Community Action Plan

Transcription

1 Community Action Plan California Department of Community Services and Development Community Services Block Grant

2 PURPOSE The Community Action Plan (CAP) serves as a two (2) year roadmap demonstrating how Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) eligible entities plan to deliver CSBG services. The CAP identifies and assesses poverty related needs and resources in the community and establishes a detailed plan, goals and priorities for delivering those services to individuals and families most affected by poverty. CSBG funds may be used to support activities that assist low-income families and individuals, homeless families and individuals, migrant or seasonal farm workers and elderly low-income individuals and families by removing obstacles and solving problems that block the achievement of self sufficiency. Community Action Plans must adhere to the following federal and state laws: COMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL LAW To comply with the Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) Act, Public Law , Section 676b (11) eligible entities must complete a Community Action Plan (CAP), as a condition to receive funding through a Community Services Block Grant. Federal law mandates the eligible entities to include a community needs assessment in the CAP for the community served. COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW To comply with California Government Code pertaining to the Community Services Block Grant Program, Community Action Plans are to be developed using processes that assess poverty-related needs, available resources, feasible goals and strategies, and that yield program priorities consistent with standards of effectiveness established for the CSBG program. The CAP should identify eligible activities to be funded in the program service areas and the needs that each activity is designed to meet. Additionally, CAPs should provide for the contingency of reduced federal funding. COMPLIANCE WITH CSBG ORGANIZATIONAL STANDARDS As described in the Office of Community Services (OCS) Information Memorandum (IM) #138 dated January 26, 2015, CSBG eligible entities will comply with implementation of the Organizational Standards. Compliance with Organizational Standards will be reported to OCS on an annual basis via the CSBG Annual report. In the section below, CSD has identified the Organizational Standards that provide guidance for the development of a comprehensive community needs assessment. CAP responses should reflect compliance with the Organizational Standards and demonstrate a thorough understanding of the Organizational Standards throughout the development of a comprehensive community needs assessment.

3 CONSUMER INPUT AND INVOLVEMENT Standard 1.1 The organization/department demonstrates low-income individuals participation in its activities. Standard 1.2 organization/department analyzes information collected directly from low-income individuals as part of the community assessment. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT Standard 2.2: The organization/department utilizes information gathered from key sectors of the community in assessing needs and resources, during the community assessment process or other times. This sector would include at minimum: community-based organizations, faithbased organizations, private sector, public sector, and educational institutions. COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT Private Agency - Standard 3.1: Organization conducted a community assessment and issued a report within the past 3 year period. Public Agency - Standard 3.1: Department conducted a community assessment and issued a report within the past 3 year period, if no other report exists. Standard 3.2: As part of the community assessment the organization/department collects and analyzes both current data specific to poverty and its prevalence related to gender, age, and race/ethnicity for their service area(s). Standard 3.3: Organization/department collects and analyzes both qualitative and quantitative data on its geographic service area(s) in the community assessment. Standard 3.4: The community assessment includes key findings on the causes and conditions of poverty and the needs of the communities assessed. Standard 3.5: The governing board or tripartite board/advisory body formally accepts the completed community assessment. Standard 4.2: The organization s/department s Community Action plan is outcome-based, antipoverty focused, and ties directly to the community assessment. Standard 4.3: The organization s /department s Community Action Plan and strategic plan document the continuous use of the full Results Oriented Management and Accountability (ROMA) cycle.

4 STRATEGIC PLANNING Private Agency Standard 6.4: Customer satisfaction data and customer input, collected as part of the community assessment, is included in the strategic planning process. Public Agency Standard 6.4: Customer satisfaction data and customer input, collected as part of the community assessment, is included in the strategic planning process, or comparable planning process. STATE PLAN AND APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS As required by the CSBG Act, Public Law , states are required to submit a state plan as a condition to receive funding. Information provided in the CAP by eligible entities is included in CSDs biennial State Plan and Application.

5 State of California Department of Community Services and Development CSBG Community Action Plan CSD 410--Version (01/17) COMMUNITY SERVICES BLOCK GRANT 2018/2019 PROGRAM YEAR COMMUNITY ACTION PLAN COVER PAGE AND CERTIFICATION TO: FROM: Department of Community Services and Development Attention: Field Operations Unit 2389 Gateway Oaks Drive #100 Sacramento, CA Poncho Guevara Agency Contact Person Regarding Community Action Plan Name: Poncho Guevara Title: Executive Director Phone: Ext: Fax: CERTIFICATION OF COMMUNITY ACTION PLAN AND ASSURANCES The undersigned hereby certifies that this agency complies with the Assurances and Requirements of this 2018/2019 Community Action Plan and the information in this CAP is correct and has been authorized by the governing body of this organization. Board Chairperson Date Executive Director Date 1

6 TABLE OF CONTENTS The CAP is to be arranged in the order below. Please include the appropriate page numbers for reference. Additional attachments are to be added as appendices. (Insert Page Numbers) Cover Page and Certification Checklist Vision Statement Mission Statement Comprehensive Community Needs Assessment Documentation of Public Hearing(s) Federal Assurances State Assurances Individual and Community Eligibility Requirements Monitoring and Evaluation Data Collection Appendices (Optional)

7 Community Action Plan Checklist The following is a check list of the components to be included in the CAP. The CAP is to be received by CSD no later than June 30, 2017: Cover Page and Certification Table of Contents Vision Statement Mission Statement Comprehensive Community Needs Assessment Documentation of Public Hearing(s) Federal Assurances State Assurances Individual and Community Eligibility Requirements Monitoring and Evaluation Data Collection Appendices (Optional) 3

8 VISION STATEMENT Provide your agency s Vision Statement which describes your agency s values. The vision is broader than any one agency can achieve; the agency collaborates with others in pursuit of this vision. The vision of Sacred Heart Community Service is a community united to ensure that every child and adult is free from poverty. MISSION STATEMENT The Mission Statement describes the agency s reason for existence and may state its role in achieving its vision. Organizational Standard 4.1 references the Mission Statement for private and public entities: Private Entities The governing board has reviewed the organization s mission statement within the past 5 years and assured that: 1. The mission addresses poverty; and 2. The organization s programs and services are in alignment with the mission. Public Entities The tripartite board/advisory body has reviewed the department s mission statement within the past 5 years and assured that: 1. The mission addresses poverty; and 2. The CSBG programs and services are in alignment with the mission. Provide your agency s Mission Statement Mission Statement (Insert Statement) Sacred Heart Community Service s mission is to build a community free from poverty by creating hope, opportunity, and action. We provide essential services, work together to improve our lives, advocate for justice, and inspire our community to love, serve, and share. 4

9 COMPREHENSIVE COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT Public law requires the state to secure from each eligible entity, as a condition to receive funding, a CAP which includes a community-needs assessment for the community served. Additionally, state law requires each CSBG eligible entity to develop a CAP that assess poverty-related needs, available resources, feasible goals and strategies, and that yields program priorities consistent with standards of effectiveness established for the program (California Government Code 12747(a)). The Community Needs Assessment captures the problems and conditions of poverty in the agency s service area based on objective, verifiable data and information gathered through various sources. Identified problems and conditions must be substantiated by corroboration through public forums, customer questionnaires, surveys, statistical data, evaluation studies, key informants, and/or other reliable sources. The Community Needs Assessment should be comprehensive and serve as the basis for the agency s goals, and program delivery strategies. The Community Needs Assessment should describe local poverty-related needs and be used to prioritize eligible activities offered to low-income community members over the next two (2) years. As a part of the Community Needs Assessment process, each organization will analyze both qualitative and quantitative data to provide a comprehensive picture of their service area. To assist the collection of quantitative data, CSD has provided a link to a data dashboard including instructions and a data dictionary. The link gives agencies access to data for every county in the state. The dashboard can be accessed by clicking on the link or copying and pasting the link in your browser. This data can be used as a starting point for developing your needs assessment. It is derived from data sources that align to the federal assurances required for the Community Services Block Grant. Each respondent is responsible for providing information regarding the needs around each federal assurance to indicate whether the agency or some other entity is providing the services. By clicking on the State and County level Data page, the user will have access to quantitative poverty data. Analysis of the data collected is critical and must include not only the summarization of findings, but the identification, measurement and reporting of improvements and changes in the community both in the conditions and resources to assist low-income consumers on their journey towards self-sufficiency. In the space below, provide a narrative description of the causes and conditions of poverty affecting the community in your service area such as: child care, community housing, crime, educational achievement, employment/unemployment, income management, healthcare, 5

10 homelessness, nutrition, and other factors not listed. In particular, describe how the agency ensures that the Community Needs Assessment reflects the current priorities of the lowincome population in the service area, beyond the legal requirement for a local public hearing of the CAP. Agencies should describe the methods and strategies used to collect the information and should utilize a combination of activities and tools such as: focus groups, surveys; community dialogue, asset mapping, interviews, and public records. Helpful Resources United States Census Bureau Poverty Data click here Employment Development Department Unemployment Insurance Information by County click here Bureau of Labor Statistics Labor Data State of California Department of Justice Statistics by City and County click here California Department of Education Facts about California Schools Using DataQuest click here California Department of Finance Various Projections/ Estimates U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Homelessness Assistance click here California Department of Public Health Statistical Data click here Community Action Partnership Community Action guide to develop a CNA click here click here click here A Comprehensive Community Needs Assessment (CCNA) Tool Statistical Data to assist CNA development click here 6

11 STUDY METHODOLOGY Our data came from three major sources: low-income people including more than 40,000 individuals who use Sacred Heart Community Service s (SHCS) services; leaders of other community based organizations serving low-income people; and data from government, academic, and independent sources. In the fall of 2016 we surveyed 163 SHCS customers targeting a mix of regular customers, but also families that come only once or twice a year for school supplies and holiday gift distributions. Surveys were conducted in English (18%) and Spanish (82%) by staff (44%) and regular volunteers (56%). In the survey, we sought to understand the major issues or challenges affecting people and their families. In one version we provided a list of areas by which they might feel challenged including: Lack of jobs, Low-wage jobs, Crime and safety, Housing, Transportation, Immigration, Health, Food and nutrition, Education, Childcare, and a fill in Other. Working from this list we asked people to circle any challenges affecting you and your family. Then, rank the challenges you have circled with 1 being the biggest problem, 2 being second biggest and so on. We instructed them to Leave blank anything that you feel is going well. Using this method we were able to see which areas presented challenges at all and their relative importance for people. From 10 choices, the median respondent identified three as major challenges. In the other version of the survey we asked an open ended question so as not to limit the choices that people could pick from by asking, If you had the resources or power to change community issues affecting you and your family, what would it be? In December of 2016, we followed up on the survey by conducting eight focus groups totaling about 50 people. Focus groups were conducted in English and Spanish. The focus groups lasted about 40 minutes and in them we asked people to share the biggest challenges they faced living in Silicon Valley, the impact that had on their well-being and relationships, and what kinds of changes they would like to see to improve their well-being. Staff took extensive notes on answers and encouraged all participants to speak. Finally, in the spring of 2017 we conducted a survey of other community based organizations serving low-income people in Santa Clara County. We used a list of 360 organizations from United Way s 211 service and a list compiled by Sacred Heart staff. 211 is a service to community members that provides referrals to organizations that can help them get services to meet their needs including: basic needs such as food, clothing, rent assistance, emergency shelter; physical and mental health services including crisis intervention, counseling, children s health insurance; job search help and education programs; seniors support (adult day care, meals and transportation); disaster recovery; free tax prep; and summer lunch programs. Community based organizations voluntarily join the list and update it periodically. All organizations were up-to-date as of To solicit responses we sent an with a link to an online survey. We sent three reminders and also sent a targeted to organizations that had completed surveys in prior years, as well as organizations that are part of our Emergency Action Network (EAN). Organizations in the EAN all serve families in need of supplemental food, housing and 7

12 utility assistance targeting low-income residents in their respective geographic areas. In total, 56 organizations responded to the survey. In addition to our original research this report includes data taken from extensive internet research. We rely heavily on two sources. The first is the U.S. Census American Communities Survey which can provide more up to date information about county demographics, housing stock, and employment than the decennial census. In the text from here forward we refer to this as ACS and provide the year or years of data we are using. In many cases we take advantage of the ability to use the advanced search tools and create detailed tables breaking down demographic characteristics by race, gender, and income to get a better sense of the nature of the low-income community in Santa Clara County. The other source we utilize heavily is the 2017 Silicon Valley Index conducted by Joint Venture Silicon Valley Institute for Regional Studies. Here forward we refer to this source as SVI This non-partisan, non-government report provides in-depth data about trends in demographics, the economy, education, health, safety, housing, transportation, environment, and governance. The most recent data for most indicators is from The index defines Silicon Valley as a combination of San Mateo County (population 748,731), Santa Clara County (population 1,868,149), three cities, Fremont, Newark, and Union City, in southern Alameda County (combined population 342,118), and a small portion of Santa Cruz County called Scotts Valley (population 11,780). 1 These areas are within 50 miles of major industry as well as San Jose the County Seat. We did ask Joint Venture Silicon Valley if they could disaggregate the data to include only Santa Clara County, but due to the complex nature and variety of sources this was not possible given resource constraints. Some data is not available for comparison by income and race at the County level especially in the areas of crime, health, and education. Because we know there is a good deal of inequality in the County we wanted to dig deeper on what that inequality might look like. Therefore, for some sections we report data not only for Santa Clara County but for three cities within the County that have similar population sizes, but different median incomes and poverty rates. While imperfect, this method gives us a window into the different living conditions and opportunities people of different incomes face. Table 1 below lists cities in the County based on these statistics. Gilroy, Milpitas, and Palo Alto (highlighted in bold) are the cities we ve chosen for comparison based on similar size and the fact that each has a complete K-12 school district. Although San Jose is, on average, a lower income area and represents a major portion of the County s population, we do not focus on it for comparison because it is so large. It is important to note that one shouldn t attribute variation in crime, education or other issues across municipalities to any one cause. We do so here only to get a feel for differences in the County, not to suggest that income is the single or most important driver of those differences. 2 1 Populations from American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Appendix C provides a discussion of this issue with regard to crime provided by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. 8

13 Table 1: Santa Clara County Cities by Different Economic Features and Population (listed in order of highest to lowest median income) Median income % households with income more than $150,000 % below federal poverty line Population (in thousands except where noted) Los Altos Hills 226, K Monte Sereno 193, K Los Altos 175, K Saratoga 169, K Cupertino 141, K Palo Alto 136, K Los Gatos 126, K Sunnyvale 105, K Mountain View 103, K Milpitas 100, K Santa Clara 98, K Campbell 96, K Morgan Hill 96, K San Jose 84, million Gilroy 83, K United States 53, million Median income & % households earning more than $150,000: American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Table DPO3 Selected Economic Characteristics (Advanced Search) % below poverty from American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Table S1701 Poverty Status in the Past 12 Months (Advanced Search) Populations from Google search year

14 DESCRIPTION OF SERVICE AREA: SANTA CLARA COUNTY Bordered on the north by San Francisco Bay, to the west by the Santa Cruz mountain range, and to the West by the Diablo mountain range, Santa Clara County is the sixth most populous county in California, and one of nine counties that comprise the state's San Francisco Bay Area. Most of the population resides and works in the narrow valley between the two mountain ranges. The area was home to bountiful orchards in the first half of the twentieth century. In 1948, Santa Clara County had 39 canneries and ranked 11th in the nation for the value of its agricultural productions, earning it the nickname Valley of Heart s Delight. 3 In the second half of the twentieth century, the region underwent a transformation as technological manufacturing highlighted by the semiconductor industry, and high technology companies were founded and staffed by students and faculty of Stanford University located in the northwest corner of the county. For example, William Hewlett and David Packard, founders of what is now the world s leading PC manufacturer, met as Stanford undergraduates in the 1930s. Subsequent Stanford alumni include the founders or co-founders of Cisco, Sun Microsystems, Intel, Yahoo!, Netflix, Paypal, TechCrunch, Electronic Arts, LinkedIn, YouTube and Mozilla Firefox Google. In fact, one in 20 Google employees is a Stanford graduate. 4 Today Santa Clara County is the heart of the region known as Silicon Valley, and is home to the headquarters of national and international high technology, venture capital and legal firms that work attracts. According to the State of California Employment Development Department 5 major employers include: 3 Three Crown Production. Valley of Heart s Delight Walker, Tim. July 12, The Billionaire Factory: Why Stanford University Produces So Many Celebrated Web Entrepreneurs. The Independent. Accessed May 15, 2017 at 5 State of California Employment Development Department. Major Employers in Santa Clara County. Accessed May 15, 2017 at 10

15 Table 2: Major Employers in Santa Clara County as listed by State of California Employment Development Department Employer Name Location Industry Adobe Systems Inc San Jose Publishers-Computer Software (mfrs) Advanced Micro Devices Inc Sunnyvale Semiconductor Devices (mfrs) Apple Inc Cupertino Computer & Equipment Dealers Applied Materials Inc Santa Clara Semiconductor Manufacturing Equip (mfrs) California's Great America Santa Clara Amusement & Theme Parks Christopher Ranch LLC Gilroy Garlic (mfrs) Cisco Systems Inc San Jose Computer Peripherals (mfrs) Flextronics International Milpitas Semiconductor Devices (mfrs) Hcl Technologies Ltd Sunnyvale Computer Software HP Inc Palo Alto Computers-Electronic-Manufacturers Intel Corp Santa Clara Semiconductor Devices (mfrs) Kaiser Permanente Med Ctr San Jose Medical Centers Kaiser Permanente Medical Ctr San Jose Physicians & Surgeons Lockheed Martin Space Systems Sunnyvale Satellite Equipment & Systems-Mfrs Lucile Packard Children's Hosp Palo Alto Hospitals Lumileds Lighting Co San Jose Lighting Fixtures-Supplies & Parts-Mfrs Microsoft Corp Mountain View Computer Software-Manufacturers NASA Mountain View Government Offices-Us Net App Inc Sunnyvale Computer Storage Devices (mfrs) NSG Technology Inc San Jose Computer Peripherals (mfrs) Prime Materials San Jose Semiconductors & Related Devices (mfrs) Santa Clara Valley Medical Ctr San Jose Hospitals SAP Center San Jose Stadiums Arenas & Athletic Fields Stanford School of Medicine Stanford Schools-Medical US Veterans Medical Ctr Palo Alto Hospitals These companies are among the most successful in the world. They require a highly educated and well-connected work force, so it is no surprise that, on average, the County s 1.87 million residents are diverse, economically secure, healthy, and highly educated. Table 3 shows statistics for the county on these characteristics. Furthermore, these 11

16 industries are growing. According to Bureau of Labor Statistics unemployment data, the unemployment rate of 3.3% in Silicon Valley 6 is lower than in California and the United States more generally and has been steadily falling since a peak in 2009 (SVI 2017 p. 19). Table 3 lists demographic characteristics for Santa Clara County in 2015 as compared with California and the United States. In 2015, Whites and Asians (not identifying as Hispanic/Latino) each accounted for approximately one-third of the county population; 27% of the population identified as Latino/Hispanic and 2.4% was African American (not identifying as Hispanic/Latino. Strikingly, 38% of the population was foreign born compared with 27% in California as a whole and only 13% in the U.S. Economically, the County is doing very well. Median household income, at $96,310 is higher than that of California or the U.S. The county also has lower unemployment, much lower official poverty rates and higher rates of health insurance coverage. Residents of Santa Clara County also tend to be highly educated. The County hosts people with graduate or professional degrees at twice the rate of the U.S. as a whole 22% compared with 11%. Another one quarter of the population holds at least a Bachelor s degree. 6 Rates as of November

17 Table 3 : Demographic characteristics of Santa Clara County compared with California and the U.S. Characteristics Santa Clara California U.S. County Total population 1,868,149 38,421, ,515,02 1 Race White alone Black or African American alone American Indian and Alaska Native alone 0.19% Asian alone Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone Some other race alone Two or more races 3.2% Hispanic/Latino (any race) 26.6% % Foreign-born Naturalized citizen Not a citizen Economic characteristics Median household income (2015 Inflation 96,310 61,818 53,889 adjusted dollars) Unemployment Poverty Health insurance coverage Education (population 25 years and over) Less than high school High school some college or associates degree BA Graduate or professional degree Race (all geographies) Hispanic or Latino Origin by Race U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Table B03002 American FactFinder Advanced Search SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS OF THE NATIVE AND FOREIGN-BORN POPULATIONS American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Table S0501 American FactFinder Advanced Search Economic/health insurance, COMPARATIVE ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS more information American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Table CP03 American FactFinder Advanced Search Education, Educational Attainment American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Table S1501 American FactFinder Advanced Search 7 The careful reader will note that this unemployment rate differs quite significantly from that reported by Bureau of Labor Statistics. This is due to different survey methodology. However, we use Census data because it allows easier comparison across demographic groups. The main patterns remain the same - the economy in Silicon Valley and Santa Clara County is stronger than most of the State and Country. 13

18 The averages detailed in Table 3 above, mask the high levels of inequality characteristic in the population. Economic benefits have not been equally distributed across the different demographic. When asked to select and rank the most serious challenges in their lives, 37 percent of the low-income people we surveyed selected low-wages. It received an average ranking of 1.9 (second only to housing discussed in detail below). Table 4 below shows that Whites and Asians earn more than Hispanics and Latinos, they have lower unemployment rates and lower poverty rates. Similarly men fair better than women and more highly educated people fair better than people with lower education levels. 14

19 Table 4: Inequality in unemployment, income, poverty by demographic categories Unemployment Median income (earnings) Living below poverty Overall 7.7% 45, % RACE/ETHNICITY** White alone, not 7.3% $61, % Hispanic/Latino Asian alone 6.7% $60, % Native Hawaiian, Pacific 16.1 $32, % Islander alone American Indian, Alaska Native 12.5 $27, % alone Hispanic or Latino (of any 10.1% $26, % race) Black or African American 12.7 $35, % alone Some other race alone 10.0 $25, % Two or more races 9.8 $33, % SEX*** Male 6.9% $54, % Female 7.8% $36, % AGE 8 Under % years old 8.0 ( % years) 65 years old and older % EDUCATION Graduate degree 4.7% $105, % Bachelor s degree $75,389 No college 9% $30, % Less than high school 10.8% $22, % SOURCES: ACS year estimates Employment Status Table S2301 Found using advanced search at: ype=table Patterns refer to people over 16 years of age Median earnings overall, by sex, by education Table S2001 Earnings in the Past 12 Months (in 2015 inflation adjusted dollars) By race White alone Table B20017H, Asian Alone Table B20017D, Native Hawaiian Pacific Islander alone Table B20017E, American Indian Alaska Native Table B20017C, Hispanic or Latino of any race Table B20017I, Black or African American Table B20017B, Some other race Table B20017F, Two or more races Table B20017G ACS year estimates Poverty Status in the Past 12 Months Table S1701 Found using advanced search. 8 From CAPS Needs Assessment Data 15

20 The income differences in Table 4 do not take into account different education levels and occupations of different types of people. It is true that Asians and Whites are more likely to have a Bachelor s degree or higher than Blacks and Hispanic or Latino people (2017 SVI p. 13). This accounts for at least part of the income disparity. Nevertheless, education levels of all groups are higher in Silicon Valley than in California as a whole. Unemployment follows similar patterns to median income and poverty. Hispanic/Latino people are more likely to be unemployed than Asians and Whites. Women are more likely to be unemployed than men, and the unemployment rate increases as education decreases. However, it is important to note that unemployment tracks people who are actively searching for a job. While Hispanic/Latino people have higher unemployment rates this should not be interpreted as a lack of wanting to work. Labor force participation rates account for people who are employed or working and those who are unemployed but actively seeking work. Hispanic/Latino people in Santa Clara County have higher labor force participation rates than Whites and Asians (70% compared with 65% and 67% respectively) and higher employment to population ratios (63% to 61% and 62% respectively). 9 Among our survey respondents, 28% cited lack of work as a serious challenge for them and their families. Among all respondents who identified it as a challenge, the average ranking was 2.2. This fact should not be interpreted as a problem of persistent unemployment. Given our respondents come to us when they are experiencing financial hardship, it may be that this is a major issue at the time they are receiving our services, but that jobs exist and they may become employed in the near future. Indeed even though 59% of our organizational respondents said this was a challenge for their clients, lack of jobs ranked relatively low among their concerns with an average ranking of 5.9. It is also important to note that the labor participation rate of people living below poverty in the county is 53% while the unemployment rate is 30%. Comparing incomes by type of job provides an even better picture of the disparity. Highskill, high-wage workers earn 4.2 times what low-skill, low wage workers earn a difference of $86,000 annually (2017 SVI p. 25). An example of the high earnings of some people in the County, Bloomberg reported on the top 25 U.S. companies with the highest median earnings ($140-$180,000 annually) in April Although many of these companies are global employers, based on a Google search 9 ACS year estimates Employment Status Table S2301 Found using advanced search at: e=table Patterns refer to people over 16 years of age 10 Bloomberg News These are the Highest Paying Companies in America But good money doesn t always mean a good work environment. April Julie Verhage. Found at: 16

21 of their headquarters 10 of these companies were in Santa Clara County, 13 were located in Silicon Valley and 15 were located in the wider Bay Area. 11 On average, the region is economically thriving, highly educated, diverse both racially and as a host to a large population of immigrants. However, it is also characterized by high levels of inequality. Given this fact, the focus of this report is to describe the lower-income population of the county and the challenges they face in making ends meet, achieving personal well-being, and providing opportunities to their children. In short, what does it mean to be poor among such wealth and how can Community Action improve the quality of life for low-income people? POVERTY Definitions of poverty are rather subjective. An interview study of Sacred Heart Community Service clients, staff, and volunteers found that most people think someone is poor if they are unable to meet basic needs like housing and food. 12 Most poverty rates are calculated using a similar standard though basic needs are defined differently. Similarly, most government assistance is focused on healthcare (Medicare/Medicaid), food (food stamps, Women Infants Children), and housing (federal and state subsidized units and Section 8 vouchers), while providing income to the elderly, disabled people who are not typically expected to work. 11 Santa Clara County (SCC), San Mateo County (SMC), San Francisco County (SFC). VMware (SCC), Splunk (SCC), Cadence Design Systems (SCC), Google (SCC), Facebook (SMC), NVIDIA (SCC), Juniper Networks (SCC), LinkedIn (SCC), SalesForce (SFC), Synopsis (SCC), Informatica (SMC), Microsoft (SCC), WalMart ecommerce (SMC), Visa Inc (SMC), Twitter (SFC), Palo Alto Networks (SCC) 12 Wright, Rachel Can Nonprofits Lead a Movement for Economic Justice? PhD thesis, Stanford University. 17

22 Official federal statistics show Santa Clara County s poverty rate, at 9.5 percent, is relatively low compared to rates in California (16.3 percent) and the U.S. (15.5 percent). However, this statistic is misleading. For years the federal poverty line has been criticized by scholars, policy analysts and other advocates for being too low. Calculated based on family budgets of the 1960s and updated for inflation it fails to account for the fact that today housing and healthcare costs represent a much larger proportion of household costs and food a smaller proportion. Thus, with an income below the federal poverty line (sometimes referred to as threshold ) a family of four (2 adults and two related children under 18) would earn less than $24, and would barely cover the median rent for a two-bedroom unit in Santa Clara County, let alone their other needs. Given this reality several different groups have attempted to calculate a more realistic poverty line. One approach is the self-sufficiency measure. This measure first developed at the Center for Women s Welfare at University of Washington by Diana Pearce attempts to calculate the minimum income families of different sizes and compositions would need to cover basic needs (housing, food, childcare, transportation, healthcare, taxes at the like) without any government assistance. The most recent (2014) data from this calculation suggests that nearly 30 percent of Santa Clara County residents are not self-sufficient and may be struggling to cover their basic needs (SVI 2017 p. 27). However, self-sufficiency calculations ignore the fact that some government support is available to low-income people. The Public Policy Institute of California and the Center for Poverty and Inequality at Stanford University developed the California Poverty Measure to estimate the poverty rate. This measure estimates poverty using both cost of living figures (like the self-sufficiency index) and a range of family needs and resources including social safety net benefits including food stamps, Medicare/Medicaid, subsidized housing, and tax credits. Using this measure, they find that California s poverty rate is still higher than that given by the FPL, but lower than those using self-sufficiency calculations. This measure indicates that Santa Clara County s average poverty rate was about 16.9 percent from compared with 9.1% for official poverty measure over the same period. 14 Government benefits make a significant impact on the rate. The federal government has a similar measure, based on a similar methodology called the Supplemental Poverty Measure. It is reported only on the state level, however, showing California s average rate to be 20.6 percent from compared with the federal poverty line rate of 15.0 for the same period U.S. Census Bureau Data. Poverty Thresholds. Accessed at 14 Public Policy Institute of California. California Poverty Rates by County Accessed at 15 U.S. Census Bureau. Current Population Reports. Released September The Supplemental Poverty Measure: 2015 by Trudi Renwisk and Liana Fox. p. 9 accessed at: 18

23 In short, even with government supports taken into account, the high-cost of living in the region means the poverty rate is about 6-8% higher than official poverty statistics suggest. Given the cost of living in the region households with incomes that seem to be rather high may still be struggling to pay for their most basic needs. RESULTS Housing is the most pervasive community need Regardless of whom we asked or how we conducted our research the most frequently cited community need was affordable housing. Among low-income people surveyed, it was most often ranked as the number one challenge facing them and their families. Twenty-seven percent said it was the number one issue and 44 percent ranked it as a major challenge. Given that the median respondent identified three issues as major challenges, the fact that 44 percent chose housing as one is striking. The results among nonprofit staff are even more striking. Over half ranked affordable housing as the number one challenge facing their clients. Asked for their opinion about how well the affordable housing available in Santa Clara County meets the current needs of the community 50 percent of respondents that answered the question (46 total) chose Barely or Not at All and 46 percent chose Inadequate/do not meet the current demand. Other choices included Adequate/meet the demand and Don t know. We asked this question for 20 different categories of resources and no other category performed so poorly. It is telling that based on the opinions of nonprofit service providers the next most scarce resource was emergency housing 40 percent said it was Barely or Not at all available. Other independent research corroborates our findings. An interview study of nonprofit leaders in Silicon Valley, conducted by consulting agency Open Impact noted, hundreds of nonprofit leaders spoke with a sense of urgency about the issues facing Silicon Valley s diverse residents most of which are being caused or exacerbated by the region s skyrocketing growth. Housing was at the top of their list. (The Giving Code 2016, p. 11). Causes of the Silicon Valley housing crisis Independent research helps to explain why affordable and emergency housing is such a big problem in the community. Put simply, the combination of population growth, limited housing development, and vastly unequal incomes have created the perfect recipe for skyrocketing housing prices and, possibly, the out migration of middle and low-income households from the region. Population growth From 2010 to 2015 the population of Santa Clara County has increased by 137,730 or an increase of 7.7% over 2010 population. 16 This represents 17,259 total households 17 or 16 Calculation using growth from 2016 Population Estimates, Estimates of the Components of Resident Population Change: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2016 Santa Clara County Table PEPTCOMP Found using advanced search at: 19

24 3,450 households per year. This is faster than increases in California with an increase of 5.4% (SVI 2017 p. 12) and the United States with an increase of 4.6%. 18 About 64% of the change was due to natural growth (births minus deaths 87,657), while 36% was due to migration (53,051). Limited development Unfortunately the supply of new housing barely keeps up with this population growth. According to a report by the Association of Bay Area Governments 19 Santa Clara County added an average of about 3,400 units from Housing permits over the same period were about the same. These figures underestimate the problem, however. Santa Clara County added more than four times more units than San Mateo County even though their population growth was roughly the same. This means that when someone can not find affordable housing within Santa Clara County, the chance of finding anything in a neighboring county are probably worse. The Silicon Valley Index reports that since 2007 Silicon Valley has created a housing shortage of approximately 39,175 units that would be needed to accommodate the region s growing population (SVI 2017 p. 54). Furthermore, of the housing that is built very little of it is affordable. On average only 10% of residential units approved between 2010 and 2016 were affordable 20 (calculated from data shown in SVI 2017 p.55). In the search for scarce housing, high-income people can drive up rent and sale costs. They can afford much more than other people and therefore landlords and sellers can demand more. This dynamic is reflected in housing costs. The median rent in Santa Clara County for 0 bedrooms is $1, or $17,376 annually. This represents 38% of the earnings of the median worker and 66% of the earnings of the median Hispanic/Latino worker. Homeownership in Santa Clara County (outside subsidized low-income housing) is ype=table & base population of million 17 Calculation using total household in 2015 from ACS 2015 five year estimates Table S1101 HOUSEHOLDS AND FAMILIES minus total households 2010 from 2010 Census Summary File 1, Table QT-P11 Households and Families: 2010, using advanced search 18 Calculation using growth from 2016 Population Estimates, Estimates of the Components of Resident Population Change: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2016 United States Table PEPTCOMP Found using advanced search at: ype=table & base population of million 19 Association of Bay Area Governments. San Francisco Bay Area State of the Region Economy Population Housing 2015 Section 4 Gauging Progress on Housing Goals. Found at: housing-goals-progress.php#section4_2 20 Affordability is defined as Affordable for a four-person family earning up to 80% of the Area Median Income. Recall median household income in Silicon Valley in 2015 was 102,036 (SVI 2017 p. 24), 80% of that is $81, ACS year estimate Median gross rent by bedrooms in Santa Clara County Table B25031 Found using advanced search at: pe=table 20

25 impossible for many in the region with 58% of homes valued at more than $500, in 2015 and median sales prices of $880,000 (in Silicon Valley) in 2016 compared with California $425,000 and $243,000 for the U.S. (2017 SVI p. 52). The overall cost of living seems to be associated with housing costs. According to the U.S. Census Bureau as of 2010 San Jose had the 6 th highest cost of living of 326 U.S. cities. A quick analysis of the table suggests overall cost of living and housing costs are highly correlated at A 2017 data release from the private firm Council for Community and Economic Research, as reported by Kiplinger, stated that Sunnyvale, California located in Santa Clara County was the 2 nd most expensive city in the United States following Manhattan. 24 Several focus group participants specifically identified the dynamic between lowerincomes and housing costs. One said Everything is much more expensive. It is not affordable. The rent goes up but the wages are not going up. The amount of work you do goes up, but the amount you are paid stays the same. Homelessness Those who cannot afford housing face limited options. They may move away, double up or live in overcrowded conditions as discussed above. They may become homeless. While service providers we surveyed indicated homelessness was a major problem, it is hard to estimate how many people it affects at the local level. In January 2015, Santa Clara County conducted a homeless census and survey, 25 documenting 6,556 homeless people. This was the lowest count since the census began in 2004: historically the count has hovered between 7,000 and 7,500. The survey found that 29% of these people were living in an emergency shelter, transitional housing, or a safe haven. The rest were living on the street, in their cars, in abandoned buildings or encampments. It is important to note that these figures do not capture people who are staying temporarily with friends or family - a common solution to homelessness. 22 ACS year estimate Value of owner-occupied housing units in Santa Clara County Table B25075 Found using advanced search at: pe=table 23 U.S. Census Section 14: Prices Report Number: Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2012 (131st Edition) Report Number: Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2012 (131st Edition) Cost of Living Index--Selected Urban Areas Found at: 24 Kiplinger Dan Burrows May Most Expensive U.S. Cities to Live In Found at: 25 Santa Clara County Office of Supportive Housing Santa Clara County Homeless Census and Survey 2015 Executive Summary. 21

26 After the census a subset of sheltered and unsheltered individuals was surveyed to gather more information about their characteristics and the causes of homelessness. When asked about the obstacles to attaining permanent housing, 68% said they could not afford the rent, 57% said they had no job or income, and 38% said no housing was available. Childcare Cost of living data reflect costs besides housing. Another major expense for families is childcare. As of 2014 annual costs in Santa Clara County averaged between $10,601 per year for full-time preschool care in a family childcare home to $16,375 for an infant in a child care center. 26 This is roughly $2,000 more per year than the California average. Costs appear to be rising. For example, the California Department of Education reported 2017 reimbursement ceilings at $12,870 for a preschool care in a family childcare home and about $20,302 for an infant in a child care center. 27 This cost represents a significant percentage of the median income of $45,000. In the school year only 33% of children under age 5 who qualified for one of California s publicly funded ECE programs based on family income and having working parents were served. 28 This fact is reflected in survey responses from other community based organizations. Sixty-five percent said childcare was barely or not at all available or inadequate to meet demand. Interestingly, child care was not cited as a major issue among our low-income survey respondents even though most were parents. In fact only 12% said it was a challenge and among those it s average rank was still 3rd. It may be that the costs are so daunting these families simply choose not to work because their wages would not cover the cost of care. It is well known that low-income children often receive lower quality early childhood education even though many experts suggest that high quality early childhood education can provide a major academic boost for years to come. 29 Transportation Population increases and housing patterns also seem to be affecting transportation. While many corporations and jobs are located in Northern suburban towns of Palo Alto, Santa Clara, and Mountain View, more affordable housing options tend to be located in San Jose 26 kidsdata.org Annual Costs of Child Care by Age Group and Type of Facility. Accessed at 322,341,338,350,342,329,325,359,351,363,340,335&tf=79&ch=984,985,222, California Department of Education. Reimbursement Ceilings for Subsidized Child Care. Accessed at 28 Learning Policy Institute Understanding California s Early Care and Education System. Author s Hanna Melnick, Titilayo Tinubu Ali, Madelyn Gardner, Anna Maier, and Marjorie Wechsler Accessed at: file:///c:/users/rachelw/downloads/understanding_ca_early_care_education_system_re PORT.pdf 29 Stanford Center on Poverty and Inequality. Why is There So Much Poverty in California? by David Grusky et. al. Accessed at 22

27 and even further south in the County as well as east in Alameda County. For example, the jobs to housing ratio in Palo Alto is 4.2, its 3.53 in Santa Clara and 2.41 in Mountain View when the Santa Clara County average is more like While commute distances have been decreasing since 2003 (SVI 2017 p. 58) average commute times have increased since 2005 reflecting increased congestion (SVI 2017 p. 59). Use of public transportation has increased slightly since 2005 from 4 percent then to 6 percent in However, there is a significant amount of inequality present in the public transit sector. In 2015 SHCS, as part of a coalition of organizations called the Transportation Justice Alliance (TJA), facilitated four meetings (one each in Gilroy, Mountain View, Downtown San Jose and East San Jose) with a total attendance of 400 people 44% of which reported annual household incomes below $50, The meetings consisted of both a short survey and focus groups. The group also gathered data from other sources. Below is a short excerpt from their final report detailing the issues and needs of low-income and vulnerable populations. 32 [A]ccess to quality transportation varies greatly across communities and demographics. For example, seniors, young people, working families, and low income communities of color often face serious transportation barriers and are less able to afford living in job rich communities, reinforcing the cycle of poverty and widening inequality in the Valley. Furthermore, underserved communities typically pay more for transportation and housing as a percentage of their income than their affluent counterparts. In fact, a report by Urban Habitat and the Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California, titled Moving Silicon Valley Forward, revealed that households that earn between $20,000 and $35,000 spend 70 percent of their income on housing and transportation costs [whereas] families earning over $100,000 annually spend only 24 percent of their income on housing and transportation. 33 Historically, there has been an underinvestment and divestment in transportation infrastructure and services for low-income communities of color and seniors in Silicon Valley. According to Moving Silicon Valley Forward, the VTA bus system has nearly 75 percent of its ridership from communities of color but receives only $8.16 of public subsidy per passenger. In contrast, Caltrain has only 40 percent riders of color and receives nearly twice the subsidies ($15.49 per passenger trip). 34 Similarly, since 2000, VTA has 2 increased service on its light It is quite possible that a large majority of attendees were low-income given the composition of the Transportation Justice Alliance. 30.5% of respondents did not disclose income info. The overall racial makeup of the groups pretty closely mirrors that of Santa Clara County with about one-third white, one-third Latino and onequarter Asian 32 Transportation Justice Alliance, co-authored by Working Partnerships USA and Sacred Heart Community Service "INVESTING IN OUR FUTURE: A Report on the Transportation Priorities of Silicon Valley s Diverse Communities Please contact Sacred Heart Community Service staff for a copy of this report 33 Urban Habitat, Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California Moving Silicon Valley Forward, Housing, Transit, and Traffic at a Crossroad. 34 Ibid. 23

28 rail system by 8 percent but reduced service on its bus fleet by 15 percent while fares were doubled in price. 35 Not only has the disinvestment in transit for low to moderate income riders resulted in less service and higher fares, but the speed of the network has also declined significantly. Since the mid to late 1990 s, the speed of the bus network has on average declined by almost 1 percent per year. 36 As the network becomes slower, it takes bus riders more time to get around and discourages new riders. COMMUNITY MEETINGS SURVEY FINDINGS During the community meetings breakout sessions, more than 400 attendees completed surveys that posed the question: For a potential 2016 sales tax, what transportation investments do you feel would be the most important? Participants were asked to rank their top 5 preferred transportation investments, which included funding categories informed by VTA staff. Table 5 below (derived from the TJA report) presents differences in support for various investments overall and by race and income. Majorities of all groups supported better bus service. Perhaps not surprisingly, lower income people more often supported affordable transit or reducing costs for very low income people with levels of support above twothirds compared with only one-third of higher income people supporting this investment. A similar pattern was shown in support for safer streets and for transit-depended seniors and those with different abilities whom we would expect would be lower-income themselves. 35 National Transit Database 36 VTA staff 24

29 Table 5: Transportation investments receiving majority support at Transportation Justice Alliance meetings by Income and Race Type of investment Overall High Income Low income White Latinos Better bus service* 70% 80% (> $150K) 72% (< $55K) 60% 71% Affordable transit** 65% 33% (> 100K) 66-79% (< 100K) Not 76% Transit-dependent Seniors and Persons with Different Abilities*** available 59% 47% (> 100K) 70% (< 50K) Not available Not available Safer Streets**** 58% 33% (> 100K) 70% (< 30K) 43% 72% *Better Bus Service investments, defined as increasing the frequency, connectivity, operating hours, speed, comfort, and reliability of VTA s most popular and/or high-need serving bus routes. ** Affordable transit defined as reducing the cost of fares for very low-income people, youth and seniors with fixed incomes. *** Transit dependent Seniors and Persons with different abilities defined as improving the speed, affordability, and reliability of transit service for seniors and persons with different abilities who rely on transit. **** Safer streets defined as improving safety for people that walk and bike, particularly around schools, senior facilities, and in areas with high injury and fatality rates. Migration patterns Who is able to make ends meet in the region may be reflected in migration patterns by income. As noted by the 2017 Silicon Valley Index (p. 25) in the graph below, between Silicon Valley lost a total of 21,241 households representing nearly every income category except those earning $150,000 and more where it gained more than 35,000. While we can t say for certain why people left, the cost of living may be a major driver. As one low-income focus group participant said: We are thinking of moving to Stockton because the rent is cheaper. Here you have to be living with a lot of families in order to afford the rent. I live with my sister and she has two kids and is pregnant and I have two kids and it is hard because it is small. 25

30 Immigration Perhaps as striking as the vast differences between Santa Clara County and the rest of the nation when it comes to the economy and cost of living, immigration patterns are also quite different. As Table 1 above shows over 37% or the population is Santa Clara County is foreign born compared with 27% of California residents and 13% of US residents. Immigrants come from dozens of countries. The five most common countries of origin are: Mexico (19.7% of all immigrants) India (15.5%) Vietnam (14%) China including Hong Kong (10.9%) and the Philippines 8.4% (totaling 68.5%). 37 The booming economy both for high-wage earners and the low-wage service workers that support them, no doubt drives many to come to the region in search of a better life. Strikingly, net foreign immigration in 2016 was 22,500 while net domestic migration was negative $20,801 (SVI 2017 p. 6). This general pattern, positive foreign immigration and negative domestic migration, has held since 1998 except for where both were positive (SVI 2017 p. 11). 37 Welcoming San Jose p

31 Thus, the economic inequality that is depicted in the wider population is probably also present in the immigrant population. For example, as the graph below shows, while educational attainment for U.S. born residents shows relatively few with less than a high school diploma (about 6%) and relatively few with a graduate degree (18%), the foreign born population is the exact inverse. Nearly 20% have less than a high school education and over 25% have a graduate degree. 38 Because education is a good predictor of income, one should expect that many immigrants are low-income while many others are at the higher end of the income scale. The most recent data available from the U.S. Census shows that 15.3% of immigrants are living below 200% of the federal poverty line while the percentage for native born residents is 11.8%. 39 Just over half (53%) of foreign born residents in Santa Clara County are naturalized citizens of the United States. 40 For those whose visas are tied to work or who do not hold visas or green cards their future can be uncertain. Combine the uncertainty of whether one will have to leave their home, family, and support networks in the U.S. with the other stresses 38 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Table S0501 Selected Characteristics of the Native and Foreign-Born Populations accessed at e=table 39 Ibid. 40 Ibid. 27

32 and struggles of poverty, and immigration can become a major challenge for people and their families. Anecdotal information from the organizer of Sacred Heart s grassroots policy committee on immigration (which meets at least one time per month and consists primarily of immigrants) confirms this fact. From her contact with immigrants she notes that it is often difficult for immigrants to get higher paying jobs even if they do have degrees and certifications. Low-wage earners then work two or sometimes three jobs or long hours to make ends meet. Some of our leaders also report experiencing wage theft, sometimes multiple times. Undocumented workers are even more vulnerable to these sorts of issues. The toll this takes is reflected in the comments of one immigrant leader in spring of 2017: "I'm trying to stay positive, not panic. I want to be informed and know how we can protect each other. We need to not be afraid and stay united". These feelings were also reflected in our survey. Of our low-income survey respondents, 29% said immigration was a major challenge with an average ranking of 2.2. Twenty-four respondents said it was the number one issue. Only housing (34) and low wages (32) got more number one designations. Overall, it was the 4th most serious concern after housing, low-wages, and crime. Among organizations immigration ranked in the middle of the pack in terms of the challenges staff perceived clients facing. However, over half (52%) thought immigration services were barely or not at all available or inadequate to meet the demand. Crime In general, crime rates are relatively low in Silicon Valley compared to other parts of the state and country. As Table 6 below shows violent and property crime rates are lower in Santa Clara County than average rates in California and the U.S. From violent crime rates in Silicon Valley decreased and since then have remained relatively flat (SVI 2017 p. 50). However, crime varies depending on where one lives. Lower income areas tend to have more crime, while higher income areas tend to have less. Table 5 also shows violent and property crime rates for three cities in Santa Clara County that differ significantly by median income but are similar in population size. Every city reported here has a lower violent crime rate than California as a whole and every city has a lower violent crime rate than that of the U.S. except for Gilroy. Comparing across the smaller cities a general pattern holds: the lower income cities have higher violent crime rates than the higher income cities. For property crime the pattern is less clear. Palo Alto (high income) always has lower rates than Gilroy (low-income), but Milpitas (middle-income) actually has the highest overall property crime rate and the highest rate for each individual property crime reported. Given that our survey respondents tended to live in San Jose and probably relatively close to the low-income neighborhood where Sacred Heart Community Service is located their report that crime is a real challenge should not be surprising. The area surrounding our agency has a visible gang and prostitution presence. Indeed our survey results showed that 28

33 crime ranked as the 3 rd greatest challenge. Thirty-one percent of respondents named it as a major challenge, 20 said it was the number one challenge, and it received an average ranking of Corroborating these findings, the 2014 Santa Clara County Community Health Assessment survey showed that people with incomes less than $50,000 were less likely to report feeling safe from violent crime (77%) and property crime (72%) compared to those with incomes over $100,000 (95% and 90% respectively). This inequality extends to racial groups. Latinos/Hispanics were less likely to report feeling safe in their neighborhood after dark (78%) than Whites (93%). 29

34 Table 6: 2014 Uniform Crime Statistics as reported to Federal Bureau of Investigation (per 100,000 population) Santa Clara County California U.S. Gilroy (low income) Milpitas (middle income) Palo Alto (high income) San Jose Violent crime rate Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter rate Legacy rape rate (Milpitas, palo alto, San Jose) Revised rape rate (Gilroy) Robbery rate Aggravated assault rate Property crime rate Burglary rate Larceny-theft rate Motor vehicle theft rate SOURCES: U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Reporting Statistics Crime - Local Level One Year of Data. Accessed at: Santa Clara County data from State of California Department of Justice s Open Justice database Crimes and Clearances raw numbers. Rates per 100,000 calculated using base population of million 30

35 Health 41 Among our survey respondents health did not figure among the top challenges they and their families faced. Only about 1 in 5 respondents ranked it as a challenge at all, and its average ranking of 2.3 put it in 7 th place among 9 categories. The views of nonprofit service providers differed. Among those respondent s, health seemed to be the 4 th most challenging issues after housing, low wages, and transportation. Perhaps, since our low-income respondents were parents of school-age children they were representing a different population than service providers. Santa Clara County does have a strong Chlidren s Health Insurance Program for those low-income children (in families whose incomes are between % of the federal poverty line) who do not qualify for MediCal (California s Medicaid program) or other forms of insurance. Families make just a small contribution for a range of coverage including: Regular check-ups; Shots/Immunizations; Inpatient and outpatient hospital care; Laboratory and X-ray services; Emergency services; Doctor visits; Dental and vision care; Hospital care; Mental health services; and Needed medications. 42 Sixty-seven percent of nonprofit service providers mostly thought children s health services were adequate- a relatively high proportion compared to other service areas. By the same measure, adult health services were worse but still a majority (57%) said they were adequate. Data from other sources suggests that Silicon Valley, on the whole, has slightly better health than California and the U.S. In 2015 the region had lower proportions of adults (59%) and students (33%) that were overweight or obese than the California averages (63% and 38% respectively) (SVI 2017 p ). There is also good overall health insurance coverage for people age Santa Clara County had 90.9 percent insured compared with 85.3% in California and 87.0 in the United States. The figure on p. 33 provides statistics from the California Health Information Survey (2014 data) conducted by the University of California Los Angeles also show that Santa Clara County is doing better than California based on averages for how many reported they had every been diagnosed with diabetes, ever delayed medical care, reported fair or poor health, had food insecurity, and were uninsured. Taking 95% confidence interval into account, however, we can only be confident that the last two categories are statistically different. What we can tell from these estimates however, is that the high income city of Palo Alto is quite different from the low income city of Gilroy. Palo Alto residents report fair or poor health, food insecurity, and lack of insurance less frequently than residents of Gilroy. This suggests health does vary by 41 We used to report on food and nutrition in this report. However, this issue was the least important to our survey respondents and ranked relatively low among nonprofit providers as well. Perhaps this is due to the fact that government support for low-income households very often comes in the form of CalFresh (SNAP) or because there is an extensive emergency food distribution network in Santa Clara County. Here we refer to food insecurity briefly. 42 Social Service Agency of County of Santa Clara. CCHIP. Accessed at: 31

36 income, but this may be for a range of reasons including fewer resources to invest in healthy living and higher levels of stress. For example, in our focus groups a very common topic was the fact that high housing costs caused a great deal of stress. As one participant described her housing and other financial issues stress and emotional distress came up over and over: There are not a lot of opportunities and those have a list of housing, you can't get in. The places that you can afford you can t get into because you have too many kids. The shelter is only for three months. The stress reflects on your children it is hard to give them the attention that they need. It is hard to deal with the stress and not to show them that I m scared. That is hard. Kids need shoes, need clothes and they aren t easy on their stuff we say that we can t [afford new things] and that hurts. We need affordable daycare. We need affordable healthy foods, fruits and vegetables are getting too expensive. We need stability. 32

37 0.35 Prevalence of Health Issues in Five Geographic Areas (error bars depict 95% confidence interval) Estimated proportion of population excperience health issue California Santa Clara County Gilroy Milpitas Palo Alto 0 Ever diagnosed with diabetes (18+) Delayed prescriptions/medical services (18+) Fair or poor health (18-64) Low-income food insecurity (18+) Currently uninsured (18-64) 33

38 Education The summary of Santa Clara County above already discussed the unusually high levels of education found in the County. However, this masks inequality in education. As Table 7 below shows educational attainment varies significantly by race. There could be many reasons for this fact. One may be that different types of people immigrate to the U.S. for different reasons depending on country of origin. Stereotypically, for example, east Asians with college degrees come to Silicon Valley to work in the tech sector while Latinos who come are less well-educated but looking for a better life. Table 7: Educational attainment by race Santa Clara county Race High school degree or higher Bachelor s degree or higher White alone, not hispianc/latino Black or African American alone American Indian and Alaska Native alone Asian alone Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone Some other race alone Two or more races Hispanic/Latino (any race) American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Table S1501 Educational Attainment Accessed at: prodtype=table Educational attainment may also differ once people are here. Low-income families have less time and money to invest in education and tend to live in communities with less investment and lower educational outcomes. It is important to note that this is not due to a lack of desire for a good education, but rather a lack of equal opportunities across families and communities. Table 8 below shows differences in education by school district. We compare three communities of roughly the same size in population and K-12 student enrollment. However, these cities vary significantly on median income and the percent of households with incomes above $150,000. Not surprisingly, in the lower-income community of Gilroy there are more low-income students and English language learners. Both of these disadvantages make it harder to perform in school. This district scores lowest on all performance measures, while the highest income district, Palo Alto Unified, scores highest. In Palo Alto district expenditures per student nearly two times higher than in Gilroy and Milpitas and local revenues (interest, donations and reimbursement, parcel taxes, rents and leases and other local sources) are up to 10 times higher: $3000 per student compared with $300 in Gilroy. Certainly, to even the educational playing field low-income communities require significant attention and investment. 34

39 Table 8: Comparison of three Santa Clara County cities and school districts: Gilroy - lower income, Milpitas - middle income, Palo Alto - upper income Gilroy Unified (city of Gilroy) Milpitas Unified (city of Milpitas) Palo Alto Unified (city of Palo Alto) City data Population 52,000 74,000 67,000 Median income % with income above $150, District Demographics Current Expense of Education per ADA ($/pupil) K 17.9K Local revenue $/student $335 $889 $3100 Average class size Enrollment 12K 10K 13K Free reduced lunch English language learners District Performance Graduation rates Meet UC/CSU requirements % 10th graders pass math High School exit exam % 10th graders pass English High School exit exam City data sources: Median income & % households earning more than $150,000: American Community Survey 5-Year; Populations from Google search year 2014 District data source: Ed-Data Education Data Partnership school year figures Education did not rank highly among our low-income survey respondents, focus group participants, or the staff of community-based organizations. One might suspect that while 35

40 they would recognize education as important, given the fact it is difficult to make ends meet even with the median salary of a college-educated worker, other issues such as housing, cost of living, and family stability associated with immigration issues and crime are simply more pressing. SUMMARY The needs of low-income people in Santa Clara County are relatively straight forward. The booming economy has drawn a diverse array of people here and has created a large proportion of very high income people as well as jobs for lesser paid service workers. The supply and types of housing, transportation, and other services have not been able to keep up with population growth and the cost of living continues to rise. Low-income (and middle income) households are feeling the pressure. They recognize the need for more affordable housing or higher wages to afford current prices. On top of that, 37 percent of the population is foreign born and many immigrants worry about their future s in this country. Disparities in health, crime, and education continue along racial and income lines. While only a small group of community organizations responded to our survey, large majorities report an increase in demand for housing and homeless prevention (78%), immigration and citizenship services (70%), and education services (83%). Fortunately they also report and increased or stable capacity to provide these services. Half of housing and homeless prevention providers reported an increase in capacity and 39% said their capacity remained stable. Four of ten immigration and citizenship service providers said their capacity increased and the same proportion said it stayed the same. All education providers said their capacity increased or stayed the same. 43 Unfortunately, it appears that the increases in capacity may not have been able to keep up with demand given, over half of service providers perceived inadequate resources and services to meet current demand in the following areas: Affordable housing (96%); Emergency housing (85%); Transportation services (78%); Domestic violence shelter (70%); Mental health services for adults (65%); Child care services (65%); Mental health services for children (57%); Immigration and citizenship services (52%); Senior services (52%); Domestic violence counseling and services (51%); and Employment development and job training (50%). 44 Given that estimates suggest 20-30% of Santa Clara County residents are unable to meet their basic needs, it appears that significant investments must be made. Sacred Heart Community Service recognizes that public policies and public investments will make the largest and greatest impact. Not only must more housing be built and faster, it must be affordable to lower income people. This requires funding for affordable housing as well as policy changes to protect tenants in currently affordable units. Similarly, transportation investments are public decisions and mass transit is typically publicly subsidized. Lowincome people must advocate for their fair share of this investment. Protecting the rights of immigrants and their families requires massive coordination of social service and legal 43 These figures can be found in Appendix A, Table C. 44 These figures can be found in Appendix A, Table B 36

41 institutions as well as citizens willing to hold these institutions accountable. For all of these reasons, Sacred Heart Community Service focuses on the social and political participation of marginalized groups. We also work to educate the broader community about poverty and inequality through corporate outreach and educational partnerships reaching approximately 4,000 people each year. Our community organizing program has ten committees with a total of 130 leaders, the vast majority of which are low-income and representing racial and ethnic minorities. In alone we won the following policy victories. Housing: Hundreds of volunteers and community leaders led a phone banking campaign to raise awareness and pass Measure A, a $900 million bond to fund affordable housing development. Community leaders fought for rent control, a lower allowable annual rent increase from 8% to 5% and stronger protections against landlord retaliation. Sacred Heart leaders participated in a coalition to pass an ordinance for just cause evictions so that landlords cannot evict good tenants simply to increase the rent. Immigration: Two years of organizing culminated in the establishment of a San Jose Office of Immigrant Affairs and $250,000 in funding to carry out first year priorities. Sacred Heart leaders pressed San Jose Unified School District school board to pass a resolution guaranteeing the safety of children of undocumented immigrants. Transportation: Leaders advocated to ensure $500 million of a county-wide sales tax increase (Measure B) would be devoted to low-income community needs like faster more affordable bus and light rail services. Land use: An SHCS organizing campaign culminated in the passage of Urban Agriculture Incentive Zones so that land owners could receive a tax break if they devoted empty lots to agricultural purposes. Sacred Heart Community Service is committed to continuing this work and developing lowincome leaders to become self-advocates and organizers for solutions to the problems they experience. In our service areas we also focus on community participation and leadership. In a given day our volunteer to staff to ratio is three to one. In addition to that, we are transforming services to be client driven. The graduates of our year-long gardening program continue to participate on committees that plan, coordinate and implement program events and projects. Our economic and financial service area is beginning to create mutual support savings and credit counseling clubs where participants teach one another and learn together effective financial management. Our domestic violence area conducts a 40-hour training so that survivors and allies can help and advocate for others experiencing family instability. Our education program guides parents to get more involved in their children s schools and organizes them to advocate for changes to improve the education system. This not only helps us to serve more people, it also empowers the community to provide 37

42 feedback and make decisions about the programs that will make the most impact in their lives. 38

43 Top Needs Agency Priority (Yes/No) Community Needs Description of Programs/Services Directly Provided by Your Agency Housing Yes Direct Services we provide emergency rent and homelessness prevention services. We also provide county-wide utility (HEAP) and weatherization assistance. Community Engagement we have two grassroots committees of community leaders who work on renters rights and affordable housing. One time per month all of our organizing committees meet around the issue of housing which affects all issue areas including: domestic violence, immigration, and urban land use. Low wages and cost of living Yes JobLink program offers resume preparation, interview practice, job development, computer and job search skills workshops, onsite job recruitment, a career closet, and access to optical and dental care intended to help people find a job or a higher paying job. Screening for public benefits, credit/financial coaching, and savings support through matched funds and savings clubs help people optimally manage their incomes. Additionally, all of our programs and services (food, clothing, education, domestic violence counseling, gardening) are offered at no cost helping cut household costs and better manage income to meet Coordination Efforts We lead a new county-wide coalition for homelessness prevention called The Santa Clara County Family Homelessness Prevention System. We have been part of housing advocacy coalitions that won a Just Cause ordinance (2017) and improved rent control in San Jose, Measure A $900 million affordable housing bond (2016). Americorps provides JobLink intern support; Bank of America provides financial training; Page 19-21; ;

44 basic needs. Immigration Yes Direct Services, Immigration we conduct Know Your Rights trainings for immigrant families, provide information on resources and how to prepare in the event of family separation, as well as train U.S. Citizens as legal observers and dispatchers for the new Immigration Rapid Response Network in Santa Clara County we are leading which provides direct services to immigrant families although we do not ask specifically, we know that a large proportion of our clients are immigrants. Primary languages include Spanish, Vietnamese, Chinese Community Engagement a large proportion of our grassroots leaders are low-income immigrants whom we develop to advocate for immigrant concerns on our immigration committee as well as around other issues including housing, domestic violence, and transportation Crime and Safety Yes Community Organizing program fosters community involvement amongst low-income community members and works to improve police-community relations. Education programs provide safe environments for at-risk youth; Family Support Program provides support for victims of domestic violence. See Immigration section above for our safety work among immigrants. Transportation Yes Direct Services SHCS is the biggest distributor of the County s Transit Assistance Program (TAP) distributing 395 of Valley Transportation Authority Passes to low-income people at $25 per month, 36% We lead the Rapid Response Network in Santa Clara County which provides immigrants facing legal issues with support. Executive leadership is involved in the Welcoming San Jose Task Force. Education staff participate in the San Jose Gang Prevention Task Force. Our Organizing program participates in the Coalition for Justice and Accountability ; Led Transportation Justice Alliance 22-25;

45 Health and Nutrition Yes of market rate. Community organizing wins expansion and permanent funding for this and other transit services for low-income people. Food Pantry program provides a three day supply of groceries and gently used clothing up to two times per month as well as additional provisions of fresh produce. Bag lunches are provided to homeless individuals. La Mesa Verde home gardening program provides organic gardening skills and health/nutrition education to participants. Education Yes Education program provides Resilient Families support to parents of infants, Early Childhood Education for young children ages 3-5, an afterschool Homework Club and Summer Academy for elementary and middle school children, and parent education classes and workshops that include ESL, skills-building for family wellness, and training in how to get involved in local schools to facilitate children's academic success. Second Harvest Food Bank manages Countywide distribution of food; The Health Trust collaborates on health education for families; Santa Clara County Master Gardener program provides training and mentorship for La Mesa Verde participants; Selfsufficiency staff participates in the Santa Clara County Food Systems Alliance. Santa Clara University provides volunteer support and evaluation services; Education staff participate in First Generation for College Success collaborative and collaborate with the school district Instructions: Top Needs: list the top needs from your most recent Needs Assessment Agency Priority: Enter a Yes or No in the box to indicate if the need will be addressed directly or indirectly. If the need will not be met please provide explanation in narrative section below. Description of programs/services/activities: Briefly describe the program, service or activity that your entity will directly provide. Coordination: If your agency will address the need through coordination, describe what organizations and/or coalitions you will work with to meet the need, including the roles of each party. Page: Please include the location where this information can be found. 41

46 DOCUMENTATION OF PUBLIC HEARING(S) California Government Code 12747(b)-(d) requires all eligible entities to conduct a public hearing in conjunction with their CAP. In pursuant with this Article, agencies are to identify all testimony presented by the low-income and identify whether or not the concerns expressed by that testimony are addressed in the CAP. Provide a narrative description of the agency s public hearing process and methods used to invite the local community to the public hearing(s), and the methods used to gather the information about the low-income community s needs. Examples include: Surveys, public forums, and secondary data collection. Note: Public hearing(s) shall not be held outside of the service area(s). Public Hearing Process (Insert Narrative) Public Hearing We held a public hearing on Saturday April 29, 2017 including lunch, to present preliminary results and get public feedback. We provided some results to the entire group, then had staff members facilitate smaller groups of 6-10 to solicit feedback and hear stories. Fifty-five people attended the hearing not counting staff facilitators. Twenty-four participants were low-income. The following timeline tracks our work to advertise our Community Action Plan Public Forum: March 27, 2017: Sent Save the Date to 230 organizations (encouraging client, staff, volunteer participation) as part of the first request to fill our our organizational survey. Opened by 120. April 14-21, 2017: Distributed 1500 Spanish/English flyers in Sacred Heart Community Service food pantry bags April 17, 2017: Sent invitation to the event to Sacred Heart Community Service list. Distributed to 28,000. Opened by nearly 8,000 people Encouraged staff and board members to spread the word/invite their community contacts April 19, 2017: Sent invite to 200 other community based organizations. Opened by 46 April 20, 2017: Explained the event with invite in our e-newsletter. Distributed to 28,000. Opened by 7,000 Methods used to gather the information about the low-income community s needs In the fall of 2016 we surveyed 163 SHCS customers targeting a mix of regular customers, but also families that come only once or twice a year for school supplies and holiday gift distributions. Surveys were conducted in English (18%) and Spanish (82%) by staff (44%) and regular volunteers (56%). In the survey, we sought to understand the major issues or challenges affecting people and their families. In one version we provided a list of areas by which they might feel challenged including: Lack of jobs, Low-wage jobs, Crime and safety, Housing, Transportation, Immigration, Health, Food and nutrition, Education, Childcare, and a fill in Other. 42

47 In December of 2016, we followed up on the survey by conducting eight focus groups totaling about 50 people. Focus groups were conducted in English and Spanish. The focus groups lasted about 40 minutes and in them we asked people to share the biggest challenges they faced living in Silicon Valley, the impact that had on their well-being and relationships, and what kinds of changes they would like to see to improve their well-being. Below is an example of a diagram that can be used to capture and identify testimony of the low income. Comment/Concern Was the concern addressed in the CAP? Job training needs Yes 32 Transportation needs in ABC, CA No If so, indicate the page # N/A If not, indicate the reason N/A Due to limited funding, agency meets 50% of the transportation needs in ABC, CA. Attachments Provide a copy of each public hearing notice published in the media. Provide a summary of all testimony presented by the low-income population: 43

48 Flyer (also translated and distributed in Spanish) 44

49 Press release Sacred Heart Community Service 1381 S First St, San Jose, CA Contact: Jill Mitsch Getting By In Silicon Valley Sacred Heart Community Service to Host Community Conversation For Immediate Release (San Jose, CA April 27, 2017) Extreme inequality combined with the housing squeeze is keeping residents up at night and in crisis. Sacred Heart Community Service recently completed a community needs assessment of low-income residents and the organizations that serve them in Santa Clara County. Sacred Heart will be sharing the results of new, original research on Saturday, April 29 th, at the "Getting By in Silicon Valley" event. This community conversation will give residents an opportunity to learn about the causes and impact of poverty in Silicon Valley, and discuss what we can do about it. All Santa Clara County residents are invited to attend. The event is from 10am 12:30pm at Sacred Heart Community Service, and lunch will be served. To RSVP, please visit WHAT: Getting By in Silicon Valley WHEN: Saturday, April 29 10am -12:30pm WHERE: Sacred Heart Community Service 1381 S First Street, San Jose, CA ### 45