A structured, intentional pilot designed to help Santa Ana evaluate Compass as a community-led tool — not a sales demo, but a Santa Ana-led review process to determine whether Compass can be useful, safe, appropriate, and worth customizing for Phase 2.
Opening Compass to 125 users all at once would generate noise, not insight. Instead, dividing users into intentional, role-based groups allows Santa Ana to see how Compass supports different parts of the community — and produces data that is genuinely useful for Phase 2 planning.
The difference is profound: rather than simply collecting "number of users," this approach collects role-based feedback that illuminates who finds Compass useful, in what situations, and what customization is needed. Each group has a distinct purpose, a distinct set of use cases, and a distinct set of questions to answer.
125 users activate Compass. You learn how many logged in. Limited insight for planning.
5 intentional cohorts. You learn who benefits, how, and what needs to be built next.
Each of the five groups represents a distinct community role and a distinct set of evaluation questions. Together, they give Santa Ana a complete, multi-perspective picture of Compass's potential.
Decision-makers evaluate the tool's tone, limitations, possibilities, and appropriateness. They set the standard for what Compass may and may not do in a Santa Ana context.
Adults who work directly with youth assess whether Compass could help students reflect, regulate emotions, set goals, and connect to support systems and trusted adults.
With explicit Santa Ana approval, observe how young people naturally engage with Compass and what support themes emerge organically from their interactions.
Evaluate whether Compass could support family conversations, student motivation, stress management, and overall readiness from the family perspective.
Test whether Compass could support career confidence, goal-setting, communication skills, and readiness for WIOA / INA or healthcare-related pathways.
At Archer, the strength was that students used Compass voluntarily and produced meaningful engagement. The data speaks for itself:
The key Archer question was simply: "Will students actually use this?"
Santa Ana's pilot should go deeper. These questions will generate the planning intelligence needed for a truly customized Phase 2:
These questions connect directly to the Designer Compass phase, where Santa Ana-specific customization begins.
Telling users to simply "try Compass" produces shallow data. Instead, each group receives simple, targeted use cases that connect to real situations in their lives and roles. This ensures that feedback is grounded, specific, and directly useful for Phase 2 planning.
All Phase 1 data collection should be aggregate, non-identifying, and planning-focused — consistent with the commitment to protect youth data, respect Tribal data sovereignty, and default to aggregate themes rather than identifiable student records. These five categories will build the evidence base for Phase 2 design.
How many users activated access? How many returned for a second session? How many total sessions occurred? How long were conversations? Which features were used most frequently?
What general themes emerged in conversations? Categories include: stress, confidence, conflict, school motivation, family communication, career planning, goal-setting, emotional regulation, and trusted adult support.
What did users like? What felt unclear, unhelpful, or confusing? What felt genuinely useful? What felt inappropriate for the Santa Ana context? What would need to change before a Santa Ana-specific version could be launched?
What should Compass not say in this context? What should it not collect? When should it direct a student to a trusted adult? What resources should only be Santa Ana-approved before appearing in Compass?
What pathways should be built next? Options include: youth readiness, family support, workforce readiness, healthcare career awareness, staff support, and Promise Neighborhoods evidence-building.
A structured, phased rollout ensures that each step builds on the last — moving from orientation and guided use through community review, customization mapping, and a final decision meeting. No step is skipped, and Santa Ana leads throughout.
This timeline maps directly onto the existing Phase 1 plan, with Compass access beginning at the start and the usage summary developed continuously through the planning period — ensuring the decision meeting is supported by real evidence, not impressions.
Santa Ana identifies 125 users or an intentional smaller starting group. RISE sets up access, provides a short orientation, explains what Standard Compass is and is not, and gives each group 3–5 suggested ways to try it. Clear expectations are set from day one.
Users engage with Compass naturally and through suggested scenarios matched to their role. RISE monitors basic usage patterns, collects early feedback, and begins noting common themes. No identifiable data is collected at this stage.
Santa Ana leads a structured review: What worked? What did not? What felt useful and appropriate? What should be changed? What should never be included in a Santa Ana version? This session drives the customization mapping phase.
Feedback is translated into concrete Phase 2 pathway options: youth readiness, family support, staff support, WIOA / INA readiness, healthcare career-readiness, and Promise Neighborhoods evidence-building. Santa Ana priorities shape every pathway decision.
RISE creates the Compass Access & Usage Summary: aggregate usage, feedback themes, recommended changes, privacy considerations, and Phase 2 customization priorities. Santa Ana reviews findings and decides: move into a customized pilot, continue planning, or pause until funding is secured.
It is essential that all participants understand the scope of Standard Compass from the outset. Phase 1 uses a guided-access version of Compass that delivers core SEAL capabilities without any Santa Ana-specific customization — those deeper elements are developed only after Santa Ana approves them in Phase 2.
"For Phase 1, we would not simply open Compass and hope people use it. We would treat the 125-user access as a structured learning period. Santa Ana would help identify the right users, RISE would provide onboarding and support, and we would collect only aggregate usage patterns, feedback themes, and customization recommendations. The goal is to help Santa Ana decide what a Phase 2 customized Compass pilot should include — and what it should not include."
This framing matters. The 125-user access period is not a product demonstration or a sales exercise. It is a community-led evaluation process — one in which Santa Ana sets the terms, defines the boundaries, and makes the final decisions about what Compass should become in their community.
Every piece of feedback and usage data is directly tied to building a better Phase 2 — nothing is collected for its own sake.
Tribal data sovereignty, youth privacy, and community boundaries are protected from day one. Aggregate, non-identifying data only.
The process ends with a clear decision: move to Phase 2, continue planning, or pause. Santa Ana has the evidence and the authority to choose.
125-User Guided Access Model