Communiversity Plymouth Youth Center Longitudinal Study Year 3 Report Prepared in partnership with Plymouth Youth Center Prepared by Catherine Eichers Research Assistant University of Minnesota July, 2008 CMV Report 008 July 2008 CMV is coordinated and funded by the Center for Urban and Regional Affairs at the University of Minnesota. This is a publication of the Center for Urban and Regional Affairs (CURA), an all-University applied research and technology center at the University of Minnesota that connects faculty and students with community organizations and public institutions working on significant public policy issues in Minnesota. The content of this report is the responsibility of the author and is not necessarily endorsed by CMV, CURA or the University of Minnesota. © 2008 by The Regents of the University of Minnesota. This publication may be reproduced in its entirety (except photographs or other materials reprinted here with permission from other sources) in print or electronic form, for noncommercial educational and nonprofit use only, provided that two copies of the resulting publication are sent to the CURA editor at the address below and that the following acknowledgment is included: "Reprinted with permission of the University of Minnesota's Center for Urban and Regional Affairs (CURA)." For information regarding commercial reprints or reproduction of portions of this publication, contact the CURA editor at the address below. This publication may be available in alternate formats upon request. Center for Urban and Regional Affairs (CURA) University of Minnesota 330 HHH Center 301--19th Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455 Phone: (612) 625-1551 Fax: (612) 626-0273 E-mail: cura@umn.edu Web site: http://www.cura.umn.edu The University of Minnesota is committed to the policy that all persons shall have equal access to its programs, facilities, and employment without regard to race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, age, marital status, disability, public assistance status, veteran status, or sexual orientation. Plymouth Youth Center Longitudinal Study Year 3 Report August 2007 Prepared by: Catherine Eichers University of Minnesota eich0071@umn.edu in collaboration with: Dr. Susan Wells, Ph.D. University of Minnesota swells@umn.edu 1 List of Tables and Figures. Table 1. Year 3 Survey Response Rate, by Cohort. Table 2. 2006-07 Survey Respondent Demographics, by Cohort. Table 3. Reasons Why Respondents Left PYC, by Cohort. Table 4. Current Employment Status, by Cohort. Table 5. Number of Jobs in the Last Year, by Cohort. Table 6. First-year Survey Respondents’ Demographics, by Survey Year. Table 7. Reasons Why First-Year Respondents Left PYC, by Survey Year. Table 8. Employment Status in the First Year after Leaving PYC, by Survey Year. Table 9. Number of Jobs in the First Year after Leaving PYC, by Survey Year. Table 10. Relationship Status of First-Year Survey Respondents with Children, by Survey Year. Table 11. How Well Respondents Felt PYC Prepared them for Employment, by Survey Year. Figure 1. Change in Preparedness Responses Over Time. 2 YEAR 3 REPORT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This is the third annual report for the Plymouth Youth Center (PYC) Longitudinal Study. The purpose of this study is to track the long-term education and vocational outcomes of PYC high school students. In the first report (Spring 2005), data was summarized from 19 former students who left PYC during the 2003-04 school year. The second report described educational and employment trends for 18 former students, including 7 who left PYC during the 2004-05 academic year and 11 who left during the 2003-04 year. This report summarizes data from two groups of students. The first group is made up of the 25 students who responded to the Year 3 survey, including 9 who left PYC in 2005- 06, 8 who left in 2004-05, and 8 who left in 2003-04. The second group is made up of all the students who have responded to the survey in their first year after leaving PYC through the three years of the study. Highlights of the results from both groups are summarized below. Year 3 Survey Participants (N=25; 2003-04 cohort n=8, 2004-05 cohort n=8, 2005-06 cohort n=9): • Sixty-four percent of respondents were female. • Fifty-six percent were PYC graduates, 16 percent dropped out of school, 12 percent transferred, and 16 percent left PYC for some other reason. • Thirty-two percent were attending or had attended a college or technical school. • Forty percent were not employed, 32 percent were employed part-time, 28 percent were employed full-time. • In the past year, 48 percent had held one to two jobs, 16 percent had not had a job in the past year, 12 percent had held three to four jobs, and 4 percent had held five or more jobs (8 percent did not answer the question). • Sixty percent of respondents did not have children, 36 percent had one child, and 4 percent had two or more children. First Year Post-PYC Participants (N=34; Year 1 n=18, Year 2 n=7, Year 3 n=9): • Fifty-nine percent of respondents were female. • Fifty-six percent were PYC graduates, 20 percent transferred, 15 percent dropped out, and 9 percent left PYC for some other reason. • Fifty-nine percent had graduated from high school. • Twenty-six percent were attending or had attended college or technical school. • In their first year out of PYC, 50 percent were not employed, 27 percent were employed full-time, and 24 percent were employed part-time. • In their first year after leaving PYC, 71 percent had held one to two jobs, 21 percent had not had a job, and 9 percent had held 3 to 4 jobs. • Eighty percent did not have a child, and 20 percent of first-year respondents were parents of one child. • Forty-seven percent felt PYC prepared them well for employment, 41 percent felt PYC prepared them somewhat well, and 12 percent felt PYC prepared them extremely well for employment. 3 INTRODUCTION This is the third annual report for the Plymouth Youth Center (PYC) Longitudinal Study. The purpose of this study is to track the long-term educational and vocational patterns of PYC high school students. In this report, data on education and employment trends and feedback regarding PYC’s role in preparing students for their futures are summarized from two groups: first, the 25 students who participated in the survey this year; and second, the 34 students who have participated in the survey during their first year after leaving PYC over the three years of collecting survey data. RESEARCH METHODS The PYC Longitudinal Study is intended to answer the following research questions. After exiting PYC: 1. Are former students employed in stable jobs that meet their financial needs and career goals? 2. What is the level and type of educational attainment achieved? 3. How does former students’ actual educational attainment fit with, or complement, their educational and employment goals? 4. From the students’ perspectives, which PYC experiences, opportunities, relationships, courses, or other factors were important in preparing them for embarking on their educational and employment goals? Design. This study consists of a prospective longitudinal design. Initially, it was decided that all PYC high school students who exit the school from years 2002-2006 would be invited to participate in the study. A decision was later made to change the design slightly, so that students will now be enrolled for the foreseeable future, with no set end date for survey recruitment. Participants will be followed for up to 15 years post-exit. By continuing to enroll students indefinitely, PYC will now be able to study the change in student outcomes over time, rather than simply studying outcomes from a snapshot in time (2002-2006). Sampling. To date, all PYC high school students (grade 9-12) enrolled during academic years 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, and 2006-07 were invited to participate in the study.1 Students who were 18 or over consented to their own participation; students under age 18 signed an assent form and obtained the consent of a parent or guardian. The sampling method excluded students who were enrolled in the junior high or any student 1 When the surveys were sent out to the 2002-03 students the year after they had left PYC, the consents were also mailed along with the surveys. Therefore, no survey data was collected in 2003-04, and 2004-05 became Year 1 of the study. Because contact has since been lost with all of the students who were activated in 2003-04 and it has been four years since their last communication with PYC, a decision was made to strike these students from the eligibility list. For now, their names still appear on the Survey Enrollment master list with a line through the middle to indicate that they are no longer considered participants in the study. See Decisions Made document for a list of these students. 4 who had a record of violence and might pose a potential risk to involved researchers or PYC employees. Students who remained in PYC for fewer than 24 weeks were not followed over time. Data Collection. Data was collected using a mailed survey. Mailed surveys were distributed three times between the fall of 2006 and the early winter of 2007. Some data was also collected from school records. The Sample. Seventy-five surveys were mailed out in the fall of 2006. Of these, 25 were sent to third year (2003-04 cohort) participants, 24 were sent to second year (2004-05 cohort) participants, and 26 were sent to first year (2005-06 cohort) participants. Due to changes in personnel, the number of surveys returned to sender from the 2003-04 and 2004-05 cohorts could not be calculated for the Year 3 mailing because the records did not show which surveys did not reach participants this year (i.e. which surveys were returned to sender from the Year 3 mailing). Overall, the first year participants had the highest response rate. The total response rate of 37% was slightly higher than the Years 1 and 2 response rates (33% and 32%, respectively). Table 1. Year 3 Survey Response Rate, by Cohort. 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 Total Surveys mailed (n) 26 24 25 75 RTS (n) Unknown Unknown 3 Unknown Reached participants (n) Unknown Unknown 22 Unknown Number completed (n) 10 8 10 28 Response rate for all mailed (%) 38 33 40 37 Response rate for reaching participants (%) Unknown Unknown 45 Unknown 5 PART ONE: YEAR 3 PARTICIPANTS This section will describe the results from the 2006-07 survey, by cohort. In total, 28 surveys were completed by participants this year, but three of these were excluded from the data due to incomplete or missing consent forms. Of the 25 usable returned surveys, 5 were returned after the first mailing, 17 were returned after the second mailing, and 3 were returned after the third mailing. Ten of the surveys were completed by former students who have been out of PYC for one year (2005-06 cohort). Eight were completed by students who have been out for two years (2004-05 cohort); 62.5 percent of these were repeat participants, meaning they had also completed the survey the year before. Ten surveys were completed by former students who have been out for three years (2003-04 cohort); 70 percent of these were participants who have participated three years, 20 percent had participated two years, and 10 percent were first-time respondents. 1. Respondent Demographics Table 2. 2006-07 Survey Respondent Demographics, by Cohort 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 Year 3 Total Sample size (n) * 8 8 9 25 Gender (%) Male 12.5 50.0 44.4 36.0 Female 87.5 50.0 55.6 64.0 Relationship Status (%) Single 62.5 87.5 55.6 68.0 Married 12.5 12.5 0 8.0 Living with partner 25.0 0 22.2 16.0 No response 0 0 22.2 8.0 Parenthood Status (%) No children 37.5 62.5 77.8 60.0 1 child 50.0 37.5 22.2 36.0 2+ children 12.5 0 0 4.0 Expecting Child (%) No 87.5 100.0 88.9 92.0 First child 0 0 0 0 Second child 12.5 0 11.1 8.0 * The sample size (n) for the 2003-04 and the 2005-06 cohorts differ here from Table 1 because three students’ responses were excluded from the data due to incomplete consent forms. 6 2. Educational Status and Goals Table 3. Reasons Why Respondents Left PYC, by Cohort. 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 Year 3 Total Sample (n) 8 8 9 25 Graduated from PYC (%) 87.5 37.5 44.4 56.0 Transferred to neighborhood school (%) 12.5 12.5 11.1 12.0 Entered Juvenile Justice Program (%) 0 0 0 0 Dropped out of school (%) 0 25.0 22.2 16.0 Other (%) 0 25.0 22.2 16.0 How many respondents graduated from high school? Of the 25 former students who responded to the Year 3 survey, 68% had graduated from high school. One-hundred percent of respondents from the 2003-04 cohort had graduated (n=8), 62.5% from the 2004-05 cohort (n=8), and 44.4% from the 2005-06 cohort (n=9). What happened to respondents who left PYC without graduating? In the 2005-06 cohort, five of the nine respondents had not graduated from high school. Of these five, three were still attending either middle school or high school. The other two had dropped out of PYC and did not report attending school or taking GED classes. Of the three who did not graduate from the 2004-05 cohort, one had completed the credits to graduate but did not pass the Basic Skills Test, but the other two had dropped out of PYC and did not report attending school or taking GED classes. What happened to respondents in terms of higher education? Of the 25 former students who responded to the Year 3 survey, 32% were attending or had attended a college or technical school. From the 2003-04 cohort, 62.5% of respondents went on to some kind of higher education (n=8). From the 2004-05 cohort, 37.5% were attending or had attended college or technical school. No one from the 2005- 06 cohort had received any higher education. It makes sense that the 2003-04 cohort had the highest percentage of students embarking on college or technical school, because they have been out of PYC for three years, verses two years for the 2004-05 cohort and only one year for the 2005-06 cohort. Respondents who have been out of PYC for a longer time are significantly more likely to attend college or technical school than respondents who have been out a shorter amount of time. This makes intuitive sense, but is also likely somewhat influenced by a self- selection bias in who continues to respond to the survey over time: former students who experience greater success are probably more likely to continue responding to the survey than students who experience a lesser level of academic success. 7 Respondents who are attending a technical school or college were attending the following schools for the following programs: Ridgewater General (Liberal Arts) Minnesota School of Business Paralegal Technical college Machines University of Phoenix Graphic design Kilian Community College Accounting High Tech MA North Hennepin Criminology MCTC Medical Office Assistant None of the respondents to the Year 3 survey had already received an Associate Degree or a certificate, but 25 percent of respondents from both the 2003-04 and 2004-05 cohorts named a concrete date when they expect to complete their degree or certificate. How many respondents who are in school are also working? Of the three cohorts responding to the Year 3 survey, 8 former students were attending college or technical school. Seventy-five percent of those 8 were also employed, meaning they are attending school and working at the same time. What are the respondents’ goals for higher education in the next five years? Five years from now, 36 percent of the 25 respondents believe they will have obtained a college or associate’s degree and will be working. Twenty-eight percent hope to be attending some kind of higher education program. Eight percent said they are not sure where they see themselves in terms of education five years from now. Another eight percent hope to get a bachelor’s degree and go on for more education. Four percent believe they will be working, but not in school. Four percent believe they will be working and in school. Four percent hope to complete high school, and four percent hope to complete high school and then go on to college. Four percent of respondents offered no answer to this question. See Appendix 1 for a detailed list of participant’s exact responses, by cohort. 3. Employment Status and Goals Table 4. Current Employment Status, by Cohort. 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 Year 3 Total Sample (n) 8 8 9 25 Full-time employed (%) 50.0 25.0 11.1 28.0 Part-time employed (%) 25.0 37.5 33.3 32.0 Not employed (%) 25.0 37.5 55.6 40.0 8 What types of jobs did respondents have? Respondents who were employed had the following jobs: • Ship out lenses • Walgreens, Target (2) • Cashier/helper • Food prep • Machine operator • Security guard • North Oaks • Medical assembly (2) • Assembly • Hotel cashier • Jiffy Lube Are respondents satisfied with their work hours? Overall, of the respondents currently employed, 60% of respondents currently employed (9 of 15) were satisfied with the amount of hours they were working. 33.3% reported (5 of 15 total employed) wanting more hours. 80% of the respondents who want more hours are currently working part time (4 of 5). How many respondents who are employed also attend college or a technical school? Of the 15 respondents in Year 3 who were currently employed, 40% were attending college or technical school in addition to working. From the 2003-04 cohort, 66.7% of the employed respondents were also in school (4 of 6). From the 2004-05 cohort, 40% of employed respondents were also in school (2 of 5). Four respondents in the 2005-06 cohort were employed, but none were attending school. How stable was respondents’ employment? Table 5. Number of Jobs in the Last Year, by Cohort. 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 Year 3 Total Sample (n) 8 8 9 25 No jobs (%) 12.5 0 33.3 16.0 1-2 jobs (%) 25.0 87.5 66.7 48.0 3-4 jobs (%) 37.5 0 0 12.0 5 or more jobs (%) 12.5 0 0 4.0 No answer 12.5 12.5 0 8.0 Where did respondents see themselves in the next five years in terms of employment? Sixty percent of the 25 respondents identified concrete career goals for themselves in the next five years. Another 32 percent offered vague goals, and 8 percent said they are not 9 sure where they see themselves in terms of employment in five years. See Appendix 2 for a detailed list of participant’s exact responses, by cohort. 10 PART TWO: FIRST YEAR POST-PYC PARTICIPANTS This section discusses what we know about what happens to former students in their first year after leaving PYC, based on the data collected in three years of surveys. Sample. In Year 1 of the survey (2004-05), 18 former students responded to the survey in their first year post-PYC. In Year 2 (2005-06), 7 responded. In Year 3 (2006-07), 9 responded. There could be many reasons why the number of respondents was lower in Years 2 and 3 than in Year 1, such as differences in the way the survey was administered or changes in the school that affected student satisfaction for particular cohorts. PYC staff would likely offer the best insight into what was different about Years 2 and 3 than Year 1 that might have affected survey participation. 1. Respondent Demographics Table 6. First-year Survey Respondents’ Demographics, by Survey Year Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Years 1-3 Sample size (n) 18 7 9 34 Gender (%) Male 27.8 71.4 44.4 41.2 Female 72.2 5.9 55.6 58.8 Relationship Status (%) Single 55.6 57.1 55.6 55.9 Married 5.6 0 0 2.9 Living with partner 33.3 42.9 22.2 32.4 No response 5.6 0 22.2 8.8 Parenthood Status (%) No children 77.8 85.7 77.8 79.4 1 child 22.2 14.3 22.2 20.6 Expecting Child (%) No 66.7 100.0 88.9 79.4 Yes 22.2 0 11.1 14.7 No answer 11.1 0 0 5.9 11 2. Educational Status and Goals Table 7. Reasons Why First-Year Respondents Left PYC, by Survey Year. Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Years 1-3 Sample (n) 18 7 9 34 Graduated from PYC (%) 66.7 42.9 44.4 55.9 Transferred to neighborhood school (%) 27.8 14.3 11.1 20.6 Entered Juvenile Justice Program (%) 0 0 0 0 Dropped out of school (%) 5.6 28.6 22.2 14.7 Other (%) 0 14.3 22.2 8.8 How many respondents had graduated from high school one year after leaving PYC? Two-thirds of the 18 respondents in Year 1 had graduated from high school by the time they were out of PYC for a year. This Year 1 graduation rate of 66.7% was highest graduation rate of data collected from first-year respondents in the three years of surveying former students. The Year 2 first-year respondents had a graduation rate of 57.1% (n=7), and the Year 3 first-year respondents had a graduation rate of 44.4% (n=9). How many respondents were attending or had attended college or technical school one year after leaving PYC? In Year 1 of the survey, 38.9% of first-year respondents (n=18) were attending or had attended college or technical school after leaving PYC. In Year 2, the percentage was lower at 28.6% (n=7). In Year 3, no first-year respondents were attending or had attended college or technical school after leaving PYC (n=9). 3. Employment Status and Goals How many respondents were employed one year after leaving PYC? Table 8. Employment Status in the First Year after Leaving PYC, by Survey Year. Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Years 1-3 Sample (n) 18 7 9 34 Full-time employed (%) 27.8 42.9 11.1 26.5 Part-time employed (%) 27.8 0 3 23.5 Not employed (%) 44.4 57.1 55.6 50.0 12 How stable was respondents’ employment in the first year after leaving PYC? Table 9. Number of Jobs in the First Year after Leaving PYC, by Survey Year. Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Years 1-3 Sample (n) 18 7 9 34 No jobs (%) 16.7 14.3 33.3 20.6 1-2 jobs (%) 72.2 71.4 66.7 70.6 3-4 jobs (%) 11.1 14.3 0 8.8 What do respondents do if they are not employed? Over three years of surveys, 50% of respondents (n=34) were unemployed in their first year out of PYC. Of those 17 who were unemployed, 3 were attending college or technical school, and these 3 were all from the first year survey. Eighty-eight percent of the unemployed students were looking for employment. 4. What Happens to Respondents with Children? Of the 34 former students who have responded to the survey in their first year after leaving PYC, about 21 percent were parents. This section focuses on describing the experiences of this particular group of former students, and how their experience compares to the first year post-PYC experience of former students who do not have children. What is their relationship status? Table 10. Relationship Status of First-Year Survey Respondents with Children, by Survey Year. Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Years 1-3 Sample size (n) 4 1 2 7 Relationship Status (%) Single 25.0 0 0 14.3 Married 25.0 0 0 14.3 Living with partner 25.0 100.0 100.0 57.1 No response 25.0 0 0 14.3 How many graduate from high school? In Year 1 of the survey, 75 percent of respondents with children graduated from high school. In Year 2, the one respondent with a child did graduate. In Year 3, 50 percent of respondents with a child graduated from high school. Statistical tests showed that 13 there is no significant difference in high school graduation rates between respondents with children and respondents without children. How many are attending college or technical school? In Year 1, 25 percent of respondents with children were attending college or technical school. In Year 2, the one respondent with a child was not attending college. In Year 3, none of the respondents with or without children were attending college or technical school. Statistical tests showed that there is no significant difference between respondents with children and respondents without children in the rates of attending college or technical school. How many are employed? In Year 1, 75 percent of respondents with children were employed. In Year 2, the respondent with a child was not employed. In Year 3, half of the respondents with children were employed. Statistical tests showed that there is no significant difference in rates of employment between respondents with children and respondents without. 5. Feedback about PYC Experience The survey sent out to participants in their first and fifth year after leaving PYC differs from the survey sent out other years because it asks students a few questions regarding how well PYC prepared them for higher education and employment. This section is an overview of the feedback received through the three years of data collected from former students in their first year out of PYC. Did former students believe that PYC prepared them for employment? The good news in answer to this question is that over half of respondents have said that PYC prepared them “well” or “extremely well” for employment. The less encouraging news is the apparent drop in student satisfaction between Year 1 and Year 2 of the survey. Since Year 1, no student has stated that PYC prepared them “extremely well.” Since no student has ever chosen “not at all” as a response to this question, the answer “somewhat well” can be taken as a baseline for lowest level of student satisfaction. Year 2 of the survey stands out because over 70 percent of students who responded that year believed that PYC prepared them at this lowest level. This apparent drop in student satisfaction since 2004-05 may also offer some insight into the lower survey response rate since that first year of the survey. In Year 1, 18 former students participated in their first year out. In Year 2, the year when 70 percent felt PYC prepared them “somewhat well,” only 7 participated in the survey. Nine students participated in Year 3 – still only half the number that participated the first year. PYC staff would likely offer the best insight into why student satisfaction levels decreased in Years 2 and 3 of the survey, and whether or not changes should be made in order to increase satisfaction back to the Year 1 level. 14 Table 11. How Well Respondents Felt PYC Prepared them for Employment, by Survey Year. Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Years 1-3 Sample (n) 18 7 9 34 Prepared (%): Somewhat well 27.8 71.4 44.4 41.2 Well 50.0 28.6 55.6 47.1 Extremely well 22.2 0 0 11.8 Figure 1. Change in Preparedness Responses Over Time. Year 3 (2006-07) Year 2 (2005-06) Year 1 (2004-05) 10 8 6 4 2 0 Count Extremely well Well Somewhat well Prepared Survey Year What aspects of PYC did respondents consider most helpful in preparing them for employment? According to the Plymouth Youth Center Longitudinal Study Year 1 Report, written in the spring of 2005, 16 of the 19 respondents listed aspects of their PYC experience that helped to prepare them for future employment. The response theme mentioned most frequently (n=6) was specific classes and training programs, such as pre-employment or 15 career class. Next, 3 students felt that learning how to be responsible and to show up was their best preparation. In addition, 2 students mentioned that educational credits helped to prepare them for employment, 2 students mentioned specific educational skills gained (such as math), and 2 students listed adult support and caring. According to the Plymouth Youth Center Longitudinal Study Year 2 Report, written in August 2006, five respondents listed aspects of their PYC experience that helped to prepare them for future employment. Responses included: career day; people skills; Melissa’s classes; basic skills; and pre-employment classes. In the Year 3 survey, eight respondents answered this question about the most helpful aspects of PYC in preparing them for employment.The response theme mentioned most frequently was education. These responses included: “education” and “everything schoolwise” (2); general classes and math class (1); speech therapist (1); reading (1); and English study classes (1). Another common theme was career preparation activities, including: group leaders helping students prepare resumes and cover letters (1); job searching (1); “the job thing I did” (1); and “experiences with other jobs” (1). Additionally, one student mentioned “presenting yourself and communication” as helpful in preparing him or her for employment. What aspects of PYC did respondents consider least helpful in preparing them for employment? According to the Plymouth Youth Center Longitudinal Study Year 1 Report, only 10 of the 19 students responded to this question. Of those 10 students, 5 said, “nothing.” This is not a surprising result given that all of the students felt that PYC prepared them somewhat for employment. What the 6 students considered least helpful was “no programs in job searching” (1), “science” (1), “when a teacher sends you home” (1), “no training offered” (1) and “when a specific staff left (1). According to the Plymouth Youth Center Longitudinal Study Year 2 Report, only 4 students had suggestions about what was least helpful. They suggested: I was already experienced; I was not fully prepared; students yelled too much; and “you don’t write papers in a job.” In the Year 3 survey, seven respondents answered this question about the least helpful aspects of PYC in preparing them for employment. Two students said “nothing” was least helpful because, as one wrote, “throughout the year that I’ve spent at PYC I learned lots of new things that were very helpful.” Two students mentioned gym as least helpful in preparing them for employment, but one qualified this by saying it “helped my health.” Other responses, such as “waking up early,” were unclear or did not fall into a specific category. 16 What other things about PYC made a difference to the respondents? Year 1 Report: “17 of the 19 respondents answered this question. Of the responses received, by far the respondents agreed that it was the teachers who made a difference for them (mentioned by 9/17 respondents) – including their caring, their persistence, and their having fun with the students. Aside from the teachers, 4 students mentioned specific courses as making a difference to them, such as math and senior prep. Finally, 2 students felt that just ‘showing up’ made a difference for them, 1 student mentioned ‘learning to work with others,’ and 1 mentioned the opportunity to plan a course.” Year 2 Report: “Four students offered a response to this question. These responses included: Having teachers that care; learning how to act socially; having a small, nurturing environment; learning how to work with others.” In the Year 3 survey, 8 of the 9 respondents answered this question. Two students mentioned the teachers, 1 student mentioned the flexibility and options offered by PYC, 1 said buscards, 1 said the after school program in journalism, 1 said men’s group,1 said English class, and 1 said “nothing at all.” 17 DISCUSSION Methodology. After three years of collecting survey data, this study still has a low sample rate and a relatively low response rate for mailed surveys. Therefore, it would be useful to review the recommendation made in the Year Two Report to consider adding a phone survey or email survey as an additional way to reach former students. The extra work involved in this would payoff by allowing for more conclusive and therefore more broadly applicable results from the data. Significant Findings. Statistical tests were run on the survey data to point out any statistically significant findings, but very few correlations proved to be significant. In fact, only the intuitive finding that the longer respondents are out of PYC, the more likely they are to attend college or technical school was statistically significant. However, some correlations, especially those about former students who have children, were interesting precisely because they were not significant. There was no significant difference between survey respondents who have children and those who do not in terms of high school graduation rates, higher education attendance rates, or employment rates. Although not statistically significant, another finding worth considering was the change over time in answers to the question, “How prepared for employment were you when you left PYC.” The number of students who felt PYC prepared them well or extremely well, decreased greatly from the Year 1 survey to the Year 2 survey. Responses came up in Year 3, but overall satisfaction levels with employment readiness have not yet returned to the Year 1 levels. This apparent drop in student satisfaction since the first year of the survey may also offer some insight into the lower survey response rate since that first year. Students who feel greater dissatisfaction about their PYC experience will probably be less likely to participate in the survey after they leave the school. Recommendations. In order to glean as much value from this unique longitudinal study as possible, PYC staff should review the findings and discussion sections from previous study reports, as well as the recommendations memo prepared in the summer of 2007. 18 Appendix 1. Education Goals Responses, by Cohort. Five years from now, where do you see yourself in terms of education? 2003-04 “Out of school starting my career” “In five years I plan on having my associates degree and working towards my bachelors.” “Graduated from my online courses with an Associate degree and living outside of MN.” “master in Nursing” “Still in school. It's a long program plus I took time off.” “Going back for my hair license and having my own shop.” “I will be starting college this year in about 2 to 3 years I will be helping the poor.” “Not sure yet.” 2004-05 (no answer) “I really want to go back and get a GED but right now I'm just working trying to make money. I plan to go back real SOON.” “Attending MCTC.” “As a Teacher, married owning my own home.” “Graduate from college and working” “Maybe pursue something in dentistry” “I'm not sure where I'll be but for now I'm just heading out to work. I want to go for Architect. Of I don't know of how many years I want to do, and a program related to Radiology (ultrasound person) maybe a 2 yr. of that. That's all for my plan. And if not maybe work myself up to buy a house.” “Having an Associate's in Paralegal field.” 2005-06 “In the U of M graduated” “I am not sure.” “I am planning to go to college this coming fall. I might go to North Hennepin Community College, and I am planning to study in the law enforcement program.” “Hopefully having a good job.” “Finishing my general year and hoping to attend my major as a chef.” “Out of school and working” “I would go back to college in spring of 2007, go to a culinary school and after that go to get general studies and later go to medical school.” “technical college as a freshman” “Complete high school and go to college” 19 Appendix 2. Employment Goals Responses, by Cohort Five years from now, where do you see yourself in terms of employment or a career? 2003-04 “Working on my career” “In five years I plan on working as an accountant for a company in South Dakota or Minnesota.” “Owning my own job.” “working in a hospital” “Hopefully doing an internship somewhere because I think I'll still be in school. I really don't know.” “Well I am starting up a daycare with the church and I am a housewife.” “helping the homeless someway” “Mechanic, Technician” 2004-05 “Maybe a machinist” “Well when I plan to go back to school for GED. Then maybe try out a two-year college.” “In the Army National Guard or the Navy.” “Working as a Teacher.” “starting off” “Work for at least 3 years and climb up to the top.” “same as what I've said on #5 [I'm not sure where I'll be but for now I'm just heading out to work. I want to go for Architect. Of I don't know of how many years I want to do, and a program related to Radiology (ultrasound person) maybe a 2 yr. of that. That's all for my plan. And if not maybe work myself up to buy a house.]” “Being in the paralegal field.” 2005-06 “Playing for NBA” “I'm not sure.” “Hopefully I will be a security or officer. Maybe even a state patrol.” “Having a good job. Going back to high school or getting my GED.” “Starting my training in becoming a chef and a night training in bartending class.” “RN/Nursing” “I want to own a restaurant of my own as well as become very educated in the medical field.” “Walmart or Target” “not sure yet.” 20