67 4.77 1 5



52 4.71 .536 .074 4.56 4.86 3 5


322 4.82 .645 .036 4.75 4.89 1 5


23

Descriptives





71 4.87 .445 .053 4.77 4.98 2 5


117 4.91 .281 .026 4.86 4.97 4 5


139 4.81 .475 .040 4.73 4.89 2 5


62 4.68 .719 .091 4.49 4.86 1 5


22 4.91 .294 .063 4.78 5.04 4 5

Total 785 4.82 .552 .020 4.78 4.86 1 5



52 4.79 .457 .063 4.66 4.92 3 5


322 4.90 .472 .026 4.85 4.95 1 5


71 4.87 .476 .056 4.76 4.99 2 5


118 4.90 .478 .044 4.81 4.99 1 5


138 4.83 .445 .038 4.76 4.91 3 5


61 4.77 .616 .079 4.61 4.93 1 5


22 4.95 .213 .045 4.86 5.05 4 5

Total 784 4.87 .476 .017 4.84 4.90 1 5



50 4.42 1.052 .149 4.12 4.72 1 5


317 4.83 .580 .033 4.77 4.90 1 5


71 4.85 .497 .059 4.73 4.96 2 5


118 4.73 .649 .060 4.61 4.85 2 5


137 4.53 .924 .079 4.38 4.69 1 5


62 4.52 .784 .100 4.32 4.72 1 5


22 4.59 .734 .157 4.27 4.92 3 5


24

Descriptives




Total 777 4.71 .726 .026 4.66 4.76 1 5



52 4.65 .623 .086 4.48 4.83 2 5


322 4.73 .805 .045 4.64 4.81 1 5


71 4.79 .653 .077 4.63 4.94 2 5


118 4.84 .627 .058 4.72 4.95 1 5


139 4.50 1.031 .087 4.32 4.67 1 5


62 4.63 .730 .093 4.44 4.81 1 5


22 4.86 .468 .100 4.66 5.07 3 5

Total 786 4.70 .796 .028 4.64 4.76 1 5



52 4.81 .445 .062 4.68 4.93 3 5


321 4.90 .480 .027 4.84 4.95 1 5


71 4.72 .796 .094 4.53 4.91 1 5


118 4.87 .382 .035 4.80 4.94 3 5


139 4.67 .837 .071 4.53 4.81 1 5


62 4.63 .773 .098 4.43 4.83 1 5


22 4.82 .501 .107 4.60 5.04 3 5

Total 785 4.81 .610 .022 4.76 4.85 1 5



52 4.83 .430 .060 4.71 4.95 3 5


321 4.93 .372 .021 4.88 4.97 1 5


71 4.87 .445 .053 4.77 4.98 2 5


118 4.92 .297 .027 4.87 4.98 3 5


139 4.86 .546 .046 4.76 4.95 1 5


25

Descriptives





62 4.74 .676 .086 4.57 4.91 1 5


22 4.86 .468 .100 4.66 5.07 3 5

Total 785 4.89 .443 .016 4.85 4.92 1 5

ANOVA


The workshop was great Between Groups 2.559 6 .427 1.848 .087



Between Groups 10.760 6 1.793 3.392 .003



Between Groups 3.298 6 .550 1.814 .094



Between Groups 1.630 6 .272 1.201 .304



Between Groups 17.256 6 2.876 5.651 .000



Between Groups 9.842 6 1.640 2.622 .016



Between Groups 8.293 6 1.382 3.791 .001



Between Groups 2.277 6 .379 1.950 .070



26

II. ANOVAs Category: Reason for Participation in Workshop

Descriptives




The workshop was great Bereavement - loss of loved one

16 5.00 .000 .000 5.00 5.00 5 5

Medical Illness 14 4.86 .535 .143 4.55 5.17 3 5

Divorce 5 5.00 .000 .000 5.00 5.00 5 5

Depression/Sadness 35 4.66 .838 .142 4.37 4.95 1 5

Abuse 2 5.00 .000 .000 5.00 5.00 5 5

Anxiety/Stress 31 4.94 .250 .045 4.84 5.03 4 5

PTSD 21 4.95 .218 .048 4.85 5.05 4 5

Homeless 255 4.87 .478 .030 4.82 4.93 1 5

Own Interest 308 4.86 .453 .026 4.81 4.91 1 5

Total 687 4.87 .473 .018 4.83 4.90 1 5


Bereavement - loss of loved one

16 4.94 .250 .063 4.80 5.07 4 5

Medical Illness 14 4.36 1.216 .325 3.66 5.06 1 5

Divorce 5 5.00 .000 .000 5.00 5.00 5 5


Abuse 2 4.50 .707 .500 -1.85 10.85 4 5

Anxiety/Stress 31 4.87 .341 .061 4.75 5.00 4 5

PTSD 21 4.86 .478 .104 4.64 5.07 3 5

Homeless 254 4.74 .715 .045 4.65 4.82 1 5

Own Interest 307 4.72 .719 .041 4.64 4.80 1 5

Total 685 4.73 .717 .027 4.67 4.78 1 5



16 4.94 .250 .063 4.80 5.07 4 5

Medical Illness 14 4.50 1.092 .292 3.87 5.13 1 5

Divorce 5 5.00 .000 .000 5.00 5.00 5 5


Abuse 2 4.50 .707 .500 -1.85 10.85 4 5

Anxiety/Stress 31 4.97 .180 .032 4.90 5.03 4 5

PTSD 21 5.00 .000 .000 5.00 5.00 5 5

Homeless 256 4.82 .589 .037 4.74 4.89 1 5

Own Interest 307 4.81 .538 .031 4.75 4.87 1 5

Total 687 4.82 .562 .021 4.78 4.86 1 5


27

Descriptives






16 5.00 .000 .000 5.00 5.00 5 5

Medical Illness 14 4.64 1.082 .289 4.02 5.27 1 5

Divorce 5 5.00 .000 .000 5.00 5.00 5 5


Abuse 2 5.00 .000 .000 5.00 5.00 5 5

Anxiety/Stress 31 4.87 .499 .090 4.69 5.05 3 5

PTSD 21 5.00 .000 .000 5.00 5.00 5 5

Homeless 255 4.86 .456 .029 4.80 4.92 2 5

Own Interest 307 4.88 .449 .026 4.83 4.93 1 5

Total 686 4.87 .479 .018 4.83 4.91 1 5



16 4.94 .250 .063 4.80 5.07 4 5

Medical Illness 13 4.46 .877 .243 3.93 4.99 3 5

Divorce 5 5.00 .000 .000 5.00 5.00 5 5


Abuse 2 4.00 1.414 1.000 -8.71 16.71 3 5

Anxiety/Stress 31 4.71 .643 .115 4.47 4.95 3 5

PTSD 21 4.81 .512 .112 4.58 5.04 3 5

Homeless 252 4.71 .735 .046 4.62 4.81 1 5

Own Interest 308 4.73 .683 .039 4.65 4.80 1 5

Total 682 4.72 .705 .027 4.66 4.77 1 5



16 4.94 .250 .063 4.80 5.07 4 5

Medical Illness 14 4.29 1.204 .322 3.59 4.98 1 5

Divorce 5 5.00 .000 .000 5.00 5.00 5 5


Abuse 2 5.00 .000 .000 5.00 5.00 5 5

Anxiety/Stress 31 4.68 .791 .142 4.39 4.97 2 5

PTSD 21 4.81 .680 .148 4.50 5.12 2 5

Homeless 256 4.68 .881 .055 4.57 4.79 1 5

Own Interest 308 4.73 .742 .042 4.64 4.81 1 5

Total 688 4.70 .812 .031 4.64 4.76 1 5



16 4.94 .250 .063 4.80 5.07 4 5

Medical Illness 14 4.79 .426 .114 4.54 5.03 4 5

Divorce 5 5.00 .000 .000 5.00 5.00 5 5


Abuse 2 5.00 .000 .000 5.00 5.00 5 5

Anxiety/Stress 31 4.42 1.057 .190 4.03 4.81 1 5

PTSD 21 5.00 .000 .000 5.00 5.00 5 5


28

Descriptives




Homeless 255 4.84 .605 .038 4.76 4.91 1 5

Own Interest 308 4.81 .603 .034 4.74 4.88 1 5

Total 687 4.80 .628 .024 4.76 4.85 1 5



16 5.00 .000 .000 5.00 5.00 5 5

Medical Illness 14 4.64 .633 .169 4.28 5.01 3 5

Divorce 5 5.00 .000 .000 5.00 5.00 5 5


Abuse 2 5.00 .000 .000 5.00 5.00 5 5

Anxiety/Stress 31 4.87 .341 .061 4.75 5.00 4 5

PTSD 21 5.00 .000 .000 5.00 5.00 5 5

Homeless 255 4.91 .451 .028 4.85 4.96 1 5

Own Interest 308 4.87 .427 .024 4.83 4.92 1 5

Total 687 4.89 .444 .017 4.85 4.92 1 5

ANOVA





Between Groups 4.716 8 .589 1.149 .328



Between Groups 3.470 8 .434 1.382 .201



Between Groups 1.888 8 .236 1.027 .414



Between Groups 4.120 8 .515 1.036 .408



Between Groups 6.135 8 .767 1.164 .319



29


Between Groups 6.962 8 .870 2.239 .023



Between Groups 1.672 8 .209 1.061 .388


II. ANOVAs Category: Ethnicity

Descriptives

N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval for Mean


The workshop was great Caucasian 141 4.75 .611 .051 4.65 4.85 1 5

African-American 74 4.91 .338 .039 4.83 4.98 3 5

Hispanic/Latino(a) 472 4.88 .454 .021 4.84 4.92 1 5

Asian 10 5.00 .000 .000 5.00 5.00 5 5

Other 43 4.95 .213 .032 4.89 5.02 4 5

Total 740 4.86 .468 .017 4.83 4.90 1 5


Caucasian 139 4.64 .808 .069 4.50 4.78 1 5



Asian 10 4.40 .966 .306 3.71 5.09 2 5

Other 43 4.77 .571 .087 4.59 4.94 3 5

Total 738 4.73 .715 .026 4.68 4.78 1 5


Caucasian 141 4.84 .487 .041 4.76 4.92 1 5



Asian 10 4.90 .316 .100 4.67 5.13 4 5

Other 42 4.81 .455 .070 4.67 4.95 3 5

Total 739 4.83 .551 .020 4.79 4.87 1 5


Caucasian 141 4.87 .476 .040 4.79 4.95 1 5



Asian 10 4.60 .699 .221 4.10 5.10 3 5

Other 43 4.86 .413 .063 4.73 4.99 3 5

Total 739 4.88 .434 .016 4.85 4.92 1 5


Caucasian 141 4.64 .804 .068 4.50 4.77 1 5



Asian 10 4.80 .422 .133 4.50 5.10 4 5

Other 41 4.63 .968 .151 4.33 4.94 1 5


30

Descriptives



Total 732 4.72 .708 .026 4.67 4.77 1 5


Caucasian 141 4.66 .835 .070 4.52 4.80 1 5



Asian 10 4.60 .966 .306 3.91 5.29 2 5

Other 43 4.81 .664 .101 4.61 5.02 1 5

Total 740 4.71 .777 .029 4.65 4.77 1 5


Caucasian 141 4.70 .754 .063 4.58 4.83 1 5



Asian 10 4.90 .316 .100 4.67 5.13 4 5

Other 43 4.93 .338 .052 4.83 5.03 3 5

Total 740 4.81 .612 .022 4.76 4.85 1 5


Caucasian 141 4.84 .525 .044 4.76 4.93 1 5



Asian 10 5.00 .000 .000 5.00 5.00 5 5

Other 43 4.86 .413 .063 4.73 4.99 3 5

Total 740 4.89 .428 .016 4.86 4.92 1 5

ANOVA





Between Groups 3.379 4 .845 1.660 .157



Between Groups .099 4 .025 .082 .988



Between Groups .962 4 .241 1.277 .278



Between Groups 3.568 4 .892 1.787 .130

Within Groups 362.896 727 .499


31

Total 366.463 731 I would refer a friend/family member to attend the workshop.

Between Groups 1.349 4 .337 .557 .694



Between Groups 2.466 4 .617 1.652 .159



Between Groups .588 4 .147 .801 .524


II. ANOVAs Category: Type of Participant (Child/Adult)

Descriptives



The workshop was great 1 467 4.87 .485 .022 4.82 4.91 1 5

2 318 4.83 .477 .027 4.78 4.89 1 5

Total 785 4.85 .482 .017 4.82 4.89 1 5


1 466 4.66 .843 .039 4.58 4.74 1 5

2 315 4.81 .521 .029 4.75 4.86 1 5

Total 781 4.72 .734 .026 4.67 4.77 1 5


1 467 4.81 .600 .028 4.75 4.86 1 5

2 318 4.84 .473 .027 4.79 4.89 1 5

Total 785 4.82 .552 .020 4.78 4.86 1 5


1 467 4.87 .493 .023 4.82 4.91 1 5

2 317 4.87 .452 .025 4.82 4.92 1 5

Total 784 4.87 .476 .017 4.84 4.90 1 5


1 461 4.73 .748 .035 4.66 4.80 1 5

2 316 4.68 .693 .039 4.60 4.75 1 5

Total 777 4.71 .726 .026 4.66 4.76 1 5


1 468 4.67 .876 .040 4.59 4.75 1 5

2 318 4.75 .659 .037 4.68 4.82 1 5

Total 786 4.70 .796 .028 4.64 4.76 1 5

I am interested in taking another Art & Creativity for

1 468 4.85 .573 .027 4.80 4.90 1 5

2 317 4.74 .657 .037 4.67 4.82 1 5


32

Descriptives




Total 785 4.81 .610 .022 4.76 4.85 1 5


1 468 4.90 .438 .020 4.86 4.94 1 5

2 317 4.86 .450 .025 4.81 4.91 1 5

Total 785 4.89 .443 .016 4.85 4.92 1 5

ANOVA


The workshop was great Between Groups .217 1 .217 .936 .334



Between Groups 4.092 1 4.092 7.664 .006



Between Groups .173 1 .173 .566 .452



Between Groups .001 1 .001 .003 .957



Between Groups .459 1 .459 .870 .351



Between Groups 1.266 1 1.266 2.001 .158



Between Groups 2.121 1 2.121 5.731 .017



Between Groups .310 1 .310 1.583 .209



33


34

final outcomes report for art & creativity for … · dnc then downloaded data spreadsheets in...

Documents