HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06162015 - C.148RECOMMENDATION(S):
APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to submit to the
California Department of Community Services and Development the County's 2016-17 Community Action Plan to
ameliorate poverty and increase self-sufficiency efforts for impacted Contra Costa County residents.
FISCAL IMPACT:
No direct fiscal impact.
The State of California will prepare and distribute a Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) contract for Contra
Costa County once the State receives notice of its 2016 allocation.
BACKGROUND:
The 2016-17 Community Action Plan (CAP) was developed with input from Contra Costa County residents,
Department staff and clients along with the County's Economic Opportunity Council (EOC). The EOC reviewed and
approved the CAP at its regular meeting on June 4, 2015.
The CAP guides the Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) program operated by the Community Services
Bureau of the Employment & Human Services Department. Approval of the CAP
APPROVE OTHER
RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
Action of Board On: 06/16/2015 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
Clerks Notes:
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
AYE:John Gioia, District I
Supervisor
Candace Andersen, District II
Supervisor
Mary N. Piepho, District III
Supervisor
Karen Mitchoff, District IV
Supervisor
ABSENT:Federal D. Glover, District V
Supervisor
Contact: CSB (925) 681-6345
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the
Board of Supervisors on the date shown.
ATTESTED: June 16, 2015
David Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy
cc: Christina Reich, Tom Stewart, Cassandra Youngblood
C.148
To:Board of Supervisors
From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director
Date:June 16, 2015
Contra
Costa
County
Subject:Authorization to submit 2016-17 Community Action Plan (CAP) to State of California
BACKGROUND: (CONT'D)
by the Board of Supervisors will allow the document to move forward for State approval. Once approved, the
State will generate a CSBG contract with the County for designated CSBG funds, which is based on County
poverty data. The needs assessment is a process used to determine unmet needs of low-income individuals,
families, and communities. The needs assessment informs CSBG eligible entities how to utilize CSBG funds to
meet the needs of low-income persons in their service areas in accordance with the assurances in the CSBG Act.
The CSBG contract will provide continuing funds for CSBG self-sufficiency programs and emergency services
for eligible county individuals and families. Funding will be determined by the State upon its receipt of notice of
the federal CSBG allocation for California for 2016.
CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION:
If not approved, the County will not have the basis to receive CSBG funding in the 2016 program year.
CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT:
The Employment and Human Services Department’s Community Action program supports two of Contra Costa
County’s community outcomes: “Children Ready for and Succeeding in School” and “Families that are Safe,
Stable, and Nurturing.” These outcomes are achieved by offering comprehensive services through the Community
Services Block Grant program, including high quality early childhood education, nutrition, and health services to
low-income children, as well as self-sufficiency programs and emergency services for eligible county individuals
and families throughout Contra Costa County.
ATTACHMENTS
2016-17 Community Action Plan
CAP Assessment and Process documents
Community Action Plan
Listing of Attachments
PAGE
Attachment A - List of Contacts Used for Survey Distribution 2
Attachment B – Communication Template for County Residents-Service Providers-Agency
Representatives-Constituents 3
Attachment C - Public Hearing Flyer Posted on Community Services Bureau’s
FaceBook Page (Serving as the CCC Community Action Agency) 4
Attachment D - FaceBook Postings for Public Hearings 5
Attachment E - Contra Costa County Public Hearing Flyers & Agendas 6
Attachment F - CommunityAssessment-2015-Final 9
Attachment G - CSB Annual Report 2014 - Final 5-4-15 82
Attachment H - 2016-2017 CSBG-NPI CAP Projections 1-26-15tt 97
Attachment I - Graph of Public Hearing Comments by Categories 113
Attachment J - Public Hearings 1-2-3 - Questions & Comments 114
Attachment K - Survey Comments & Results 121
Attachment A
Listing of Contracts Used for Survey Distribution
1. Cities and County – City Managers, City Clerk, Economic Development (from ABAG list) – 74
2. CDBG Non-Profits (from Bob Calkins) – 256
3. Community Partners (from Monique) – 196
4. EOC List (from Alicia) - 20
a. Total 366
5. CCC BOS – Request BOS members to email the survey to their constituents and other contact lists –
quantity of contacts unknown
6. STARS – forward to STARS, our internal county employee notification system, send to Dave Tilton
at tiltoda@ehsd.cccounty.us or (925) 313-1662 on Tuesday, May 12, 2015 – quantity of contacts
unknown
7. Request Made to the Following Elected Officials
a. Assembly Member Jim Frazier
(District 11)
District Office:
150 City Park Way
(Brentwood City Hall)
Brentwood, CA 94513-1164
Tel: (925)513-0411
Fax: (925) 513-3511
b. Assembly Member Susan Bonilla
District Office:
2151 Salvio Street, Suite 395
Concord, CA 94520
Tel: (925) 521-1511
Fax: (925) 602-1536 Satinder Malhi,
District Director
Heather Pritchett, Exec. Assistant
http://asmdc.org/members/a14/dis
trict/staff
c. Catharine Baker
Assembly Member, 16th District
District Office
2440 Camino Ramon, Suite 345
San Ramon, CA 94583
(925) 328-1515
(925) 328-1514 fax
http://ad16.asmrc.org/
d. Representative Mike Thompson
Vallejo District Office
985 Walnut Ave
Vallejo, CA 94592
phone: (707) 645-1888
fax: (707) 645-1870
hours: M-F 9-5:30pm
http://mikethompson.house.gov/
e. Representative Mark DeSaulnier
101 Ygnacio Valley Road, Suite #210
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Phone: (925) 933-2660
Fax: (925) 933-2677
https://desaulnier.house.gov/
Attachment B
Communication Template and Link For:
County Residents, Service Providers, Agency Representatives or Constituents
Dear (county resident, service provider, agency representative, or constituent):
To assist Contra Costa County’s Economic Opportunity Council (EOC) and the Community Services
Bureau (CSB) in developing its Community Action Plan (CAP) to guide activities over the new two years
(2016-2017), the EOC, working with staff, has developed the survey that follows.
This survey is intended to provide an additional opportunity for people to provide input to the CAP,
especially for those unable to attend one of the three public hearings held throughout the County during
the past few months. As we are attempting to get as much participation as possible, please share the link
to this survey with anyone you believe should participate in the
survey: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/2016-2017-Community-Action-Plan.
The survey should take only five to seven minutes to complete. The survey is confidential and no person
or organization will be identified; only the combined responses to individual questions will be shared. We
have asked for some general demographic information at the end, but again, that’s only to categorize the
information as coming from a person or family that is receiving services or needs services, as contrasted
with an agency or organization that is providing services.
Should you have questions regarding this survey or need more information, please contact Tom Stewart
at 925-681-6347 or tstewart1@ehsd.cccounty.us or Alicia Prieto at 925-681-6311 or
aprieto@ehsd.cccounty.us.
We want to thank you in advance for completing this survey and for your efforts to address the needs of
those living in poverty in our county.
Ajit Kaushal, Chair
Economic Opportunity Council
Camilla Rand, Director
Community Services Bureau
Appendix C
Public Hearing Flyer Posted on Community Services Bureau’s FaceBook Page
www.facebook.com/CAPContraCostaCounty (Serving as the Contra Costa County Community Action Agency)
Appendix D
Community Services Bureau’s FaceBook Page Postings for the Three Public Hearings
www.facebook.com/CAPContraCostaCounty (Serving as the Contra Costa County Community Action Agency)
West Contra Costa County – Richmond Public Library – Thursday, March 26, 2015, 6:00 to 8:00 p.m.
East Contra Costa County - Los Medanos College - Thursday, April 23, 6:00 to 8:00 p.m.
Central Contra Costa County – County Building (500 Ellinwood) - May 20 - 6:00 to 8:00 p.m.
Attachment E
Public Hearing Flyers & Agendas for Public Hearings
West Contra Costa County Public Hearing
Copies of Agenda (English & Spanish) and Flyer Announcement
Richmond Public Library – Thursday, March 26, 2015, 6:00 to 8:00 p.m.
East Contra Costa County Public Hearing
Copies of Agenda (English & Spanish) and Flyer Announcement
Los Medanos College - Thursday, April 23, 6:00 to 8:00 p.m.
Central Contra Costa County Public Hearing
Copies of Agenda (English & Spanish) and Flyer Announcement
County Building (500 Ellinwood) - May 20 - 6:00 to 8:00 p.m.
Attachment F
CSB Community Assessment for 2015 – Full Report
2015 – 2018
COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT
Contra Costa County
Employment and Human Services Department
Community Services Bureau
Rev. 2/2015
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................................V
DEMOGRAPHICS .............................................................................................................................................15
Population Estimates ........................................................................................................................................ 16
ECONOMIC INDICATORS .................................................................................................................................18
Self-Sufficiency ................................................................................................................................................. 18
Annual Income .................................................................................................................................................. 18
Unemployment ................................................................................................................................................. 19
Employment ..................................................................................................................................................... 20
Transportation .................................................................................................................................................. 22
Poverty Status................................................................................................................................................... 24
Public Assistance .............................................................................................................................................. 27
Free and Reduced Price Meals ......................................................................................................................... 30
Housing and Homelessness .............................................................................................................................. 31
HEALTH INDICATORS ......................................................................................................................................36
Healthcare Insurance ........................................................................................................................................ 36
Disability Status ................................................................................................................................................ 38
Physical Fitness ................................................................................................................................................. 39
Asthma .............................................................................................................................................................. 42
Tobacco Use ..................................................................................................................................................... 43
Sexually Transmitted Diseases ......................................................................................................................... 45
Immunizations .................................................................................................................................................. 46
Pediatric Nutrition ............................................................................................................................................ 47
Oral Health Status of Children .......................................................................................................................... 48
COMMUNITY SAFETY INDICATORS .................................................................................................................49
Adult Arrests ..................................................................................................................................................... 49
Adult Incarcerations ......................................................................................................................................... 49
Domestic Violence ............................................................................................................................................ 50
Child Abuse ....................................................................................................................................................... 50
Juvenile Arrests ................................................................................................................................................ 51
Gang Membership Among Youth ..................................................................................................................... 53
CHILDREN AND FAMILIES ................................................................................................................................53
Births ................................................................................................................................................................. 53
Child Care.......................................................................................................................................................... 58
Foster Care ....................................................................................................................................................... 61
EDUCATION AND TRAINING ...........................................................................................................................63
Academic Performance .................................................................................................................................... 63
English Learners ................................................................................................................................................ 65
Truancy Rates ................................................................................................................................................... 67
Dropout Rates ................................................................................................................................................... 68
Bullying ............................................................................................................................................................. 70
Head Start ......................................................................................................................................................... 71
i
List of Tables
Table 1 – Population by Ethnicity 2009 – 2013 ............................................................................................................ 15
Table 2 – Household Characteristics 2009 – 2013 ........................................................................................................ 15
Table 3 – Population by City and Percentage Change, 2007 – 2014 ............................................................................ 16
Table 4 – School Enrollment 2007 – 2013 (Percentage Age 3 and Over) ..................................................................... 16
Table 5 – Educational Attainment (Percentage Age 25 and Over) ............................................................................... 17
Table 6 – Percentage of Contra Costa Households above and below Self-Sufficiency Standard, 2012 ....................... 18
Table 7 – Self-Sufficiency Wage for Various Family Types, Contra Costa County, 2014 .............................................. 18
Table 8 – Annual Income for Contra Costa County and California Families, 2005 – 2013 ........................................... 19
Table 9 – Unemployment Rates in Contra Costa County and California, 2002 – 2014 ................................................ 19
Table 10 – Annual Unemployment Rates by County Sub-Area, 2002 – 2014 ............................................................... 20
Table 11 – Cities with Unemployment Rates Higher Than the Countywide Average, September 2014....................... 21
Table 12 – Projected Growth in Employment by Occupation, Contra Costa County 2010-2020.................................. 21
Table 13 – Contra Costa County Employment by Industry Sector, 2000 – 2013 .......................................................... 22
Table 14 – Percent Who Work Outside County of Residence and Mean Commute Time, 2008 – 2013 ...................... 23
Table 15 – Workers 16 Years and Over Commuting to Work, 2000 – 2013 ................................................................. 23
Table 16 – Percentage of Contra Costa Families with Income below Poverty Level, 2013 .......................................... 24
Table 17 – Percentage of Children Living at 0-99% of Federal Poverty Level, 2006 - 2013 .......................................... 24
Table 18 – Number and Percent of Children in Poverty by School District, 2000 – 2013 ............................................. 25
Table 19 – Poverty Status in Contra Costa County, 2008 – 2013 ................................................................................. 26
Table 20 – Change in Poverty Status in Contra Costa County, 2008 – 2013 ................................................................ 27
Table 21 – Public Assistance Recipients by Program, Contra Costa County 2002 – 2014 ............................................ 28
Table 22 – CalWORKs Cash Grant Cases by Ethnicity, Contra Costa County, 2002 – 2014 .......................................... 29
Table 23 – CalFresh Cases by Ethnicity, Contra Costa County, 2010 – 2014 ................................................................ 30
Table 24 – Percentage Eligible for Free and/or Reduced Price Meals by District, 2004 – 2014 ................................... 30
Table 25 – Percentage of Homes Affordable to Median Income Households, 2006 – 2014 ........................................ 32
Table 26 – Median and High Sale Price of Single Family Residences, Condos, and New Homes by Contra Costa
County Community, October 2014 ............................................................................................................. 33
Table 27 – Median Monthly Rents, Fiscal Year 2015 .................................................................................................... 34
Table 28 – Monthly Housing Costs as a Percentage of Household Income in the Past 12 Months, Contra Costa
County, 2013 .............................................................................................................................................. 34
Table 29 – Estimated Homeless Persons in Contra Costa County by Sub-Area, 2009 – 2013 ...................................... 35
Table 30 –Homeless Students in Contra Costa County by Nighttime Residence, 2011 – 2013 .................................... 35
Table 31 – Homeless Population by Bay Area Community, January 2014 ................................................................... 36
Table 32 – Health Insurance Coverage by Coverage Type, 2005 - 2012 ...................................................................... 36
Table 33 – Health Insurance Coverage of Residents by Federal Poverty Level (FPL), 2009 – 2012 .............................. 37
Table 34 – Health Insurance Coverage of Children by Age Group, 2009 - 2012 ........................................................... 38
Table 35 – Countywide Special Education Enrollment by Age and Disability, 2013-14 ................................................ 39
Table 36 – Percentage of Students who are Physically Fit, Contra Costa & California, 2004 – 2013........................... 39
Table 37 – Percentage of 5th Graders in Healthy Fitness Zone on Body Composition, 2009 – 2013 ........................... 41
Table 38 – Asthma Diagnoses among Children Age 1-17 in Contra Costa County, 2003 – 2012 ................................. 42
Table 39 – Rates of Asthma-Related Hospitalizations and Emergency Room Visits by Age Group, 2000 – 2012 ....... 42
Table 40 – Number of Asthma-Related Hospitalizations and Emergency Room Visits by Age Group, Contra Costa
County, 2008 – 2012................................................................................................................................... 42
Table 41 – Percentage Who Smoke Tobacco, Contra Costa County & California, 2002 – 2012 ................................... 43
Table 42 – Cigarette Use in Past Month among Students by Grade Level, 2008 - 2010 .............................................. 44
Table 43 – Cigarette Use in Past Month among Contra Costa Students by Ethnicity, 2008 - 2010 ............................. 44
Table 44 – STD Incidence for Chlamydia and Gonorrhea by Age Group, Contra Costa County 2013 .......................... 45
Table 45 – STD Incidence for Chlamydia and Gonorrhea, All Ages............................................................................... 46
Table 46 – Childhood Immunizations Status, 2000 – 2014 ........................................................................................... 47
ii
Table 47 – Fast Food Consumption by Age Group, Contra Costa County and California 2007 - 2012 ......................... 47
Table 48 – Length of Time since Last Dental Visit among Children Age 2-11, Contra Costa County and California,
2009 and 2012 ............................................................................................................................................ 48
Table 49 – Adult Misdemeanor Arrests, 2004 - 2013 ................................................................................................... 49
Table 50 – Adult Felony Arrests, 2004 - 2013 ............................................................................................................... 49
Table 51 – Rate of Domestic Violence Calls for Assistance, 2000 - 2012 ..................................................................... 50
Table 52 –Domestic Violence Calls for Assistance, Contra Costa County, 2008 - 2012 ................................................ 50
Table 53 – Rate of Substantiated Child Abuse Cases, 2005 – 2013 .............................................................................. 50
Table 54 – Number of Substantiated Child Abuse Cases in Contra Costa County, 2009 - 2013 ................................... 50
Table 55 – Distribution of Substantiated Child Abuse Cases in Contra Costa by Age, 2009 – 2013 ............................. 51
Table 56 – Number of Juvenile Misdemeanor Arrests, 2004 - 2013 ............................................................................. 51
Table 57 – Juvenile Felony Arrest Rates, 2004 - 2013 .................................................................................................. 52
Table 58 – Juvenile Felony Arrest Rates in Contra Costa County by Ethnicity, 2009 - 2013 ......................................... 52
Table 59 – Gang Membership among Contra Costa County Youth by Grade Level, 2008 - 2010 ................................ 53
Table 60 – Birth Rate in Contra Costa County, 2008 - 2012 ......................................................................................... 53
Table 61 – Number and Percentage of Births by Ethnicity, Contra Costa County ........................................................ 54
Table 62 – Infant Mortality Rate, Contra Costa County, 2006 – 2012 ......................................................................... 54
Table 63 – Infant Mortality Rate by Ethnicity, Contra Costa County, 2006 – 2012 ...................................................... 55
Table 64 – Percentage of Low Birth Weight Babies, Contra Costa & California, 2002 – 2012 ..................................... 55
Table 65 – Percentage of Women Receiving Prenatal Care in the First Trimester, 2000 – 2012 ................................. 56
Table 66 – Percentage of Women Who Received Prenatal Care in First Trimester by Ethnicity, 2012 ........................ 56
Table 67 – Percentage of Births to Teen Mothers Age 15 to 19, 2002 – 2012 ............................................................. 57
Table 68 – Teen Births by Ethnicity in Contra Costa County, 2009 – 2012 ................................................................... 57
Table 69 – Low Weight Births to Mothers Age 15-19 in Contra Costa County, 2006 – 2012 ....................................... 57
Table 70 – Percentage of Mothers Age 15-19 Who Received Prenatal Care in First Trimester, Contra Costa
County, 2005 - 2011 ................................................................................................................................... 57
Table 71 – Change in Child Population in Contra Costa County, 2008 – 2012 ............................................................. 58
Table 72 – Number of Licensed Facilities and Child Care Slots, Contra Costa County, 2004 - 2012 ............................. 59
Table 73 – Requests for Child Care by Age in Contra Costa County, 2010 - 2012 ........................................................ 60
Table 74 – Child Care Costs by Age and Facility Type ................................................................................................... 61
Table 75– Rate of First Entry into Foster Care .............................................................................................................. 61
Table 76 – Rate of First Entry into Foster Care by Ethnicity, 2007 – 2013.................................................................... 62
Table 77 – Children in Foster Care by Age, 2009 – 2013 .............................................................................................. 62
Table 78 – Student Performance by Subject and District, 2011 - 2013 ........................................................................ 64
Table 79 – Number and Percentage of Students Who Are English Learners (EL), 2003 – 2013 ................................... 66
Table 80 – Top Languages Spoken by English Learners in Contra Costa County, 2012-2013 ...................................... 66
Table 81 – Percentage of Students Who are Truant by District, 2004 – 2013 ............................................................. 67
Table 82 – High School Dropout Rates in Contra Costa County and California, 2000 – 2013 ...................................... 69
Table 83 – High School Dropout Rates by Ethnicity, Contra Costa County, 2002 – 2013 ............................................. 70
Table 84 – Percentage of Students Who Were Bullied in the Past Year, 2008–2010 ................................................... 71
Table 85 – Percentage of Head Start / Early Head Start Enrollees by Age, 2014–2015 ............................................... 71
Table 86 – Estimates of Families Living Below Poverty by Ethnicity, 2013................................................................... 72
Table 87 – Head Start and Early Head Start Enrollees by Race and Ethnicity, 2010 – 2014 ........................................ 72
Table 88 – Percentage of Enrolled Families by Family Type, 2010–2014 ..................................................................... 73
Table 89 – Early Head Start and Head Start Enrollment by Eligibility Type, 2014–15.................................................. 73
Table 90 – Number of Disabled Preschoolers in Head Start by Disability Type, 2006 – 2014 ...................................... 74
iii
List of Figures
Figure 1 – Percent Population Change by City, 2007 - 2014......................................................................................... 17
Figure 2 – Unemployment Rates in Contra Costa County and California, 2002 – 2014 ............................................... 21
Figure 3 – Percentage Who Work Outside County of Residence, 2008 - 2013 ............................................................. 22
Figure 4 – Means of Transport to Work for Contra Costa County Workers, 2000 – 2013 ........................................... 23
Figure 5 – Change in Percentage and Number of Children in Poverty by School District, 2000 – 2013 ....................... 25
Figure 6 – Number of Public Assistance Recipients in Contra Costa County, 2002 – 2014 .......................................... 28
Figure 7 – Percentage of CalWORKs Cases by Ethnicity, Contra Costa County, 2002 – 2014 ...................................... 29
Figure 8 – Change in Percent of FRPM-Eligible Students by District, 2005-2014 ......................................................... 31
Figure 9 – Housing Opportunity Index Scores by Community, 2006-2014 ................................................................... 32
Figure 10 – Health Insurance Coverage by Coverage Type, 2005-2014 ....................................................................... 37
Figure 11 – Percentage of Students who are Physically Fit, Contra Costa & California, 2004 – 2013 ......................... 40
Figure 12 – Percentage of Physically Fit 7th and 9th Graders by Ethnicity, 2013 ........................................................ 40
Figure 13 – Percentage of 5th Graders in Healthy Fitness Zone (HFZ) on Body Composition by District, 2009 –
2013 ............................................................................................................................................................ 41
Figure 14 – Asthma Hospitalizations by Age Group in Contra Costa and California, 2000 – 2012 .............................. 43
Figure 15 – Percentage of Contra Costa Teens Who Used Cigarettes in Past Month by Ethnicity, 2010 ..................... 44
Figure 16 – STD Incidence in Contra Costa County and California, 2009 – 2013.......................................................... 45
Figure 17 – Childhood Immunization Status, Contra Costa County & California, 2000 – 2014 .................................... 46
Figure 18 – Fast Food Consumption in Contra Costa County and California, 2007 – 2012 .......................................... 47
Figure 19 – Time since Last Dental Visit among Children Age 2-11, 2009 – 2012 ........................................................ 48
Figure 20 – Distribution of Substantiated Child Abuse Cases by Age, 2009 – 2013 ..................................................... 51
Figure 21 – Juvenile Felony Arrest Rates by Ethnicity, 2009 – 2013 ............................................................................. 52
Figure 23 – Percentage of Low Birth Weight Births, Contra Costa County & California, 2002 – 2012 ........................ 55
Figure 24 – Percentage of Women Who Received Prenatal Care in First Trimester by Ethnicity, 2012 ....................... 56
Figure 25 – Change in Child Population in Contra Costa County and California, 2008 – 2012 .................................... 59
Figure 26 – Child Care Slots Capacity at Licensed Centers in Contra Costa County, August 2012 ............................... 60
Figure 27 – Rate of First Entry into Foster Care, Contra Costa County and California, 2003 – 2013 ........................... 62
Figure 34 – High School Dropout Rates by Ethnicity, Contra Costa County, 2004 – 2013............................................ 70
Figure 35 – Early Head Start and Head Start Enrollment by Eligibility Type, 2010 – 2014 .......................................... 74
iv
Executive Summary
Purpose and Objectives
The Community Services Bureau (CSB) in Contra Costa County receives state funding to provide support and development services to approximately 1,900 families with 2,022 children eligible for the Early Head Start and Head Start program. CSB staff are deeply involved in community activities undertaken to ensure appropriate representation of child and family interests and a consistent forum for discussion of child/family needs. Examples of the CSB’s commitment to and involvement with the community include 2 positions on the county’s First 5 Commission, collaborations with community-based organizations in efforts such as the Building Blocks for Kids initiative, a Harlem Children’s Zone inspired project in the Iron Triangle of Richmond, and data collection processes that include the County Office of Education, the Contra Costa Local Planning Council, and First 5 Contra Costa.
As part of its service mission, the CSB conducts an annual Community Assessment to provide a current profile of the economic, health, safety, and educational status of the estimated 63,491 0-4 year old children in families who call Contra Costa County home. The Community Assessment is a multi-phase, ongoing process that integrally involves the Head Start Policy Council, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors and active parents. Findings are used to appraise staff and parents in service coordination meetings of emerging needs, to revise approaches, and to keep the Policy Council informed. The Board of Supervisors is also kept apprised of results through periodic reports and presentations. Through monthly reports to the County Administrator, the CSB also reports to the County Board of Supervisors on the program’s responsiveness to the community.
Methodology
To complete the assessment, a variety of data collection techniques are undertaken. CSB Assistant
Directors work with staff and parents to revise or refine the assessment process, develop and
implement the parent questionnaire used to survey parents about community needs and emerging
issues, and gather demographic information about current CSB enrollment. These collaborations
also help identify new areas of eligible populations, determine the number of Head Start eligible
children in the county, describe eligible children and families by population, income, family size,
and by family characteristics such as educational attainment, employment status, special needs,
ethnicity, and language. Finally, these collaborations help identify emerging needs or interests of
eligible community members from other agencies that serve the population. CSB also works with
staff members to identify other critical data sources for the Assessment including:
• Local commissions, committees and community-based organizations such as First 5 Contra
Costa, the United Way, Cal-WORKS, the County Health Department, Contra Costa County
Local Planning Council for Child Care, and the County Office of Education
• Parent and family partnership data, parent planning sessions, and self-assessment
questionnaires
• Internal data sources such as the Program Information Report (PIR)
• Community Care Licensing data
• Training and Technical Assistance Plan
• Federal and state agency data sources such as the U.S. Census Bureau, CA Department of
Finance; CA Department of Education; and CA Employment Development Department
• Other sources including school enrollment data, birth rates, TANF data, and the Association
of Bay Area Governments
The Policy Council’s involvement in the Community Assessment continues throughout the process
as they provide input to the process, through participation in meetings and opportunities for
dialog, or as they review the data for planning in the context of shared governance. In the spring of
each year, the full Policy Council receives a comprehensive presentation of the current Community
Assessment and exercises its mandate to evaluate, discuss and pose questions about its findings. In
August of each year, the Policy Council reviews and approves the current Community Assessment.
This summary presents the results of this Community Assessment process for 2014 to 2016.
v
Population Profile
♦ Contra Costa County’s population grew to 1,079,460 in 2013, a 4% increase since 2009. The
county saw a 4% decline in Caucasian residents, compared to the state’s 3% drop and a 4%
increase in Asian residents, compared to the state’s 1% increase since 2009. Latino residents
continue to make up a smaller proportion of residents in the county (25%) compared to the
state (38%).
♦ Between 2007 and 2014, the county grew 10% overall, while the city of Brentwood grew 66%,
San Ramon grew 65%, and Oakley grew 41%. Other communities, such as San Pablo and Pinole,
saw population declines near 4%.
♦ The number of families in the county grew 6%, compared to the state’s slight decline. In 2013,
female head of household families account for 12% of all households in the county, compared
to 14% in California. However, female-headed households in Contra Costa grew by 8,764, a 23%
increase since 2009, compared to the state’s slight increase, and the proportion of female-
headed households with children increased in the county, while it decreased in the state.
♦ Contra Costa County continues to maintain a younger student body than the state overall. Since
2007, the number of the county’s children in nursery school, preschool or kindergarten has
increased 3% from 31,729 to 32,666. During the same time, college or graduate school
enrollment in the county grew by 7,905 students or 12%.
Economic Profile
INCOME AND POVERTY
♦ The self-sufficiency standard in Contra Costa County for a family with 1 adult, an infant, a
preschooler, and a school age child increased to an estimated $109,545 in 2014, while the
median family income was about $94,208. An estimated 37% of families lived below the self-
sufficiency standard in 2012.
♦ Since 2005, the proportion and number of Contra Costa County families that earn less than
$15,000 annually has increased by 13,951 families, while this proportion has remained constant
in California overall. Both the county and state have seen moderate declines in middle income
families.
♦ From 2008 to 2013, the proportion of county residents in poverty increased 2.5 percentage
points overall, families with children under 18 in poverty increased 2.8 points, Hispanics in
poverty increased 4.1 points, residents in poverty who work less than fulltime increased 5.0
points, those in poverty who did not complete high school increased 5.2 points, and African
Americans in poverty increased 5.8 points. Importantly, the poverty rate for female-headed
households with children under 5 has risen 10 points from 30% to 40% since 2008.
♦ Although poverty rates for families in the county remain lower than the state, poverty rates for
children in the school districts of Pittsburg (29%), Antioch (23%), John Sweet (22%), West
Contra Costa (20%), Knightsen (20%), Mount Diablo (17%), and Byron (16%) all surpass the
overall county rate of 15%.
♦ Since 2000, the number of children in poverty in Contra Costa County school districts rose
24,658, while the percentage of children in poverty has increased in 13 of 17 school districts,
from a 0.7 percentage point increase in Oakley to a 17.4 point increase in Pittsburg. In 2013,
33,834 of the county’s 40,590 children in poverty (83%) live in the school districts of Antioch,
Liberty, Mt. Diablo, Pittsburg and West Contra Costa.
♦ In 2014, about 2% of all Contra Costa County residents are CalWORKs cash recipients, and
participation has grown nearly 20% from 18,619 in 2002 to 22,305 in 2014. The Welfare to
Work program saw an 11% increase since 2002. In 2013, more than 23,800 Contra Costa County
households receive SNAP benefits.
♦ The number of CalFresh recipients far exceeds all other Public Assistance programs, and
participation has grown much faster than other programs. Since 2010, the number of families
vi
with CalFresh benefits has increased by 33% from 26,630 to 35,280 in 2014. About 30% of cases are African American households, 30% are Latino and 27% are Caucasian.
♦ In 2014, over one third of CalWORKs cases are African American households (38%) followed by Latino households (31%) and Caucasian households (25%). About 72% of the 2,258 caseload increase since 2002 has been distributed to Latino households.
♦ Since 2004, the percentage of children eligible to receive free and reduced cost meals in county schools has risen from 30% to 41%, due to large increases in Antioch Unified, John Swett Unified, Knightsen Elementary, Liberty Union High, Mt. Diablo Unified, Oakley Union Elementary, Orinda Union Elementary, Pittsburg Unified, and West Contra Costa Unified.
♦ Districts with the highest percentage of FRPM-eligible students in 2013-14 are Pittsburg Unified
(84%), SBE - Synergy (77%), West Contra Costa Unified (71%), John Swett Unified (68%) and
Antioch Unified (63%). These districts all exceed the state average of 59%. Antioch Unified,
John Swett Unified, Pittsburg Unified, and West Contra Costa Unified all had the highest
percentage of eligible students in the 2009-10 school year as well.
EMPLOYMENT
♦ Since 2012, Contra Costa County saw unemployment drop to 6% in 2014. The state saw similar relief as its rate dropped to 7% from 11% in 2012. However, several highly populated areas in the county surpass both the state and county rate, including San Pablo (12%), Richmond (10%), and Pittsburg (9%). While conditions continue to improve in the local and state economies, many families in Contra Costa County still face multiple financial stressors, such as longer commute times, rising rents, lower paying jobs and under-employment.
♦ In the past 13 years, Contra Costa County’s civilian labor force grew 8% or 38,000 workers, while the county lost about 2,300 jobs across all major industries. Since 2000, the county has also lost jobs in the relatively higher paying sectors of construction; professional, scientific, and management; and manufacturing. Analysts predict growth in the demand for economists, conservation scientists, pipe layers, soil and plant scientists and software developers.
♦ Workers on average spend more time traveling to work in 2013 (34.3 minutes) than they did in 2008 (31.9 minutes), more than commuters in nine other Bay Area counties, and more than the statewide average of 27.5 minutes. Almost 42% of Contra Costa County workers must travel outside the county to work in 2013.
♦ Importantly, between 2000 and 2013, the percentage of those in the county who drive alone to work has steadily increased from 66% to 70%, the percentage who carpool has decreased from 16% to 12%, and the percentage who use public transit has dropped from 16% to 10%.
HOUSING
♦ As the Bay Area housing market recovers and home prices increase from record lows a few
years ago, the ability for median income households to afford a home decreased dramatically in
2014. Only about 29% of homes are affordable to a median income household in the Oakland-
Fremont-Hayward area, compared to 67% in 2010. One-year high sale price increases of more
than 10% were recorded in nearly half of all Contra Costa County zip codes, while 6 areas
increased more than 20% in the past year (94514, 94519, 94565, 94801, 94804, and 94805).
♦ Median rents in the county also increased 13% since 2011, with the median rent for a 2-
bedroom apartment rising to $1,709 from $1482 in 2011.
♦ From 2009 to 2013, the county’s homeless population grew an estimated 29% to 6,635, while
the US overall saw a 10% reduction. In 2013, about 1,370 (21%) of the County’s homeless were
newly homeless, 38% were less than 18 years of age, and communities such as Walnut Creek,
San Pablo and Pittsburg faced very large increases in homelessness.
♦ Impacts of homelessness in regions such as Contra Costa County may be underestimate as
national trends indicate nearly half of all homeless persons live in 1 of only 4 states, California
tops that list with the highest homelessness rate in the country (3.65 per 1,000), increasingly
homeless persons access services in suburban and rural areas rather than in large cities, and
the proportion of persons in families who access services has increased relative to individuals.
vii
Health Profile
The well-being of the county’s children and families is impacted greatly by factors such as health
care coverage; physical fitness; access to proper nutrition, immunizations, and affordable dental
care; and exposure to STDs, tobacco use and environmental hazards. Not surprisingly, most of
these pervasive health concerns disproportionally impact children, the elderly, people of color and
low-income communities.
HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE
♦ Since 2005, the proportion of Contra Costa County residents who are uninsured (11%) has remained relatively steady, while the state’s rate of uninsured (15%) has dropped. Residents with job-based coverage has also steadily decreased from 9.4 points above the state’s rate in 2005 to the same rate as the state in 2012 (54%). Rates of Medi-Cal coverage has more than doubled since 2005 in both the state (22%) and the county (15%).
♦ Although from 2006 to 2012, the county’s Healthy Families enrollment grew dramatically from 4,942 to 13,528 families, the 2013 state budget cut the program after 15 years of providing low-cost health, dental, and vision coverage for low- and moderate-income families. Families previously eligible for Healthy Families coverage have been transitioning to Medi-Cal coverage since January 2013.
♦ Although children age 0-17 are still covered through their parents’ job-based insurance at a higher rate in the county than in California overall (47%), the county’s rate has dropped dramatically from 76% in 2009 to 60% in 2012. Nearly 5 times as many children in the county are estimated to be uninsured in 2012 (9,690) as compared to 2009 (2,016).
CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES
♦ In 2014, 2,309 infants and preschool children in Contra Costa County are disabled, which represents a 3% decrease since 2012. Speech or language impairment disabilities continue to account for the vast majority (71%) of students age 2 through 5 enrolled in Special Education. Speech or language impairments also account for 86% of the diagnosed disabilities among Head Start (4-5 year old) participants.
♦ As the second most common disability in the county, autism presents a growing concern, up from 11% in 2009 to 17% in 2014 among 0-5 year olds. Hearing impairments continue to affect about 4% of 0-5 year olds.
♦ The number of disabilities among preschoolers in Head Start has also decreased steadily in the past 8 years as diagnoses dropped from a high of 280 in 2007 to a 9-year low of 143 in 2014.
PHYSICAL FITNESS
♦ Since 2003, the county’s 5th, 7th and 9th graders score higher overall than the state on physical
fitness tests in every year except 2010, and both the county and state have seen an overall
upward trend in fitness among 9th graders in the past 10 years. However, Contra Costa County
9th graders who are Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, Hispanic/Latino or African American are
significantly less likely to be physically fit than Asian American, White and Filipino students.
♦ The county has surpassed the state’s proportion of 5th graders in the healthy fitness zone for
body composition by at least 4 percentage points since 2009; however, both county and state
have seen this percentage drop nearly 10 percentage points since 2009. District proportions
vary widely from a high of 87% in Moraga Unified to a low of 48% in Pittsburg Unified.
♦ Notably, Lafayette Unified is the only district in the county that improved its percentage of 5th
graders in the HFZ for body composition since 2009, up over 10 points to 78% in 2013. Three
districts saw declines of more than 10 percentage points in this time, including Pittsburg
Unified (-15), Orinda Unified (-14) and West Contra Costa (-11).
viii
ASTHMA
♦ Asthma, one of the most common chronic diseases in the US, disproportionally impacts youth,
the elderly, people of color and low-income communities and is of particular concern for
Contra Costa County, which received an F grade for air quality in 2011 from the American Lung
Association’s State of the Air Evaluation.
♦ Asthma diagnoses among children in Contra Costa County dropped from a 10-year high of 22%
in 2009 to 19% in 2012, but remains higher than California among all age groups.
♦ Both the county and state have seen overall declines in asthma-related hospitalizations and
emergency department visits since 2000, but declines have been much steeper among
California children than in the county. Importantly, hospitalization rates among 0-4 year olds in
Contra Costa County, at 26.3 per 10,000, has not declined since 2006, and are projected to be
nearly twice as high as the state in low-income, predominantly African American communities,
such as Richmond.
OTHER MARKERS OF COMMUNITY HEALTH
♦ Tobacco use among residents overall has decreased steadily since 2002, down from 14% in 2002 to 11% in 2012, and remains less than statewide use overall. Contra Costa County teenagers are slightly less likely to smoke when compared to California teenagers as well. However, cigarette use among American Indian/Alaska Native (13%) teens, Native Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander (11%) teens, Hispanic/Latino (10%) teens, and African American (10%) teens is considerably higher than students of other races/ethnicities.
♦ STD incidence rates have declined slightly in both the county and state since 2011, and in 2013 rates of Chlamydia in Contra Costa County (650.3 per 100,000) have dropped below statewide rates (717.7 per 100,000). However, the county’s rates of Gonorrhea (115.4 per 100,000) remain somewhat higher than the state (99.7 per 100,000).
♦ In 2014, the county’s rate of fully immunized children entering school is 94% compared to the state’s rate of just 90%. The county rates have also remained stable relative to state rates, which dropped from 92% in 2000 to 90% in 2014. Importantly, non-compliance based on Personal Belief Exemptions has risen in the county from 1% in 2000 to over 2% in 2014.
♦ In 2012, the county exceeded statewide averages for both high and low birth weight babies. The percentage of Contra Costa County children who regularly consume fast food has been less than that of the state since 2007; however, the county’s rate continues to rise, while the state’s rate has dropped somewhat in the past 5 years.
♦ Infant mortality rates in Contra Costa County have risen from 4.1 per 1,000 in 2006 to 4.9 per
1,000 in 2012, which suggests a decline in maternal health, health care access, health practices
and/or related socioeconomic conditions. Rates also vary by race/ethnicity with higher rates
seen among multi-racial (9.7) and African American (9.0) residents in 2012. Gradually rising
rates are also apparent among Asians, Hispanic and Caucasian residents.
♦ Data regarding children’s oral health also reveals a troubling trend. The percentage of 2 – 11
year olds in Contra Costa County who have never seen a dentist was only slightly higher than
the state in 2009 (12% and 11%, respectively), but grew to 16% in the county by 2012, while
the state’s rate dropped to 10%. Compared to 2009 (72%), fewer county children had visited a
dental in the past 6 months in 2012 (67%), while California improved its rate from 70% to 73%.
Community Safety Profile
Although crime statistics show a general decline in crime since 2008 in both the county and state, the perception of high crime and threats to personal safety and well-being remains very real in many communities. As one consequence of the stress and strain of pervasive poverty, violent crime continues to plague many communities, such as Richmond, whose homicide rate ranks among the nation’s highest.
♦ Since 2004, adult arrests have dropped in both the county and state, and Contra Costa County has seen a steeper decline in the number of misdemeanors arrests compared to the state
ix
(down 21% and 15%, respectively). However, the county’s 1% decline in the number of felony arrests does not compare well to the state’s 11% decline.
♦ Juvenile arrests in the county have declined in the past several years, following state trends. In 2013, the number of juvenile misdemeanor arrests in the county dropped to 1,132, a 56% decrease since 2004. The number of juvenile misdemeanors in California dropped to 54,315 in 2013, a 57% since 2004. Juvenile felony arrests per 1,000 have also fallen in the county from 12.9 in 2007 to 5.5 in 2013, while the state’s rate fell from 14.2 in 2007 to 7.5 in 2013. An estimated 8% to 9% of Contra Costa County teenagers may be members of a gang in 2010.
♦ In the past 9 years, the rate of substantiated child abuse cases per 1,000 children in Contra
Costa County has been substantially lower than the state, but the steep declines the county
saw in child abuse rates from 2007 (8.8) to 2009 (5.1) have not continued. Rates increased in
2011 (5.5) and held at 2009 levels in 2013 (5.1). In 2013, the proportion of cases involving 6 -10
year olds is higher (28%) compared to 2009 (26%).
♦ Although county-level data regarding probationers and inmates with children is unavailable,
the CSB database, COPA, suggests families impacted by incarcerations rose an alarming 206%
from 2010 to 2012. This trend is partly explai ned by a dramatic increase in the number of
women incarcerated, as the US female prison population grew nearly 400% since 1986. Further,
an estimated 9% of children in the state have a parent in the criminal justice system in 2000,
and in 2007, an estimated 53% of inmates in the US had at least one minor child.
♦ Despite a lack of county-level estimates, the county’s probation department attests that many
inmates and probationers in their charge are primary caregivers of children under 5. These
children may be particularly vulnerable to financial insecurity, poor academic performance,
social stigma and isolation, delinquency, emotional withdrawal, and mental health problems.
♦ In 2012, rates of domestic violence calls for assistance continued their downward trend and
reached a 12-year low of 4.6 per 1,000 in the county and 6.2 in the state. However, this figure
translates into 3,286 calls for assistance in Contra Costa County in 2012.
Profile of Children and Families
♦ While the overall number of births in Contra Costa County decreased by 9% from 13,315 in 2002 to 12,061 in 2012, the number of births to Asians or Pacific Islanders grew by 17%, and the number of births to Caucasians dropped by 25%.
♦ From 2000 to 2012, the proportion of women in the county who receive prenatal care in the first trimester dropped from 89% to 85%; however, 2012 rates improved from their 12-year low of 82% in 2008. In 2012, the proportion who received care in the first trimester is lowest among Pacific Islanders mothers (61%) and highest among Caucasian (89%) and Asian (88%) mothers.
♦ Teen births in both the county and state have maintained gradual but steady declines in the past 10 years, falling in the county from 7% in 2002 to 5% in 2012. Latinos continue to have the highest proportion of the county’s teen births with 55% in 2012, while African Americans had 21% of the teen births and Caucasians had 15%.
♦ Importantly, while teen birth rates declined, the proportion of low birth weight infants born to
teenagers rose from 7% in 2008 to 8% in 2012. Teen mothers who miss prenatal care in the
critical first trimester of pregnancy improved slightly from 36% in 2010 to 33% in 2012.
DEMOGRAPHICS OF HEAD START AND EARLY HEAD START ELIGIBLE CHILDREN
♦ Approximately 10,009 of the 0-5 year olds who reside in Contra Costa County in 2013 would be
eligible for Early Head Start (5,786 0-2 year olds) or Head Start (4,223 3-4 year olds) programs
based on family incomes below the FPL.
♦ Based on projections of the number of families living below FPL in 2013, about 37% of income
eligible children in the county are Hispanic or Latino, 18% are African American, 48% are White,
11% are Asian, 13% are some other race/ethnicity, and less than 1% are Native American or
Pacific Islander.
x
CHILD CARE NEEDS
♦ From 2008 to 2012, the number of children under age 5 in Contra Costa County decreased 4% from 66,140 in 2008 to 63,491 in 2012, a reduction of 2,649 children age 0-4. However, about 66% of the county’s 0-12 year olds have parents in the workforce in 2012, compared to just 64% statewide, and the county has seen a more than 25% increase in the number of 0-5 year olds living in poverty since 2008.
♦ F rom 2004 to 2012, the number of available child care slots dropped nearly 2% and the number of service provider sites dropped by 20% in Contra Costa County. Slots in licensed centers and family child care homes in the county declined from 38,237 slots at 1,835 sites in 2004 to 37,646 slots at 1,464 sites in 2012. Available slots have continued to shift from Family Child Care Homes to Child Care Centers.
♦ Parent requests for child care for 0-2 year olds declined slightly since 2010, with about 39% of all requests for licensed child care in 2012 involving children less than 2 years of age, as compared to 41% in 2010.
♦ Despite population shifts and declining requests for care, reduced capacity disproportionately impacts harder-to-place children, as providers vary in their willingness and qualifications to accept subsidized or special needs children, such as those in protective services. In their 2013 annual report, the Contra Costa County Child Care Council estimates that as many as 3,000 low income children remain on wait lists for child care.
♦ Gaps between demand and the ability to pay for child care continue to plague high need areas such as lower income communities in Antioch, Concord, Pittsburg, Richmond, and San Pablo. About 83% of the county’s 40,590 children in poverty are concentrated in the Antioch, Liberty, Mt. Diablo, Pittsburg and West Contra Costa school districts. Since 2000, large increases in the number of children in poverty have occurred in Mt. Diablo (up 6,543), Antioch (up 4,228), West Contra Costa (up 4,195) and Pittsburg (up 2,945).
♦ Cost of care represents another critical barrier to access, even for middle class families earning at or near the county’s annual median of $94,208 in 2014. Full-time care for infants now costs an estimated $13,602 per year, up $952 since 2010.
♦ Rates of first entry into foster care in the county has been lower than that of the state since 2003. In 2013, the county’s rate is 1.6 per 1,000 children, while the state’s rate is 2.8. Rates in the county continue to be highest among African American children (6.3 per 1,000 children), which is 4 times higher than rates of first entry for Caucasians (1.6 per 1,000).
♦ The rate of first entry into foster care among the county’s African Americans rose moderately from 5.6 in 2010 to 6.3 per 1,000 in 2013, while the rate among Latino children in the county dropped slightly from 1.4 to 1.3 per 1,000 in the same period.
♦ After dropping to 960 in 2010, the number of children in foster care in Contra Costa County has increased to 1,164 in 2013. About 28% of children in foster care (n=327) are 0-5 years old.
DEMOGRAPHICS OF CHILDREN ENROLLED IN HEAD START
♦ In 2014-2015, the county’s Early Head Start program served 397 0-3 year olds, while its Head
Start program served 1,625 preschoolers. About one-third of Early Head Start enrollees were
less than a year old, and about half of Head Start enrollees were 4 years old.
♦ In 2014, 58% of Early Head Start and 66% of all Head Start enrollees in the county are Latino,
while 24% of Early Head Start and 20% of Head Start enrollees are African American. Caucasian
enrollees make up nearly two thirds of Early Head Start (64%) and Head Start (67%) enrollees.
Only 2% of Early Head Start and 4% of Head Start enrollees are Asian, while less than 1% of
enrollees in either program are Pacific Islander/Native Hawaiian or American Indian/Alaskan.
♦ Single-parent families represent 70% and 63% of all families with children enrolled in Early
Head Start and Head Start, respectively. Both figures are down since 2010.
♦ Income eligible children represent 67% of Early Head Start and 64% of Head Start enrollees, a
10.4 percentage point increase for Early Head Start and a 4.8 increase for Head Start since
xi
2010. Enrollment based on receipt of public assistance represents 22% of Head Start and 18% of Early Head Start children in 2014. Both program’s 2014 enrollment saw increases in eligibility based on being in foster care (3% of Head Start and 5% of Early Head Start children). The number and proportion eligible based on homelessness has not changed markedly since 2010.
♦ Disabilities among preschoolers in Head Start have steadily decreased in the past 8 years, dropping 49% from a high of 280 in 2007 to a 9-year low of 143 in 2014. In 2014, speech or language impairments continue to be most common, representing 86% of all diagnoses, a 7 point decline from the prior year. Unlike prior years, autism (n=6) and non-categorical developmental delay (n=5) represent the second and third most common disabilities in 2014.
COMMUNITIES SERVED BY HEAD START
A total of 37 provider sites (including county, partner, and affiliate-operated childcare centers) located in the eastern, western and north central areas of the county deliver Head Start and Early Head Start services to residents. Provider locations have been largely concentrated in the predominantly urban or inner city areas of eastern, western and north central county to match neighborhoods of greatest need, high concentration of children age 0-5, and large immigrant populations. These communities have also been plagued with much higher than average poverty rates; high rates of violent crime, homelessness, and unemployment; and alarmingly high truancy and dropout rates. Residents in the 31 zip codes identified below access Head Start and Early Head Start services.
94505 94513 94520 94525 94531 94561 94582 94805
94506 94514 94521 94526 94547 94564 94801 94806
94509 94518 94522 94529 94549 94565 94803 94808
94511 94519 94523 94530 94553 94572 94804
Educational Profile
♦ In 2013, the percentage of county students who score proficient or above in English Language
Arts exceeds the state (62% and 56%, respectively), and both the county and state have
improved these percentages since 2011. Percentages vary widely from 42% in West Contra
Costa Unified, to 92% in Orinda Union Elementary.
♦ The percentage of county students who score proficient or above in math also exceeds the
state (56% and 51%, respectively), and both the county and state have improved these
percentages since 2011. District percentages range from 38% in West Contra Costa Unified to
91% in Orinda Union Elementary.
♦ Contra Costa County also surpasses California in the percentage of students proficient or above
in science (65% and 59%, respectively), and both the county and state have improved these
percentages since 2011. District proportions range from 44% in Pittsburg Unified to 94% in
Orinda Union Elementary.
♦ The proportion of Contra Costa County students who are English Learners, although historically
lower than that of the state, continues to gradually approach state proportions. Between 2003
and 2013, while the proportion of English Learners in California dropped from 25% to 22%, the
county experienced an increase from 15% to 17%.
♦ In 2013, the top 7 languages spoken by English Learners in Contra Costa County remain virtually
unchanged from prior years and include Spanish (80%), Filipino/Tagalog (3%), Vietnamese (2%),
Farsi/Arabic (2%), Mandarin (1%), Punjabi (1%) and Cantonese (1%).
♦ The countywide truancy rate has generally exceeded the state’s rate since 2004, and at 30%,
remains above the state’s 29% in 2012-13. However, Orinda Union Elementary (<1%), Moraga
Elementary (1 %), and Knightsen Elementary (14%) have maintained relatively low rates, while
West Contra Costa Unified (59%) and Pittsburg Unified (45%) struggle against rates far above
state averages.
xii
♦ Notably, truancy in Liberty Union High rose from <1% to 35% since 2010, and 2 other districts saw rates climb significantly, including Acalanes Union High (up 10.4 points), and Knightsen Elementary (up 12.1 points). In contrast, rates in John Swett Unified dropped from 57% to 21%.
♦ Although dropout rates in the county (8%) remain below that of the state (11%), rates here have increased 2 percentage points since 2000, while the state’s rate rose less than 1 point. In 2013, dropout rates in 3 districts – Mt. Diablo Unified (12%), Pittsburg Unified (22%), and West Contra Costa Unified (13%) – all exceed the state’s rate of 11%.
♦ Notably since 2001, dropout rates improved in West Contra Costa Unified (from 17% to 13%), John Swett Unified (from 10% to 7%), San Ramon Valley Unified (from 1% to <1%), and Liberty
Union High (from 5% to 4%).
♦ The county has seen a reduction in dropout rates among students of all ethnicities in the past 8
years; however, since 2004, dropouts among Asian, Filipino and Caucasian students have been
consistently the lowest in the county, while rates among African American, Latino, Native
American and Pacific Islander students have been the highest.
♦ Bullying and harassment by classmates, implicated as one underlying cause of poor academic
performance and truant behavior, is reported more often by Contra Costa County teens (44%)
than by California teens overall (42%).
♦ Since 2005, the percentage of county residents with at least a high school education dropped
slightly from 89% to 88%, compared to a 1% increase statewide. Notably, the percentage of
county residents with less than a 9th grade education also increased from 5% to 6%, while the
state’s rate dropped slightly to 10%.
Additional Resources for Head Start Eligible Children
No single agency would be capable of eliminating the myriad causes and effects of poverty. Collaborations of the private sector, government agencies, community-based, and faith-based organizations play a critical as they join forces, multiply individual efforts, and leverage scarce resources. The Community Services Bureau recognizes the Head Start, Early Head Start, CDD, and CSBG programs accessed by many residents are most effective in reducing or eliminating poverty’s impact on children and families when they operate in unison with a comprehensive network of partnerships with hundreds of organizations committed to transforming individuals, families, neighborhoods, and entire communities.
With this perspective, the CSB continues its successful history of merging Head Start and Child Development programs into a unified Child Start program which offers more families full-day, year-round services such as high-quality preschool education; health and dental services; job skills training support for family members in the CalWORKs program; and family advocacy services. CSB-served families gain access to Heating/Energy Assistance, free meals, and emergency shelter offered through other county departments. Families also benefit from health services available through the CSB’s extensive network of formalized collaborations, including First 5 Contra Costa (Prop 10), Women, Infants and Children (WIC), and the Child Health and Disability Prevention program (CHDP). Finally, families benefit from the CSB’s affiliation with regional health advocacy groups such as the Contra Costa County Asthma Coalition, the Community Coalition, Injury
Prevention Council, Baby Shots Immunization Coalition, Dental Health Action Team and Bay Point
Partnership for public health.
xiii
Demographics
From 2009 to 2013, Contra Costa County’s population grew 3.7% from 1,041,274 to 1,079,460. During this period, the statewide growth rate was also 3.7%. The proportion of Caucasian residents dropped 4.1% in Contra Costa County and 2.9% California, while the percentage of Latino residents in Contra Costa County continues to be significantly lower than that of California overall (24.9% vs. 38.4%, respectively). The county’s 46,285 increase in Asian residents since 2009 accounts for the majority of its growth and represents a 3.8% increase, compared to the state’s 1.4% increase in Asian residents in this 4-year period.
Table 1 – Population by Ethnicity 2009 – 2013
ETHNICITY
2009 2013
CONTRA
COSTA
NUMBER
CONTRA
COSTA
PERCENT
CALIFORNIA
PERCENT
CONTRA
COSTA
NUMBER
CONTRA
COSTA
PERCENT
CALIFORNIA
PERCENT
Caucasian 741,387 71.2 76.4 723,829 67.1 73.5
African American 101,004 9.7 6.6 113,757 10.5 6.6
American Indian / Alaska Native 8,330 .8 1.2 17,728 1.6 1.7
Asian 146,820 14.1 12.7 193,105 17.9 14.1
Pacific Islander / Native Hawaiian 5,206 .5 .4 12,709 1.2 .5
Two or more races 38,527 3.7 2.6 62,717 5.8 3.7
Hispanic or Latino 241,576 23.2 37.0 267,184 24.9 38.4
Total population 1,041,274 - 36,961,664 1,079,460 - 38,332,521
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Quick Facts; as of July 2014; 2011-2013 3-Year American Community Survey;
http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/searchresults.xhtml?refresh=t
Although Contra Costa County and California share similar household characteristics, the County saw a 1.4
percentage increase in families from 2009 to 2013, compared to the state’s slight 0.1 percentage point
decline. In 2013, female-headed households (with no husband present) account for 12.3% of the county’s
households compared to 13.7% in California. However, the number of female-headed households in the
county rose by 8,764 and 1.8 percentage points since 2009, compared to the state’s 4-year increase of
just 0.8 points. The proportion of female-headed households with children also increased slightly in the
county, while it decreased in the state.
Table 2 – Household Characteristics 2009 – 2013
HOUSEHOLD TYPE
2009 2013
COUNTY
NUMBER
COUNTY
PERCENT
CALIFORNIA
PERCENT
COUNTY
NUMBER
COUNTY
PERCENT
CALIFORNIA
PERCENT
Family households (families) 253,104 69. 2 68.5 268,549 70.6 68.4
With own children < 18 years 120,947 33.4 34.8 126,814 33.4 32.1
Married-couple family 198,162 54.7 49.7 202,507 53.3 48.7
With own children < 18 years 92,821 25.6 24.5 94,979 25.0 22.2
Female householder, no husband present 37,859 10.5 12.9 46,623 12.3 13.7
With own children < 18 years 20,467 5.7 7.4 23,115 6.1 7.2
Nonfamily households 108,998 30.1 31.5 111,587 29.4 31.6
Householder living alone 86,591 23.9 24.5 88,852 23.4 24.4
Householder 65 year + 26,960 7.4 7.8 34,307 9.0 8.7
Households with individuals < 18 years 133,420 36.8 38.7 138,923 36.5 36.2
Households with individuals 65 years + 80,818 22.3 22.2 100,751 26.5 25.5
Total households 362,102 - 12,097,894 380,136 - 12,581,722
Source: http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/searchresults.xhtml?refresh=t
Contra Costa County 15 of 74
COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2015-2018
Population Estimates
From 2007 to 2014, the population of Brentwood grew 65.9%, San Ramon grew 64.6%, and Oakley grew
41.3%. During this 7-year period, the city of San Pablo saw a 4.2% population decline, while Pinole
dropped 3.6%. Between 2007 and 2014, population growth in Contra Costa County overall averaged 9.5%.
Table 3 – Population by City and Percentage Change, 2007 – 2014
Location 2007 2009 2011 2014 % Change
COUNTYWIDE 992,700 1,020,898 1,065,117 1,087,008 9.5%
Antioch 99,100 101,049 103,833 106,455 7.4%
Brentwood 33,000 40,912 52,575 54,741 65.9%
Clayton 10,950 10,982 10,996 11,200 2.3%
Concord 124,700 124,798 123,206 124,656 0.0%
Danville 43,100 43,273 42,450 43,146 0.1%
El Cerrito 23,500 23,407 23,774 24,087 2.5%
Hercules 20,450 23,360 24,272 24,572 20.2%
Lafayette 24,350 24,317 24,159 24,659 1.3%
Martinez 36,800 36,818 36,225 36,842 0.1%
Moraga 16,500 16,435 16,152 16,348 -0.9%
Oakley 26,950 28,265 36,532 38,075 41.3%
Orinda 17,800 17,797 17,819 18,089 1.6%
Pinole 19,500 19,604 18,560 18,794 -3.6%
Pittsburg 60,900 62,605 64,706 66,368 9.0%
Pleasant Hill 33,600 33,638 33,440 33,872 0.8%
Richmond 101,100 103,012 104,887 106,138 5.0%
San Pablo 30,750 31,344 29,105 29,465 -4.2%
San Ramon 46,950 51,027 74,378 77,270 64.6%
Walnut Creek 65,800 66,501 65,233 66,183 0.6%
BALANCE OF COUNTY 156,900 161,754 162,815 166,048 5.8%
Source: http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/estimates/e-1/view.php
From 2007 to 2013, the proportion of children enrolled in nursery school, preschool and kindergarten in Contra Costa County and in California remained relatively constant overall. Patterns of enrollment since 2007 for elementary school, high school and college in the county also closely followed those of the state, with slight declines in high school enrollment and moderate gains in college enrollment, yet Contra Costa County continues to maintain a younger student body than the state overall. About 26% of Contra Costa County residents are enrolled in college or graduate school, compared to 30% of California residents.
Table 4 – School Enrollment 2007 – 2013 (Percentage Age 3 and Over)
CONTRA COSTA 2007 CALIFORNIA 2007 CONTRA COSTA 2013 CALIFORNIA 2013
COUNT PERCENT PERCENT COUNT PERCENT PERCENT
Nursery school, preschool 17,851 6.5 5.6 17,855 6.1 5.6
Kindergarten 13,878 5.0 4.8 14,811 5.1 4.9
Elementary school (grades 1-8) 111,837 40.6 39.7 119,497 41.0 38.3
High school (grades 9-12) 63,847 23.2 22.3 63,297 21.7 21.1
College or graduate school 68,333 24.8 27.4 76,238 26.1 30.2
Total Enrollment 275,746 10,341,546 291,698 10,589,030
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Quick Facts; as of July 2014; 2011-2013 3-Year American Community Survey;
http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/searchresults.xhtml?refresh=t
Contra Costa County 16 of 74
COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2015-2018
Figure 1 – Percent Population Change by City, 2007 - 2014
Source: http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/estimates/e-1/view.php
From 2005 to 2013, the percentage of Contra Costa County residents age 25 and over who have at least a high school diploma or GED dropped somewhat from 89.4% to 88.5%, compared to a slight increase of 1.4% among Californians overall. However, the proportion of Contra Costa County residents who have at least a bachelor’s degree continues to surpass the state’s proportion and grew to 39.1% in 2013. Notably, the percentage of County residents with less than a 9th grade education increased from 4.8% to 5.8% from 2005 to 2013, while the state’s rate dropped slightly from 10.5% to 10.1%.
Table 5 – Educational Attainment (Percentage Age 25 and Over)
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CALIFORNIA
2005 2013 2005 2013
Less than 9th grade 4.8 5.8 10.5 10.1
9th to 12th grade, no diploma 6.8 5.6 9.4 8.4
High school graduate / GED 20.2 18.9 21.8 20.8
Some college, no degree 22.3 22.3 21.0 22.0
Associate degree 8.0 8.2 7.7 7.8
Bachelor’s degree 24.0 24.9 18.9 19.5
Graduate or professional degree 13.9 14.2 10.6 11.3
Total population 25 years and over 658,892 727,044 22,299,041 24,793,022
Percent high school graduate or higher 89.4 88.6 80.0 81.0
Percent bachelor’s degree or higher 37.9 38.6 29.5 30.5
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Quick Facts; as of July 2014; 2011-2013 3-Year American Community Survey;
http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/searchresults.xhtml?refresh=t
Contra Costa County 17 of 74
COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2015-2018
Economic Indicators
Self-Sufficiency
The Self-Sufficiency Standard calculates the local or regional costs associated with each basic need to
determine the household income individuals and families need to meet these basic needs without public
subsidies or private assistance. It provides a more detailed, up-to-date, and regionally-specific measure
than the FPL of what people must earn to be self-sufficient. In 2012, more than one-third of Contra Costa
County households lived below the Self-Sufficiency Standard.
In 2014, the annual self-sufficiency standard in Contra Costa County for a family with one adult, an infant,
a preschooler, and a school age child had increased to $109,545, representing a fulltime hourly wage of
about $52. In 2013, the median family income in Contra Costa County was $94,208.
Table 6 – Percentage of Contra Costa Households above and below Self-Sufficiency Standard, 2012
Household Status Percent
Living Below 2012 Self-Sufficiency Standard 36.6%
Living Above 2012 Self-Sufficiency Standard 63.4%
Table 7 – Self-Sufficiency Wage for Various Family Types, Contra Costa County, 2014
Monthly Costs Adult
Adult +
Infant
Adult +
Preschooler
Adult +
Infant
Preschooler
Adult +
Infant
Preschooler
Schoolage
2 Adults +
Infant
Preschooler
2 Adults +
Preschooler
Schoolage
Housing $1,207 $1,517 $1,517 $1,517 $2,119 $1,517 $1,517
Child Care $0 $1,324 $1,058 $2,382 $2,889 $2,382 $1,565
Food $300 $445 $455 $597 $806 $856 $939
Transportation $103 $103 $103 $103 $103 $206 $206
Health Care $149 $450 $450 $460 $485 $518 $534
Miscellaneous $176 $384 $358 $506 $640 $548 $476
Taxes $416 $957 $842 $1,541 $2,436 $1,343 $1,004
Earned Income Tax Credit $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Child Care Tax Credit $0 -$50 -$50 -$100 -$100 -$100 -$100
Child Tax Credit $0 -$83 -$83 -$167 -$250 -$167 -$167
Self-Sufficiency Hourly Wages $13.36 $28.67 $26.42 $38.85 $51.87 $20.18 $16.98
per adult per adult
Monthly Wages $2,351 $5,046 $4,651 $6,838 $9,129 $7,104 $5,976
Annual Wages $28,209 $60,557 $55,807 $82,059 $109,545 $85,246 $71,711
Source: Self-Sufficiency Standard Report for California, 2014; Center for Women's Welfare, University of Washington;
http://www.insightcced.org/
Annual Income
Table 8 compares the family income distribution of Contra Costa County and California residents from
2005 and 2013. While the lowest income families in the county constitute a smaller percentage of total
families than in California overall, the proportion of Contra Costa County families that earn less than
$15,000 per year has increased slightly from 4.9% to 5.2%, while this proportion has remained constant in
Contra Costa County 18 of 74
COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2015-2018
the state. With cost of living increases in the relatively expensive Bay Area, the financial burdens borne by these 13,951 families, an increase of 1,439 families since 2005, is considerable. During the same period, both the county and the state experienced a moderate decline in middle income families.
Despite increases in lower income families and declines in middle income families, the County maintains a larger and growing share of families earning $150,000 or more annually, compared to the state. In 2013, Contra Costa County families earned a median annual income of $94,208, while California families earned a median annual income of $67,746.
Table 8 – Annual Income for Contra Costa County and California Families, 2005 – 2013
2005 2013
INCOME CONTRA
COSTA COUNT
CONTRA COSTA
%
CALIFORNIA
%
CONTRA
COSTA COUNT
CONTRA COSTA
%
CALIFORNIA
%
Less than $10,000 7,929 3.1 4.5 8,491 3.2 4.7
$10,000 to $14,999 4,583 1.8 3.6 5,460 2.0 3.4
$15,000 to $24,999 15,409 6.1 9.5 15,634 5.8 8.7
$25,000 to $34,999 16,107 6.4 9.6 15,542 5.8 8.6
$35,000 to $49,999 26,494 10.5 13.3 25,757 9.6 12.1
$50,000 to $74,999 44,940 17.8 18.8 39,600 14.7 17.0
$75,000 to $99,999 36,372 14.4 13.7 33,799 12.6 12.7
$100,000 to $149,999 53,105 21.0 15.3 54,619 20.3 16.5
$150,000 to 199,999 21,826 8.6 5.7 30,832 11.5 7.7
$200,000 or more 26,339 10.4 5.8 38,815 14.5 8.7
Median family income $82,641 $61,476 $94,208 - $67,746
Total Families 253,104 100.0 8,281,119 268,549 100.0 8,602,735
Source: Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011-2013 3-Year American Community Survey;
http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/searchresults.xhtml?refresh=t
Unemployment
While conditions continue to improve in both the local and state economies, the average family in Contra Costa County still faces multiple financial stressors, such as longer commute times, lower paying jobs and under-employment. In 2014, the unemployment rate in Contra Costa County dropped 3.3 percentage points from the 2012 rate of 9.0% to 5.7%, while the state’s unemployment rate dropped 3.6 points from 10.9% to 7.3%. The 2014 unemployment rate in the county is now close to that last seen in 2008, while California’s 2014 unemployment rate is still somewhat higher than 2008 levels.
Table 9 – Unemployment Rates in Contra Costa County and California, 2002 – 2014
Source: California Employment Development Department, Labor Market Information Division, 2014;
http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov
While Contra Costa County’s overall 2014 unemployment rate of 5.7% is less than the state’s 7.3% rate,
several highly populated sub-areas in this region surpass both the state and countywide average,
including San Pablo (11.8%), Richmond (9.5%) and Pittsburg (9.3%). Rates in Antioch (6.5%) and Concord
(6.2%) surpass the countywide average. Areas with the lowest unemployment rates within the county
include Clayton (1.3%), Lafayette (2.0%), Orinda (2.1%), San Ramon (2.3%) and Danville (3.0%).
2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014
Contra Costa County 5.3 5.3 4.0 5.6 10.8 9.0 5.7
California 6.3 6.1 4.6 6.4 11.9 10.9 7.3
Contra Costa County 19 of 74
COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2015-2018
Table 10 – Annual Unemployment Rates by County Sub-Area, 2002 – 2014
2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014
Alamo (CDP) 2.3 2.3 1.4 2.0 4.0 3.3 2.1
Antioch (City) 6.1 6.0 4.6 6.4 12.2 10.2 6.5
Bayview-Montalvin (CDP) 9.7 9.7 8.0 11.1 20.1 17.2 11.2
Bethel Island (CDP) 9.4 9.4 8.1 11.1 20.2 17.2 11.3
Blackhawk (CDP) 2.8 2.8 1.9 2.7 5.2 4.3 2.7
Brentwood (City) 4.7 4.7 3.5 5.0 9.6 8.0 5.0
Clayton (City) 1.1 1.1 0.9 1.3 2.6 2.2 1.3
Concord (City) 5.8 5.8 4.4 6.1 11.6 9.8 6.2
Crockett (CDP) 10.2 10.2 8.4 11.6 21.0 17.9 11.8
Danville (City) 2.7 2.7 2.1 2.9 5.7 4.7 3.0
Discovery Bay (CDP) 3.2 3.2 2.8 3.9 7.7 6.4 4.0
East Richmond Heights
6.1 6.1 4.9 6.8 13.0 10.9 7.0
El Cerrito (City) 4.7 4.7 3.6 5.0 9.6 8.0 5.1
El Sobrante (CDP) 4.7 4.7 3.6 5.0 9.6 8.0 4.6
Hercules (City) 3.5 3.5 2.8 4.0 7.7 6.4 4.0
Kensington (CDP) 2.0 2.0 1.4 2.0 3.9 3.2 2.0
Lafayette (City) 1.9 1.9 1.4 2.0 3.9 3.3 2.0
Martinez (City) 4.2 4.2 3.2 4.5 8.6 7.2 4.5
Moraga Town (City) 8.2 8.2 5.9 8.2 15.3 13.0 3.4
Oakley (CDP) 3.8 3.8 2.8 4.0 7.8 6.5 4.1
Orinda (City) 1.8 1.8 1.5 2.1 4.1 3.4 2.1
Pacheco (CDP) 5.1 5.1 4.2 5.8 11.1 9.3 5.9
Pinole (City) 3.4 3.4 2.7 3.9 7.5 6.2 3.9
Pittsburg (City) 8.6 8.6 6.6 9.1 16.9 14.3 9.3
Pleasant Hill (City) 4.3 4.3 3.2 4.5 8.8 7.3 4.6
Richmond (City) 8.8 8.8 6.7 9.3 17.2 14.6 9.5
Rodeo (CDP) 3.8 3.8 2.3 3.3 6.5 5.4 8.3
San Pablo (City) 11.1 11.0 8.5 11.7 21.1 18.0 11.8
San Ramon (City) 2.1 2.1 1.6 2.3 4.5 3.7 2.3
Tara Hills (CDP) 6.0 6.0 4.5 6.3 11.9 10.0 6.4
Vine Hill (CDP) 7.2 7.2 6.0 8.3 15.6 13.1 8.5
Walnut Creek (City) 3.5 3.5 2.7 3.7 7.3 6.1 3.8
Source: California Employment Development Department, Labor Market Information Division. 2006 – September 2014;
http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/CES/Current_Industry_Employment_and_Unemployment_Rates_for_California.html
Note: CDP stands for Census Designated Place.
Employment
While Contra Costa County’s labor force grew a moderate 7.6% or 38,000 workers between 2000 and 2013, in the past thirteen years the county has lost about 2,300 jobs across all industries. Business trends in the region since 2000 have resulted in job losses in most industry sectors, including manufacturing, wholesale and retail trade, finance, transportation and utilities, government, farming, construction and professional services. Since 2000, Contra Costa County has particularly lost jobs in the relatively high paying sectors of construction; professional, scientific, and management; and manufacturing, although a
Contra Costa County 20 of 74
COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2015-2018
November 2014 study by the National Employment Law Project reports that, unlike in the past, manufacturing jobs now pay wages that are 8% below the median wage for all occupations.1
Figure 2 – Unemployment Rates in Contra Costa County and California, 2002 – 2014
Table 11 – Cities with Unemployment Rates Higher Than the Countywide Average, September 2014
Rank City Rate
1 San Pablo 11.8
2 Richmond 9.5
3 Pittsburgh 9.3
4 Antioch 6.5
5 Concord 6.2
Analysts project future growth in the demand for certain professionals, including more than a 33% growth
in the need for economists, conservation scientists, pipe layers, soil and plant scientists and software
developers by the year 2020.
Table 12 – Projected Growth in Employment by Occupation, Contra Costa County 2010-2020
Occupation Employment Employment Change
Estimated Projected Number Percent
Economists 190 270 80 42.1
Conservation Scientists 230 320 90 39.1
Pipe layers 150 210 60 40.0
Soil and Plant Scientists 230 310 80 34.8
Software Developers, Applications 7,180 9,560 2,380 33.1
Source: EDD, Labor Market Information Division, 916-262-2162; www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov. March 2013.
1 http://nelp.3cdn.net/9bcf95bb94ded5474e_82m6i48hk.pdf
Contra Costa County 21 of 74
COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2015-2018
Table 13 – Contra Costa County Employment by Industry Sector, 2000 – 2013
2000 2010 2013
Industry Sector Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Manufacturing 23400 6.9 18300 5.8 15800 4.7
Wholesale trade 9200 2.7 7600 2.4 8600 2.6
Retail trade 42700 12.6 40400 12.7 41000 12.2
Finance, insurance & real estate 26300 7.8 25300 8.0 25300 7.5
Transport., warehousing, & utilities 8900 2.6 8000 2.5 8500 2.5
Government 48200 14.2 49200 15.5 48100 14.3
Farming 2200 < 1.0 700 < 1.0 1000 < 1.0
Construction, logging & mining 28800 8.5 18300 5.8 21600 6.4
Professional & Business Services 54100 16.0 43800 13.8 51300 15.3
Employed, all industries 338400 - 317200 - 336100 -
Total civilian labor force 500900 - 524200 - 538900 -
Source: Employment Development Department Labor Market Information Division, 916-262-2162; www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov. March
2013. http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/searchresults.xhtml?refresh=t
Transportation
In 2013, 41.8% of Contra Costa County workers age 16 and older worked outside of the county compared to 16.9% statewide. Importantly, since 2008 the percentage of those who work outside of their county of residence has increased about 10 percentage points for Contra Costa County workers, while it has decreased about 2 percentage points for Californians overall. The average time Contra Costa residents spend traveling to work rose from 31.9 to 34.3 minutes from 2008 to 2013, which continues to be the longest commute among all nine Bay Area counties and surpasses the statewide average of 27.5 minutes.
Figure 3 – Percentage Who Work Outside County of Residence, 2008 - 2013
Contra Costa County 22 of 74
COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2015-2018
Table 14 – Percent Who Work Outside County of Residence and Mean Commute Time, 2008 – 2013
Contra Costa County California
2008 2013 2008 2013
Worked outside of county of residence 31.9% 41.8% 19.0% 16.9%
Mean travel time to work in minutes 31.9 34.3 27 27.5
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011-2013 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates;
http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/searchresults.xhtml?refresh=t
In Contra Costa County, workers age 16 and over who travel to a work place are more likely to take public
transit or carpool to work than workers in California overall, and they are less likely to drive alone.
However, the percentage of workers who drive alone to work has steadily increased in the county from
66% in 2000 to 70% in 2013. Similarly, the percentage of Contra Costa County workers who carpool to
work has decreased from 16% in 2000 to 12% in 2013, while the percentage who use transit (includes
busses, trains and ferry boats) has also dropped from 16% in 2000 to 10% in 2013.
Table 15 – Workers 16 Years and Over Commuting to Work, 2000 – 2013
Contra Costa County California
2000 2005 2010 2013 2013
Drive alone 66% 64% 69% 70% 73%
Carpool 16% 18% 13% 12% 11%
Transit 16% 15% 9% 10% 5%
Other 3% 12% 9% 9% 11%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011-2013 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates;
http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/searchresults.xhtml?refresh=t
Figure 4 – Means of Transport to Work for Contra Costa County Workers, 2000 – 2013
Contra Costa County 23 of 74
COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2015-2018
Poverty Status
Data from the 2011-2013 American Community Survey indicate that 8.2% of all families in Contra Costa
County lived at income levels below the federal poverty level (FPL) in 2013, a steep increase from the
2008 rate of 6.3%. The statewide percentage of all families with income levels below poverty was 12.7%.
Additionally, among Contra Costa County families with a female head of household (and no husband
present), 21.5% live in poverty compared to 28.5% statewide.
Comparing 2008 to 2013 poverty levels reveals that while in 2013, the proportion of Contra Costa County residents who lived below poverty increased 2.5 percentage points, families in poverty with children under 18 increased 2.8 percentage points, Hispanics in poverty increased 4.1 percentage points, people in poverty who work less than fulltime increased 5.0 points, people in poverty who did not complete high school increased 5.2 points, and African Americans in poverty increased 5.8 percentage points. The County’s poverty rate for female-headed households with children all under 5 years of age rose 10.0 percentage points from 30.0% to 40.0% since 2008.
Table 16 – Percentage of Contra Costa Families with Income below Poverty Level, 2013
Family Type Percent Below Poverty
All families 8.2
With related children under 18 years 12.4
With related children under 5 years only 12.0
Families with female householder, no husband present 21.5
With related children under 18 years 30.9
With related children under 5 years only 40.0
Table 17 – Percentage of Children Living at 0-99% of Federal Poverty Level, 2006 - 2013
2006 2008 2010 2013
California 18.1% 18.5% 22.0% 23.3%
Contra Costa County 9.8% 13.2% 12.6% 14.5%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011-2013 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates;
http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/searchresults.xhtml?refresh=t
Among Contra Costa County residents less than 18 years old, 2013 poverty rates in several school districts
exceed the overall county rate. Poverty rates for children in the Pittsburg (28.9%), Antioch (23.1%), John
Sweet (22.4%), West Contra Costa (20.4%), Knightsen (20.0%), Mount Diablo (17.2%), and Byron (16.4%)
school districts all surpass the county rate of 14.5%. Since 2000, the number of children in poverty in
Contra Costa County school districts has increased by more than 24,600, while the percentage of children
in poverty has increased in 13 of 17 school districts, from a 0.7 percentage point increase in Oakley to a
17.4 point increase in Pittsburg.
In 2013, 33,834 of the county’s 40,590 children in poverty (83.4%) live in the five school districts of
Antioch, Liberty, Mt. Diablo, Pittsburg and West Contra Costa. The largest 13-year increases in the number
of children in poverty took place in the districts of Mt. Diablo (up 6,543), Antioch (up 4,228), West Contra
Costa (up 4,195) and Pittsburg (up 2,945).
Contra Costa County 24 of 74
COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2015-2018
Table 18 – Number and Percent of Children in Poverty by School District, 2000 – 2013
School District
2000 2013 Number
in Poverty
Change
% in
Poverty
Change
Number
<18
Number
<18 in
Poverty
Percent
<18 in
Poverty
Number
<18
Number
<18 in
Poverty
Percent
<18 in
Poverty
ACALANES 4,901 70 1.4 22,151 718 3.2 648 1.8
ANTIOCH 23,286 2,257 9.7 28,074 6485 23.1 4228 13.4
BRENTWOOD 4,645 268 5.8 16,780 964 5.7 696 -0.1
BYRON* 1,473 98 6.7 3,371 552 16.4 454 9.7
JOHN SWETT* 2,918 188 6.4 2,926 655 22.4 467 16.0
KNIGHTSEN* 330 25 7.6 887 177 20 152 12.4
LAFAYETTE 4,194 148 3.5 6,376 1 0 -147 -3.5
LIBERTY 3,688 165 4.5 30,713 2,058 6.7 1893 2.2
MARTINEZ 5,051 200 4 5,474 683 12.5 483 8.5
MORAGA* 2,241 78 3.5 3,200 79 2.5 1 -1.0
MT. DIABLO 45,797 3,265 7.1 56,959 9,808 17.2 6543 10.1
OAKLEY 5,050 292 5.8 9,917 643 6.5 351 0.7
ORINDA* 2,796 51 1.8 4,631 13 0.3 -38 -1.5
PITTSBURG 12,339 1,418 11.5 15,109 4,363 28.9 2945 17.4
SAN RAMON VALLEY 24,038 352 1.5 40,960 1,711 4.2 1359 2.7
WALNUT CREEK 3,972 132 3.3 7,706 560 7.3 428 4.0
WEST CONTRA COSTA 45,404 6,925 15.3 54,635 11,120 20.4 4195 5.1
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011-2013 ACS; http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/searchresults.xhtml?refresh=t
* 2013 estimates for these districts was not available at the time of this report. Estimates are from the 2008-2012 5-year ACS.
Figure 5 – Change in Percentage and Number of Children in Poverty by School District, 2000 – 2013
-147
-38
+1
+696
+351
+648
+1893
+1359
+428
+4195
+483
+454
+6543
+152
+4228
+467
Contra Costa County 25 of 74
COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2015-2018
Table 19 – Poverty Status in Contra Costa County, 2008 – 2013
2008 2013
Total Below
Poverty
Percent
Below Total Below
Poverty
Percent
Below
Population for whom poverty status is determined 1,005,676 88,559 8.8 1,069,865 120,984 11.3
AGE
Under 18 years 247,430 28,846 11.7 257,021 37,356 14.5
Related children under 18 years 246,349 27,807 11.3 256,250 36,624 14.3
18 to 64 years 640,984 52,591 8.2 672,113 73,636 11.0
65 years and over 117,262 7,122 6.1 140,731 9,992 7.1
SEX
Male 493,811 38,536 7.8 521,812 53,704 10.3
Female 511,865 50,023 9.8 548,053 67,280 12.3
RACE AND HISPANIC OR LATINO ORIGIN
One race
White 620,555 43,605 7.0 669,720 63,715 9.5
Black or African American 90,953 15,078 16.6 95,642 21,443 22.4
American Indian and Alaska Native 4,168 300 7.2 5,776 767 13.3
Asian 135,619 8,726 6.4 157,524 12,958 8.2
Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander -- -- -- 5,171 1,082 20.9
Some other race 108,115 16,331 15.1 73,838 14,060 19.0
Two or more races 42,116 3,860 9.2 62,194 6,959 11.2
Hispanic or Latino origin (of any race) 225,657 31,163 13.8 264,647 47,485 17.9
White alone, not Hispanic or Latino 514,147 29,760 5.8 499,322 32,105 6.4
EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT
Population 25 years and over 666,799 47,393 7.1 722,835 65,859 9.1
Less than high school graduate 78,809 13,451 17.1 82,246 18,334 22.3
High school graduate / GED 131,913 13,792 10.5 136,290 17,011 12.5
Some college, associate's degree 203,165 12,072 5.9 220,742 19,926 9.0
Bachelor's degree or higher 252,912 8,078 3.2 283,557 10,588 3.7
EMPLOYMENT STATUS
Civilian labor force 16 years and over 523,037 26,735 5.1 550,360 38,948 7.1
Employed 490,774 19,972 4.1 496,605 26,051 5.2
Male 263,469 9,744 3.7 264,469 13,094 5.0
Female 227,305 10,228 4.5 232,136 12,957 5.6
Unemployed 32,263 6,763 21.0 53,755 12,897 24.0
Male 17,175 3,373 19.6 28,900 6,548 22.7
Female 15,088 3,390 22.5 24,855 6,349 25.5
WORK EXPERIENCE
Population 16 years and over 788,806 62,953 8.0 842,969 87,658 10.4
Worked FT, year-round past 12 months 316,594 4,220 1.3 329,643 6,144 1.9
Worked PT or part-year past 12 months 232,864 22,526 9.7 219,678 27,149 12.4
Did not work 239,348 36,207 15.1 293,648 54,365 18.5
All Individuals below:
50 percent of poverty level 39,455 (X) (X) 51,560 (X) (X)
125 percent of poverty level 118,582 (X) (X) 162,976 (X) (X)
150 percent of poverty level 151,607 (X) (X) 199,691 (X) (X)
185 percent of poverty level 194,366 (X) (X) 251,543 (X) (X)
200 percent of poverty level 211,536 (X) (X) 277,797 (X) (X)
Unrelated individuals for whom poverty
166,158 28,356 17.1 172,837 38,520 22.3
Male 78,783 11,572 14.7 81,917 16,570 20.2
Female 87,375 16,784 19.2 90,920 21,950 24.1
Mean income deficit for unrelated individuals ($) $3,707 (X) (X) $6,819 (X) (X)
Worked FT, year-round in past 12 months 70,804 1,080 1.5 68,203 1,208 1.8
Worked less than FT, year-round in past 12 months 46,134 10,741 23.3 43,107 12,182 28.3
Did not work 49,220 16,535 33.6 61,527 25,130 40.8
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Poverty Status in Past 12 Months, 2011-2013 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates;
http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_13_3YR_S1701&prodType=table.
Contra Costa County 26 of 74
COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2015-2018
Table 20 – Change in Poverty Status in Contra Costa County, 2008 – 2013
Subject Change in Total
Determined
Change in #
Below Poverty
Change in %
Below Poverty
Population for whom poverty status is determined 64,189 32,425 2.5
AGE
Under 18 years 9,591 8,510 2.8
Related children under 18 years 9,901 8,817 3.0
18 to 64 years 31,129 21,045 2.8
65 years and over 23,469 2,870 1.0
RACE AND HISPANIC OR LATINO ORIGIN
One Race
White 49,165 20,110 2.5
Black or African American 4,689 6,365 5.8
American Indian and Alaska Native 1,608 467 6.1
Asian 21,905 4,232 1.8
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander -- -- --
Some other race -34,277 -2,271 3.9
Two or more races 20,078 3,099 2.0
Hispanic or Latino origin (of any race) 38,990 16,322 4.1
White alone, not Hispanic or Latino -14,825 2,345 0.6
EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT
Population 25 years and over 56,036 18,466 2.0
Less than high school graduate 3,437 4,883 5.2
High school graduate (includes GED) 4,377 3,219 2.0
Some college, associate's degree 17,577 7,854 3.1
Bachelor's degree or higher 30,645 2,510 0.5
WORK EXPERIENCE
Population 16 years and over 54,163 24,705 2.4
Worked FT, year-round in past 12 months 13,049 1,924 0.6
Worked PT or part-year in past 12 months -13,186 4,623 2.7
Did not work 54,300 18,158 3.4
All Individuals below:
50 percent of poverty level 12,105 (X) (X)
125 percent of poverty level 44,394 (X) (X)
150 percent of poverty level 48,084 (X) (X)
185 percent of poverty level 57,177 (X) (X)
200 percent of poverty level 66,261 (X) (X)
Worked full-time, year-round in past 12 months -2,601 128 0.3
Worked less than FT, year-round in past 12 months -3,027 1,441 5.0
Did not work 12,307 8,595 7.2
Source: Based on tables from U.S. Census Bureau, 2008 and 2013 American Community Survey. Note that calculations do not reflect margins
of error inherent in estimates derived from samples and should be used prudently to represent relative change.
Public Assistance
According to the California Department of Social Services, in September 2014, about 2.1% of all Contra
Costa County residents are CalWORKs cash grant recipients. Participation in the County’s CalWORKs
program has grown nearly 20% from 18,619 individuals in 2002 to 22,305 in 2014, while the Welfare to
Work program saw about an 11% increase in participation during the same 12 year period. Refugee Cash
Assistance recipients are also up dramatically from prior years.
Contra Costa County 27 of 74
COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2015-2018
The number of CalFresh recipients in Contra Costa County far exceeds all other Public Assistance (PA) programs and participation rates have grown much faster than other programs. According to American Community Survey estimates, about 10,500 Contra Costa County households relied on some cash public assistance income in 2013, while more than 23,800 received SNAP benefits.
Table 21 – Public Assistance Recipients by Program, Contra Costa County 2002 – 2014
2002 2006 2010 2014*
CalWORKs Cash Grants 18,619 18,938 22,038 22,305
Food Stamps/CalFresh 19,392 30,867 56,625 76,636
General Relief 446 387 1,395 1,630
Refugee Cash Assistance 14 n/a 24 328
Welfare to Work 2,822 3,531 4,087 3,137
Source: 2002–2010: http://www.calmis.ca.gov/htmlfile/county/ccosta.htm. As of 2014, Labor Market Information (LMI) tables are no
longer prepared by the Employment Development Department. 2014 totals has been calculated from California Dept. of Social
Services reports at http://www.cdss.ca.gov/research/PG219.htm; September 2014.
Figure 6 – Number of Public Assistance Recipients in Contra Costa County, 2002 – 2014
In 2014, over one third of CalWORKs cases were African American households (38.3%) followed by Latino
households (30.9%) and Caucasian households (25.0%). Since 2002, the percentage of African American,
Caucasian and Asian/Pacific Islander households with CalWORKs assistance has dropped, while the
percentage of Latino households has increased. About 72% (1,624) of the 2,258 increase in cases since
2002 has been distributed to Latino households.
Contra Costa County 28 of 74
COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2015-2018
Table 22 – CalWORKs Cash Grant Cases by Ethnicity, Contra Costa County, 2002 – 2014
Ethnicity 2002 2006 2010 2014
Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent
African American 3,451 43.5% 3,846 42.8% 4,094 36.7% 3,908 38.3%
American Indian 12 0.2% 39 0.4% 58 0.5% 47 0.5%
Caucasian 2,342 29.5% 2,468 27.4% 2,776 24.9% 2,550 25.0%
Asian Indian 18 0.2% 23 0.3% 49 0.4% 49 0.5%
Filipino 84 1.1% 121 1.3% 160 1.4% 155 1.5%
Latino 1,527 19.2% 2,161 24.0% 3,625 32.5% 3,151 30.9%
Asian / Pacific Islander 503 6.3% 338 3.8% 388 3.5% 335 3.3%
Total cases 7,937 100.0% 8,996 100.0% 11,150 100.0% 10,195 100.0%
Source: California Dept. of Social Services; http://www.cdss.ca.gov/research/PG369.htm; July 2002, 2006, 2010 & 2014
Figure 7 – Percentage of CalWORKs Cases by Ethnicity, Contra Costa County, 2002 – 2014
In the past four years, the number of Contra Costa County households that receive CalFresh benefits has increased by 32.5% from 26,630 in 2010 to 35,280 in 2014. Currently, 30.0% of CalFresh cases are African American households, 29.7% are Latino households and 27.3% are Caucasian households.
Contra Costa County 29 of 74
COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2015-2018
Table 23 – CalFresh Cases by Ethnicity, Contra Costa County, 2010 – 2014
Race/Ethnicity 2010
2012
2014
Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent
African American/Black 8,765 32.9% 10,130 30.7% 10,581 30.0%
American Indian/Alaska Native 170 0.6% 218 0.7% 213 0.6%
Asian/Filipino/Pacific Islander 1,469 5.5% 1,985 6.0% 2,272 6.4%
Hispanic/Latino 8,072 30.3% 9,877 30.0% 10,483 29.7%
White 7,486 28.1% 9,464 28.7% 9,618 27.3%
Multiracial 99 0.4% 250 0.8% 275 0.8%
Other 569 2.1% 1,053 3.2% 1,838 5.2%
Total 26,630 100% 32,977 100% 35,280 100%
Source: California Dept. of Social Services; http://www.cdss.ca.gov/research/PG369.htm; 2010, 2012 & 2014
Free and Reduced Price Meals
The percentage of Contra Costa County students eligible to receive free and reduced price meals (FRPM)
has demonstrated an upward trend since the 2004-05 school year in all but three districts. Brentwood
Union Elementary, Contra Costa County Office of Education, and Walnut Creek Elementary all saw small
declines in the percentage of FRPM-eligible students in the past nine years.
Table 24 – Percentage Eligible for Free and/or Reduced Price Meals by District, 2004 – 2014
District 04-05 09-10 13-14
Acalanes Union High 0.9 2.52 5.0
Antioch Unified 36.1 54.1 63.2
Brentwood Union Elementary 23.5 28.4 27.4
Byron Union Elementary 15.5 26.5 27.6
Canyon Elementary 9.4 10.1 11.1
Contra Costa Co. Office of Education 40.8 62.7 36.1
John Swett Unified 36.9 45.5 67.5
Knightsen Elementary 8.4 29.1 45.5
Lafayette Elementary 0.9 2.3 2.9
Liberty Union High 13.2 19.7 28.1
Martinez Unified 15.8 27.3 26.1
Moraga Elementary 1.0 1.0 1.4
Mt. Diablo Unified 28.5 39 46.2
Oakley Union Elementary 29 49.1 48.7
Orinda Union Elementary 0 1.1 32.4
Pittsburg Unified 64.6 78.4 84.3
San Ramon Valley Unified 1.7 2.7 4.2
SBE - Synergy 0 0 77.1
Walnut Creek Elementary 8.5 12.1 10.5
West Contra Costa Unified 57.5 65.8 70.9
Contra Costa County 30 37.1 40.8
California 49.7 55.9 59.4
Source: California Department of Education (CDE), Data & Statistics, 2014; http://www.cde.ca.gov/
Contra Costa County 30 of 74
COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2015-2018
Overall, the percentage of FRPM-eligible students grew in Contra Costa County from 30.0% to 40.8% since the 2004-05 school year, due primarily to large increases in the districts of John Swett Unified, Knightsen Elementary, Liberty Union High, Mt. Diablo Unified, Oakley Union Elementary, Orinda Union Elementary, Pittsburg Unified, West Contra Costa Unified and Antioch Unified. California schools also experienced nearly a 10 point increase in the percentage of FRPM-eligible students in the past nine years.
The top five districts with the highest percentage of FRPM-eligible students in 2013-14 are Pittsburg
Unified (84.3%), SBE - Synergy (77.1%), West Contra Costa Unified (70.9%), John Swett Unified (67.5%)
and Antioch Unified (63.2%). These districts all have percentages higher than the state average of 59.4%,
and four of these districts (Antioch Unified, John Swett Unified, Pittsburg Unified, and West Contra Costa
Unified) had the highest percentage of eligible students in the 2009-10 school year as well.
Figure 8 – Change in Percent of FRPM-Eligible Students by District, 2005-2014
Housing and Homelessness
HOUSING AFFORDABILITY
As the housing market in the Bay Area recovers and home prices increase from the record lows of 2011, the ability for residents in median income households to afford a home decreased dramatically in 2014, as shown in Table 25. The Housing Opportunity Index (HOI) is a measure used by the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB), as well as mortgage lenders, to determine the affordability of homes in a given region. The HOI is the proportion of homes sold in a given area that would have been affordable to a median income family of that area, assuming families can afford to spend no more than 28% of their income on housing.
Contra Costa County 31 of 74
COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2015-2018
In 2014, the Housing Opportunity Index in all major housing markets surrounding Contra Costa County (part of the Oakland-Fremont-Hayward area) remains considerably less than the national average (29.4 and 61.8, respectively).
Table 25 – Percentage of Homes Affordable to Median Income Households, 2006 – 2014
2006 2008 2010 2012 2014
Napa 4.3 35.3 62.5 64.4 10.2
Oakland-Fremont-Hayward* 9.3 60.1 67.3 64.4 29.4
Sacramento--Arden-Arcade--Roseville 9.2 66.0 79.3 79.5 46.2
San Francisco-San Mateo-Redwood City 7.5 20.6 31.5 28.4 11.4
San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara 13.7 44.0 54.1 48.5 20.9
Santa Rosa-Petaluma 10.4 47.4 61.9 66.2 25.6
Vallejo-Fairfield 14.9 64.6 84.8 86.4 56.0
National Average 41.6 62.4 73.9 74.9 61.8
Source: National Association of Builders, Housing Opportunity Index, 2014; Data from Q4 estimates, except 2014 figures published
November 2014 for Q3; http://www.nahb.org/reference_list.aspx?sectionID=135
* This region includes Contra Costa County
Figure 9 – Housing Opportunity Index Scores by Community, 2006-2014
In October 2014, the median and high sale price of homes varied greatly throughout the county from
$1,300,000 in Orinda (zip code 94563) to $250,000 in Richmond (zip code 94801). Home prices also
demonstrated large-scale 1-year adjustments as market conditions rapidly improved. Median home prices
saw the largest 1-year increases of 103.3% in Byron (94514) and 33.3% in Rodeo (94572), while Alamo
(94507) and Hercules (94547) saw the largest decreases in median home prices (-17.2% and -7.9%,
respectively).
Contra Costa County 32 of 74
COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2015-2018
One year high sale price increases of more than 10.0% were recorded in about half of all Contra Costa County zip codes and six communities increased more than 20% in the past year (94514, 94519, 94565, 94801, 94804, and 94805). High sales prices in the six zip codes of 94507, 94517, 94528, 94531, 94556, 94582 and 94595 declined from 2013 to 2014.
Table 26 – Median and High Sale Price of Single Family Residences, Condos, and New Homes by
Contra Costa County Community, October 2014
Community Zip Sales % Change
Since 2013
Median % Change
Since 2013
High Price $/SqFt % Change
Since 2013
Alamo 94507 19 18.8 $1,070,000 -17.2 $2,065,000 $421 -4.5
Antioch 94509 83 13.7 $278,000 14.1 $620,000 $169 14.1
Antioch 94531 68 -19.0 $347,000 8.4 $575,000 $163 8.9
Brentwood 94513 126 29.9 $475,000 17.1 $952,000 $200 11.9
Byron 94514 2 0.0 $465,000 103.3 $550,000 $275 62.8
Clayton 94517 16 -38.5 $627,000 14.4 $860,000 $298 -1.0
Concord 94518 46 27.8 $472,500 24.3 $1,075,000 $318 3.5
Concord 94519 26 -7.1 $382,500 2.7 $505,000 $297 20.8
Concord 94520 41 24.2 $335,000 15.9 $450,000 $284 15.3
Concord 94521 51 -3.8 $465,000 13.4 $925,000 $293 5.6
Danville 94506 42 2.4 $1,137,000 21.6 $1,762,000 $385 0.2
Danville 94526 44 25.7 $900,000 10.2 $3,395,000 $422 7.3
Diablo 94528 3 50.0 $1,225,000 11.4 $1,475,000 $431 -12.2
El Cerrito 94530 33 50.0 $670,000 8.9 $1,550,000 $421 11.4
El Sobrante 94803 30 15.4 $432,500 12.7 $673,500 $267 11.8
Hercules 94547 34 13.3 $350,000 -7.9 $589,000 $241 8.2
Lafayette 94549 37 23.3 $1,108,000 17.2 $3,080,000 $566 19.6
Martinez 94553 45 -26.2 $400,000 17.6 $665,000 $301 17.0
Moraga 94556 25 0.0 $940,000 19.0 $1,327,000 $462 -2.2
Oakley 94561 64 3.2 $323,000 -4.2 $637,000 $182 14.6
Orinda 94563 26 -3.7 $1,300,000 31.3 $2,750,000 $578 15.9
Pinole 94564 24 26.3 $425,000 21.4 $540,000 $267 9.5
Pittsburg 94565 90 -14.3 $277,500 -3.8 $621,500 $195 21.6
Pleasant Hill 94523 53 3.9 $521,000 -5.3 $1,367,500 $355 2.5
Richmond 94801 26 23.8 $250,000 20.5 $1,275,000 $230 40.9
Richmond 94804 33 -32.7 $279,000 21.3 $770,000 $241 26.2
Richmond 94805 14 -36.4 $307,500 5.1 $625,000 $285 22.7
Rodeo 94572 7 -12.5 $400,000 33.3 $440,000 $218 7.4
San Pablo 94806 55 25.0 $306,500 17.9 $630,000 $250 16.7
San Ramon 94582 65 6.6 $897,000 17.3 $1,460,000 $386 -1.2
San Ramon 94583 74 64.4 $747,500 4.0 $2,267,000 $407 13.3
Walnut Creek 94595 29 -21.6 $560,000 5.9 $1,798,000 $413 -13.8
Walnut Creek 94596 26 4.0 $590,000 -4.8 $1,710,000 $460 8.7
Walnut Creek 94597 38 46.2 $615,000 15.0 $1,400,000 $408 14.0
Walnut Creek 94598 24 -25.0 $712,955 1.9 $1,150,000 $379 8.9
Source: Data Quick Information Systems, San Francisco Chronicle Charts; October 2014; http://www.dqnews.com/charts/monthly-charts/sf-
chronicle-charts/zipsfc.aspx.
Contra Costa County 33 of 74
COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2015-2018
Housing costs for Contra Costa County renters also increased significantly since 2011. The median monthly rent for units of all sizes in the county (part of the Oakland-Fremont area) increased about 12.5% from 2011 to 2015. The median rent for a two-bedroom apartment in Contra Costa County was up from $1482 in 2011 to $1,709 in 2015. In comparison, the 2015 median rent for a 2-bedroom apartment is estimated to be $1,283 in the Vallejo-Fairfield area and $2,263 in the San Francisco area.
Table 27 – Median Monthly Rents, Fiscal Year 2015
Studio 1 Bedroom 2 Bedrooms 3 Bedrooms 4 Bedrooms
Napa $975 $1222 $1635 $2333 $2341
Oakland-Fremont $1120 $1358 $1708 $2385 $2926
Sacramento--Arden-Arcade--Roseville $726 $865 $1086 $1600 $1923
San Francisco $1378 $1794 $2263 $3074 $3717
San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara $1317 $1541 $1965 $2771 $3141
Santa Rosa-Petaluma $958 $1117 $1462 $2154 $2525
Vallejo-Fairfield $814 $1024 $1283 $1891 $2248
Source: HUD, User Data Sets, 50th percentile rents, FY 2015. Note: Oakland-Fremont area includes Contra Costa and Alameda Counties.
HUD defines affordable housing as that which costs no more than 30% of household income. Of Contra
Costa County residents in housing units with a mortgage, 43.3% expend at least 30.0% of their income on
housing costs in 2013, which is improved somewhat from 49.1% in 2012. Among renters, 55.7% expend at
least 30.0% of their income on housing costs in 2013.
Table 28 – Monthly Housing Costs as a Percentage of Household Income in the Past 12 Months,
Contra Costa County, 2013
Selected Housing Characteristics Estimate Margin of Error Percent Margin of Error
Housing units with a mortgage* 186,595 +/-2,499 (X)
Less than 20.0 percent 53,085 +/-1,967 28.4 +/-1.0
20.0 to 24.9 percent 28,731 +/-1,663 15.4 +/-0.9
25.0 to 29.9 percent 24,028 +/-1,356 12.9 +/-0.7
30.0 to 34.9 percent 20,347 +/-1,509 10.9 +/-0.8
35.0 percent or more 60,404 +/-2,041 32.4 +/-1.1
Housing units without a mortgage* 58,331 +/-1,667 (X)
Less than 20.0 percent 25,434 +/-1,191 43.6 +/-1.8
20.0 to 24.9 percent 10,437 +/-963 17.9 +/-1.5
25.0 to 29.9 percent 6,101 +/-631 10.5 +/-1.0
30.0 to 34.9 percent 3,981 +/-563 6.8 +/-0.9
35.0 percent or more 3,114 +/-523 5.3 +/-0.9
Gross Rent as Percentage of Income* 128,376 +/-2,723 (X)
Less than 20.0 percent 25,251 +/-2,022 19.7 +/-2.1
20.0 to 24.9 percent 16,209 +/-1,393 12.6 +/-1.0
25.0 to 29.9 percent 15,303 +/-1,240 11.9 +/-0.9
30.0 to 34.9 percent 11,999 +/-1,284 9.3 +/-1.0
35.0 percent or more 59,614 +/-2,277 46.4 +/-1.9
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011-2013 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates. * Estimates exclude units where housing costs cannot
be computed.
Contra Costa County 34 of 74
COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2015-2018
HOMELESSNESS
According to the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Point-in-Time (PIT) Count 2 of
homelessness, in January 2014 an estimated 578,424 individuals in the US are homeless, which represents
an overall 10% reduction in the homeless population since 2010. However, national-level data may not
adequately depict the impacts of homelessness in regions such as Contra Costa County, as about 25% of
the US homeless population live in California. HUD data trends also indicate the proportion of persons
who utilize homeless services in suburban and rural areas has increased relative to that in large urban
areas, and the proportion of persons in families who access services has increased relative to individuals.
California also has the largest number of chronically homeless families.3
In 2013, a total of 6,635 people were estimated to have used homeless services in the county, and 1,370
(20.6%) of these were newly homeless. Nearly 38% of the county’s homeless are less than 18 years of age
and 17% are over the age of 55. In 2013, an estimated 1,997 students in Contra Costa County public
schools, or approximately 1.2%, were homeless. This proportion is essentially unchanged since 2011.
Table 29 – Estimated Homeless Persons in Contra Costa County by Sub-Area, 2009 – 2013
Where did you lose your housing?* 2009 2013
Count Percent Newly Homeless Count Percent Newly Homeless
Antioch 338 6.6 143 507 7.6 161
Concord 825 16.1 287 574 8.7 97
Martinez 194 3.8 72 222 3.4 37
Pittsburg 140 2.7 44 287 4.3 74
Richmond 1,871 36.5 728 1482 22.3 243
San Pablo 202 3.9 77 656 9.9 60
Walnut Creek 34 0.7 13 141 2.1 38
Other Central County 90 1.8 25 130 2.0 32
Other East County 97 1.9 41 241 3.6 77
Other South County 6 0.1 2 31 0.5 9
Other West County 130 2.5 53 563 8.49% 54
Other Contra Costa 35 0.7 0 5 0.1 0
Outside County 181 3.5 104 924 13.9 311
Unspecified/Unknown 984 19.2 282 872 13.1 177
Total 5127 100 1871 6635 100 1370
Source: http://cchealth.org/services/homeless/pdf/hmis_demographics_report_fy08-09.pdf and
http://cchealth.org/services/homeless/pdf/hmis_demographics_report_fy12-13.pdf
* Note that the survey question text in prior years was “What city did you sleep in last night?”
Table 30 –Homeless Students in Contra Costa County by Nighttime Residence, 2011 – 2013
Nighttime Residence 2011 2012 2013
Doubled Up with Friends or Relatives 80.0% 89.7% 85.3%
Hotel/Motel 4.3% 2.2% 3.4%
Temporary Shelter 14.7% 7.2% 9.4%
Unsheltered 1.0% 0.8% 1.9%
Source: http://www.kidsdata.org/topic/40/homelessness/summary
2 The Department of Housing and Urban Development establishes and maintains requirements for conducting point-in-time (PIT)
counts of homeless persons. Current standards and methods may be found at
http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/homeless/library/webcast101006/point_in_time_slides.pdf
3 https://www.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/AHAR-2014-Part1.pdf
Contra Costa County 35 of 74
COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2015-2018
In 2013, an estimated 85.3% of homeless students in Contra Costa were doubled up with friends or relatives at night, 9.4% were in temporary shelters and 1.9% were unsheltered. The percentage of homeless students who are unsheltered (1.9%) has nearly doubled since 2011 (1.0%).
According to January 2014 Continuum of Care (CoC) Homeless Assistance Program reports, the Richmond CoC Program provides services to approximately 2% of the state’s 113,952 homeless individuals. Of these, 33.8% are sheltered and 66.2% are unsheltered. In contrast, about 37.3% of all homeless individuals served by CoC programs in California were sheltered in 2014.
Table 31 – Homeless Population by Bay Area Community, January 2014
Area Total
Homeless
Percent of
CA Total
Sheltered Unsheltered
Count Percent Count Percent
San Jose/Santa Clara City & County 7,567 6.6% 1,893 25.0% 5,674 75.0%
San Francisco 6,408 5.6% 2,093 32.7% 4,315 67.3%
Oakland/Alameda County 4,272 3.7% 1,935 45.3% 2,337 54.7%
Sacramento City & County 2,449 2.1% 1,663 67.9% 786 32.1%
Santa Rosa/Petaluma/Sonoma County 4,266 3.7% 957 22.4% 3,309 77.6%
Richmond/Contra Costa County 2,009 1.8% 680 33.8% 1,329 66.2%
Marin County 679 0.6% 501 73.8% 178 26.2%
Daly/San Mateo County 2,024 1.8% 725 35.8% 1,299 64.2%
Napa City & County 285 0.3% 194 68.1% 91 31.9%
Vallejo/Solano County 1,295 1.1% 406 31.4% 889 68.6%
California Total 113,952 42,515 37.3% 71,437 62.7%
Source: HUD Exchange; https://www.hudexchange.info/resource/4074/2014-ahar-part-1-pit-estimates-of-homelessness/
Health Indicators
Healthcare Insurance
Based on 2011-2013 American Community Survey estimates, the percentage of uninsured residents in Contra Costa County (11.9%) continues to be less than that in California (17.7%). Furthermore, a higher percentage of county residents are covered by private insurance (72.6%) than California (60.1%) and a lower percentage are covered by public insurance (26.6%) than California (30.5%). The percentage of uninsured Contra Costa residents has dropped somewhat from 12.6% in 2009 to 11.9% in 2014.
Table 32 – Health Insurance Coverage by Coverage Type, 2005 - 2012
YEAR AREA PERCENT UNINSURED PERCENT WITH JOB-BASED
PERCENT WITH MEDI-CAL
2005 Contra Costa County 11.7 69.8 6.3
California 18.8 60.4 9.8
2009 Contra Costa County 12.6 67.1 10.4
California 16.2 55.2 18.7
2012 Contra Costa County 11.4 54.2 14.6
California 14.7 54.2 21.6
Source: http://www.chis.ucla.edu/main/default.asp
Since 2005, the percentage of residents in the county who are uninsured has remained relatively
constant, while the state rate of uninsured has decreased from 18.8% in 2005 to 14.7% in 2012. In
contrast, the percentage of county residents with job-based coverage has steadily decreased from 9.4
points above the state in 2005 to exactly the state rate in 2012 (54.2%). In both the state and the county,
the percentage with Medi-Cal or Healthy Families coverage has more than doubled since 2005.
Contra Costa County 36 of 74
COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2015-2018
Figure 10 – Health Insurance Coverage by Coverage Type, 2005-2014
Table 33 – Health Insurance Coverage of Residents by Federal Poverty Level (FPL), 2009 – 2012
2009 2012
Contra Costa
County California Contra Costa
County California
0-99% of FPL
Percent Uninsured 31.3 29.2 24.1 24.8
Percent with Job-Based Insurance 22 11.5 7.5* 11.3
Percent with Medi-Cal 39.8 53.1 50.3 56
100-199% of FPL
Percent Uninsured 23.3 26.9 21.3 26.5
Percent with Job-Based Insurance 36.1 31.6 35.7 30.2
Percent with Medi-Cal 22.7 24.7 32 29
Source: http://ask.chis.ucla.edu/main/DQ3/geographic.asp
HEALTHCARE INSURANCE – HEALTHY FAMILIES
Cut from the state budget after fifteen years of providing low-cost health, dental, and vision coverage for
children in low- and moderate-income families, the California Healthy Families Program (HFP) dropped
enrollment from 13,528 Contra Costa County families in 2012 to only 26 families in 2014. Due to these
budget cuts, families previously eligible for Healthy Families coverage have been transitioning to Medi-Cal
coverage since January 2013.
Contra Costa County 37 of 74
COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2015-2018
Table 34 – Health Insurance Coverage of Children by Age Group, 2009 - 2012
2009 2012
CONTRA COSTA
COUNTY CALIFORNIA CONTRA COSTA
COUNTY CALIFORNIA
Age 0-4 years
Uninsured - 3.6 - 3.5
Medi-Cal 25.1* 38.6 44.6 48.0
Healthy Families 1.1* 4.2 - 4.6
Employment-based 67.4 47.0 47.5 39.5
Privately purchased 6.1 3.9 7.7* 2.9
Other public
- 2.7 - 1.5
Total 70,000 2,736,000 82,000 2,523,000
Ages 5-9 years
Uninsured 1.4* 4.5 - 2.7
Medi-Cal 13.9 28.3 10.2 36.1
Healthy Families 4.3* 9.4 5.8* 7.7
Employment-based 75.9 51.5 74.7* 47.9
Privately purchased 4.5% 4.6 8.4* 4.3
Other public
- 1.7 - 1.4
Total 3,000 2,580,000 45,000 2,414,000
Ages 0-17 years
Uninsured .8* 4.9 3.8* 4.2
Medi-Cal 17.2 28.9 24.9 35.8
Healthy Families 1.7* 7.2 2.4* 7.6
Employment-based 75.8 52.5 59.8 46.9
Privately purchased 4.5 4.3 8.9* 4.1
Other public
- 2.3 - 1.5
Total 252,000 9,815,000 255,000 9,135,000
Source: http://www.chis.ucla.edu/main/default.asp
Note: Hyphen = less than 500 people; *Indicates estimate may be statistically unreliable due to small sample size
Disability Status
According to the California Department of Education, Special Education Division, in 2014 there were 2,309 children in Contra Costa County less than 6 years of age with disabilities. Children with speech or language impairment disabilities continue to account for the vast majority of students age 2 through 5 enrolled in Special Education. However, autism persists as a growing concern among Special Education students in Contra Costa County. As the second most common disability, autism impacts 16.5% of students in the 3 to 5 year old age group, up from 14.2% in 2011. The other most common disabilities of Special Education students include hearing impairment, developmental delay and other health impairment.
In 2014, the county’s distribution of special education students age 0 to 5 by disability or impairment type remains fairly similar to 2009 distributions, with the exception that children with speech or language impairments currently represent a slightly smaller proportion of all special education students (71.8%) compared to 2009 (72.9%), and those with autism represent a higher proportion (16.5%) compared to 2009 (11.4%). The proportion of children with hearing impairments may also be trending upwards with an increase from 3.7% in 2009 to 4.1% in 2014.
Contra Costa County 38 of 74
COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2015-2018
Table 35 – Countywide Special Education Enrollment by Age and Disability, 2013-14
Type of Disability Age 0 Age 1 Age 2 Age 3 Age 4 Age 5 Total
Developmental delay 0 0 0 15 24 27 66
Hard of hearing * 18 25 21 16 15 95
Deaf * * * * * * 0
Speech or language impairment 0 * 87 377 566 616 1646
Visual impairment 0 * * * * * 0
Orthopedic impairment * * * 17 17 17 51
Other health impairment 0 0 * 18 20 25 63
Specific learning disability 0 0 0 0 * 11 11
Deaf-blindness 0 0 0 0 * 0 0
Multiple disability 0 0 * * * * 0
Autism 0 0 * 93 147 137 377
Traumatic brain injury 0 * 0 0 * * 0
Emotional Disturbance 0 0 0 0 * * 0
TOTAL 0 18 112 541 790 831 2309
Source: CA Department of Education, Special Education Division, as of 2014; http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/SpecEd/
* Denotes less than 11.
Physical Fitness
Students who meet all six of the fitness standards on the California Physical Fitness Test are considered to
be fit. Since 2004, the percentage of 5th, 7th and 9th graders in Contra Costa County who are physically fit
exceeded that of the state in every year except one. In 2010, a slightly smaller percentage of 7th graders
in Contra Costa County met the physical fitness standard than did 7th graders in California overall (31.4%
and 32.1%, respectively).
Both the county and state demonstrate an overall upward trend in fitness among 9th graders since 2004.
The percentage of 9th graders in Contra Costa County who meet all of the six fitness standards has grown
from 30.6% in 2004 to 40.9% in 2013. However, 5th and 7th graders in the county have not seen the same
gradual fitness improvements experienced by California students overall.
Table 36 – Percentage of Students who are Physically Fit, Contra Costa & California, 2004 – 2013
2004 2007 2010 2013
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Grade 5 28.4 30.6 27.1 28.1
Grade 7 32.3 34.3 31.4 33.4
Grade 9 30.6 39.8 38.3 40.9
CALIFORNIA
Grade 5 24.8 28.5 25.2 26.6
Grade 7 29.1 32.9 32.1 33
Grade 9 26.3 35.6 36.8 38.1
Source: http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/
Note: Students meeting six of six fitness standards are considered physically fit.
Importantly, not all students achieve these same grade-related fitness improvements, as fitness scores vary considerably by race and ethnicity. In 2013, 9th graders who are Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, Hispanic/Latino or African American were less likely to be physically fit, while Asian Americans, Whites and Filipinos were more likely to be physically fit.
Contra Costa County 39 of 74
COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2015-2018
Figure 11 – Percentage of Students who are Physically Fit, Contra Costa & California, 2004 – 2013
Figure 12 – Percentage of Physically Fit 7th and 9th Graders by Ethnicity, 2013
The healthy fitness zone (HFZ) for body composition is 17% - 32% body fat for females and 10% - 25% for males. Contra Costa County as a whole has surpassed the state’s proportion of 5th graders in the HFZ for body composition by at least 4 percentage points since 2009; however, both the county and the state have seen this percentage drop 8 to 9 percentage points in the past four years.
Contra Costa County 40 of 74
COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2015-2018
Additionally, individual school districts in the county vary widely from a high of 87.3% in Moraga Unified to a low of 48.3% in Pittsburg Unified. Notably, Lafayette Unified is the only district in Contra Costa County that saw an improvement in the percentage of 5th graders in the HFZ for body composition in the last four years, up 10.6 points from 67.3% in 2009 to 77.9% in 2013. Notably, three districts saw 4-year declines of more than 10 percentage points, including Pittsburg Unified (-15.2), Orinda Unified (-14.2) and West Contra Costa (-11.1).
Table 37 – Percentage of 5th Graders in Healthy Fitness Zone on Body Composition, 2009 – 2013
2009 2010 2013
Total Tested % In HFZ Total Tested % In HFZ Total Tested % In HFZ
Pittsburg Unified 762 63.5 775 47.6 783 48.3
West Contra Costa Unified 2,185 61.7 2,215 44.6 2,197 50.6
Byron Union Elementary 212 84.4 189 55.6 192 75.0
Moraga 190 91.1 192 78.6 244 87.3
Lafayette 315 67.3 410 73.9 403 77.9
Orinda 297 97 297 56.9 285 82.8
Contra Costa County 12,367 72.7 12,794 56.4 13,092 65.0
California 447,863 68.5 456,409 52.1 449,459 59.5
Source: http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/
Figure 13 – Percentage of 5th Graders in Healthy Fitness Zone (HFZ) on Body Composition by
District, 2009 – 2013
Contra Costa County 41 of 74
COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2015-2018
Asthma
Asthma has long been recognized by national health organizations, such as the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention and the American Lung Association, as one of the most common chronic diseases
in the United States that overburdens health care systems, carries enormous costs in terms of missed days
of work or school and other disruptions in daily life, and disproportionally impacts children, people of
color and low-income communities. Because additional risk factors for the disease include workplace and
environmental exposures, asthma is of special concern in Contra Costa County, which received an F grade
for air quality in 2011 from the American Lung Association’s State of the Air evaluation.
Although asthma diagnoses among children 1-17 years old increased in Contra Costa County from 15.3% in 2001 to 22.0% in 2009, in 2012 the percentage of children ever diagnosed with asthma dropped from the 10-year reported high of 22.0% to 18.5%. However, these annual estimates are based on results of the most recent UCLA California Health Interview Survey, which, as a general population survey, is subject to both sampling and non-sampling error.
Table 38 – Asthma Diagnoses among Children Age 1-17 in Contra Costa County, 2003 – 2012
2003 2005 2007 2009 2012
Ever been diagnosed with asthma 19.1% 21.3% 18.5% 22.0% 18.5%
Source: http://www.kidsdata.org/topic/238/asthma/table#fmt=97&loc=171&tf=6,8,10,37,77&sortColumnId=0&sortType=asc
From 2000 to 2012, rates of asthma-related hospitalizations and emergency department visits in Contra Costa County generally exceeded statewide rates for all age groups. County rates of asthma-related hospitalizations across all age groups has dropped from 11.9 per 10,000 in 2000 to 9.8 in 2012, compared to a statewide drop from 10.9 per 10,000 in 2000 to 8.6 in 2012.
Table 39 – Rates of Asthma-Related Hospitalizations and Emergency Room Visits by Age Group,
2000 – 2012
2000 2006 2012
Contra Costa California Contra Costa California Contra Costa California
0-4 years 36.4 35.7 26.3 25.4 26.3 22.0
5-17 years 10.5 11.2 10.2 7.1 8.1 7.9
All ages (children & adults) 11.9 10.9 10.4 9.4 9.8 8.6
Source: http://www.ehib.org/page.jsp?page_key=124
Note: Age-adjusted rate per 10,000
Table 40 – Number of Asthma-Related Hospitalizations and Emergency Room Visits by Age Group,
Contra Costa County, 2008 – 2012
Age Group 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
0-4 years 185 173 187 164 167
5-17 years 149 153 140 122 153
0-17 years 334 326 327 286 320
All ages (children & adults) 1,136 1,200 1,181 1,163 1,075
Source: http://www.kidsdata.org/topic/238/asthma/table#fmt=97&loc=171&tf=6,8,10,37,77&sortColumnId=0&sortType=asc
Contra Costa County 42 of 74
COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2015-2018
While both the county and the state have seen declines in rates of asthma-related hospitalizations and emergency department visits since 2000, declines have been steeper among California children overall than they have been in Contra Costa County. Rates of children hospitalized due to asthma also vary considerably by county subarea, and according to the California Department of Health Services, may be nearly twice as high as state averages in low-income, African American communities, such as Richmond.
Figure 14 – Asthma Hospitalizations by Age Group in Contra Costa and California, 2000 – 2012
Tobacco Use
As one primary risk factor for asthma, tobacco use and second-hand smoke exposure is also of particular
concern for communities with high rates of the disease. Current data indicates tobacco use among Contra
Costa County residents overall has decreased steadily since 2002, down from 13.7% in 2002 to 10.6% in
2012. Although this 3.1 percentage point drop is slightly less than the 3.5 point drop among California
residents in the same 10-year period, tobacco use in the county has been less than that in the state since
2002. Tobacco use in California declined from 16.2% in 2002 to 12.7% in 2012.
Table 41 – Percentage Who Smoke Tobacco, Contra Costa County & California, 2002 – 2012
Contra Costa County California
2002 13.7 16.2
2008 12.5 13.2
2012 10.6 12.7
Source: http://ask.chis.ucla.edu/main/DQ3/output.asp?_rn=0.9180414
Tobacco use among Contra Costa County teens also compares favorably with the state, as students in
grades 7 through 11 in the county are slightly less likely to smoke than California students overall.
However, the percentage of teenagers who used cigarettes and who identify as American Indian/Alaska
Native (13.0%), Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (11.0%), Hispanic/Latino (10.4%), African American
(9.7%) or multi-racial (9.4%) are somewhat more likely to smoke than students of other races/ethnicities.
Asian teenagers in Contra Costa County report the lowest cigarette use.
Contra Costa County 43 of 74
COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2015-2018
Table 42 – Cigarette Use in Past Month among Students by Grade Level, 2008 - 2010
Grade Level 0 days 1 day 2 days 3-9 days 10-19 days 20 or more
Contra Costa
County
7th 95.4% 1.7% 0.8% 0.8% 0.4% 1.0%
9th 91.2% 2.6% 1.3% 2.1% 1.0% 1.8%
11th 86.9% 3.3% 2.1% 3.0% 1.6% 3.2%
Non-Traditional 61.2% 7.1% 4.5% 5.7% 4.4% 17.1%
Grade Level 0 days 1 day 2 days 3-9 days 10-19 days 20 or more
California
7th 94.9% 2.1% 0.9% 0.9% 0.4% 0.8%
9th 90.1% 3.0% 1.7% 2.1% 1.1% 2.0%
11th 86.8% 3.4% 2.2% 2.9% 1.5% 3.2%
Non-Traditional 60.6% 7.0% 5.2% 7.4% 4.8% 15.1%
Source: http://www.kidsdata.org/topic/592/cigarette-use-grade/
Table 43 – Cigarette Use in Past Month among Contra Costa Students by Ethnicity, 2008 - 2010
Race/Ethnicity 0 days 1 day 2 days 3-9 days 10-19 days 20 or more
African American/Black 90.3% 2.6% 1.2% 1.5% 1.4% 3.1%
American Indian/Alaska Native 87.0% 3.2% 2.6% 2.3% 2.8% 2.2%
Asian 96.4% 1.0% 0.9% 0.6% 0.3% 0.9%
Hispanic/Latino 89.6% 3.3% 2.0% 2.8% 0.9% 1.4%
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 89.0% 3.2% 1.5% 2.2% 0.7% 3.5%
White 91.4% 2.2% 1.1% 1.9% 1.2% 2.3%
Multiracial 90.6% 2.7% 1.5% 2.4% 1.1% 1.8%
Other 91.3% 3.0% 1.2% 1.4% 0.7% 2.4%
Source: California Department of Education, California Healthy Kids Survey (WestEd); http://www.chis.ucla.edu/main/default.asp
Figure 15 – Percentage of Contra Costa Teens Who Used Cigarettes in Past Month by Ethnicity, 2010
Contra Costa County 44 of 74
COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2015-2018
Sexually Transmitted Diseases
Because rates for STDs are considered a proxy for unsafe sexual practices and HIV risk factors, trends in
incidence rates are particularly important to maintain healthy communities, and STD rates are closely
monitored by a statewide surveillance system that defines high-risk populations, assesses STD trends,
measures prevalence of select STDs, health impacts and costs, and evaluates progress toward reaching
Healthy People Year 2020 STD objectives.
After a few years of gradual increases in the incidence of Chlamydia and Gonorrhea in both the county
and the state, STD incidence rates since 2011 have declined slightly. However, while rates of Chlamydia in
Contra Costa County have dropped below statewide rates, incidence rates of Gonorrhea in the county
remain somewhat higher than incidence rates in California overall.
Table 44 – STD Incidence for Chlamydia and Gonorrhea by Age Group, Contra Costa County 2013
Age Group Chlamydia Gonorrhea
Ages 10-14 44.3 14.8
Ages 15-19 1,234.30 212.4
Source: http://www.cdph.ca.gov/data/statistics/pages/STDData.aspx; Note: Rate per 100,000
Since 2010, rates of Gonorrhea among all ages in Contra Costa County have dropped from 158.6 to 115.4
per 100,000. In comparison, California’s rate for Gonorrhea is currently 99.7 per 100,000. In 2013, the
county reports an overall Chlamydia rate of 650.3 per 100,000, down from 882.8 in 2010. California’s 2013
rate for Chlamydia is 717.7 per 100,000, down from 802.3 in 2010.
Figure 16 – STD Incidence in Contra Costa County and California, 2009 – 2013
Contra Costa County 45 of 74
COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2015-2018
Table 45 – STD Incidence for Chlamydia and Gonorrhea, All Ages
Year STD Contra Costa County California
2009 Chlamydia 827.9 803.0
Gonorrhea 118.5 94.5
2010 Chlamydia 882.8 802.3
Gonorrhea 158.6 100.6
2011 Chlamydia 870.6 810.7
Gonorrhea 144.9 92.6
2012 Chlamydia 662.8 772.7
Gonorrhea 108.9 95.7
2013 Chlamydia 650.3 717.7
Gonorrhea 115.4 99.7
Source: http://www.cdph.ca.gov/data/statistics/pages/STDData.aspx; Note: Rate per 100,000
Immunizations
Historically, the percentage of fully immunized kindergarteners in Contra Costa County has been higher
than that of the state. Since 2000, the percentage of fully immunized kindergarteners in the county has
remained stable relative to the state’s rate, which has dropped somewhat from 92.2% in 2000 to 89.5% in
2014. Declines in immunization rate are thought to be related to controversies surrounding the perceived
health risks and side effects of immunization, an explanation that appears to be supported by the
increased proportion of non-compliance based on Personal Belief Exemptions, which has more than
doubled in the county from 0.9% in 2000 to 2.3% in 2014. In contrast, the percentage of kindergarteners
in the county who were not immunized based on Permanent Medical Exemptions (PME) has remained
relative constant at 0.2% or less. In 2014, the county’s rate of full immunized children entering school is
94.0% compared to the state’s rate of 89.5%.
Figure 17 – Childhood Immunization Status, Contra Costa County & California, 2000 – 2014
Contra Costa County 46 of 74
COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2015-2018
Table 46 – Childhood Immunizations Status, 2000 – 2014
2000 2010 2012 2014
Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent
Permanent Medical Exemptions (PME) 27 0.2 28 0.2 23 0.2 15 --
Personal Belief Exemptions (PBE) 120 0.9 197 1.4 257 1.8 344 2.3
All required immunizations, Contra Costa 12551 94.5 13,113 93.0 13,621 94.0 13,948 94.0
All required immunizations, California 92.2 92.7 89.5 89.5
Source: http://www.cdph.ca.gov/data/statistics/Pages/default.aspx
Pediatric Nutrition
Nutritional status (weight, height, and hematology) among low income, high-risk infants and children is an important indicator of health and wellbeing. Poor nutrition and poverty are also significantly correlated. In 2012, the county exceeded the statewide percentage of low birth weight children (6.8% and 6.7%, respectively). The county has exceeded the statewide average for low birth weight children since 2007.
Another indicator of poor nutritional health that contributes to multiple health risks such as obesity, dental decay, type 2 diabetes, high cholesterol and high blood pressure is the consumption of fast food which tends to be very high in fat and sugar. In Contra Costa County, the percentage of children who consume fast food two or more times a week has been somewhat less than that of the state since 2007. However, the percentage of 2-17 year olds who ate fast food two or more times in the past week has increased in the county from 32.0% in 2007 to 33.6% in 2012, while in California as a whole the percentage has dropped from 37.7% in 2007 to 37.2% in 2012.
Table 47 – Fast Food Consumption by Age Group, Contra Costa County and California 2007 - 2012
Age Group 2007 2009 2012
Contra Costa California Contra Costa California Contra Costa California
2-11 year olds 26.9% 32.3% 17.9% 31.4% 28.5% 33.2%
12-17 year olds 39.7% 45.8% 39.0% 48.2% -- 43.7%
Total 2-17 year olds 32.0% 37.7% 26.9% 38.1% 33.6% 37.2%
Source: http://healthpolicy.ucla.edu/chis/Pages/default.aspx; Percentage of children who ate fast food more than once in the past week
Figure 18 – Fast Food Consumption in Contra Costa County and California, 2007 – 2012
Contra Costa County 47 of 74
COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2015-2018
Oral Health Status of Children
Dental disease and oral health problems impact more children in the United States than any other chronic
disease. Dental disease may negatively impact a child’s health and development, interfere with proper
nutrition, deter speech development, and reduce school attendance and academic performance. When
children miss school due to oral health problems, school districts also suffer from the loss of funding.
In 2009, the percentage of children age 2 – 11 in the county who had never been to a dentist was only
slightly higher than the state overall (12.3% and 11.6%, respectively); however by 2012, this percentage
had increased to 16.3% in the county, while it had dropped to 10.3% in California. This troubling trend in
dental care among Contra Costa County children is further indicated by a decrease in the percentage who
had a dental visit within the past 6 months which dropped from 71.5% in 2009 to 67.1% in 2012. In
contrast, California overall improved its percentage from 70.2% in 2009 to 72.9% in 2012.
Table 48 – Length of Time since Last Dental Visit among Children Age 2-11, Contra Costa County and
California, 2009 and 2012
Contra Costa County California
2012 Percent Count Percent
Less than 6 months ago 67.1 96,000 72.9
6 to 12 months ago 11.5 16,000 12.9
More than 12 months ago 5.1 7,000 2.9
Never had a dental visit 16.3 23,000 10.3
2009 Percent Count Percent
Less than 6 months ago 71.5 89,000 70.2
6 to 12 months ago 12.6 16,000 14.5
More than 12 months ago 3.7 5,000 3.7
Never had a dental visit 12.3 15,000 11.6
Source: http://ask.chis.ucla.edu/main/DQ3/output.asp?_rn=8.454531E-02 reported by http://www.kidsdata.org/topic/264/lastdentalvisit/
Figure 19 – Time since Last Dental Visit among Children Age 2-11, 2009 – 2012
Contra Costa County 48 of 74
COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2015-2018
Community Safety Indicators
Adult Arrests
From 2004 to 2013, the number of adult arrests for misdemeanor and felony offenses dropped in both
Contra Costa County and California. Since 2004, Contra Costa County has experienced a steeper decline in
the number of arrests for misdemeanors compared to the state (21.1% and 14.8% less, respectively).
However, the county saw only a 0.9% decline in the number of arrests for more serious felony offenses
during the same period, while the state saw an 11.0% decline. While crime statistics show an overall drop
in the number of adult arrests since 2004 in both the county and the state, the perception of high crime
remains very real in many communities in the county.
Table 49 – Adult Misdemeanor Arrests, 2004 - 2013
2004 2007 2010 2013 Percent Change
Contra Costa County 16,744 16,301 15,719 13,206 -21.1%
California 818,027 857,959 812,026 696,670 -14.8%
Source: http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/cjsc/publications/candd/cd13/cd13.pdf?
Table 50 – Adult Felony Arrests, 2004 - 2013
2004 2007 2010 2013 Percent Change
Contra Costa County 11,017 10,824 10,509 10,921 -0.9%
California 462,910 457,085 396,532 411,929 -11.0%
Source: http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/cjsc/publications/candd/cd13/cd13.pdf?
Adult Incarcerations
Although current county-level data regarding probationers and inmates who have children less than 5 years of age is unavailable, Contra Costa County’s CSB database, COPA, indicates the number of families impacted by at least one currently or formally incarcerated parent rose an alarming 206% from 2010 to 2012. According to a number of sources4, this trend is partly explained by a dramatic increase in the number of women incarcerated, as the female prison population in the US has shot up nearly 400% since 1986. Data from a 2000 California Research Bureau report estimates 9% of all children in the state have a
parent in the criminal justice system, and in 2007, the US Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) estimates that
53% of the US prison population are parents of at least one minor child.
In the Contra Costa County Reentry Strategic Plan (March 2011), data compiled by the Urban Strategies
Council and Ijichi Perkins & Associates estimates 55% of the county’s 4,138 adult parolees and
probationers in 2010, or about 2,274 families annually, need family support services such as child support
assistance, counseling, or reunification assistance upon release. They also estimate the county’s
populations of soon-to-be-released inmates are largely concentrated in the communities of Richmond
(94804), Antioch (94509), and Concord (94519 and 94520).
Despite a lack of current estimates, the county’s probation department acknowledges many probationers
and inmates of Contra Costa County are primary caregivers of children under five. The CSB recognizes
that, particularly in light of Public Safety Realignment (AB 109) plans and resources, these children
4 http://www.justicestrategies.org/sites/default/files/publications/JS-COIP-1-13-11.pdf ,
http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2011/RAND_MG1165.pdf
Contra Costa County 49 of 74
COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2015-2018
represent a growing at-risk group in the county, highly vulnerable to financial insecurity, poor academic performance, social stigma and isolation, delinquency, emotional withdrawal, and mental health problems.
Domestic Violence
In 2012, the rate of domestic violence calls for assistance per 1,000 population continued its downward
trend and reached a 12-year low of 4.6 in Contra Costa County and 6.2 in California overall. The rate of
domestic violence calls for assistance in Contra Costa County has been consistently 1.0 or more lower
than the statewide rate from 2000 through 2012 and was a record 1.6 points lower in 2012. These
declining rates also represent a reduction in the number of calls, as indicated in Table 52.
Table 51 – Rate of Domestic Violence Calls for Assistance, 2000 - 2012
2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012
Contra Costa County 7.8 7.6 6.4 5.9 5.6 5.3 4.6
California 8.9 8.6 7.9 7.4 6.8 6.6 6.2
Source: http://oag.ca.gov/crime/cjsc-stats/2010/table14 and http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/pdfs/cjsc/prof10/table27.pdf?; as reported
by kidsdata.org; Rate is per 1,000
Table 52 –Domestic Violence Calls for Assistance, Contra Costa County, 2008 - 2012
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Number of Calls 3,868 3,836 3,687 3,404 3,286
Child Abuse
Over the past nine years, the rate of substantiated child abuse cases per 1,000 children ages 0-17 in
Contra Costa County has been substantially lower than the statewide rate. However, the steep declines
Contra Costa County saw in child abuse cases from 2007 (8.8 per 1,000) to 2009 (5.1 per 1,000) has not
continued as rates in 2011 increased slightly to 5.5 per 1,000 and rates in 2013 remain at 2009 levels of
5.1 per 1,000 population. The drop in rates since 2005 also represent a reduction in the number of cases,
as demonstrated in Table 54.
Table 53 – Rate of Substantiated Child Abuse Cases, 2005 – 2013
2005 2007 2009 2011 2013
Contra Costa County 7.6 8.8 5.1 5.5 5.1
California 11.3 10.7 10.0 9.5 8.9
Source: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare/ as reported on kidsdata.org
Note: Rate per 1,000 children (ages 0-17); the substantiated child abuse rate measures the number of child abuse reports that warrant an
in-person investigation and are determined to have occurred.
Table 54 – Number of Substantiated Child Abuse Cases in Contra Costa County, 2009 - 2013
Year 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Number of Cases 1,332 1,224 1,423 1,410 1,300
The distribution of substantiated child abuse cases by age of child has changed very little since 2009 with the exception that in 2013, cases involving children under 1 year of age represent somewhat less of all cases (12.0%) as compared to 2009 (15.6%), while cases involving 6 to 10 year olds represent somewhat more of all cases in 2013 (28.3%) as compared to 2009 (25.8%).
Contra Costa County 50 of 74
COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2015-2018
Table 55 – Distribution of Substantiated Child Abuse Cases in Contra Costa by Age, 2009 – 2013
Age 2009 2011 2013
Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count
Under 1 15.6 208 12.7 181 12.0 156
Ages 1-2 14.1 188 14.8 210 13.9 181
Ages 3-5 16.7 223 18.8 267 17.9 233
Ages 6-10 25.8 343 24.9 355 28.3 368
Ages 11-15 21.5 287 21.8 310 22.2 288
Ages 16-17 6.2 83 7.0 100 5.7 74
Source: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare/ as reported on kidsdata.org
Figure 20 – Distribution of Substantiated Child Abuse Cases by Age, 2009 – 2013
Juvenile Arrests
The rate of juvenile misdemeanor and felony arrests in Contra Costa County has decreased significantly in
the past several years, following arrest rate trends among juveniles in the state overall. In 2013, the
number of juvenile misdemeanor arrests in the county dropped to 1132, which represents a 55.9%
decrease since 2004. The number of juvenile misdemeanor arrests in California dropped to 54,315 in
2013, which represents a 57.4% since 2004.
Table 56 – Number of Juvenile Misdemeanor Arrests, 2004 - 2013
2004 2007 2010 2013
Contra Costa County 2,566 2,524 1,747 1,132
California 127,535 134,629 106,253 54,315
Source: California Department of Justice, Criminal Justice Statistics Center, Monthly Arrest and Citation Register (MACR) Data Files;
http://oag.ca.gov/crime/cjsc/stats/arrests
Juvenile arrest rates for felony charges have also fallen in both the county and the state since 2007. In
2013, the juvenile felony arrest rate in the county dropped to 5.5 per 1000, down from 12.9 arrests per
1,000 juveniles in 2007. In this same 6-year period, the state’s rate dropped from 14.2 to 7.5 per 1,000.
Contra Costa County 51 of 74
COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2015-2018
Table 57 – Juvenile Felony Arrest Rates, 2004 - 2013
2004 2007 2010 2013
Contra Costa County 10.8 12.9 9.7 5.5
California 13.5 14.2 11.6 7.5
Source: California Department of Justice, Criminal Justice Statistics Center, Monthly Arrest and Citation Register (MACR) Data Files as
reported by http://www.kidsdata.org/topic/165/juvenilearrest-rate/
Note: Rate per 1,000 juveniles (less than 18 years)
Comparing these felony arrest rates by ethnicity indicates that juveniles of all ethnicities have
experienced solid declines in arrests since 2009. Although in 2013 African American/Black juveniles still
have the highest arrest rates by far, they have also experienced the steepest declines in the past 5 years,
with rates dropping from 43.8 to 27.1 per 1000 juveniles.
Table 58 – Juvenile Felony Arrest Rates in Contra Costa County by Ethnicity, 2009 - 2013
Race/Ethnicity 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
African American/Black 43.8 40.3 33.9 33.9 27.1
Hispanic/Latino 10.5 10.1 8.1 6 5.3
White 5.1 4.9 4 3.5 2.8
Other 4.2 3.3 2.1 1.7 1.2
Source: California Department of Justice, Criminal Justice Statistics Center, Monthly Arrest and Citation Register (MACR) Data Files as
reported by http://www.kidsdata.org/topic/165/juvenilearrest-rate/
Note: Rate per 1,000 juveniles (less than 18 years)
Figure 21 – Juvenile Felony Arrest Rates by Ethnicity, 2009 – 2013
Note: Rate per 1,000 juveniles (less than 18 years)
Contra Costa County 52 of 74
COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2015-2018
Gang Membership Among Youth
According to statistics compiled from various sources by Helping Gang Youth,5 every community with a
population of 100,000 or more reports some type of gang activity. Despite its recognition as a serious
threat to youth and community health, gang activity and membership is not easily tracked and current
data is not maintained by most criminal justice agencies. However, data compiled by Helping Gang Youth
indicates that 40% of gang members are juveniles.
A number of factors increase the chance that youth will turn to gangs including difficulty or failure in school, high rate of truancy, lack of opportunity for positive activities outside of school, being from a low income household or community, and struggling with learning disabilities and/or emotional disorders. An estimated 60% to 78% of all incarcerated gang members have a learning disability or an emotional disorder that may inhibit them from engaging or excelling in school.6 The US Justice Department also estimates that approximately 47% of gang members are Hispanic/Latino, while 31% are African American, but the racial and ethnic composition of gangs varies considerably by region.
Table 59 – Gang Membership among Contra Costa County Youth by Grade Level, 2008 - 2010
Grade Level Female Male Total Membership
Rate Yes No Yes No
7th Grade 7.0% 93.0% 10.3% 89.7% 8.6%
9th Grade 7.3% 92.7% 10.5% 89.5% 8.8%
11th Grade 6.0% 94.0% 10.5% 89.5% 8.1%
Non-Traditional 14.6% 85.4% 19.6% 80.4% 17.4%
Source: California Department of Education, California Healthy Kids Survey (WestEd) as reported by
http://www.kidsdata.org/topic/165/juvenilearrest-rate/
Children and Families
Births
The overall number of births in Contra Costa County decreased by 9.4% from 13,315 in 2002 to 12,061 in
2012. Since 2002, the number of births to Asians/Pacific Islanders increased by 17.0%, and number of
births to Caucasians has decreased by 25.4% since 2002. The overall number of births per 1,000 women
has dropped in Contra Costa County from 64.0 in 2008 to 57.9 in 2012.
Table 60 – Birth Rate in Contra Costa County, 2008 - 2012
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Births per 1000 Women 64.0 62.3 59.7 58 57.9
Source: http://www.apps.cdph.ca.gov/vsq/default.asp as reported by http://www.kidsdata.org/topic/165/juvenilearrest-rate/
5 http://www.helpinggangyouth.com/statistics.html
6 http://www.helpinggangyouth.com/disability-best_corrections_survey.pdf
Contra Costa County 53 of 74
COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2015-2018
Table 61 – Number and Percentage of Births by Ethnicity, Contra Costa County
Ethnicity 2002 2006 2010 2012
Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent
African American 1,273 9.6 1,259 9.0 1,106 9.2 1,064 8.8
Asian/Pacific
1,618 12.2 1,969 15.5 1,915 14.4 1,894 15.7
Caucasian 5,473 41.1 5,068 36.5 4,513 37.1 4,081 33.8
Latino 4,091 30.7 4,910 35.2 4,351 36.0 4,116 34.1
Native American 39 0.3 20 0.1 13 0.1 18 0.1
2 or more races 821 6.2 339 3.7 454 2.5 487 4.0
Total 13,315 13,656 12,352 12,061
Source: http://www.apps.cdph.ca.gov/vsq/default.asp
Figure 22 – Percentage of Births by Race/Ethnicity, Contra Costa County 2002 – 2012
INFANT MORTALITY
Infant mortality rates in Contra Costa County overall have risen from 4.1 per 1,000 in 2006 to 4.9 per
1,000 in 2012 which suggests a decline in factors such as maternal health, health care access, health
practices or related socioeconomic conditions.
Table 62 – Infant Mortality Rate, Contra Costa County, 2006 – 2012
2006-2008 2007-2009 2008-2010 2009-2011 2010-2012
Contra Costa County 4.1 4.3 4.3 5 4.9
Source: California Dept. of Public Health, Death Statistical Master Files as reported by http://www.kidsdata.org/topic/294/infantmortality/
Rate is number of deaths of children less than 1 year old per 1,000 live births.
In Contra Costa County, infant mortality rates vary significantly by race/ethnicity. Infant mortality rates per 1,000 are highest among multi-racial (9.7) and African American (9.0) residents in 2012. Gradually rising rates are apparent among Asians, Hispanic and Caucasian residents.
Contra Costa County 54 of 74
COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2015-2018
Table 63 – Infant Mortality Rate by Ethnicity, Contra Costa County, 2006 – 2012
Race/Ethnicity 2004-2008 2005-2009 2006-2010 2007-2011 2008-2012
African American/Black 9.6 9.2 8.9 9.9 9.0
American Indian/Alaska Native * * * * *
Asian/Pacific Islander 2.1 2.4 2.6 3.1 3.4
Hispanic/Latino 4.7 4.3 4.5 4.9 5.2
White 2.5 3 2.7 3.1 3.1
Multiracial 17.4 16.1 12.4 12.6 9.7
Source: California Dept. of Public Health, Death Statistical Master Files as reported by http://www.kidsdata.org/topic/294/infantmortality/
Rate is number of deaths of children less than 1 year old per 1,000 live births.
LOW WEIGHT BIRTHS
A baby is considered to be low weight if it weighs less than 2,500 grams (5 pounds 8 ounces) at birth. In the United States, low birth weight is a strong predictor of infant mortality and morbidity. The percentage of low birth weights in Contra Costa County has been similar to, although slightly higher than, the statewide percentage since 2006. However, with the Healthy People 2020 objective of no more than 5% of low weight births, neither the county nor the state have achieved this target to date.
Table 64 – Percentage of Low Birth Weight Babies, Contra Costa & California, 2002 – 2012
2002 2006 2010 2012
Contra Costa County Low Birth weight (% < 2500 G) 6.2 7.0 6.9 6.8
California Low Birth weight (% < 2500 G) 6.4 6.9 6.8 6.7
Source: http://www.cdph.ca.gov/data/statistics/Pages/default.aspx
Figure 23 – Percentage of Low Birth Weight Births, Contra Costa County & California, 2002 – 2012
Preterm birth, occurring before 37 weeks of gestation, is one of the predominant proximate causes of low birth weight. Risk factors for preterm delivery include low socioeconomic status, low pre- pregnancy weight, inadequate weight gain during the pregnancy, history of infertility problems, smoking and multiple gestations. Infants who are born at low birth weight are at a greater risk of developing other problems later in life, such as physical disabilities and developmental delays.
Contra Costa County 55 of 74
COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2015-2018
PRENATAL CARE
From 2000 through 2012, the percentage of women who received prenatal care in the first trimester has remained somewhat higher in Contra Costa County than in the state overall. In this 12-year period, the percentage in the county has dropped from 89.3% in 2000 to 85.0% in 2012. However, 2012 rates have improved from a 12-year low of 82.4% in 2008.
Table 65 – Percentage of Women Receiving Prenatal Care in the First Trimester, 2000 – 2012
2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012
Contra Costa County 89.3 89.2 87.8 88.0 82.4 83.0 85.0
California 83.1 84.8 85.6 85.2 80.7 81.7 81.9
Source: https://chhs.data.ca.gov/browse?q=prenatal%20care&sortBy=relevance&utf8=%E2%9C%93
In 2012, the percentage of pregnant women in Contra Costa County who received prenatal care in the first trimester varied by race and ethnicity, with the lowest percentage among Pacific Islanders (60.7%) and the highest among Caucasians (89.3%) and Asians (88.1%).
Table 66 – Percentage of Women Who Received Prenatal Care in First Trimester by Ethnicity, 2012
Contra Costa County California
All Births Care in
Month 1-3
Percent Care
in Month 1-3 All Births Care in
Month 1-3
Percent Care
in Month 1-3
American Indian 18 15 83.3 1,763 1,172 66.5
Asian 1,811 1,596 88.1 68,547 58,361 85.1
African American 1,065 863 81.0 26,533 20,228 76.2
Hispanic 4,116 3,317 80.6 244,616 194,652 79.6
Pacific Islander 84 51 60.7 2,037 1,383 67.9
Caucasians 4,479 3,999 89.3 149,360 128,078 85.8
Multi-racial / Other 488 414 84.8 10,932 8,805 80.5
Total 12,061 10,255 85.0 503,788 412,679 81.9
Source: Source: State of California, Department of Public Health, Birth Records; http://www.apps.cdph.ca.gov/
Figure 24 – Percentage of Women Who Received Prenatal Care in First Trimester by Ethnicity, 2012
Contra Costa County 56 of 74
COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2015-2018
BIRTHS TO TEENS
Teen birth rates in both the county and state have shown gradual but steady declines over the past ten years. From 2002 to 2012, teen birth rates in the county dropped from 6.6% to 4.7%, while the state rate dropped from 9.5% to 6.9%. Latinos continue to have the highest proportion of the county’s teen births with 55.2% in 2012, which is down significantly from 61.9% in 2010. In comparison, the proportion of teen births to Caucasians dropped moderately from 15.8% in 2010 to 14.9% in 2012, while the proportion of births to African American/Black teens has risen from 18.8% in 2010 to 20.8% in 2012.
Table 67 – Percentage of Births to Teen Mothers Age 15 to 19, 2002 – 2012
2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012
Contra Costa County 6.6 6.1 6.7 6.4 6.1 4.7
California 9.5 9.1 9.4 9.4 8.5 6.9
Source: http://www.apps.cdph.ca.gov/vsq/default.asp
Table 68 – Teen Births by Ethnicity in Contra Costa County, 2009 – 2012
ETHNICITY 2009 2010 2012
African American 20.7 18.8 20.8
Asian/Pacific Islander 4.8 3.2 3.1
Caucasian 20.8 15.8 14.9
Latino 56.6 61.9 55.2
Source: http://www.apps.cdph.ca.gov/vsq/default.asp
Although the total number of births to teen mothers (age 15-19) has dropped from 767 in 2009 to 562 in
2012, the proportion of low birth weight infants born to teen mothers has continued at the relatively high
rate of 8.4%, up from 7.4% in 2008.
Table 69 – Low Weight Births to Mothers Age 15-19 in Contra Costa County, 2006 – 2012
BIRTH WEIGHT 2006 2008 2010 2012
Under 1,500 grams (2.2 lbs.) 15 12 14 11
1,500-2,499 grams (5.5 lbs.) 57 50 49 36
Total low weight (< 2,500 grams) 72 62 63 47
Total teen births 911 842 752 562
Percent low weight 7.9 7.4 8.4 8.4
Source: http://www.apps.cdph.ca.gov/vsq/default.asp Note: Low weight births are less than 2,500 grams.
Table 70 – Percentage of Mothers Age 15-19 Who Received Prenatal Care in First Trimester, Contra
Costa County, 2005 - 2011
PRENATAL CARE STATUS 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2012
Number with prenatal care 600 645 594 557 497 485 375
Total teen births 877 911 869 842 767 752 562
Percent with prenatal care 68.4 70.8 68.3 66.1 64.8 64.5 66.7
Source: http://www.apps.cdph.ca.gov/vsq/default.asp Note: Low weight births are less than 2,500 grams.
The percentage of teen mothers who receive prenatal in the first trimester has improved slightly in Contra
Costa County since 2008. Over the past 8 years, the percentage of teen mothers who accessed care in the
critical first trimester of pregnancy ranged from a high of 70.8% in 2006 to a low of 64.5% in 2010. In
Contra Costa County 57 of 74
COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2015-2018
2012, this percentage rose to 66.7%, but is still well below the Healthy People 2010 Objective of 90% and may contribute to the relatively high percentage of births to teens that are below a heathy weight.
Child Care
OVERVIEW OF CHILD CARE IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
According to the Summary of the Economic Impact of the Child Care Industry in Contra Costa County
published by the Contra Costa Child Care Council in 2003, licensed child care facilities contribute
substantially to the local economy by increasing workforce productivity by $4.92 million, creating $1.58
billion in direct, indirect and induced income, generating $255 million in tax revenues, and providing
about 35,600 local jobs. Licensed child care centers also generate an approximately $231.4 million in
county revenues, and support 4,757 full-time equivalent (FTE) workers in Contra Costa County.
Several economic indicators suggest the child care services industry should continue to steadily grow.
Total revenue for child care services in the US jumped 6% from 2010 to 2011, while employment at child
care facilities rose 1% in the same period. Government spending for child care has increased, and
according to the Bureau of Labor & Statistics, accounts for as much as 35% of the industry’s revenue.
However, from 2004 to 2012, the number of available slots dropped nearly 2% and the number of service
provider sites dropped by 20% in Contra Costa County.
NEED FOR CHILD CARE
Since 1997, the California Child Care Resource and Referral Network has published the California Child
Care Portfolio in an effort to standardize and distribute reliable data about the status of child care in
California. As part of this effort, the Network reports on the potential demand and availability of licensed
child care in each county. Potential demand for child care is assessed by looking at trends in population
growth, including changes in the age distribution of children, the number of children with parents in the
workforce, and the number of children living in poverty.
According to the 2013 California Child Care Portfolio for Contra Costa County, from 2008 to 2012 the
number of children under age 5 in Contra Costa County decreased 4.0% from 66,140 in 2008 to 63,491 in
2012, a reduction of 2,649 children age 0-4. However, an estimated 66% of the county’s 0-12 year olds
have parents in the workforce in 2012, compared to just 64% statewide, and the county has seen a more
than 25% increase in the number of 0-5 year olds living in poverty since 2008.
Table 71 – Change in Child Population in Contra Costa County, 2008 – 2012
2008 2012 % Change
Total residents 1,053,710 1,069,803 1.5%
Number of employed residents 496,400 487,600 -1.8%
Number of children 0-12 177,216 179,899 1.5%
Under 2 26,427 24,885 -5.8%
2 years 13,104 12,365 -5.6%
3 years 13,269 12,772 -3.7%
4 years 13,340 13,469 0.9%
5 years 13,470 14,197 5.4%
6 - 10 years 68,402 72,193 5.5%
11 - 12 years 29,204 30,018 2.8%
Children 0-12 with Working Parents 118,320
Children 0-5 Living in Poverty 9,988 12,520 25.4%
Source: California Child Care Portfolio, California Child Care Resource & Referral Network; http://www.rrnetwork.org
Contra Costa County 58 of 74
COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2015-2018
Figure 25 – Change in Child Population in Contra Costa County and California, 2008 – 2012
NUMBER AND CAPACITY OF CHILD CARE FACILITIES
Available child care slots in licensed child care centers and family child care homes in Contra Costa County
has declined from 38,237 slots at 1,835 sites in 2004 to 37,646 slots at 1,464 sites in 2012, representing a
2% decrease in the number of slots and a 20% decrease in the number of service sites.7 In 2012, available
child care slots have also continued to shift from Family Child Care Homes to Child Care Centers.
Table 72 – Number of Licensed Facilities and Child Care Slots, Contra Costa County, 2004 - 2012
Facility
Type
2004 2006 2008 2010 2012
Facilities Slots Facilities Slots Facilities Slots Facilities Slots Facilities Slots
Child Care
Center 372 24,133 374 25,323 376 25,570 369 25,230 368 26,554
Family Child
Care Home 1,463 14,104 1,273 12,488 1,094 11,022 1,081 10,704 1,096 11,092
Total 1,835 38,237 1,647 37,811 1,470 36,592 1,450 35,934 1,464 37,646
Source: California Child Care Portfolio, California Child Care Resource & Referral Network; http://www.rrnetwork.org as reported by
kidsdata.org
Consistent with recent population shifts, parent requests for licensed child care for 0-2 year olds have declined slightly since 2010. Estimates in 2012 indicate 39% of all parent requests for licensed child care
involved children less than 2 years of age. Requests for child care for 2 year olds (14%) and 3 year olds
(12%) have remained constant in the past few years; however, the proportion of requests that involve 4
year olds have increased from 8% in 2010 to 11% in 2012.
7 California Child Care Resource and Referral Network, http://www.rrnetwork.org.
Contra Costa County 59 of 74
COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2015-2018
Table 73 – Requests for Child Care by Age in Contra Costa County, 2010 - 2012
Age of Child 2010 2012
Under 2 years 41% 39%
2 years 14% 14%
3 years 12% 12%
4 years 8% 11%
5 years 6% 7%
Source: California Child Care Portfolio, California Child Care Resource & Referral Network; http://www.rrnetwork.org
Figure 26 – Child Care Slots Capacity at Licensed Centers in Contra Costa County, August 2012
264
1311
1026
229
3089
1411
156
277
913
729
504
749
411 317 243
115
1118
2076
408
1019
2043
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
AlamoAntiochBrentwoodClaytonConcordDanvilleDiscovery BayEl CerritoLafayetteMartinezMoragaNorth RichmondOakleyOrindaOtherPinolePittsburgRichmondRodeoSan RamonWalnut Creek
BARRIERS TO CHILD CARE ACCESS
As child care slots in licensed childcare centers and family childcare homes in the county have declined 2% and the number of service sites has declined 20%, these capacity reductions disproportionately impact children who may be harder to place. Although the availability of childcare slots for Head Start and Early Head Start children is difficult to estimate, service providers do vary in their willingness to accept subsidized children. Cities with concentrations of low income households and a higher ratio of children to total population also have a disproportionately larger proportion of special needs and other hard-to-place children, such as children in protective services. The majority of special population children are in lower income communities of Antioch, Concord, Pittsburg, Richmond, and San Pablo.
Official countywide estimates of the number of children on child care subsidy waitlists from Centralized Eligibility Lists (CELs) have been unavailable since July 2011, when the Budget Act of 2011 cut county funding for these planning data. However, in their 2013 annual report, the Contra Costa County Child Care Council estimates that in July 2013, as many as 3,000 low income children were still waiting for child care.
Contra Costa County 60 of 74
COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2015-2018
In 2012, there was a licensed child care slot available for only 32% of children age 0-12 who have parents in the workforce. Although this represents a slight improvement over the 2010 availability estimate of 29%, the gap between availability and demand may be increasing in certain areas. Cities with the highest incomes and lowest child populations, such as Danville, Lafayette, Moraga, and Walnut Creek, tend to have a surplus of child care slots relative to demand. These cities tend to have more retirees, fewer people in the workforce, and higher average household incomes, and therefore, more ability to pay for childcare. In contrast, 83.4% of the county’s 40,590 children in poverty are concentrated in the Antioch, Liberty, Mt. Diablo, Pittsburg and West Contra Costa school districts, and large increases in the number of children in poverty have occurred in the districts of Mt. Diablo (up 6,543), Antioch (up 4,228), West Contra Costa (up 4,195) and Pittsburg (up 2,945).
Finally, the gap between demand and the ability to pay for childcare continues to plague low income, high-need communities. Cost of care represents a critical barrier to access, even for middle class families earning the county’s 2013 annual family median of $94,208. Full-time care for infants now costs families approximately $13,602, up $952 or 7.5% from 2010 estimates.
Table 74 – Child Care Costs by Age and Facility Type
LICENSED CHILD
CARE CENTERS
LICENSED FAMILY
CHILD CARE SITES
Full-time Infant Care $13,602 $8,506
Full-time Preschool Care $9,705 $7,920
Source: California Child Care Resource & Referral Network; http://www.rrnetwork.org as reported by kidsdata.org
Shortages will likely continue to impact families in communities where gaps between childcare availability
and demand already existed (such as in high demand zip codes), where economic conditions have forced
small business closures, and where the availability of slots have not kept pace with unanticipated child
population growth. The majority of shortages will be for school-age care; however, estimated school-age
shortages may not include a number of license-exempt facilities such as programs operated by libraries,
private schools, community and faith-based organizations, and city parks and recreation departments.
Foster Care
From 2003 to 2013, the rate of first entry into foster care per 1,000 children ages 0-17 in Contra Costa
County has been considerably lower than that of the state. In 2013, the county’s rate is 1.6 per 1,000
children, while the state’s rate is 2.8. The county has experienced a general trend of declining foster care
first entry rates since 2003, while the state rate has remained steady over the past 10 years.
Table 75– Rate of First Entry into Foster Care
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Contra Costa County 2.5 2.5 2.0 2.3 2.3 1.9 1.5 1.3 1.7 1.7 1.6
California 2.8 2.8 3.0 3.0 2.9 2.6 2.7 2.6 2.6 2.7 2.8
Source: Child Welfare Services Reports for California, U.C. Berkeley Center for Social Services Research.
http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare/ as reported by kidsdata.org
Note: Rate is per 1,000 children (0-17 years)
In 2011-2013, the rate of first entry into foster care continued to be highest among African American
children in the county (6.3 per 1,000 children). This rate was 4 times higher than the rate of first entry for
Caucasians (1.6 per 1,000 children). The rate of entry among the county’s African American children has
risen from 5.6 per 1,000 in 2008-2010 to 6.3 per 1,000 in 2011-2013. The rate of first entry into foster
care among Latino children in the county has dropped slightly from 1.6 in 2007-2009 to 1.3 per 1,000
Contra Costa County 61 of 74
COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2015-2018
children in 2011-2013. After dropping to 960 in 2010, the number of Contra Costa County children in foster care increased to 1,164 in 2013. About 28.1% of those in foster care in 2013 are 0-5 years old.
Figure 27 – Rate of First Entry into Foster Care, Contra Costa County and California, 2003 – 2013
Table 76 – Rate of First Entry into Foster Care by Ethnicity, 2007 – 2013
Race/Ethnicity 2007-2009 2008-2010 2009-2011 2010-2012 2011-2013
African American/Black 6.3 5.6 5.6 5.8 6.3
Asian/Pacific Islander 1.1 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6
Latino 1.6 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.3
White 1.5 1.3 1.2 1.4 1.6
Source: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare/
Note: Rate per 1,000 children age 0-17. Rates are calculated over combined years to increase the sample size and thus improved the
stability of the estimate.
Table 77 – Children in Foster Care by Age, 2009 – 2013
Age 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Under 1 70 44 57 48 62
Ages 1-2 112 97 102 101 129
Ages 3-5 132 103 115 124 136
Ages 6-10 247 177 191 198 234
Ages 11-15 405 332 293 304 321
Ages 16-20 263 207 222 240 282
Total in Foster Care 1,229 960 980 1,015 1,164
Source: Child Welfare Services Reports for California, U.C. Berkeley Center for Social Services Research.
http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare/ as reported by kidsdata.org
Contra Costa County 62 of 74
COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2015-2018
Education and Training
Academic Performance
All students, including English Learners (EL) and special education students, participate in the
Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) program. The STAR Program has 5 performance levels:
advanced, proficient, basic, below basic, and far below basic. Several factors contribute to higher
performance on standard tests, including early childhood experiences such as quality licensed child care.
In 2013, the percentage of students who score proficient or above in English Language Arts (ELA) in Contra
Costa County exceeds the statewide percentage (62.3% and 56.3%, respectively). However, percentages
vary widely by district from 42.3% in West Contra Costa Unified, to 91.6% in Orinda Union Elementary.
The percentage of students who score proficient or above in math in the county also exceeds the state
(55.7% and 51.2%, respectively). Individual district proportions range from 37.7% proficient or above in
math in West Contra Costa Unified, to 91.1% in Orinda Union Elementary. Contra Costa County also
surpasses California in the percentage of students proficient or above in science (65.3% and 59.1%,
respectively), with district proportions ranging from 44.1% in Pittsburg Unified, to 93.9% in Orinda Union
Elementary.
Figure 28 – Percentage of Students Proficient or Above in ELA by District, 2013
Source: http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/
Contra Costa County 63 of 7 4
COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2015-2018
Table 78 – Student Performance by Subject and District, 2011 - 2013
2011 % Proficient or Above
ELA (Grades 2-11)
% Proficient or Above
Math (Grades 2-7)
% Proficient or Above
Science (Grades 5,8,10)
Antioch Unified 47.1 38.3 46.4
Brentwood Union
65.7 68.3 73.0
Byron Union Elementary 62.1 64.4 66.5
Canyon Elementary 79.6 70.4 86.7
John Swett Unified 46.4 42.1 55.4
Knightsen Elementary 64.4 68.4 71.8
Lafayette Elementary 85.3 85.4 90.8
Martinez Unified 66.8 62.3 67.4
Moraga Elementary 91.8 90.6 94.6
Mt. Diablo Unified 56.8 52.1 57.5
Oakley Union Elementary 55.9 52.9 62.2
Orinda Union Elementary 91.6 91.2 95.8
Pittsburg Unified 41.0 41.9 42.4
San Ramon Valley Unified 84.7 78.5 88.3
Walnut Creek Elementary 81.0 79.9 84.1
West Contra Costa Unified 42.0 37.8 42.5
Contra Costa County 60.6 55.1 63.1
California 54.4 50.4 57.0
2013 % Proficient or Above
ELA (Grades 2-11)
% Proficient or Above
Math (Grades 2-7)
% Proficient or Above
Science (Grades 5,8,10)
Antioch Unified 47.3 38.9 45.6
Brentwood Union
68.7 70.3 76.6
Byron Union Elementary 65.6 64.9 79.3
Canyon Elementary 81.1 66.0 75.0
John Swett Unified 47.6 43.2 53.8
Knightsen Elementary 56.1 68.2 68.2
Lafayette Elementary 86.4 87.4 91.2
Martinez Unified 66.3 64.9 68.8
Moraga Elementary 91.2 89.1 93.1
Mt. Diablo Unified 58.0 53.3 59.5
Oakley Union Elementary 56.9 54.2 63.5
Orinda Union Elementary 91.6 91.1 93.9
Pittsburg Unified 43.4 40.0 44.1
San Ramon Valley Unified 84.9 78.5 88.3
Walnut Creek Elementary 80.1 80.9 83.1
West Contra Costa Unified 42.3 37.7 46.3
Contra Costa County 62.3 55.7 65.3
California 56.3 51.2 59.1
Source: http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/
Contra Costa County 64 of 74
COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2015-2018
Figure 29 – Percentage of Students Proficient or Above in Math by District, 2013
Figure 30 – Percentage of Students Proficient or Above in Science by District, 2013
English Learners
The proportion of students in Contra Costa County who are English Learner (EL) has historically been
lower than that of the state. For instance, in 2003-04 the percentage of EL students in the county was a
little over half that of the state. According to the US Census Bureau, in 2010, 32.4% of all persons age 5 or
more speak a language other than English at home in Contra Costa County, compared to 43.0% in
California. However, this difference has steadily decreased over the past 10 years, and while the
Contra Costa County 65 of 74
COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2015-2018
percentage of EL students in California public schools has dropped 3.8 points from 25.4% to 21.6% between 2003 and 2013, Contra Costa County has experienced a 2.6 point increase in the percentage of EL students. Thus, in 2012-13 the percentage of EL students in the county is now only 4.5 points less than that of the state.
Table 79 – Number and Percentage of Students Who Are English Learners (EL), 2003 – 2013
2003-04 2004-05 2006-07 2008-09 2010-11 2012-13
Number of EL Students
(Contra Costa County) 23,980 25,176 27,156 28,483 29,149 29,316
Percent of EL Students
(Contra Costa County) 14.5 15.2 16.3 17.0 17.3 17.1
Percent of EL Students
(California) 25.4 25.2 25.0 25.8 23.2 21.6
Source: http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/cb/
Figure 31 – Percentage of Students Who Are English Learners, 2003 – 2013
The most common languages spoken by English Learner students in 2012-13 remain virtually unchanged
from prior school years, with 79.6% speaking Spanish, 2.8% speaking Tagalog, 1.5% speaking Vietnamese,
and 1.5% speaking Farsi/Arabic.
Table 80 – Top Languages Spoken by English Learners in Contra Costa County, 2012-2013
LANGUAGE PERCENT
Spanish 79.6
Filipino (Tagalog) 2.8
Vietnamese 1.5
Farsi (Arabic) 1.5
Mandarin 1.4
Punjabi 1.2
Cantonese 1.1
Source: http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/cb/
Contra Costa County 66 of 74
COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2015-2018
Truancy Rates
Truancy (any unexcused absence or tardiness of 3 days or more) has many well-documented negative
consequences on students, schools and communities. In recent years, truancy has been recognized as a
serious, long-term threat to community health by several prominent local district attorneys, and judges,
including California’s Attorney General, Kamala Harris. In California, nearly 90% of the students that
struggle with chronic absenteeism are low income.8 Truancy rates have been shown to predict future
dropout rates, criminal activity, unemployment, gang affiliation, and drug and/or alcohol dependency. So
established is the link between truancy and poor outcomes that, according to California Superior Court
Judge Gloria Rhynes, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation uses third grade truancy rates to
estimate the size of the future prison population.
Table 81 – Percentage of Students Who are Truant by District, 2004 – 2013
District 2004-2005 2006-2007 2008-2009 2010-2011 2012-2013
Acalanes Union High 4.3 7.2 23.0 11.6 22.0
Antioch Unified 9.6 46.6 52.6 35.2 33.7
Brentwood Union Elementary 17.0 19.7 29.6 25.2 17.8
Byron Union Elementary 21.6 32.1 30.9 21.8 25.0
Canyon Elementary 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Contra Costa County Office Of Ed 11.8 12.6 5.7 41.8 19.4
John Swett Unified 52.4 63.4 30.8 56.7 21.3
Knightsen Elementary 3.2 2.7 3.0 2.3 14.4
Lafayette Elementary 14.2 12.5 16.2 14.9 16.3
Liberty Union High 1.9 1.8 0.9 0.4 34.5
Martinez Unified 27.3 22.2 19.7 24.7 28.9
Moraga Elementary 0.0 0.2 0.9 0.3 1.3
Mt. Diablo Unified 4.0 6.6 28.4 25.2 21.3
Oakley Union Elementary 34.5 38.7 37.5 26.4 32.5
Orinda Union Elementary 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.4
Pittsburg Unified 49.1 59.2 44.9 51.0 45.0
San Ramon Valley Unified 25.2 28.0 22.7 21.0 16.4
Walnut Creek Elementary 13.2 15.0 12.3 15.9 18.4
West Contra Costa Unified 88.8 45.1 47.6 66.9 59.2
Contra Costa County 30.0 27.7 32.08 32.4 30.4
California 22.6 25.2 24.15 29.8 29.3
Source: http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/sd/filestd.asp
Although in 2013 the average truancy rate in Contra Costa County has dropped to 30.4% (down 2 percentage points from 2011), the county’s truancy rate continues to exceed the state’s rate of 29.3%.
However, truancy varies considerably by school district, with some districts, such as Orinda Union
Elementary (0.4%) and Moraga Elementary (1.3%) achieving extremely low truancy rates, while West
Contra Costa Unified (59.2%), Pittsburg Unified (45.0%), Liberty Union High (34.5%), Antioch Unified
(33.7%), and Oakley Union Elementary (32.5%) have 2012-13 truancy rates that exceed the state average.
8 In School and On Track 2014, The Attorney General’s Report on California’s Elementary School Truancy and Absenteeism Crisis,
https://oag.ca.gov/truancy/2014
Contra Costa County 67 of 74
COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2015-2018
Figure 32 – Change in Percentage of Students Who are Truant by District, 2004-05 – 2012-13
Several districts saw marked improvements in truancy since 2010-11, as rates in John Swett Unified dropped 35.4 percentage points, Contra Costa County Office of Education dropped 22.4 points, and both West Contra Costa County Unified and Brentwood Union Elementary dropped just over 7 points. In contrast, 3 districts saw rates climb more than 10 points, including Acalanes Union High (up 10.4 points), Knightsen Elementary (up 12.1 points) and Liberty Union High (up 34.1 points). In 2013, the law that defines truancy was amended to allow school administrators discretion to excuse certain absences based
on special circumstances, which may impact official truancy rates once this change is fully implemented.
Dropout Rates
In the 13-year period from 2000 to 2013, Contra Costa County’s overall 4-year derived dropout rate
(dropouts per 100 high school students) remained well below state averages, but rose nearly 2 percentage
points while the state’s rate rose just 0.4 points. Dropout rates by district also vary considerably and
2012-2013 rates in three districts – Mt. Diablo Unified (12.4%), Pittsburg Unified (21.5%), and West Contra
Costa Unified (13.3%) – exceed the state’s rate of 11.4%.
Notably from 2001 to 2013, dropout rates improved for West Contra Costa Unified (from 16.5% to 13.3%),
John Swett Unified (from 10.2% to 7.2%), San Ramon Valley Unified (from 1.3% to 0.4%), and Liberty
Union High (5.2% to 4.5%).
Contra Costa County 68 of 74
COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2015-2018
Table 82 – High School Dropout Rates in Contra Costa County and California, 2000 – 2013
DISTRICT 2000-01 2005-06 2010-11 2012-13
Acalanes Union High 0.3 0.8 1.8 0.6
Antioch Unified 2.6 12.2 17.2 11.2
John Swett Unified 10.2 19.8 8.8 7.2
Liberty Union High 5.2 2.0 5.5 4.5
Martinez Unified 1.0 4.2 5.5 9.1
Mt. Diablo Unified 6.5 13.0 11.4 12.4
Pittsburg Unified 9.8 6.4 25.5 21.5
San Ramon Valley Unified 1.3 0.9 1.6 0.4
West Contra Costa Unified 16.5 17.8 20.5 13.3
Contra Costa County 6.4 12.6 11.0 8.2
California 11.0 13.6 14.4 11.4
Source: http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/
Note: Rates are 4-year derived dropout rates which estimate the percent of students who would dropout during a 4-year period based on
data collected for a single year.
Dropout rates among students have fluctuated considerably and have varied by ethnicity in the past ten years. These posted rates are also highly subject to variability due to small numbers of students in ethnic categories and modifications in how ethnicity and dropout estimates are determined. However, considering only rates from 2004-05 and 2012-13, all ethnicities have experienced a reduction in dropouts over the past 8 years.
Figure 33 – High School Dropout Rates by District, County and State, 2000 – 2013
Contra Costa County 69 of 74
COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2015-2018
From 2004 to 2012, dropout rates among Caucasian, Asian and Filipino students have been the lowest in the county, while rates among African American, Latino, Native American and Pacific Islander students have been the highest. In the 2012-2013 school year, dropout rates for Asian (0.9%), Filipino (1.2%), and Caucasian (1.3%) students represent the county’s lowest rates, while African American (5.0%) and Native American (4.6%) students have the highest rates.
Table 83 – High School Dropout Rates by Ethnicity, Contra Costa County, 2002 – 2013
2002-03 2004-05 2006-07 2008-09 2010-11 2012-13
African American 22.6 11.6 30.0 27.2 6.0 5.0
Latino 11.7 10.2 25.1 20.8 4.2 3.3
Filipino 13.4 4.6 13.7 6.7 1.1 1.2
Caucasian 3.4 5.2 10.0 7.6 1.2 1.3
Asian 7.5 3.9 8.9 5.6 1.2 0.9
Native American * 8.7 26.7 23.0 6.2 4.6
Pacific Islander * 8.3 25.4 19.8 4.8 3.6
Source: http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/
Note: Rates are 4-year derived dropout rates which estimate the percentage of students who would dropout during a 4-year period
based on data collected for a single year.
Figure 34 – High School Dropout Rates by Ethnicity, Contra Costa County, 2004 – 2013
Bullying
The incidence of bullying and harassment by classmates has received considerable attention as an underlying cause of poor academic performance and truant behaviors. Notably, teenage students in Contra Costa County report that they experience bullying in schools more often than California teens overall. In 2008-2010, an estimated 44.0% of 7th graders in the county experienced bullying compared to 41.7% statewide.
Contra Costa County 70 of 74
COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2015-2018
Table 84 – Percentage of Students Who Were Bullied in the Past Year, 2008–2010
0 Times 1 Time 2-3 Times 4 or More Times
Contra Costa County Percent Percent Percent Percent
7th Grade 56.0 15.7 10.0 18.4
9th Grade 64.0 11.6 8.4 16.0
11th Grade 70.7 9.1 7.4 12.8
Non-Traditional 69.3 7.6 8.7 14.4
California Percent Percent Percent Percent
7th Grade 58.3 15.7 9.3 16.8
9th Grade 65.2 11.6 8.6 14.5
11th Grade 72.0 9.0 7.3 11.6
Non-Traditional 70.2 8.2 8.4 13.2
Source: California Department of Education, California Healthy Kids Survey (WestEd), 2008-2010 as reported by http://www.kidsdata.org
Head Start
HEAD START / EARLY HEAD START DEMOGRAPHICS
Early Head Start programs serve families in need with infants and toddlers age 0-3 years, while Head Start
programs serve families in need with children age 4-5. Typically, about two thirds of families served are
eligible for the programs because they live below the federal poverty level. According to the American
Community Survey, 8.2% of all families live in poverty and 12.0% of all Contra Costa County families with
children less than 5 years old live below FPL in 2013. Additionally, an estimated 6.1% of all individuals are
less than 5 years of age (65,847), and 15.2% of individuals less than 5 years of age live below FPL. This
translates into an estimated 10,009 children in Contra Costa County who are eligible for Early Head Start
(5,786 0-2 year olds) or Head Start (4,223 3-4 year olds) based on income alone.
In the 2014-2015 school year, the county’s Early Head Start program served 397 enrollees (including the
children of 29 pregnant women), while the County’s Head Start program served 1,625 enrollees, including
new, continuing and turnover participants. About 41.1% of all program enrollees were 4 years of age.
Table 85 – Percentage of Head Start / Early Head Start Enrollees by Age, 2014–2015
Early Head Start (ages 0-3) Head Start (ages 4-5)
Number Percent Number Percent
Pregnant women 29 7.3 0 0
Under 1 year 110 27.7 0 0
1 year old 127 32.0 0 0
2 years old 131 33.0 39 2.4
3 years old 0 0 621 38.2
4 years old 0 0 832 51.2
5 years and older 0 0 133 8.2
Total Enrollment 397 100 1,625 100
Source: Contra Costa County Head Start PIRs (includes delegate agency), 2014-15.
Note: Actual cumulative enrollment includes turnover. Totals may not sum to 100% due to rounding.
Contra Costa County 71 of 74
COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2015-2018
HEAD START / EARLY HEAD START RACE AND ETHNICITY
Poverty rates in Contra Costa County, and thus Head Start eligible families, also vary considerably by ethnicity. Poverty rates for African American families (17.3%), Pacific Islander/Native Hawaiian families (17.1%) and Latino/Hispanic families (15.2%) were higher than rates for other families in the county; however at a poverty rate of just 6.0%, Caucasian families make up nearly half (47.8%) of the estimated 22,021 families living below the FPL in 2013.
Table 86 – Estimates of Families Living Below Poverty by Ethnicity, 2013
All Families Percent Below FPL Families Below FPL Proportion of All
Latino/Hispanic 53,107 15.2 8,072 36.7%
American Indian / Alaska Native 1,341 10.5 141 0.6%
African American 23,349 17.3 4,039 18.3%
Asian 40,812 5.9 2,408 10.9%
Caucasian 175,380 6.0 10,523 47.8%
Pacific Islander/ Native Hawaiian 1,090 17.1 186 0.8%
Multi-racial 8,196 8.0 656 3.0%
Other 15,137 14.7 2,225 10.1%
Total Families 268,549 8.2 22,021
Source: http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/searchresults.xhtml?refresh=t
Table 87 – Head Start and Early Head Start Enrollees by Race and Ethnicity, 2010 – 2014
2010 Early Head Start (ages 0-3) Head Start (ages 4-5)
Number Percent Number Percent
Latino/Hispanic 372 68.0 1,362 65.2
Non-Latino/Hispanic 175 32.0 727 34.8
Total Enrollees 547 100 2,089 100
African American 102 18.6 455 21.8
Caucasian 348 63.6 1,386 66.3
Bi- or Multi-racial 78 14.3 164 7.9
Asian 13 2.4 69 3.3
Pacific Islander/ Native
3 < 1.0 12 < 1.0
American Indian / Alaska Native 3 < 1.0 3 < 1.0
Total Enrollees 547 100 2,089 100
2014 Early Head Start (ages 0-3) Head Start (ages 4-5)
Number Percent Number Percent
Latino/Hispanic 232 58.4 1,075 66.2
Non-Latino/Hispanic 165 41.6 550 33.8
Total Enrollees 397 100 1,625 100
African American 89 23.9 327 20.4
Caucasian 240 64.3 1,067 66.6
Bi- or Multi-racial 37 9.9 131 8.2
Asian 7 1.9 65 4.1
Pacific Islander/ Native
0 0.0 2 < 1.0
American Indian / Alaska Native 0 0.0 2 < 1.0
Total Enrollees 397 100 1,625 100
Source: Contra Costa County Head Start and Early Head Start PIRs (includes delegate agency), 2010 & 2014.
Note: Totals include turnover and pregnant women in Early Head Start. Totals may not sum to 100% due to rounding.
Contra Costa County 72 of 74
COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2015-2018
In 2014, 58.4% of all Early Head Start and 66.2% of all Head Start enrollees in the county are Latino, while 23.9% of Early Head Start and 20.4% of Head Start enrollees are African American. Caucasian enrollees make up nearly two thirds of Early Head Start (64.3%) and Head Start (66.6%) enrollees. Only 1.9% of Early Head Start and 4.1% of Head Start enrollees are of Asian ancestry, while less than 1% of enrollees in either program self-identify as Pacific Islander/Native Hawaiian or American Indian/Alaska Native.
FAMILY CHARACTERISTICS OF ENROLLED CHILDREN
In the 2014-2015 school year, single-parent families represent 70.1% of all families with children enrolled in Early Head Start, down from 75.8% in 2010. Single-parent families represent just under two thirds (62.7%) of all families with children enrolled in Head Start.
Table 88 – Percentage of Enrolled Families by Family Type, 2010–2014
2010 Early Head Start (ages 0-3) Head Start (ages 4-5)
Number Percent Number Percent
Two-parent families 119 24.2 738 36.4
Single-parent families 373 75.8 1,291 63.6
Total Families 492 100 2,029 100
2014 Early Head Start (ages 0-3) Head Start (ages 4-5)
Number Percent Number Percent
Two-parent families 111 29.9 570 37.3
Single-parent families 260 70.1 960 62.7
Total Families 371 100 1,530 100
Source: Contra Costa County Head Start and Early Head Start PIRs (includes delegate agency), 2010 & 2014.
HEAD START / EARLY HEAD START ENROLLMENT ELIGIBILITY TYPES
In 2014-15 as in prior years, the majority of children in both Head Start (64.1%) and Early Head Start
(66.9%) were enrolled based on income eligibility, which represents an 4.8 percentage point increase for
Head Start enrollees and a 10.4 increase for Early Head Start since 2010. For both Head Start and Early
Head Start children, enrollment based on receipt of public assistance continues as the second largest
group in 2014 (22.2% and 18.3%, respectively).
Both Head Start and Early Head Start enrollment in 2014 saw increases in eligibility based on being in
foster care since 2010. The percentage of Head Start children in foster care increased from 2.1% in 2010
to 3.2% in 2014, while the percentage of Early Head Start foster children more than doubled from 2.0% in
2010 to 4.7% in 2014. The number and proportion of children in Head Start and Early Head Start based on
homelessness has not changed considerably since 2010. The proportion of over-income enrollment has
increased considerably in both programs since 2010.
Table 89 – Early Head Start and Head Start Enrollment by Eligibility Type, 2014–15
Early Head Start Head Start
Count Percent Count Percent
Income Eligible 241 66.9 907 64.1
Public Assistance 66 18.3 314 22.2
Foster Child 17 4.7 46 3.2
Homeless 6 1.7 17 1.2
Over Income 24 6.7 115 8.1
Between 100% & 130% FPL 6 1.7 17 1.2
Total 360 100.0 1416 100.0
Source: Contra Costa County Head Start, PIR 2014; Actual enrollment includes turnover.
Contra Costa County 73 of 74
COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2015-2018
Figure 35 – Early Head Start and Head Start Enrollment by Eligibility Type, 2010 – 2014
DISABILITY STATUS OF HEAD START CHILDREN
The number of disabilities among Head Start preschoolers has steadily decreased in the past 8 years due
in large part to the implementation of the Response to Intervention (RtI) programming at the school
districts. The number of disabilities diagnosed annually has dropped 48.9% from a high of 280 in 2007 to a
9-year low of 143 in 2014. In 2014, speech or language impairment continues to be the top disability of
preschool age students in Head Start (n=123), representing 86.0 % of all disabilities diagnosed. In contrast
to findings from the last community assessment in which learning disabilities and orthopedic impairments
followed speech or language impairment as the next most common disabilities, autism (n=6) and non-
categorical developmental delay (n=5) represent the second and third most common disabilities in 2014.
In 2014 there are 2,309 children in Contra Costa County less than 6 years of age with at least one
disability, which represents a 3.3% decrease since the county’s 2012 total of 2,387.
Table 90 – Number of Disabled Preschoolers in Head Start by Disability Type, 2006 – 2014
TYPE OF DISABILITY 2006-07 2008-09 2010-11 2014-15
Speech or language impairment 217 220 180 123
Multiple disabilities (including deaf-blind) 2 7 2 3
Emotional/behavioral disorder 1 1 0 0
Learning disabilities 1 0 3 3
Health impairment 1 0 0 0
Orthopedic impairment 2 3 3 0
Non-categorical / developmental delay 9 3 0 5
Autism 0 2 1 6
Visual impairment (including blindness) 1 3 2 2
Mental retardation 2 0 0 0
Hearing impairment (including deafness) 1 0 2 1
Traumatic brain injury 0 0 0 0
Total 237 236 193 143
Source: Contra Costa County Head Start Program Information Reports, 2005-2011
Contra Costa County 74 of 74
COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2015-2018
28
CSB Child Care Center Locations
Ambrose LIC: 073402849 3103 Willow Pass Rd., Bay Point 94565
Phone: (925) 427-8463, 8464 Fax: (510) 427-8465
Balboa LIC: 073400249/IT073402613 1001 S. 57th St., Richmond
94804 Phone: (510) 374-7025, 7026, 7027, 7028 Fax: (510) 374-7024
Bayo Vista LIC: 073402140 2 California St., Rodeo 94572
Phone: (510) 374-7492 Fax: (510) 374-7512
Brookside LIC: 070213108 847 “B” Brookside Dr., Richmond 94801
Phone: (510) 374-3732, 3733, 3736, 3765 Fax: (510) 374-3729
Contra Costa College LIC: 073404255 2600 Mission Bell Dr.,
Rm 118 &121, San Pablo 94806. Phone: (510) 235-1277, 1251
Fax: (510) 235-1244
Crescent Park LIC: 070211591 5050 Harnett Ave., Richmond 94804
Phone: (510) 374-3701 Fax: (510) 374-3741
George Miller LIC: 73400252/IT073402545 3068 Grant St., Concord
94520 Phone: (925) 646-5646 Fax: (925) 646-5054
George Miller III LIC: 073404440 300 S. 27th St., Richmond 94804
Phone: (510) 374-3526 Fax: (510) 374-3553
Las Deltas LIC: 073404675/IT-070213144 135 W. Grove Ave.,
Richmond 94801 Phone: (510) 374-3444, 3446, 3469, 3470
Fax: (510) 374-3564
Lavonia Allen LIC: 073400254 94 ½ Medanos Ave., Bay Point 94565
Phone: (925) 427-8270, 8272 Fax: (510) 427-8355
Los Arboles LIC: 073402350 240 Las Dunas Ave., Oakley 94561
Phone: (925) 427-8930, 8931, 8932, 8933 Fax: (925)427-8935
Los Nogales LIC: 073400495 321 Orchard Dr., Brentwood 94513
Phone: (925) 427-8531, 8601 Fax: (925) 427-8594
Marsh Creek LIC: 073401411 7251 Brentwood Blvd.,
Brentwood 94513 Phone: (925) 427-8576, 8577 Fax: (925) 427-8594
Riverview LIC: 073404270 227 Pacifica Ave., Bay Point 94565
Phone: (925) 427-8340, 8341 Fax: (925) 427-8378
Verde LIC: 070212633 2000 Giaramita Ave., North Richmond
94801 Phone: (510) 374 3008, 3009 Fax: (510) 374-3006
Contra Costa County
Employment & Human
Services Department
Community
Services Bureau
2014
Annual
Report
Attachment G — CSB Annual Report for 2014
2
Contra Costa County Employment & Human Services Department
Community Services Bureau
1470 Civic Court (formerly Enea Cir), Suite 200
Concord, CA 94520
Telephone: (925) 681– 6300
Website: ehsd.org
27
EHSD Community Services Bureau
2014 Audits and Reviews by Federal, State, and CPA Firms
Name of Agency Purpose Outcome
1.
State of CA Department
of Community Services
& Development
On-site Monitoring Visit
2014 LIHEAP
Program
No findings
2.
State of CA Dpt. of
Community Services &
Development
On-site Monitoring Visit
2014 CSBG Program No findings
3. Marcum LLP FY 2013-2014
Single Audit No findings
4. Badawi & Associates FY 2013-14 State Child
Development Audit No findings
Fiscal Year 2014 – Compliance with Mandated Federal Head Start Reporting
Requirements
Public and private funds received,
including amount & source for each
– included
Percentage of enrolled children receiving
medical & dental exams — included
Budgetary expenditures and proposed
budget - included
Information regarding parent involvement
activities - included
Children & families served, average
monthly enrollment, and percentage of
eligible children served - included
Kindergarten preparedness summary of
agency's efforts – included
Results of the most recent Federal
program review by the Secretary of the
U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services
& the financial audit – financial audits
included; no Federal program reviews
conducted in 2014
Other information required by the
Secretary of the U.S. Dept. of Health and
Human Services. – No additional
information required
Audits, Reviews & Compliance
26
Funding & Expenditures
FY 2013-14 Revenues
Program Name Amount
Head Start 17,791,842
Funding & Expenditures LIHEAP/Weatherization 2,000,342
Early Head Start 3,460,091
CDE Contracts (Stage II, CAPP, Child Development) 22,076,965
USDA/CCFP Meal Reimbursements 1,016,504
CSBG 766,428
County Contribution 632,449
Total 47,744,621
FY 2013-14 Expenditures
Program Name Amount
Head Start 18,395,203
Child Development 17,299,934
CAPP & Stage II 4,777,031
Early Head Start 3,460,091
USDA/CCFP Meal Reimbursements 1,017,847
CSBG 777,818
LIHEAP/Weatherization 2,016,697
Total 47,744,621
FY 2014-15 Budget
Program Name Expendi-
tures Revenues Net County Cost
Head Start 15,689,730
15,689,730 -
CA Department of Education
Contracts
15,384,680 15,384,680 -
Early Head Start
4,627,510 4,627,510 -
CA Dept. of Community
Services Contracts
2,883,142 2,724,354 158,788
USDA/CCFP Meal
Reimbursements
1,060,847
1,060,847 -
Total
39,645,909
39,487,121 158,788
3
I am pleased to present the Community Services Bureau’s 2014 Annual
Report. As we celebrated our 50th year as the designated Head Start
Community Action Agency for Contra Costa County, I am proud that we once
again touched the lives of over 10,000 individuals in our community.
Community Services Bureau (CSB) remained the largest childcare program in
Contra Costa County, providing quality services to over 2,200 children and
their families while our Alternative Payment, Energy Assistance and
Weatherization Programs, and our many Community Action partnerships
provided additional safety net services to those families in need.
This was also a year of
rebuilding and reorganizing after
several years of budget and
program reductions. Our
Crescent Park center in
Richmond reopened,
providing comprehensive
services to an additional 60
children and their families; we
reinstated our Early Head Start
Home Visiting program
partnerships, providing much
needed support to pregnant
women, teens and new parents; and we were able to fill several critical
administrative and program positons, thereby extending our ability to serve
our community more effectively.
Four successful audits and reviews this year in CSB’s various programs
highlight the continued quality and strong systems of our organization. Our
success is due to the tireless commitment of CSB’s staff and governing bodies,
in conjunction with linkages to dozens of community partners throughout the
county. Together we continue to fight poverty in multiple areas and across
barriers that include language, literacy, disability, and disenfranchisement to
ensure that our children are the best prepared for school and beyond.
Please share in our 2014 successes by taking a few minutes to look at the
innovative work CSB has done and will continue to do in the years to come.
Camilla Rand, Director
Employment and Human Services Department
Community Services Bureau
Letter from the Director
4
Community Services Bureau
Community Services Bureau (CSB) is part of a national network of
Community Action Agencies (CAAs) that was established by the 1964 War on
Poverty to address the underlying conditions that cause poverty. In 2006, the
Community Services Department was made a bureau within the Employment
and Human Services Department (EHSD). We have an annual budget of close
to $48 million and we employ approximately 400 employees in 16 service
locations across the county.
Our largest program is the Child Development Program funded through the
State of California. It offers both part-day and full-day services with a core
class curriculum that is developmentally, culturally, and linguistically
appropriate for the children served. Each year, we combine federal Head
Start, Early Head Start, and State Child Development funds to provide early
childhood education services to over 2,200 children and their families.
CSB administers several other programs that serve economically
vulnerable households and low income families: a) Low Income Home Energy
Assistance Program (LIHEAP), b) Weatherization, and c) Child Care Alternative
Payment Programs (CAPP). Through the federally -funded, state-administered
Community Services Block Grant (CSBG), CSB is also able to fund a variety of
community-based organizations operating poverty reduction programs in the
county. The goals identified by CSB include:
Assisting the low-income community to become more self-sufficient;
Improving the conditions in which low-income people live;
Community enhancement through greater participation of low -income
populations;
Expanding opportunities through community-wide partnerships.
In 2014, CSB served 2,477 Head Start and Early Head Start children and
their families, which represented just over 27% of the eligible children in
Contra Costa County. In compliance with federal Head Start regulations, our
average monthly attendance was 86.47%; and we were fully enrolled
throughout the year.
25
Professional Development
CSB believes that continuing education and Training and Technical Assis-
tance (T&TA) is critical in meeting or exceeding the Head Start Performance
Standards, realizing program goals and objectives, determining priorities
based on data and systems analyses, and achieving continuous improvement
as an agency. The percentage of preschool teachers that have obtained an
Associate’s or Bachelor’s degree has risen from 85% in 2013 to 91% in 2014.
Detailed below are training highlights occurring during 2014.
Training Title Training Description
Number &
Position
Ages and Stages
Questionnaire
Social-Emotional
Screen children’s social-emotional
behavior
116 Teaching
Staff
Creative Curriculum Enhance the teacher’s understanding of
fundamental foundations to apply in the
classroom
106 Teaching
Staff
Project Approach Understand in depth planning and
implementation required on projects to
support children’s learning
115 Teaching
Staff
Ready to Learn Safe and developmentally appropriate
environments and transitioning children to
school
156 Teaching
Staff
Second Step Develop socio-emotional skills aimed at
reducing impulsive and aggressive
behaviors while increasing social
competence
110 Teaching
Staff
Cultural Sensitivity Create authentic, healthy, equitable
relationships with co-workers, colleagues,
and families of young children
47 Teaching Staff
Program for Infant
Toddler Care
Complete Social and Emotional
Milestones Program on mental health and
disabilities
40 Teaching Staff
Family Development
Credential
Complete California Head Start
Association credentialing program to
enhance knowledge and skills to support
families’ development
11
Comprehensive
Services
Managers & Asst.
Managers
Strengths Finder Identify staffs’ five (5) personal strengths
to understand and apply these strengths
for success in personal, educational, and
professional endeavours
111 - Managers,
Supervisors,
Mental Health
Interns, Clerks &
Clerical Assistant
Trainees
24
Innovations
The primary innovation focus during 2014 was CSB’s move to a new 17,960
square foot administrative center at 1470 Civic Court (formerly Enea Circle),
Suite 200, in Concord. The new facility combined two separate administrative
offices into one in order to achieve increased functionality, expand the
organization’s ability to serve students and their families, and realize cost
savings associated with consolidation. The planning, facilities and functional
design, and logistics took more than a year to complete with the end result —
an administrative center that is fully integrated with program operations.
Various sized meeting and training
rooms are equipped with state-of-the-
art electronic equipment with the
capability to link to tablets or computers,
participate in a webinars or virtual
classes, or facilitate trainings, and
contributing to the goal of providing
enhanced services to those enrolled in
the various programs offered through
CSB. In response to these facility
changes and upgrades, CSB has been
contacted by other agencies hoping to
enhance the functionality of their sites
or lowering operating costs.
CLOUDS (Child Location, Observation, and Utilization Data System)
CLOUDS is a customized CSB electronic data management and student
tracking information system designed in 2012 to address CSB’s unique
program-related needs, including electronic report generation and submission
to oversight agencies. The 2014 approval by the California Department of
Education (CDE) accept electronic submittals was the first in the state. This
innovative model is expanding to organizations with a similar focus based on
CSB’s pioneering efforts. CSB continues to work with the CLOUDS’ design team
to create new reports or expand the capabilities of existing ones, such as
advising state and federal agencies when a change in student status occurs,
providing detailed demographic statistics by center or classroom or even by
student, reporting on health screening activities and outcomes, and expanding
disabilities reporting to identify and target services more effectively. Going
forward, staff is working to develop trending capabilities that will allow CSB to
more effectively target resources or apply for funding based on identified
needs. By the end of June 2014, this technology was available at all CSB
centers.
5
Shared Governance
Board of Supervisors
The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors (BOS) is the policy-making
body of county government that oversees the operations of departments and
exercises executive and administrative authority through county government
and the office of the County Administrator.
Policy Council
The Policy Council (PC) is comprised of elected parent representatives of
current and past children and local community representatives. They work
with the Board of Supervisors and the Director of Program Services to achieve
Head Start Performance Standards. The Policy Council is responsible for
decisions regarding:
Parent, family, and community engagement;
Program recruitment, selection, and enrollment priorities;
Funding applications and amendments;
Budget planning, including reimbursement and participation in PC
activities;
PC by-laws;
PC election procedures;
Recommendations on delegates and service areas;
Annual, monthly, and periodic reports;
Approving/disapproving hires/terminations of staff
2014-2015 Policy Council Executive Com-
mittee (LtR): Marcela Cardenas
(Secretary), Deena Jones (Vice Chair),
Veronica Covarrubias (Chair), Janelle
Lafrades (Parliamentarian)
“Being a Head Start parent and a Policy Council Executive mem-
ber has been a very rewarding experience for me. I’ve learned so
much about how Head Start works, the ways I can be a better
parent, and how to get my child ready for Kindergarten.”
- Deena Jones - Policy Council Vice Chair
6
Economic Opportunity Council
The Economic Opportunity Council (EOC) is a tripartite advisory board to
the BOS and CSB for the administration of the Community Services Block
Grant (CSBG). The EOC board composition includes five members from the
public/private non-profit sector, five members from the low-income sector,
and five members of the Board of Supervisors or their designees.
Shared Decision Making
Together, the BOS, the PC, the EOC, and the director of CSB, form the
group responsible for shared decision making in Community Services.
23
EOC Member Activities in 2014:
EOC members participated in the following community service outreach
projects in 2014:
Established community farm in the East Contra Costa County that
donated fresh produce to Solano-Contra Costa Food Bank in July
Coached soccer at Antioch day camp in July
Participated in “Stop the Violence Walk” in July
Participated in “National Night Out” sponsored by Girls, Inc. and
the Richmond Police Department
Participated in the new dog park (development, board members,
and volunteers) and Wespac Energy Infrastructure Project
discussions in the City of Pittsburg.
Developed an art
project, “Dia de los
Muertos” for the youth
in the City of Oakley.
Established a youth
basketball training
program in the city of
Antioch.
2014 CSBG Desk Review
The California Department of Community Services and Development,
conducted a desk review of CSBG Programs in the last week of May. There
were no findings or concerns.
50 years of War on Poverty
CSB participated in the 50 years of War on Poverty at the capitol in
Sacramento.
Strengths Finder Training
Darick Simpson, Executive Director of CAP Long Beach, conducted a Strengths
Finder training in July. All EOC members were invited to participate in the
training along with EHSD staff members.
Proclamation by the Board of Supervisors
On May 7, CSB received a proclamation from the Board of Supervisors
declaring May as Community Action month.
22
Community Services Block Grant
(CSBG) Funded Programs
Community Action Partnership
The Community Action Partnership is a national, non -profit organization
that works to strengthen, promote, represent, and serve its network of
member Community Action Agencies (CAAs) to assure that the issues of
poverty are effectively identified and addressed. Since their inception as part
of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, CAAs have helped low-income
Americans escape poverty and achieve economic security. Through programs
such as Head Start, job training, housing, food banks, energy assistance, and
financial education, CAAs tailor their services to meet the needs of the
individuals and communities they serve. They put a human face on poverty,
advocate for those who don’t have a voice,
and provide opportunities to receive an
education, acquire essential services, or find
employment. EHSD’s CSB is the Community
Action Agency for Contra Costa County.
Clerical Assistant Trainee (CAT) Program
The Community Services Block Grant
funds supported the professional growth and development of 25 low income
individuals while they continued to work on their educational goals. Trainees
were placed throughout the Bureau’s administrative offices and child care
centers to receive on-the-job vocational experiences, guidance, and
mentorship. Trainees received specialized instruction in office practices and
procedures, technical skills, and interpersonal skills to develop effective
workplace habits that will lead to future employment opportunities.
CSBG Subcontractors in 2014
As CSBG subcontractors, the following organizations received CSBG funding to
address community needs and provide program participants with increased
access to the following services:
Bay Area Legal Aid – legal services to underserved populations
Opportunity Junction – employment services
Contra Costa Clubhouses – mental health services
RYSE Youth Center – juvenile justice services
Korean Community Center of the East Bay – healthcare services
Loaves and Fishes – nutritional services
7
Program Highlights:
Early Childhood Education
School Readiness Program Enhancements
Kindergarten readiness is supported by site-based activities, including
visits from area kindergarten teachers, student field trips to local
kindergarten classes, and visiting the experts – children who are currently
enrolled in kindergarten. Staff are trained in the “Roadmap to
Kindergarten,” an
interactive process to
prepare parents and their
children for transition to
kindergarten.
In November 2014, CSB
received a grant for
$8,908 from the
organization, Reading is
Fundamental. Books were
purchased for all infants,
toddlers, and preschool
children, and will be
distributed at two special
events in 2015.
The Quality Rating and
Improvement System
(QRIS) is a method to
communicate indicators
of quality to both parents
and providers, and a
system of assessing and
supporting those indicators of quality. The QRIS is built on the California
Race to the Top-Early Learning Challenge (RTT-ELC) framework, which
includes the following indicators: a) child observation, b) child health and
developmental screening, c) center lead teacher and center director levels
of education, d) teacher-child ratio and group size, e) quality of
environment, and f) classroom interactions. The incentives include site -
based stipends, professional development opportunities, and an
improvement plan based on self-assessments. All fifteen CSB childcare
centers participate in QRIS.
8
2014 Desired Results Developmental Profile,
Preschool
CSB uses the California Department of Education’s assessment tool, the
Desired Result Developmental Profile (DRDP), to assess the developmental
progress of preschoolers three times per program year.
Figure 1a shows the mean scores by domain using the bolded
abbreviations highlighted in the descriptions below for the Grantee in the
2013-14 program year. Children showed progress in all areas between
assessments 1 and 3 as follows, with the highest scores in PD (4.58):
Cognitive Development (COG) +30.86%;
English Language Development (ELD) +27.22%;
Health (HLTH) +27.38%;
Language and Literacy Development (LLD) +33.12%;
Math (MATH) +35.83%;
Physical Development (PD) +21.49%;
Self and Social Development (SSD) +33.13%
This pattern is consistent with 2013 Assessment 3 scores (Fig. 1b).
Overall, children are performing within 0.13 points of the 2013
Assessment 3 scores in all areas.
2014 Classroom Assessment Scoring System Results
CSB staff continued to receive trainings in the Classroom Assessment
Scoring System (CLASS), an observation tool that focuses on the effectiveness
of classroom interactions among teachers and children. CLASS fosters
interactions that promote a child’s social, emotional, and cognitive
development. Children thrive when teachers create nurturing, well -managed
settings that provide frequent and engaging opportunities to learn. One of the
CLASS goals is to help teachers learn how to interact more effectively with
their students to provide higher level thinking and language skills.
Countywide Total Average Domain Score
CSB Directly Operated and Partner Sites
Domain
2014
Scores
2014 CSB
Threshold
2014
Federal
Threshold
Emotional Support 6.14 6 4
Classroom Organization 5.61 6 3
Instructional Support 3.22 3 2
21
Low-Income Home Energy
Assistance and Weatherization
Programs
The Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) is a federally-
funded program that assists low-income households with their heating and
cooling needs, while also
protecting the health and
safety of families in the
household. Priority for
funding and services is
given to households with
the highest energy burden,
while also taking into
consideration vulnerable
populations, such as the
elderly, disabled, or
families with young
children. In total, 5,599
households were funded
by the program in 2014. Of these households, 2,938 had their energy
services reinstated or avoided their services being disconnected.
The Weatherization Program is designed to improve energy efficiency of
households, resulting in reduced energy usage and cost. Weatherization
measures may include, but are not limited to, weather -stripping, insulation,
caulking, water heater blankets, refrigerator replacement, heating and
cooling repairs, and thermostat replacements. In 2014, CSB’s weatherization
program was able to service 289 residential units.
20
The CalWORKs Stage II Child Care Program (Stage II) and the Child Care
Alternative Payment Program (CAPP) are designed to maximize parental
choice in selecting child care alternatives that meet the needs of the child
and family.
Parents can
select licensed
child care
centers,
licensed family
child care
homes, license-
exempt, or in-
home providers. The age limit for child care provided through these
programs is 0–12 years of age (with the age limit subject to extension under
certain limited circumstances). Stage II is limited to parents who are in
receipt of, or have received CalWORKs cash assistance, within the past 24
months. Alternatively, CAPP primarily assists families that have been
referred by Children & Family Services. CSB served approximately 800
families and over 1,060 children, with a combined funding of $4,384,428 for
Stage II and CAPP.
Alternative Payment Programs
9
Figure 1a: Mean Scores by Domain for All Preschool Children -
Assessment 3, 2014
Figure 1a: Mean Scores by Domain for All Preschool Children -
Assessment 3, 2013/2014
10
2014 Desired Results Developmental Profile, Infants
and Toddlers
CSB uses the California Department of
Education’s assessment tool, the Desired Result
Developmental Profile – Infant and Toddlers
(DRDP-IT), to assess the developmental progress of
infants and toddlers three times per program year.
Figures 1a, 1b, and 1c show the mean scores, by
thematic area, by age for assessments 1, 2, and 3.
Children in all age groups scored highest in Motor
and Perceptual Development (MPD). The greatest
areas of growth from assessments 1 to 3 are as
follows:
HLTH 63.64% (0-1 y.o.);
COG 27.55% (1-2 y.o.);
HLTH 26.17% (2-3 y.o.).
Figure 1a: Mean Scores by Domain by Age 0 -1
19
Health Services
CSB works to ensure that all
children enrolled in the various
programs receive high quality health
care services. 100% of children
received:
Ongoing access to medical and
dental services - 100% of
children obtained access to high quality services through a medical and
dental home.
Vision screenings of children Ages 3-5 – 100% of children received vision
screenings. 736 vision screenings were completed by the California
Hawaii ELKS Vision Collaboration and CSB’s Certified Vision Screeners
with glasses obtained for anyone identified as in need.
Hearing screenings of children Ages 3-5 - 100% of children received
screenings through their medical provider or CSB’s Certified Audiometric
Screeners with follow up provided to anyone identified as in need.
Oral health education of children Ages 0-5 – 100% of children received a
toothbrush and oral health education at their initial home visit.
Dental exams - free dental exams, fluoride varnish applications, and
dental kits provided to 765 children. Free dental treatment provided
to 48 children through the National-Give-Kids-a Smile-Day event.
Collaborations - involving CSB, the Contra Costa Dental Society, the
Children’s Oral Health Program, the Loma Vista Dental Program, and local
volunteer dentists to foster healthy oral health behaviors.
18
Nutrition highlights included:
Sugar Reduction and Early Onset Diabetes Prevention - “Rethink Your
Drink”, a traveling display that helps children and parents learn about
sugar content in typical drinks, such as sodas and fruit juices.
“Contra Costa Health Services Fresh Approach” - nutrition-oriented,
educational workshops to CSB families. Topics included Healthy Eating on
a Budget , Keeping Fit, Keeping Healthy, and My Plate. County
nutritionists contributed newsletter articles, such as Extra Layers for
Winter and Healthy Snacks for Your Children’s Teeth to CSB’s parent
newsletter. Educational resources were shared with families throughout
the year in relevant subject areas ranging from Get Your Kids Outside
Every Day! to Use Your Card – It’s Easy to Get Fresh, to Healthy Food from
Your Local Farmer’s Market Using Your EBT Card!
Smart Shopping Decisions — nutritionist-guided grocery store tours were
held where 52 parents learned how to compare unit prices, identify
whole grain foods, recognize three ways to purchase produce, and read
and compare nutrition labels.
Celebrating Food Day — CSB partnered with the Food Bank to bring fresh
produce to our families. First 5 invited ten CSB staff to participate in a
Movement via Mindfulness Training in March. The purpose was to learn
how to instill healthy physical activity habits in children and help them
learn self-regulation skills.
UC Cooperative Extension - trained all home base educators using their
10-lesson Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program (EFNEP).
11
Figure 1b: Mean Scores by Domain by Age 1-2
Figure 1c: Mean Scores by Domain by Age 2-3
12
Program Information Report
Each year, CSB is required to submit a Program Information Report (PIR) to
the Office of Head Start (OHS). The PIR survey measures how well programs
are doing in relation to OHS’s rules and regulations that govern the program
and are referred to as Performance Standards. OHS compiles these reports
regionally and nationally,
subsequently sharing these ratings
with Congress to inform them of
their Head Strat and Early Head
Start decision making processes.
The chart below, separated for
Head Start and Early Head Start,
with the exception of Disability
Services, confirms that CSB
performed at or above the
national average for most key
indicators. The exception was health insurance for HS families, which was
slightly lower than the national average. The exception is believed to be due
to the high percentage of undocumented families in the county who are not
eligible for health coverage.
Performance Indicators
National
2013-2014 CSB 2013-2014*
Health Insurance HS-93.9%
EHS-94.7%
HS-1739/1858=93%
EHS-338/338=100%
Medical Home HS- 93.1%
EHS-94%
HS-1858/1858=100%
EHS-338/338=100%
Immunizations
Up to Date, Possible or Exempt
HS-94.9%
EHS-90%
HS-1858/1858=100%
EHS-338/338=100%
Dental Home HS-83.6%
EHS-66.9%
HS-1858/1858=100%
EHS-338/338=100%
Disabilities Services – Mandate is
10% ALL-12% ALL-12%
* Data does not include children enrolled for less than 45 days.
17
Response to Intervention (RTI) is an approach to identify children with
potential delays and provide services in a three-tiered approach:
Tier I - All 260 children at GMIII received instruction in
language and literacy skills
Tier II - 40 children received small group instruction to support
literacy and language skills
Tier III - 35 children received small group intervention
instruction to support their Individualized Education Plan (IEP)
goals
Over 300 children participated in RTI enhancement activities
and referral support collaboration between CSB and WCCUSD
Nutrition
CSB offers a comprehensive system of nutritional services for children and
families. Recognizing that eating habits are formed in early childhood,
nutrition services include:
Serving well-balanced and nutritious meals;
Nutritional screening and assessment;
Individual nutrition counseling by a registered dietitian;
Nutrition education;
Integrated nutrition curriculum;
Community collaborations
16
Disabilities
CSB collaborated with seven Contra Costa school districts to increase
services to children with disabilities in 2014.
Among the disability-focused program highlights, of the 2,477 children
enrolled in CSB’s HS and EHS centers during the past year, 256 were
diagnosed with disabilities that are summarized below:
Speech/language delays (72%)
No categorical development delays (16%)
Autism (7%)
Other disabilities (5%)
Critical to CSB’s success in addressing children with disabilities, the following
early education and care services were provided through the following
partnerships:
Cameron Early Head Start Learning for Infants and Toddlers Together - 22
children
Cameron Special Day Class at Balboa Center– 13 children
Cameron Special Day Class at George Miller III - 5 children
West Contra Costa Unified School District (WCCUSD) Full Inclusion
Program at Brookside– 10 children
13
Parent, family, and community engagement is about building relationships
with families that support family well-being, strengthening relationships
between parents and their children, and providing ongoing learning and
development for both parents and children. The following page includes
highlights for 2014.
Parent, Family &
Community Engagement
14
Parent, Family, and Community Engagement
2014 Highlights
Male Empowerment
Workshops
71 participants learned
about male involvement in
their children’s lives
Financial Literacy
Workshops
Wells Fargo worked with
100 parents on credit
counseling, budgeting,
savings, and money
management skills
Facilitative Leadership
Training
12 parents enhanced
their leadership and
facilitation skills as Policy
Council representatives
Policy Council
Orientation
33 parent representatives
received instruction in
Policy Council governance,
roles, and responsibilities
BOS/PC/EOC
60 parents received
training in Joint
Governance that included
interacting with members
of the CCC Board of
Supervisors
Head Start Annual
Parent Conference
PC Executive Committee
members attended a
conference in
New Orleans to celebrate
the 50th anniversary of
Head Start
CA Head Start Parent and
Family Engagement and
Education Conference
PC Chair and CSB’s
Education Team attended
a conference in
Los Angeles
Head Start Conference
Award
PC Chair, Veronica
Covarrubias, was
selected to receive the
2014 Parent of the Year
Award
Strengths Finder
Training
PC Executive Committee
and EOC members
received training to
identify and utilize their
top 5 strengths
personally and
professionally
1,823 Volunteers Logged
25,125 Hours
Volunteers assisted in
classrooms, on field trips,
and as subject matter
experts
CSB Staff Recognized
19 staff members were
nominated by parents to
receive recognition for
their activities
Quarterly Newsletters
Parents of HS and EHS
students received
program newsletters at
all directly-operated and
partner sites on health
and nutrition
Reading Advantage-Early
Literacy (RA-EL)
193 parents from directly-
operated and partner sites
participated in workshops
and received free books for
their children’s home library
Work Investment
Network (WIN)
Continues to Grow
WIN members worked
with CSB to increase
employment and training
opportunities for CSB
families
Weekend Beautification
Project
Parents participated in a
community work day at
CBS-operated centers
Directly Operated Sites – Operated by CSB
Partner Sites – Sites contracting with CSB to provide HS, EHS, and other services
15
Comprehensive Services
Comprehensive Services (CS) is a team approach to ensure the success of
all children enrolled in Head Start and Early Head Start by addressing those
who may have special needs. By applying an early diagnosis and intervention
strategy, CS makes resources and services available to families and children
through a combination of ongoing staff observations, workshops to increase
knowledge, and counselling or other services where needed. Areas in which
services are focused include disabilities, early childhood education, health
services, mental health, nutrition, and social skills with trainings provided to
staff and parents.
Mental Health (MH)
The MH unit supported children,
families, and staff by processing a
total of 102 referrals over the past
year. Of these children, 60%
received direct service support
through “Play Therapy”
intervention, which involves using
toys and sand trays to express
hidden feelings and emotions,
which can then can be identified
and referred for treatment. This is
a needs-based Medi-Cal funded
service and children who did not
qualify for support were referred
to other community agencies or
received resources and strategies
to manage the emotional needs of the child.
Staff and parents were provided training in the following areas:
Child abuse prevention and awareness;
Filial (child-parent) relationship therapy;
Habits of Healthy People seminar;
Strategies to address challenging behaviors;
Children’s mental health awareness;
Stress management
National Performance Indicators, Goal 1 Projections Page 3
State of California
Department of Community Services and Development
CSBG/NPI CAP Projections
CSD 801 CAP (Rev.1/15)
Contact Person and Title:
925-681-6347
tstewart1@ehsd.cccounty.us
2017
A.
B.
C.
D.
2016
Employed and maintained a job for a least 90 days
Employed and obtained an increase in employment income and/or benefits
425Unemployed and obtained a job
In 2014, Contra Costa County's economy showed growth; however, low-income families continue to struggle to achieve livable wages given the particularly
high
cost of living in Contra County. CSBG eligible families participating in CAP's program are among the most economically vulnerable in the region and often
have many barriers hampering their ability to obtain employment due to challenges and barriers related to limited English proficiency, immigration issues, high
cost of child care or limited child care resources, lack of affordable housing, adults timing out of CalWORKs, lack of transportation, limited skills/experience
and education, substance abuse, cultural barriers and criminal convictions and some are faced with homelessness. Preliminary data from the most recent
C it N d A t (2/2015) f th 2016 17 CAP Pl i di t th t l t i i t t i f th it
2016-2017 CSBG/NPI CAP Projections
Achieved "living wage" employment and/or benefits
Contractor Name:
CAP 2 YEAR
PROJECTIONS
E-mail Address:
Goal 1: Low-income people become more self-sufficient.
Contra Costa CAP will be taking a closer look at its current role in administering employment services to CSBG eligible families and will continue
to evaluate the outcomes of providing longer and more intensive case management services with additional employment supports. CAP has good working
relationships with the local Onestop Career Centers and Welfare-to-Work contracted organizations, which they will continue to strengthen in an effort to
support low-income individuals and families striving for self-sufficiency. As additional resources come to the region through the Workforce Investment Act
(WIA) funding and new CalWORKs supportive services, Contra Costa CAP will continue to work with its community partners to determine how it can best
support the goal of supporting low-income families on their journey to self-sufficiency.
NPI 1.1: Employment
Problem Statement: (If additional space is needed, please attach a separate sheet.)
Phone Number:
Number of
Participants
Expected to Achieve
Outcome
(#)
National Performance
Indicator 1.1
Contra Costa County, Employment and Human Services Department/CSB
Tom Stewart, ASA III
Program Activities and Delivery Strategies: (If additional space is needed, please attach a separate sheet.)
Employment
The number and percentage of low-income participants who get a job or become self-employed, as a result of
Community Action Assistance, as measured by one or more of the following:
In the rows below, please include any additional indicators for NPI 1.1 that were not captured above.
Fax Number:
Ext. Number:
925-313-8302
450
400
50
3025
375
45
National Performance Indicators, Goal 1 Projections Page 4
State of California
Department of Community Services and Development
CSBG/NPI CAP Projections
CSD 801 CAP (Rev.1/15)2016-2017 CSBG/NPI CAP Projections
Problem Statement: (If additional space is needed, please attach a separate sheet.)
Program Activities and Delivery Strategies: (If additional space is needed, please attach a separate sheet.)
2017
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
L.
775
2016
725
Number of
Participants
Expected to Achieve
Outcome
(#)
Goal 1: Low-income people become more self-sufficient.
The high cost of living in the Bay Area requires single and married parents to work full-time, leading to an increased demand for full day early childhood
education and child care for children ages birth to five so that parents can go to work or school. Even if child care is available, parents still must have the
education, training and skills to obatin employment that will meet their living expenses.
Obtained care for child or other dependant
Obtained health care services for themselves or a family member
Obtained other non-emergency energy assistance (State/local/private energy programs. Do Not Include
LIHEAP or WX)
Obtained access to reliable transportation and/or driver's license
3,300
Obtained non-emergency WX energy assistance
Obtained skills/competencies required for employment
Enrolled children in "before" or "after" school programs
20,000 20,000
Families enrolled in EHSD CSB child care programs have the opporunity to pursue training and education as part of family supports of Head Start/Early Head
Start, State Preschool, and CalWORKS Stage 2 AP program. These supports include access to health care, dental care, mental health early intervention and
referrals. CSB's on-the-job training program fosters work experience while participants continue education to reach professional or vocational goals. Program
participants may gain experience in many different track such as: food services, building services, clerical and early childhood education. The participants will
work approximately 24 hours per week and be enrolled in a community college or vocational training program related to their track. The families also enrol in
the programs provided by One Stop Consortium and our community partners.
National Performance
Indicator 1.2
Completed ABE/GED and received certificate or diploma
NPI 1.2: Employment Supports
Obtained food assistance
Employment Supports
CAP 2 YEAR
PROJECTIONS
The number of low-income participants for whom barriers to initial or continuous employment are reduced or
eliminated through assistance from Community Action, as measured by one or more of the following:
Completed post-secondary education program and obtained certificate or diploma
Obtained non-emergency LIHEAP energy assistance
Obtained safe and affordable housing
In the rows below, please include any additional indicators for NPI 1.1 that were not captured above.
3,500
2,000 2,000
400 400
National Performance Indicators, Goal 1 Projections Page 5
State of California
Department of Community Services and Development
CSBG/NPI CAP Projections
CSD 801 CAP (Rev.1/15)2016-2017 CSBG/NPI CAP Projections
2017
Economic Asset Enhancement and Utilization
National Performance
Indicator 1.3
2016
Many low-income working families fail to claim tax credits to which they are entitled. Those credits, if claimed, increase the self-sufficiency of families by
lessening tax burdens or increasing the size of tax refunds. Additionally these families have not had access to financial literacy education and asset
development strategies. Aditionally with the availability of California State Earned Income Tax cradit many more families will benifit and become more self-
sufficient
Number of
Participants
Expected to Achieve
Outcome
(#)
The number and percentage of low-income households that achieve an increase in financial assets and/or
financial skills as a result of Community Action assistance, and the aggregated amount of those assets and
resources for all participants achieving the outcome, as measured by one or more of the following:
Number and percent of participants who were enrolled in telephone lifeline and/or energy discounts with the
assistance of the agency and the expected aggregated dollar amount of savings.
ENHANCEMENT
B.
Number and percent of participants in tax preparation programs who qualified for any type of Federal or State
tax credit and the expected aggregated dollar amount of credits.
Number and percent of participants who obtained court-ordered child support payments and the expected
annual aggregated dollar amount of payments.
A.
In the rows below, please include any additional indicators for NPI 1.3 that were not captured above.
C.
Number and percent of participants demonstrating ability to complete and maintain a budget for over 90 days
Number and percent of participants capitalizing a small business due to accumulated savings
Number and percent of participants pursuing post-secondary education with accumulated savings
F.
UTILIZATION
Number and percent of participants opening an Individual Development Account (IDA) or other savings
account
28,000 29,500
CAP 2 YEAR
PROJECTIONS
Problem Statement: (If additional space is needed, please attach a separate sheet.)
Program Activities and Delivery Strategies: (If additional space is needed, please attach a separate sheet.)
CSB participates in Contra Costa County's private and public collaborative Family Economic Security Partnership (FESP) and Ensuring Opportunity with the
United Way, First 5 Contra Costa and other community based organizations. This provides free tax preparation services through VITA (Voluntary Income Tax
Assistance) at various locations throughout the county. CSB will continue to raise awareness about the EITC opportunity.
Goal 1: Low-income people become more self-sufficient.
NPI 1.3: Economic Asset Enhancement and Utilization
Number and percent of participants who increased their savings through IDA or other savings accounts and
the aggregated amount of savings
E.
D.
Number and percent of participants purchasing other assets with accumulated savings
I.
J.
H.
G.
Number and percent of participants purchasing a home with accumulated savings
National Performance Indicators, Goal 2 Projections Page 6
State of California
Department of Community Services and Development
CSBG/NPI CAP Projections
CSD 801 CAP (Rev. 1/15)
Ext. Number:
Fax Number:
2016 2016 2017
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
2016-2017 CSBG/NPI CAP Projections
125
National Performance
Indicator 2.1
Accessible and affordable health care services/facilities for low-income people
created or saved from reduction or elimination
Goal 2: The conditions in which low-income people live are improved.
15
Number of Projects
or Initiatives
Expected to Achieve
(#)
Community Improvement and Revitalization
Increase in, or safeguarding of, threatened opportunities and community resources or
services for low-income people in the community as a result of Community Action
projects/initiatives or advocacy with other public and private agencies, as measured by
one or more of the following:
925-681-6347
tstewart1@ehsd.cccounty.us
NPI 2.1: Community Improvement and Revitalization
Problem Statement: (If additional space is needed, please attach a separate sheet.)
Program Activities and Delivery Strategies: (If additional space is needed, please attach a separate sheet.)
Contractor Name:
Contact Person and Title:
Phone Number:
E-mail Address:
Jobs created, or saved, from reduction or elimination in the community.
Safe and affordable housing units in the community preserved or improved
through construction, weatherization, or rehabilitation achieved by community
action activity or advocacy
130
Accessible "before school" and "after school" program placement opportunities
for low-income families created or saved from reduction or elimination
Accessible safe and affordable child care or child development placement
opportunities for low-income families created or saved from reduction or
18
Accessible "living wage" jobs created, or saved, from reduction or elimination
in the community.
Safe and affordable housing units created in the community
Accessible new or expanded transportation resources, or those that are saved
from reduction or elimination, that are available to low-income people,
including public or private transportation.
Accessible or increased educational and training placement opportunities, or
those that are saved from reduction or elimination, that are available for low-
income people in the community, including vocational, literacy, and life skill
training, ABE/GED, and post-secondary education
20 30
15 20
Many communities in the County lack sufficient resources and opportunities in their respective neighborhoods to generate community improvement and
revitilization. As a result the quality of life for the residents of these communities is negatively impacted. The opportunities to improve their economic
and social condition remain elusive. Working with CBOs and local City and County officials to focus on the living condition in certain neiborhoods will
improve their living conditions.
Contra Costa County, Employment and Human Services Department/CSB
CAP 2 YEAR PROJECTIONS
250 300
2017
15 20
15
Number of
Opportunities or
Community Resources
Preserved or Increased
Expected to Achieve
(#)
40 60
In the rows below, please include any additional indicators for NPI 2.1 that were not captured above.
EHSD/CSB directly offers Head Start, Early Head Start, State Child Development, and school readiness activities to more than 2,000 children from low-
income families as defined by the federal poverty guidelines each year. EHSD/CSB will also continue to work with the county Building Inspection
Department, Ensuring Opportunity, and other partners to preserve and improve the community, create or save jobs from reduction or elimination. Also,
the retention of CSB's Assistant Trainee program will also assist with the negative impact felt among communities.
Tom Stewart, ASA III
18
National Performance Indicators, Goal 2 Projections Page 7
State of California
Department of Community Services and Development
CSBG/NPI CAP Projections
CSD 801 CAP (Rev. 1/15) 2016-2017 CSBG/NPI CAP Projections
2016 2016 2017
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
1
Increase in the availability or preservation of community services to improve
public health and safety
15 18
Increase in the availability or preservation of community facilities
Goal 2: The conditions in which low-income people live are improved.
NPI 2.2: Community Quality of Life and Assets
National Performance
Indicator 2.2
Problem Statement: (If additional space is needed, please attach a separate sheet.)
Program Activities and Delivery Strategies: (If additional space is needed, please attach a separate sheet.)
2
Number of Program
Initiatives or
Advocacy Efforts
Expected to Achieve
(#)
18
Increase in the availability or preservation of commercial services within low-
income neighborhoods
In the rows below, please include any additional indicators for NPI 2.2 that were not captured above.
Increase or preservation of neighborhood quality-of-life resources
The quality of life and assets in low-income neighborhoods are improved by
Community Action initiative or advocacy, as measured by one or more of the
following:
Increases in community assets as a result of a change in law, regulation, or
policy, which results in improvements in quality of life and assets
Community Quality of Life and Assets
2017
15
Number of Community
Assets, Services or
Facilities Preserved or
Increased Expected to
Achieve
(#)
CAP 2 YEAR PROJECTIONS
EHSD/CSB will continue to help the community at large, fund, renovate or secure additional child care facilities to program eligible families, as well as
increase the number of community facilitites available to the public. In addition, EHSD/CSB will continue the support of the Spark Point Centers in East
and West Contra Costa County as a way to increase neighborhood quality of life resources. The Spark Point Centers will operate in existing buildings
that require either general repairs or significant renovation.
1 2
The demand for quality and safe community facilities is a consistent issue within the County. In many areas, buildings are available for
rehabilitation/renovation but these facilities typically remain in poor condition, dilapitated and unavailable for use.
National Performance Indicators, Goal 2 Projections Page 8
State of California
Department of Community Services and Development
CSBG/NPI CAP Projections
CSD 801 CAP (Rev. 1/15) 2016-2017 CSBG/NPI CAP Projections
2016 2017
A.
B.
EHSD/CSB will provide low income residents of Contra Costa County volunteer opportunities to ensure that they are engaged and have access to
decision making/advisory bodies such as Head Start/Early Head Start Policy Council, child care site based parent committees, and the Economic
Opportunity Council. Low income residents will have the opportunity to serve as positive role models for children enrolled in Contra Costa County
Employment and Human Services, Community Services Bureau.
Low income residents of the community often have limited opportunities to volunteer and have access to decision making bodies and advisory bodies that
impact their lives.
National Performance
Indicator 2.3
Community Engagement
The number of community members working with Community Action to improve conditions in the
community.
Number of volunteer hours donated to the agency (This will be All volunteer hours)
CAP 2 YEAR
PROJECTIONS
Number of Total
Contribution by
Community Expected to
Achieve
(#)
55 60
85000 90000
Number of community members mobilized by Community Action that participate in community
revitalization and anti-poverty initiatives
Program Activities and Delivery Strategies: (If additional space is needed, please attach a separate sheet.)
Problem Statement: (If additional space is needed, please attach a separate sheet.)
In the rows below, please include any additional indicators for NPI 2.3 that were not captured above.
Goal 2: The conditions in which low-income people live are improved.
NPI 2.3: Community Engagement
National Performance Indicators, Goal 3 Projections Page 9
State of California
Department of Community Services and Development
CSBG/NPI CAP Projections
CSD 801 CAP (Rev.1/15)
Ext. Number:
Fax Number:
Community Enhancement Through Maximum Feasible Participation
2017
82,000 87,500
Contact Person and Title:
Phone Number:
Contractor Name:
E-mail Address:
In the rows below, please include any additional indicators for NPI 3.1 that were not captured above.
The number of volunteer hours donated to Community Action.
Problem Statement: (If additional space is needed, please attach a separate sheet.)
A root cause of poverty and its perpetuation is the lack of participation by low income residents in community organizations, boards,
and councils that impact their lives. Low income participation is essential for these bodies to be effective for the low-income
communities that they serve.
2016
A. The total number of volunteer hours donated by low-income individuals to Community Action. (This
is ONLY the number of volunteer hours from individuals who are low-income.)
925-313-8302
925-681-6347
tstewart1@ehsd.cccounty.us
Program Activities and Delivery Strategies: (If additional space is needed, please attach a separate sheet.)
Most parent volunteers within Community Services Bureau come from low income backgrounds. Low-income residents will have
opportunity to volunteer and provide valuable support to community action agency programs such as Early Head Start/Head Start
classrooms, parent meetings, Policy Council, , Economic Opportunity Council, and Child Development program.
CAP 2 YEAR
PROJECTIONS
Total Number of
Volunteer Hours
Expected to Achieve
(#)
National Performance
Indicator 3.1
Goal 3: Low-income people own a stake in their community.
Contra Costa County, Employment and Human Services Department/CSB
NPI 3.1: Community Enhancement Through Maximum Feasible Participation
2016-2017 CSBG/NPI CAP Projections
Tom Stewart, ASA III
National Performance Indicators, Goal 3 Projections Page 10
State of California
Department of Community Services and Development
CSBG/NPI CAP Projections
CSD 801 CAP (Rev.1/15) 2016-2017 CSBG/NPI CAP Projections
2017
A.
B.
C.
D.
60
CAP 2 YEAR
PROJECTIONS
Number of Low-
Income People
Expected to Achieve
(#)
NPI 3.2: Community Empowerment Through Maximum Feasible Participation
Problem Statement: (If additional space is needed, please attach a separate sheet.)
A root cause of poverty and its perpetuation is the lack of participation by low income residents in community organizations, boards, and councils
that impact their lives. Low income participation is essential for these bodies to be effective for the low-income communities that they serve.
Program Activities and Delivery Strategies: (If additional space is needed, please attach a separate sheet.)
Low-income residents will have opportunity to volunteer and provide valuable support to community action agency programs such as Early Head
Start/Head Start classrooms, parent meetings, Policy Council, , Economic Opportunity Council, and Child Development programs.
In the rows below, please include any additional indicators for NPI 3.2 that were not captured above.
2016
Number of low-income people acquiring businesses in their community as a result of Community
Action assistance
Number of low-income people purchasing their own home in their community as a result of
Community Action assistance
National Performance
Indicator 3.2
Community Empowerment Through Maximum Feasible Participation
The number of low-income people mobilized as a direct result of Community Action initiative to engage in
activities that support and promote their own well-being and that of their community, as measured by one or
more of the following:
Number of low-income people participating in formal community organizations, government, boards,
or councils that provide input to decision making and policy setting through Community Action
efforts
60
Number of low-income people engaged in non-governance community activities or groups created or
supported by Community Action
Goal 3: Low-income people own a stake in their community.
National Performance Indicators, Goal 4 Projections Page 11
State of California
Department of Community Services and Development
CSBG/NPI CAP Projections
CSD 801 CAP (Rev.1/15)
Contact Person and Title:
Ext. Number
E-mail Address:Fax Number:
2016 2017 2016 2017
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
L.
M.
1
925-313-8302
EHSD/CSB is organized internally to support collaborative relationships between the other community based providers and the citizens of the County.
CSB has valuable partnerships with Opportunity Junction, First 5, Health Services Department, Ensuring Opportunity, and more than 100 non-profit
community based, faith based and governmental organizations.
In a geographically and ethnically diverse County, matching and leveraging increasingly stretched community based resources to the diverse needs of a
population can be challenging. Community based organization and governmental institutions frequently operate in silos, increasing the risk of
duplicating services or leaving service gaps unaddressed.
100 110
10
1
3
5
2
4
5
110
12
1
1
1
1
Health Service Institutions
State wide associations or collaborations 3
Number of
Organizations
Expected to Achieve
(#)
For-Profit Business or Corporation
Federal Government
Consortiums/Collaboration
Housing Consortiums/Collaboration
Local Government
Expanding Opportunities Through Community-Wide Partnerships
School Districts
Contractor Name:
Phone Number:
Faith Based
Institutions of post secondary education/training
Financial/Banking Institutions
State Government
NPI 4.1: Expanding Opportunities through Community-Wide Partnerships
Problem Statement: (If additional space is needed, please attach a separate sheet.)
1
66
1
1
12
1
Non-Profit
tstewart1@ehsd.cccounty.us
Goal 4: Partnerships among supporters and providers of services to low-income people are achieved.
The number of organizations, both public and private, Community Action actively
works with to expand resources and opportunities in order to achieve family and
community outcomes.
Program Activities and Delivery Strategies: (If additional space is needed, please attach a separate sheet.)
100
2016-2017 CSBG/NPI CAP Projections
National Performance
Indicator 4.1
7
1
3
10
3
1
1
1 2
3
5
Number of
Partnerships
Expected to Achieve
(#)
CAP 2 YEAR PROJECTIONS
4
3
Contra Costa County, Employment and Human Services Department/CSB
Tom Stewart, ASA III
925-681-6347
7
5
National Performance Indicators, Goal 4 Projections Page 12
State of California
Department of Community Services and Development
CSBG/NPI CAP Projections
CSD 801 CAP (Rev.1/15)2016-2017 CSBG/NPI CAP Projections
146146131
N.Total number of organizations and total number of partnerships CAAs
work with to promote family and community outcomes (automatically
calculates)
131
In the rows below, please add other types of partners with which your CAA has formed relationships that were not
National Performance Indicators, Goal 5 Projections Page 13
State of California
Department of Community Services and Development
CSBG/NPI CAP Projections
CSD 801 CAP (Rev.1/15)
Contact Person and Title:
E-mail Address:
2017
A.
B.Number of ROMA Trainers
C.Number of Family Development Trainers
D.Number of Child Development Trainers
E.Number of staff attending trainings
F.Number of board members attending trainings
G.
H.Hours of board members in trainings
55 55
5,800 6,000
250 250
National Performance
Indicator 5.1
Agency Development
Contra Costa County, Employment and Human Services Department/CSB
2016
1
375
Contractor Name:
Tom Stewart, ASA III
1
Program Activities and Delivery Strategies: (If additional space is needed, please attach a separate sheet.
tstewart1@ehsd.cccounty.us
Hours of staff in trainings
Phone Number:
Number of Certified Community Action Professionals
The number of human capital resources available to Community Action that increase agency
capacity to achieve family and community outcomes, as measured by one or more of the
following:
NPI 5.1: Agency Development
Problem Statement: (If additional space is needed, please attach a separate sheet.)
In the rows below, please include any additional indicators that were not captured above.
350
2
925-681-6347
2016-2017 CSBG/NPI CAP Projections
Goal 5: Agencies increase their capacity to achieve results.
The EHSD Community Services Bureau has a highly developed professional development program that increases agency capacity by
contributing to the expertise and productivity of staff. CSB has access to the EHSD training unit for general training and maintains
contractual relationships with a number of local colleges and universities to provide content specific training to staff. There is also an
annual orientation for members of the Board of Supervisors and the Head Start Policy Council and the Economic Opportunity Council.
Additionally there is an annual two hour training for the Board of Supervisors, the Policy Council and the Economic Opportunity Council
each spring. The agency also sends representatives to trainings and conferences throughout the year. Each EOC General meeting and
Executive team meeting also have a training component Plan to get some staff & board members ROMA certified
3 3
3 3
2
Ext. Number:
Fax Number:925-313-8302
CAP 2 YEAR
PROJECTIONS
Number of Resources in
Agency Expected to
Achieve
(#)
Agency staff require professional development, training, and technical assistance to perform at optimal levels. No Staff and Board
Members to be ROMA Certified
National Performance Indicators, Goal 6 Projections Page 14
State of California
Department of Community Services and Development
CSBG/NPI Projections
CSD 801 CAP (Rev.1/15)
Ext. Number:
Fax Number:
2017
A.
B.
Ages:
0-17 550
1,060
2016-2017 CSBG/NPI CAP Projections
925-681-6347
tstewart1@ehsd.cccounty.us 925-313-8302
Phone Number:
Contact Person and Title:
Contractor Name:Contra Costa County, Employment and Human Services Department/CSB
Tom Stewart, ASA III
b.18-54
Senior Citizens (seniors can be reported twice, once under Senior Citizens and again, if
they are disabled, under Individuals with Disabilities, ages 55-over.)
a.
E-mail Address:
Goal 6: Low-income people, especially vulnerable populations, achieve their potential by strengthening family and
other supportive environments.
Problem Statement: (If additional space is needed, please attach a separate sheet.)
Many low income individuals and families in Contra Costa County lack family support as well as a supportive environment that is
required to be able to maintain a comfortable and independent living environment. For the County's senior citizens and individuals with
disabilities, the lack of family support makes it much more challenging for these groups to sustain an adequate and independent living
environment.
Program Activities and Delivery Strategies: (If additional space is needed, please attach a separate sheet.)
The EHSD/Community Services Bureau will continues to prioritize the eligibility requirements for the LIHEAP and Weatherization
services for program eligible senior citizens and individuals with disabilities to ensure that both vulnerable groups continue to receive
these services throughout the program year, and the LIHEAP fast track program while funds are available. Additionally, disabled
individuals and Grandparents raising Head Start children are beneficiaries of the full range of Head Start comprehensive services and
case management.
The number of vulnerable individuals receiving services from Community Action who maintain an
independent living situation as a result of those services:
NPI 6.1: Independent Living
National Performance
Indicator 6.1
Independent Living
2016
270
525
Individuals with Disabilities
1,100 1,200
225 240
260
CAP 2 YEAR
PROJECTIONS
Number of
Vulnerable
Individuals Living
Independently
Expected to Achieve
(#)
c.
Age Unknown
1,010Total Individuals with Disabilities:
55-over
In the rows below, please include any additional indicators for NPI 6.1 that were not captured above.
d.
National Performance Indicators, Goal 6 Projections Page 15
State of California
Department of Community Services and Development
CSBG/NPI Projections
CSD 801 CAP (Rev.1/15) 2016-2017 CSBG/NPI CAP Projections
2017
In the rows below, please include any additional indicators for NPI 6.2 that were not captured above.
EHSD/Community Services Bureau comprehensive services staff assist families to access emergency services to provide supplemental
support to clients. CSB will also continue the outreach informing the community about the availability of emergency LIHEAP services.
Number of
Individuals
Expected to Achieve
(#)
1,1501,100Emergency Legal Assistance
100 105
1,500
Emergency Assistance
CAP 2 YEAR
PROJECTIONS
Emergency Food
National Performance
Indicator 6.2
Emergency fuel or utility payments funded by LIHEAP or other public and private funding
sources
The number of low-income individuals served by Community Action who sought emergency
assistance and the number of those individuals for whom assistance was provided.
K.
I.
J.
Frequently, low income residents and other vulnerable individuals require safety net services such as food supports, energy assistance,
disaster relief, and protection from domestic violence.
Emergency Disaster Relief
Emergency Medical Care
Emergency Clothing
Emergency Transportation
Goal 6: Low-income people, especially vulnerable populations, achieve their potential by strengthening family and
other supportive environments.
NPI 6.2: Emergency Assistance
Emergency Protection from Violence
C.
D.
E.Emergency Temporary Shelter
Emergency Car or Home Repair (i.e. structural appliance, heating systems, etc.)
1,600
2,000
Program Activities and Delivery Strategies: (If additional space is needed, please attach a separate sheet.)
Problem Statement: (If additional space is needed, please attach a separate sheet.)
2,100
2016
Emergency Rent or Mortgage Assistance
G.
H.
F.
A.
B.
National Performance Indicators, Goal 6 Projections Page 16
State of California
Department of Community Services and Development
CSBG/NPI Projections
CSD 801 CAP (Rev.1/15) 2016-2017 CSBG/NPI CAP Projections
2017
B.
C.
D.
K.
2,400 2,450
55 60
55 60
55 60
55
55 60
2,400 2,450
Children who participate in pre-school activities are developmentally ready to enter
Kindergarten or 1st Grade 1,000 1,050
60
National Performance
Indicator 6.3
Child and Family Development
The number and percentage of all infants, children, youth, parents, and other adults participating in
developmental or enrichment programs that achieve program goals, as measured by one or more of
the following:
Number of
Participants
Expected to Achieve
Outcome
(#)
NPI 6.3: Child and Family Development
Problem Statement: (If additional space is needed, please attach a separate sheet.)
The shortage of quality, affordable child and family development services County-wide has had a negative impact on the ability for both
chikldren and families to break the bonds of poverty as well as the lack of financial services that focuses on long-term stability and
economic security.
Program Activities and Delivery Strategies: (If additional space is needed, please attach a separate sheet.)
Youth improve social/emotional development
Infants and children obtain age appropriate immunizations, medical, and dental care
3,300
Infant and child health and physical development are improved as a result of adequate
nutrition
2016
3,300
3,200
Goal 6: Low-income people, especially vulnerable populations, achieve their potential by strengthening family and
other supportive environments.
3,200 3,300A.
YOUTH
3,200
CAP 2 YEAR
PROJECTIONS
INFANTS & CHILDREN
The EHSD/Community Services Bureau provides an array of comprehensive services to low-income parents and children through its
child care programs that help strengthen and enhance the family environmental structure. The bureau will partner with local entities to
provide both employment and training to several low-income sectors of the community, including youth. CSB is also a partner in the
Spark Point initiative which focuses on long-term stability and economic security.
J.
Youth increase academic, athletic, or social skills for school success I.
Parents and other adults learn and exhibit improved parenting skills
PARENTS AND OTHER ADULTS
In the rows below, please include any additional indicators for NPI 6.3 that were not captured above.
Parents and other adults learn and exhibit improved family functioning skills
Youth avoid risk-taking behavior for a defined period of time
Children participate in pre-school activities to develop school readiness skills
Youth improve health and physical development
Youth have reduced involvement with criminal justice system
F.
E.
H.
G.
National Performance Indicators, Goal 6 Projections Page 17
State of California
Department of Community Services and Development
CSBG/NPI Projections
CSD 801 CAP (Rev.1/15) 2016-2017 CSBG/NPI CAP Projections
2017
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
2,500
National Performance
Indicator 6.4
2016
Obtained other non-emergency energy assistance. (State/local/private energy programs. Do
Not Include LIHEAP or WX)
Obtained food assistance
Obtained non-emergency LIHEAP energy assistance
In the rows below, please include any additional indicators for NPI 6.4 that were not captured above.
2,500
Obtained non-emergency WX energy assistance
Family supports are unavailable to vulnerable populations resulting in family stress, mental health issues and domestic violence.
Obtained and/or maintained safe and affordable housing
Program Activities and Delivery Strategies: (If additional space is needed, please attach a separate sheet.)
Obtained health care services for themselves or family member
600600
Family Supports (Seniors, Disabled and Caregivers)
Goal 6: Low-income people, especially vulnerable populations, achieve their potential by strengthening family and
other supportive environments.
NPI 6.4: Family Supports
Obtained care for child or other dependent
Obtained access to reliable transportation and/or driver's license
EHSD/CSB will offer supports to families in the form of energy assistance as well as parent education, mental health consultation and
referrals, domestic violence reduction approaches both directly and in partnership with community based organizations and programs
within local government agencies.
Low-income people who are unable to work, especially seniors, adults with disabilities, and
caregivers, for whom barriers to family stability are reduced or eliminated, as measured by one or
more of the following:
Number of
Participants
Expected to Achieve
Outcome
(#)
Enrolled children in before or after school programs
CAP 2 YEAR
PROJECTIONS
Problem Statement: (If additional space is needed, please attach a separate sheet.)
National Performance Indicators, Goal 6 Projections Page 18
State of California
Department of Community Services and Development
CSBG/NPI Projections
CSD 801 CAP (Rev.1/15) 2016-2017 CSBG/NPI CAP Projections
2017
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
1,250 1,300
2016
4,950 5,200
CAP 2 YEAR
PROJECTIONS
Participants in EHSD CSB programs have access to emergency food and clothing throughout partnership with VESTIA a 501c(3) non-
profit that manages food pantries and the distribution of food boxes.
Number of Services
Expected
(#)
Food Boxes
National Performance
Indicator 6.5
Information and Referral Calls
In the rows below, please include any additional indicators for NPI 6.5 that were not captured above.
Rides Provided
Units of Clothing
Goal 6: Low-income people, especially vulnerable populations, achieve their potential by strengthening family and
other supportive environments.
Pounds of Food
Service Counts
The number of services provided to low-income individuals and/or families, as measured by one or
more of the following:
Program Activities and Delivery Strategies: (If additional space is needed, please attach a separate sheet.)
Problem Statement: (If additional space is needed, please attach a separate sheet.)
Low-income and vulnerable residents of Contra Costa County may lack information about access to services. They may require
emergency food, clothing and referrals to services provided by County Government and community based organizations and are unaware
of how to obtain these services.
NPI 6.5: Service Counts
Attachment I
Summary of West, East, and Central Public Hearing Comment Cards
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Housing/Shelter Food/Nutrition Employment/Jobs Resources Public Safety Other Comments
0
5
8
4
9
5 5
West County
East County
Central County
West, East, & Central Contra Costa County
Graph of Public Hearing Comments by Categories
Series1 Series2 Series3 Series4 Series5
Attachment J
Public Hearings 1-2-3 - Questions & Comments
West Contra Costa County Public Hearing - Richmond Public Library – Thursday, 03/26/15, 6:00-8:00 p.m.
East Contra Costa County Public Hearing - Los Medanos College - Thursday, 04/23/15, 6:00 to 8:00 p.m.
Central Contra Costa County Public Hearing - County Building (500 Ellinwood) – 05/2015, 6:00 to 8:00 p.m.
Comment/Concern Was the
concern
addressed in
the CAP?
If so, page # If not, indicate the
reason
PH1.P1- Education, Training, good paying jobs, employable
resident, encourage on the job training with tax breaks, match
ability with opportunities.
yes ii Education and
Training,
iii Employment
and Jobs
PH1.P2- Do we monitor people in power? Why do we allow CPS to
play God? They brag-they do.
No Not Addressed in
the CAC i
Comment or
observation only, or
not related to a
specific factor
contributing to
poverty.
PH1.P3-South Asians feel left behind for health and housing. Yes iv Health and
Mental Health
PH1.P4- Do you plan to expand funding for targeted minorities
nonprofit organizations? Please answer!
yes v Resources and
Funding
PH1.P5- Funding for culturally specific domestic violence programs
is needed.
yes vi Safety and
Crime
PH1.P6-If people don’t qualify for unemployment and get no
disability how do people with no income survive?
yes iii Employment
and Jobs
PH1.P7-There is a shortage of afterschool programs for most of our
youth in our communities! We definitely need funding to
appropriate fast demand.
yes ii Education and
Training
PH1.P8-There is a shortage of mental health services/funding for
South Asian seniors and children in their cultural and linguistic
context.
Yes iv Health and
Mental Health
PH1.P9-People-Police confrontations ways to control Yes vi Safety and
Crime
PH1.P10-What are we doing for the young people of Contra Costa:
Housing/Jobs/medical?
Yes iii Employment
and Jobs
PH1.P11-Where’s our voice of conscience and voice of people?
No Not Addressed in
the CAC i
Comment or
observation only, or
not related to a
specific factor
contributing to
poverty.
Comment/Concern Was the
concern
addressed in
the CAP?
If so, page # If not, indicate the
reason
PH1.P12-Speak out world! Speak out America
No Not Addressed in
the CAC i
Comment or
observation only, or
not related to a
specific factor
contributing to
poverty.
PH1.P13.1-Pivotal point; Institutions that contribute to
homelessness: Prisons and jail systems, foster care, mental health,
healthcare, substance/chemical dependency, armed
forces/military. Institutions are disengaged from the issue because
they see it as unsolvable but PH1.P13.1 Continued- in fact can be
eradicated with long term leadership community engagement and
political will to enact policies leverage causes. Consider creative
methods for creating housing 1.) Acquisition/rehab new
construction (short term financial assistance to those at risk to
create permanent housing 2.) Tenant based housing subsidies
using existing housing. Another consideration move from
managing homelessness and address presenting and eliminating it.
Yes vii Housing and
Shelter, iv Health
and Mental
Health
PH1.P13.2 – Human and financial cost are enormous, the cost of
not solving the problem are great. Impacts of people in crisis,
community and social systems/CBO providing the services. Goals:
prevent homelessness, increase housing opportunities, support
services not rigid/fragmented, measure outcons, long term
leadership and political will.
Yes vii Housing and
Shelter
PH1.P13.3- 900+ youth and young adults here in Contra Costa
County between ages of 15-21 involved in the foster care system.
676 are between PH1.P13.3 Cont. - the ages of 18-21 and are at
risk of homelessness. Only less than 10% are getting transitional
housing.
Yes vii Housing and
Shelter
PH1.P14 – I belong to West County Regional Group sponsored by
First 5. We would like to work with you to provide our community
especially for our children to be more active to prevent childhood
obesity. We need to be more active and healthier. We need your
support.
Yes iv Mental Health
and Health
PH1.P15 –I would like Richmond to offer classes at a low cost for
children five years and over. Maybe this is not relevant to this
organization but there is much to do in the community for
example: Fix the streets, more surveillance. (translated)
Yes ii Education and
Training
Comment/Concern Was the
concern
addressed in
the CAP?
If so, page # If not, indicate the
reason
PH1.P16- I would like a committee where entrusted people help to
monitor the homeowners so they do not rent houses in bad
conditions. Also, I would like public schools to help our children
with more activities such as: Art, music, paint, science, history. We
need to have good mental health if we want to create a better
future; we have to start working on leaving a better future for our
children. (translated)
Yes ii Education and
Training, iv Health
and iv mental
Health ,
vii Housing and
Shelter
PH1.P17- We have to find the way for Richmond and surrounding
cities to reduce cost of rent, because people are living in a
destitute area and Contra Costa County is very expensive. I believe
that their funds could support more programs and not only three
to have more impact on the lives of families. (translated)
Yes vii Housing and
Shelter
PH1.P18-We need more security in the streets of the schools for
example more safety signs, more lighting and the have physical
activities in the parks. More programs for children 0-16 where
they can engage in health & activities like walking, dancing, art
music. Etc. (translated)
Yes vi Safety and
crime, iv Health
and mental
Health
PH1.P19- 1) in the future helps organization of parents who want
to help the community. 2.) Help reduce cost of rent in Richmond.
3.) Consider that most programs are for older children and it is
important that you give small children an opportunity to be active.
Poor families do not have enough money to pay for classes so that
would be great if we could get families more active. (translated)
Yes ii Education and
Training,
v Resources and
Funding.
vii Housing and
Shelter,
Resources and
Funding
PH2.P1- Affordable Housing
High rents in high-cost of living Developers building only for middle
class and avoid building starter homes.
Yes vii Housing and
Shelter,
v Resources and
Funding
PH2.P2- Need a homeless shelter – “ Housing first” Yes vii Housing and
Shelter
PH2.P3- Population shift to East County means it needs more
attention from the county’s departments.
No 1 Not addressed
in the CAC
Comment or
observation only, or
not related to a specific
factor contributing to
poverty
PH2.P3- money needs to be allocated to the schools and
extracurricular.
Yes ii Education and
Training
PH2.P3- Mental health needs more attention Yes iv Health and
Mental Health
Comment/Concern Was the
concern
addressed in
the CAP?
If so, page # If not, indicate the
reason
PH2.P4- Community Development and better outlets for healthy
eating and living.
Yes viii Food and
Nutrition
PH2.P5- I am a LMC Student and I think that money should be
invested in afterschool programs for the youth to increase a higher
chance for kids to succeed in their future goals.
Yes ii Education and
Training
PH2.P6 - I would like to see action in helping the homeless LGBT
community. A lot of troubled teenagers are pushed and neglected
due to their orientation. Teaming up and/or funding an
organization to help homeless LGBT youth is what I’d like to see
and be a part of.
Yes vii Housing and
shelter
PH2.P7- Bay point has one of the worst ratios of healthy VS.
Unhealthy food sources (retail food environment index – RFEI) in
the County. County wide 5.4, Bay Point 1.7
Yes viii Food and
Nutrition,
iv Health and
Mental Health
PH2.P8- Low-income residents face a skills gap and a lack of
confidence in starting careers despite the economic recovery,
unemployment is still high in East Contra Costa – up to 10% in Bay
Point.
Yes ii Education and
Training
PH2.P9- Employment rates over 10% here in East County.
Education gap to get employment.
Yes ii Education and
training,
iii Employment
and Jobs
PH2.P10- Honestly-How is we as a county trying to have rent
control? I see a lot of our senior citizens and low income families
being pushed out.
Yes vii Housing and
Shelter
PH2.P11 - Homelessness services – Mental Health, housing, and
employment, Housing ,Jobs- local , Livable wages ,Foster youth –
transitional age housing, in school foster youth
advocates/liaisons/counselors
Yes ii Education and
Training,
vii Housing and
Shelter,
iii Employment
and Jobs, iv Health
and Mental
Health
PH2.P12- Significant issues – Low income – have to choose
between rent and healthy food, food is one area of a budget that
PH2.P12 CONT. - can be cut and often is. Health is affected, child
development is affected which perpetuates the cycle of poverty
Yes vii Housing and
Shelter,
v Resources and
Funding, iv Health
and Mental
Health
Comment/Concern Was the
concern
addressed in
the CAP?
If so, page # If not, indicate the
reason
PH2.P13 - families need to have access to affordable: Child care,
Housing, employment in the county. 0-5 year’s children of
incarcerated parents. They live work and worship in. Have a safe
place to give their input in their neighborhoods!
Yes ii Education and
Training,
vii Housing and
Shelter
PH2.P13 - Access to living wage careers, access to job training to be
eligible for the jobs to address the skills gap and ongoing support
services. Also, affordable childcare beyond 5-6pm for those who
must work out of the area.
Yes ii Education and
Training
PH2.P14- Working with partners to have training opportunities to
teach community members skills to help education for
employment.
Yes ii Education and
Training,
iii Employment
and Jobs
PH2.P15- More trade schools for males through grant money.
More youth employment to teach life skills and training which is
supported by the county.
Yes ii Education and
Training
PH2.P16-Youth employment – By using grant funding surrounding
businesses in the city
Yes iii Employment
and Jobs
PH2.P17- The key to ending poverty is through education and
either at the high school level and community college. Develops
programs in job training not money. Build retail industry grow
opportunity.
Yes ii Education and
Training,
iii Employment
and Jobs
PH2.P18- Increase collaboration amount EHSD divisions. Great
work is being done by each division. To what exult are we working
together to address the whole person?? Employment and head
start and child welfare Cal fresh and mental health… on and on.
Yes ii Education and
Training,
iii Employment
and Jobs, iv Health
and Mental
Health
PH2.P19- Question related to how resource service providers are
verified for capacity/effectiveness.
No 1 Not addressed
in the CAC
Comment or
observation only, or
not related to a specific
factor contributing to
poverty
PH2.P20- Does the county have a working relationship with the
school districts? If not, why? Does this (illegible) have any
concerns about incarceration of youth within this county?
Yes ii Education and
Training
PH3.P1- I live in Richmond and there are many necessities there is
a lot of garbage in the streets, there are a lot of holes in the
pavement. Streets are dark and that is dangerous to walk. In the
parks there is no security and there are many people smoking
drugs. (translated)
Yes vi Safety and
Crime
Comment/Concern Was the
concern
addressed in
the CAP?
If so, page # If not, indicate the
reason
PH3.P2- I would like to know how the EOC is helping on a big need
of housing which I think is a big priority especially in Richmond and
myself being a single mom with a full time job and two kids, I can’t
afford housing, living in a shelter.
Yes vii Housing and
Shelter
Organize and outreach. Information about free home based online
learning opportunities for the parents and other adults dealing
with poverty/low income. Many such programs already exist.
Their children will/are tech savvy I will be able to assist their
parents. 1
Yes ii Education and
Training, vi Safety
and Crime
PH - Public Hearing
1- West Count
2- East County
3- Central County
P(#)- Public Comment # signifies differnet
member of public
Example: PH1.P1
Public Hearing West County /Public 1st person
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Not addressed
Education/Training
Employmnet/Jobs
Health/Mental
Resources
Safety
Housing/Shelter
Food/Nutrition
% of Resources needed
according to Survey
i Not addressed in the CAC – Comment or observation only, or not related to a specific factor contributing to poverty.
ii Education and Training – 5,10,12,19,21,25,26,28,31,35 & 38
iii Employment and Jobs – 10,12,15,18,19,25,28,30 & 35
iv Health and Mental Health -9,10,12,25,28,29 & 36
v Resources and Funding – 10,12,15,29,33 & 35
vi Safety and Crime - 17,35
vii Housing and Shelter-8,10,18,25,28 & 35
viii Food and Nutrition- 12,20,28,29,34 &35
Pages noted in bold refer to programs or activities descriptions as contrasted with references to agencies or organizations.
Answer Options Response Percent Response Count
1.100.0%165
2.99.4%164
3.93.9%155
answered question 165
skipped question 3
1.2.3.
Access to healthy food Access to affordable housing
Access to healthcare/dental care for
undocumented individuals
Access to vocational programs Access to affordable, high quality child care Access to mental health services
Addiction Access to enough healthy food access to nutricious whole food.
Affordable health & mental health services access to healthy food accountablity
Affordable Housing Adequate shelter afforadable housing
affordable housing affordable health care Affordable Groceries
affordable housing Affordable Housing affordable healthcare
AFFORDABLE HOUSING Affordable Housing affordable housing
Affordable housing affordable housing Affordable Housing
Affordable Housing Affordable housing affordable housing
affordable housing Affordable housing affordable housing/child care & daycare hours
Affordable housing Affordable Housing affordable quality childcare
affordable housing affordable quality child care affordable/quality child care
affordable housing affordable transportation bay area cost of living
Affordable Housing Availability of Healthy Food from local store child care
affordable housing Child Care Child Care
affordable housing child care Child Care
Affordable housing child care costs Child care
affordable housing Childcare child care and other economic support
affortable housing Crime Child care with cultural context
After school program and activities for youth Crime/Violence childcare
Child Care CRIMINAL BACKGROUND childcare
Child Care criminal records Clothing
Child care Day care Cost of living
cost of housing Day care for children debt
Cost of Rental Housing Dental services for seniors Drug Abuse
Attachment K
Survey Comments & Results for 2016-2017 Community Action Plan
From your perspective, what are the top three (3) issues facing those living in poverty (for example, you might identify food, shelter, housing, etc.)?
From your perspective, what are the top three (3) issues facing those living in poverty (for example, you might identify food, shelter, housing, etc.)?
1.2.3.
From your perspective, what are the top three (3) issues facing those living in poverty (for example, you might identify food, shelter, housing, etc.)?
crime domestic abuse Education
drug and alccohol abuse Drugs/Crimes Education
Drugs and Alcohol Education Education
Education Education education
Education Education education
education Education Education and Childcare
Education employment Education/job
Education employment EMPLOYMENT
education employment Employment
education Employment employment
education employment opportunities employment
education Employment/Small Business Opportunities EMPLOYMENT
education on how to stop the welfare cycle Food Employment
employment Food Employment
EMPLOYMENT FOOD employment
Employment Food employment
Employment FOOD
Employment training for available job
opportunities
Employment opportunities food employnent
employment or wages food expensive housing
Food food fair wage
Food food Few Job Opportunities
Food Food Financial Illiteracy
Food Food Food
food food Food
food Food food
Food Food Food
food food food
food food Food
food Food & Clothing food
Food food & nutrition Food
Food food (nutritious)food access
Food Food and water food costs
Food Food insecurity Food prices
Good paying Jobs full-time employment
Giving them work in exchange for food benefits,
etc.
Healthy Food health care, including mental health support health and safetly issues
Healthy food healthy food Health care
high housing costs high rents Health Care
HORRIFICALLY high housing/ cost of living homelessness Health Care
Housing Housing health care
housing Housing Health Care
1.2.3.
From your perspective, what are the top three (3) issues facing those living in poverty (for example, you might identify food, shelter, housing, etc.)?
Housing housing Health care
Housing Housing healthcare
Housing housing Healthcare
housing housing healthy food
Housing housing High housing costs/homelessness
Housing housing Housing
housing Housing housing
housing housing HOUSING
Housing Housing housing
housing housing Housing
housing housing Incentive
housing Housing involvement in drugs/crime
Housing housing costs Job
housing housing in safe neighborhoods job opportunities
housing housing instability JOB READINESS/MENTAL HEALTH
Housing Housing/Shelter Job ready attire/ training
Housing income inequality job retention
housing Insufficient income.job training
Housing isolation and loneliness Jobs
HOUSING job Jobs are paying too little
Housing Job Training lack of education/ training for available jobs
housing jobs lack of jobs
housing Jobs LACK OF NECESSARY JOB SKILLS
housing jobs Lack of public transportation
HOUSING jobs lack of resources
Housing Jobs Lack of skills to get a livable wage
Housing Jobs Lack of transportation
Housing jobs LACK OF TRANSPORTATION AND ITS COST
housing jobs Lack on inspiring education
housing Job's limited child care/pre-school opportunities
housing lack of available jobs livable wage
Housing lack of education/job skills Low minimum wage
Housing lack of education/traing/job skils experience Meaningful Employment
Housing Lack of employment medial services
housing LACK OF EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES Medical Attention
Housing Lack of Higher education opportunities Medical Care
Housing lack of local jobs medical care
Housing lack of training / education medical care
housing Limited Food Pantries Medical Care
1.2.3.
From your perspective, what are the top three (3) issues facing those living in poverty (for example, you might identify food, shelter, housing, etc.)?
housing
little opportunities for higher wage jobs-
corporations out source work to other countries
leaving US citizens in the dust Medications
Housing living wage job opportunities in our area Mental Health
Housing
Living wage jobs. - When the minimum wage
increases, so does the cost of goods and food so
the individual still has a hard time to make ends
meet.mental health care
housing low income jobs mental health services
housing low performing schools in poorer areas money
Housing affordability, rent and housing prices
have increased substantially medical services more after school child care at the schools
Housing affordable mental health more low afforable housing and child care
housing cost Mental Health
More outreach to County programs & retention
assistance
Housing costs mental health and substance abuse no community support
Housing Costs and Quality mental health care not enough money
Housing costs.Mental health services nutrition
housing- the rent is too high- affordable housing is
not really that affordable in these areas Mental Health Services Nutritious Food
housing/ shelter Mental Illness Opportunities for betterment of self/community
Housing/Shelter mental illness Out-of-date minimum wage
income mental/behavioral health treatment
parenting items (diapers, babycare equipment
and adaptations)
inhabitable living situations Money Personal Hygiene Items
Jobs more job offer to people had criminal history Plain Homelessness
jobs
No education on how to buy affordable healthy
food poor food choices
jobs no money prostitution
Jobs Opportunnity quality inexpensive food
Jobs Pay equality raising rent
lack of income poor health reasonable employment
lack of job Poor health care access & services resources
lack of shelter proper nutrition Resources to treat the above
Lack of support (personal)Public safety safety
lack of work raising transportation costs, ie gasoline Security/safety from violence
Local ownership recreactional activities services
low wages Rental amounts well above pay shelter
Low wages/unemployment Residivism shelter
lviing wages Safe well-designed housing shortage of medical providers
Mental Health Issues Safety Substance Abuse
1.2.3.
From your perspective, what are the top three (3) issues facing those living in poverty (for example, you might identify food, shelter, housing, etc.)?
Mentorship for those from families without
education Shelter Sustainable employoment.
money Shelter
too many generic educational programs such as
medical/dental assisting that in the end leave
people with high debt and low wages
Nutritious food Shelter Training/Education for Jobs
Obtaining Employment shelter Transportation
Rehab/Job Placement Programs Shelter transportation
safe place to live/housing shelter costs Transportation
safe, affordable adequate housing Shelter/Housing transportation
shelter Shelter/Housing transportation
SHELTER stability within the home transportation
Shelter Substance abuse rehab transportation
Shelter
Support with food and housing while attending
school Transportation
shelter The inability to find well-paying, stable jobs transportation
Shelter transportation transportation
Shelter Transportation transportation
shelter TRANSPORTATION transportation accessability and cost
shelter transportation Transportation between communities
Shelter transportation Transportation Cost
Shelter transportation transportation to get to school/work
Shelter - There isn't enough affordable housing
nor is the housing in existance spacious enough.transportation Unemployment
SHELTER COST Transportation Accessibility and Frequency
Shelter from elements Transportation for seniors
Shelter is unaffordable underemployed
stable housing Undiagnosed/unaddressed mental health issues
substance abuse Unemployment
Transportation (especially to work)UNEMPLOYMENT
unemployment vagrancy laws
Unemployment & underemployment we need more homeless shelters
Wages work
wages that support living
Answer Options Response Percent Response Count
1.100.0%162
2.95.7%155
3.88.9%144
answered question 162
skipped question 6
1.2.3.
More help with housing Larger supply of food stamps More help in community (accessible)
Job readiness & skills training College readiness ESL (for the workspace)
Participants should have to participate and be held
accountable for self-improvement, efforts &
participation
Having been in the shelter system twice! Should be a
stepping stone not permanent support!!
more help to those who can't find work raise minimum wage lower prices
Drug and Alcohol treatment facility Counseling and treatment facility More Community Outreach with resources
subsidized housing/rental assistance job training subsidized childcare - expand current programs
Vouchers for permanent housing. Housing cost is high.Training and work after training Medical cards for those that need it
Affordable housing Investment
Housing that is affordable
Access to healthy food and nutrition and health
education
Career tech training via after-school program.
Partnership with non-profit, govt, and small business
sector
Build affordable housing
Encourage collaboration between child care centers
providers and schools Encourage collaboration between schools and CBO's
Collaborative and frequent community forums Youth Programs
Spark Point Centers and Financial Management
Assistance
Federal and local assitance to level costs bring back employers
offer incentives to get those in need the education/
training needed
subsidized housing
regular, easy access to nutritious foods that are either
within budget or free
not sure I can get specific, but support services that
might help people navigate issues of transportation,
healthcare, education, and utilities
Survey Input for 2016-2017 Community Action Plan
For each of the issues you identified above, please describe the services that you believe should be provided to address this need (for example, vouchers to provide
temporary shelter for those who are homeless).
For each of the issues you identified above, please describe the services that you believe should be provided to address this need (for example, vouchers to provide
temporary shelter for those who are homeless).
1.2.3.
For each of the issues you identified above, please describe the services that you believe should be provided to address this need (for example, vouchers to provide
temporary shelter for those who are homeless).
open the rarely-used military housing (Olivera Rd) to
low income renters
Free Mental Health "clinics" to determine a course of
action Basic job training
Media campaign promoting GED/High School Diplomas
and Community Colleges.
A HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FUNDING TO EXPAND EXISTING SHELTERS INCENTIVES FOR EMPLOYMENT
Affordable Housing Vocational Schools Accessible job placing agencies
The after school program or activities give youth a safe
place to do healthly activties instead hanging out on the
street with the wrong crowd. This group of youth will
morely likely persuit for higher education in the future
and therefore both poverty and criminal ratio will be
decrease.
There a hardly to find employer who would like to hire
people with criminal history and the criminal rate is high
among the group of people in poverty. If employers are
not discriminal against this group of people, they can be
hired and get out of poverty.
Housing cost is very high in the Bay Area. Many
people live pay check to pay check and their majority of
income goes to housing. More afforable housing
availabe to them is a great help for them to get out of
poverty
Vouchers
Increased temporary shelter options w/case
management that helps people get into permanent
housing
cheaper housing food coupons training and employment development skills
More low cost housing
Life skill classes, tutoring program, afordable after
school programs, full day and affordable summer
camps to keep kids active and out of mischief (Benicia
has a good summer camp model).
Transition programs to help a person find employment,
housing, counseling, etc after released from jail/prison.Drug counseling & prevention.
Vouchers for temporary Housing Vouchers for Food
Discounted price on food and or offering of generic food
products Safe place to sleep for those who have no place to go Patrol and identify savory presence in neighborhoods
more affordable housing better pay child care, transportation, food
More Job/Club programs and/or Rehab or Mental
Health programs
Food Pantires need to be more accessable, there are
many time limitations & few Pantries
Need more Eligibility workers to be in the community to
assist clients on how to apply for benefits
jobs temp jobs odd jobs
Cal Fresh applications to those that are hungry,
standing at the end of freeway on ramps or at stop
lights
temporary housing increased public transportation options child care subsidies, more providers
Additional low income housing apartments rent
subsidies for people what are working but earn less
than 200% fpl
Mental health outreach and services along with Medi-
cal approvals to be able access the services
Transportation outreach and discounted Bart and bus
passes for people receiving public assistance
1.2.3.
For each of the issues you identified above, please describe the services that you believe should be provided to address this need (for example, vouchers to provide
temporary shelter for those who are homeless).
more low cost housing. There is not enough housing for
the impoverished families in our county
Transportation is a major burden for people with
children. It's expensive, not timely and travel time is
long
Not enough emphasis on getting an education. Failure
to get a education is the biggest contributor to poverty
Need to develope low income housing that has a
treatment or employment component
Proide training so people can qualify for jobs More community housing More food programs
Healthy food distribution Vouchers for housing Job training
Rent control, how about if every new subdivision and
apartment and condo project had to contain subsidized
housing - not so much as to disturb the class structure
of the project but certainly more than one or two
Retraining on a grand scale for those who want it - not
just necessarily low income but middle class as well,
and a massive major effort to get people into the
retraining - really make sure everyone in this county
knows this is available
Fix the current system - I don't know how but I see
people on the street evey day with mental issues that
need help
grants for low income families to send their children to
private/charter schools rent-controlled apartment developments larger community provider network
access to affordable housing/resources to keeping
housing access to job counselors
rent control accountablity by the providers and producers vouchers/assistance with childcare
VOUCHERS FOOD PANTRIES
UNEMPLOYMENT TRAINING AND PLACEMENT,
INCLUDING INDIVIDUALS WITH MENTAL HEALTH
ISSUES
Vouchers for homeless or more shelter beds.
Doctors willing to give patients meds and meet with
them on monthly basis.
Housing costs have gone up and we need to find
affordable housing for clients because the standard of
living has increased and so has the amount of
homeless people in Contra Costa County.
senior affordable housing discounted transportation community gardens
Higher minimum wages Higher Amounts Supplemental Aid Lower economic requirements to receive aid.
More low income rentals/homes Easier, user friendly ways to get food & clothing more bus routes
internships, jobs, jobs, jobs
FAMILY shelters; for the complete family, father,
mother, children, pets
job search, on the job trainings, interviewing
techniques, resume writing
affordable childcare for working families, raise the
childcare income limits, emergency childcare needed,
more housing programs, more security/officer patrol
programs
Education on healthy eating, resources to healthy and
affordable food
bus programs for adults and children, vehicle
assistance program
section 8 type vouchers more food stamps better outreach for employment opportunities
Re-evaluate some people in housing that shouldn't be
getting it and give priority to elderly and Vets.
Go out into the community and give tax brakes to
smaller companies willing to employ these people
Provide bus passes for the first 3 months of work, until
they get established with work.
1.2.3.
For each of the issues you identified above, please describe the services that you believe should be provided to address this need (for example, vouchers to provide
temporary shelter for those who are homeless).
educated children at a young age
provide flyers with information about all types of
domestic abuse patrol the streets
Provide a location with on the job training, in all areas
of operation. Providing food distribution warehouse,
kitchen/ food servcices, temp.shelter, showering
facilities, child care for working/looking for wk
mothers,with on site office for clerical training,which will
give them the tools they need to lift them up from
poverty and county rolls.
continued giving them supervised training, manned by
those who need training to get jobs, which in turn is
keeping costs down by manning the location with
trainees and giving them pride in what they do and self
esteem
this is a solution which gives those in need a way to
ensure job references, instill work ethic, and create new
work possibilities for the homeless and jobless.
Streamline application/approval process
Exploration into new job opportunities and more stress
on self-employment
Reevaluation of transit system (Eg: there are no busses
that go to direct to both Winco Stores
Affordable Housing Free substance abuse councilling Subsudized child care
minimum wage required for all businesses
streamline paperwork and use understandablae
language more low income housing resources
More affordable housing, maybe more supported
housing projects similar to Shelter Inc.
More education, a less stringent/lengthy, more private
process to access mental health services.
Better education, more resources, more incentives to
work, stronger sanctions.
calfresh housing projects/affordable housing medi-cal
more affordable housing options (like family
stabilization program)
increase minimum wage without reduction in eligble
services (increase ratio)increase access and support to training/education
mobile food vans may be help get food to
families/persons who cant get to food banks more local shelters in the east bay vouchers for public transportation
More subsidized housing options
Expanded CalFresh to include students and more
seniors
Review and expansion of existing bus lines and BART,
possibly transportation subsidies
assistance with rent
incentives for grocery stores to open in food deserts or
corner stores to sell fresh produce, or creating
community grocery stores
better public service, safer streets for walking or
bicycling
change the Employment Specialist job description to
incorperate teaching/training/assisting CL's readily available classes & doctors
provide helpfull classes on how to get and keep a
valuable job
affordable housing spread out rather than concentrated
in one area. Follow up on people breaking rules of
affordable housing.
Raise income guidelines for child care council
vouchers. Child Care costs take up over 1/3 of my
paycheck.more education on ways to cook with healthy food
Guidance counseling.
Limit the way debit card can be used. If returning
products to store money can only be placed back on the
card. The client can not recieve fiscal dollars that they
can use for other things other than food.
Guidance counseling for those that need help. Monitor
the income levels and who is in the home. If and when
the person that qualified for housing is gone it should
not be handed down to another relative. Not fair to other
people that are in need.
1.2.3.
For each of the issues you identified above, please describe the services that you believe should be provided to address this need (for example, vouchers to provide
temporary shelter for those who are homeless).
inhouse treatment for substance abuse / dual diagnosis
that is not less than 90 days
affordable housing similar to the plan developed by the
State of Utah
classes/training in how to achieve and sustain
employment
housing
Home ownership for those working consistently and
have bad credit more food programs
Affoordable housing for seniors, low and middle income
residents.Job training for sustainable jobs.Housing services to minimize homelessness.
more Section 8 vouchers as there is not enough
affordable housing to meet the need
increase Cal Fresh benefits as clients do not get
enough to eat right
increase comphensation for doctors to encourage them
to accept Medi-Cal patients
Start a program like our mentorship program to build
these people up.
Change CalFresh regulations to exclude students from
the work requirement and temporary housing.Bring ABAD back.
foor pantries more accesible better transportation for elder and disable
more community resources. Too many homeless in the
street
Smaller classrooms, lower tuition in community college
More life skills forums/ job training to gain skills,
experience Time limited assistance/housing
accept treatment or no benefits low cost (not free) courses food pantrys and homeless shelters
Subsidies for rental costs, access to information about
low cost housing in area or outside the County
Support for those seeking employment - transportation,
clothing vouchers, access to info about Jobs.
Affordable school programs & childcare w/ extended
AM/PM hrs.
Lower cost of education Increase entry level jobs Lower cost of living
More low income housing in various neighborhoods
County Jobs need to raise salaries and benefits to
match neighboring counties and hire county residents.
Bring in more jobs for various skill levels to increase
incomes and pay.
On the Job Training & School to certify you into a
position Childcare provided or reimbursement
Getting them involved in an activity, events or volunteer
in the community to feel self worth.
Another option other than Section 8 with higher limits,
yet more regulations. Yet if they get obtain a job & don't
do drups then they could have a better chance in
finding a place to live
JOB OPPORTUNITIES FOR PEOPLE WITH
CRIMINAL BACKGROUNDSET
PROGRAMS FOR PEOPLE ENTERING THE
WORKFORCE WITH NO EXPERIENCE.
VOUCHERS FOR PEOPLE WITH GOOD JOBS BUT
BAD CREDIT FROM THE PAST.
MORE AFFORDABLE INCOME HOUSING
PROGRAMS THAT ARE MANDATED FOR JOB
SEARCH/HIRING
Housing assistance/vouchers Crime prevention/diversion Community enrichment
More affordable housing units/rent control
Increased access to free/low-cost childcare and
healthcare to offset high cost of living
Create livable wage jobs
help with obtaining high school diplomas & short term
trainings
Construction of affordable housing & opening up
Section 8 & issuing Section 8 vouchers
more low income housing more homeless shelters more after school child care at the schools
1.2.3.
For each of the issues you identified above, please describe the services that you believe should be provided to address this need (for example, vouchers to provide
temporary shelter for those who are homeless).
low income housing, temporary financial assistance for
those working, but unable to secure affordable housing
immediately
cooperation/collaboration with local businesses to
provide jobs
assistance/resources available at low/no cost, so
people don't have to turn to drugs or crime
vouchers to provide temporary shelter for those who
are homeless food bank East Bay Works
More shelters in the County
Food Bank Trucks for the homeless - If they don't have
them already
Donations from Volunteer Services for Personal
Hygiene Items
more low income housing Job training, and skill training More public transportation
more access to low income housing, more shelters for
families
Jobs programs that connect with real jobs with on the
job coaching, Bring in more industries More free clinics, more outreach programs
more incentives to keep our children and parents
engaged
publicis/ communtiy awarness on all activities that are
avabile same as above
affordable housing expongement/fee reduction/reentry services minimum wage advocacy
More homeless shelters or homes provided for those
that have children.Create more jobs Vouchers for food
Don't allow those who rent or lease properties of all
types to charge such high prices, no matter what their
reason is.
Goods and services shouldn't be able to exceed
affordability.
Buildings that are no longer used for what ever reason,
should be turned into different types of housing. Exp.:
At the Presidio in San Francisco there are a lot of old
buildings just sitting there un used, can't they be turned
into liveable shelter of some kind?
More affordable housing available
Classes on how to stretch a dollar for healthy eating for
the family
LOW INCOME HOUSING, HOUSING ASSITANCE OR
CAPS ON RENT
MORE BUSES WITH DIFFERENT ROUTES FOR
HOMES, TRANSPORTATION ASSISTANCE
HOW TO LOOK FOR WORK, HOW TO APPLY FOR
WORK, BILINGUAL SERVICES & BASIC COMPUTER
SKILLS
temporary shelter; long range safe housing voucher subsidized health care
Section 8, rent controls, and affordable mixed income
housing needs to be expanded.
Parts of West Contra Costa County are greatly
underserved by BART and bus. Expand AC Transit and
WestCat.
More quality job training, higher minimum wage (at
least $15/hr, if not higher), more job fairs.
revise the housing authority and open up the section 8
housing.Better education make healthy food affordable
more places willing to hire people with a criminal past Vouchers
people in community need to do more to help those
without
Programs specifically to partially subsidize rent for
those under a certain income threshold
Programs focused on building a relationship between
law enforcement and the poor and youth
An increase in the amount of foodstamps that our
clients receive, or special vouchers for fresh produce
1.2.3.
For each of the issues you identified above, please describe the services that you believe should be provided to address this need (for example, vouchers to provide
temporary shelter for those who are homeless).
More affortable housing build and keep in good shape
We need to create more job and coalicions with
businesses
have a rental cars for those parents that have odd
hours to works
vouchers or gift cards for food invest in more low income housing more temporary shelter
more schools
more section 8 vouchers and landlords willing to accept
them more community policing
food co-ops or other collective purchasing
arrangements to leverage spending power
Affordable Housing Options Employment Training
Easier application/approval process for medical
coverage
More Low income/Section 8 housing - remove families
that no longer need it Fewer barriers to food stamps and increased allotments Vouchers for clothing/School uniform funding
Easy and short forms to complete
Instead of EBT cards more soup kitchens where they
can get a hot meal.
More services to help the working poor, i.e. rent
assistance so they dont end up homeless.
more lottery places for subsidized housing increase funding to low performing schools health clinics and more police presence
More low-income housing
training programs so residents can get jobs using
computers especially in programming
more low income or affordable housing (new housing!)-
even if it's public housing Promotion of CalFresh program and food vochers
Public transportation stipends-- people need
transportation to work
more services for low income housing and rent help.
more subsidized slots for licensed early care,
especially infant care bring in business and keep business local
vouchers temporary and permanant shelter safe living environment
homeless shelter facility access to medical clinics food bank services
affordable housing with support services
transportation vouchers and more reliable and robust
transportation
job training, apprenticeships, educational programs and
support
More affordable housing/Vouchers for homeless
Outreach so people know where and how to get food
and/or food stamps Smaller buses that run more frequently
integrated food & housing programs
city ordinances that require landlords to submit
documentation periodically that rentals are habitable or
face stiff fines.
more shelters, and shelters that accept someone with
multiple health disorders.
Healthcare for everyone (undocumented citizens need
preventative care)
Temporary housing units More decent job openings Vouchers
Streamline building process so more housing built Job Centers/Training on how to Find Jobs
Working with Middle and high Schools to create job
training
Case Management Vocational training programs Emotional Support programs
jobs jobs jobs
government sponsored Work/Trade for housing
subsidies, incentivise private affordable housing
developments.fully subsidized health care as in Europe, Canada
Universal breakfast in all schools, especially High
Schools--see Berkeley Unified school district.
1.2.3.
For each of the issues you identified above, please describe the services that you believe should be provided to address this need (for example, vouchers to provide
temporary shelter for those who are homeless).
Increase minimum wage Increase minimum wage Provide more child care centers
Food Bank support affordable housing easy access to covered California
tax the rich. use fir social svcs raise minimum wage campaign finance reform
Assistance with child care.
Free adult education classes on parenting, budgeting,
cooking, etc. with financial incentives to attend.Free treatment.
build housing and give it to the homeless -- nothing
solves poverty like getting someone into a home
eliminate bans on public camping etc., and develop a
public-care agency that would bring services to the
homeless
tax breaks for certain businesses (manufacturing, for
example) that have a majority of their employees living
in Contra Costa
require developers to include affordable housing something similar to rent control
Vouchers Transportation to care center Mental health evaluation
employer incentives education benefits raise minimum wage
vouchers for schools drug and alcohol recovery program vouchers low level debt forgiveness.
yes vouchers ,temporary;-another homeless
shelter,bigger.or two
outsourcing jobs, locals work here,but contracts are
from out of state.(DMV)example
act of congress to get eligable for LINK disabled bus,4
medical appts-jobs-shopping
I don't think rent control works. Need more affordable
housing
Encourage (les govt resrtion) mare small groceries
where needed
Lower-cost transportation (e.g vouchers) for low-
income residents
vouchers for low income housing that does not have
long wait passes for public transportation or deeper discount increase to living wages
shelter vouchers; affordable housing realtive to income;
rental assistance; higher capacity in homeless shelters
increased subsidized child care; professional
development training for family child care workers increase minimum wage
increase subsidies for families to obtain housing
increase child care clots, particularly for infants and
toddlers raise the minimum wage to at least $15/hr
Access to employment opportunities
Vouchers and protective housing for families with
children Affordable Access to Mental Health Services
Vouchers to assist with rent with a long term plan for to
maintain housing without assistance More daycare programs for low income families Low cost/no cost training
Discounts for BART and buses. 24 -hour BART and
buses Subsidized day care and paid sick leave.Higher minimum wage
Job training Education grants and scholarships Food distribution
Food banks Low income senior housing
Funding sufficient programs, particularly in West
County, for seniors and the disablecd
housing subsidies wrap-around services vouchers or shuttles
Emergency food and access to Cal Fresh benefits Construction of low-income housing Programs to develop job skills
1.2.3.
For each of the issues you identified above, please describe the services that you believe should be provided to address this need (for example, vouchers to provide
temporary shelter for those who are homeless).
Provide jobs and transportation specially for low-
income and individuals requiring mental health services
Make mental health services and transportation more
accessible
Provide child care services for individuals receiving
mental health service
raise minimum wage to living wage, fund education and
job training
Help more eligible people enroll in CalFresh; Improve
availablity of fresh, healthy, affordable food get involved with 0/2016;
more affordable and accessible housing vouchers for transportation
vouchers for babycare equipment or services that
include babycare adaptations
assistance in finding and keeping low cost housing
assistance in training and find jobs that will get people
out of the hole
checks and balances that show the person is working
toward the goal -- they stop they loss benefits
completely
Child care for employed and seeking employment employment counseling low income housing opportunities
affordable housing raising minimum wage affordable transportation
Vouchers to buy high quality food and food preparation
classes Transitional housing and housing vouchers
Better integration of education with employment
opportunities. Children should be exposed to a wider
range of occupations through internships and
apprentice programs.
Low income housing Counseling on how to continue their education Provide vocational training to secure jobs
Rent caps Denture repair for seniors
More housing More mental Heath providers More childcare
affordable housing NEAR services
efficient transportation that gets them to where they
need to get in a reasonable time services that don't take all day to get
more job training/placement programs more funding for housing more outreach
transitional housing one stop support for GED, job training, resume help support services at on site housing locations
living wage jobs - county contracts could require
nonprofits pay living wage jobs and then fund at that
level Additional rental assistance increase availability of acess to Cal Fresh
access to fresh foods, with education on use and
preparation
expanded housing for low income families (new
development)
expanded child care services (increase infant- toddler
slots, expand subsidy slots)
Job Training subsidized childcare affordable housing
rent control regulations for companies to keep jobs here in US
adult education on in demand jobs, wages, and
expected debt to complete programs... more community
college course openings
State funding
Rent Control and better assessment about low income
rentals, I don't consider $1200 for a 2 bedroom low
income rentals
Vouchers of some sort so low income residents who
need to use public transportation do not have to pay for
it
Public/private employment development Health Care 4 All, shift in health financing Pay bonuses to teachers in poor areas
1.2.3.
For each of the issues you identified above, please describe the services that you believe should be provided to address this need (for example, vouchers to provide
temporary shelter for those who are homeless).
more "HUD" like housing more volunteers who can visit and provide freindship
Expand the food stamps program (can't think of the new
name)
Increased supply and subsidies Rental assistance Job training and support
temporary to address those who are homeless or in
crisis, transition for those moving to permanent, and
permanent with a sustainable cost
Nutrition education, access to food from a variety of
sources, and signing up for CalFresh
Signing up to receive services funded through the
federal Obamacare program
direct job placement through a paid internship/ job skill
training and placement
housing construction subsidy, work with Habitat for
Humanity, temporary housing direct food hand out/
Yes No Response
Count
111 47 158
115 43 158
112 45 157
111 46 157
117 39 156
111 48 159
161
7
Survey Input for 2016-2017 Community Action Plan
Safety (i.e. creating safe neighborhoods, safe afterschool programs)
skipped question
Answer Options
Access to Health Care
Unemployment (i.e. job training and placement, including individuals with mental health illness)
answered question
Do you believe that the 2014-2015 Community Action Plan priority areas still fit the needs of your community?
Housing (i.e. program supporting safe and affordable housing, transitional youth shelter)
Violence Awareness (i.e. violence prevention, crime prevention)
Fresh Produce Access to Underserved Population
Violence Awareness
(i.e. violence
prevention, crime
prevention)
Unemployment (i.e.
job training and
placement, including
individuals with
mental health
illness)
Safety (i.e. creating
safe neighborhoods,
safe afterschool
programs)
Housing (i.e.
program supporting
safe and affordable
housing, transitional
youth shelter)
Access to Health
Care
Fresh Produce
Access to
Underserved
Population
No 47 43 45 46 39 48
Yes 111 115 112 111 117 111
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Response
Percent
Response
Count
16.6%27
40.5%66
28.2%46
14.7%24
163
5
From the list below, select those responses that best describe your current situation (select
one):
I do not live in Contra Costa County
I am a West Contra Costa County resident
skipped question
Survey Input for 2016-2017 Community Action Plan
I am a Eastern Contra Costa County resident
Answer Options
answered question
I am a Central Contra Costa County resident
I am a West Contra
Costa County resident
17%
I am a Central Contra
Costa County resident
40%
I am a Eastern Contra
Costa County resident
28%
I do not live in Contra
Costa County
15%
Response
Percent
Response
Count
5.2%8
14.2%22
45.2%70
22.6%35
61.9%96
155
13skipped question
Please select those responses that best describe your current situation (select all that apply):
I work for a non-profit organization that provides services to Contra Costa County residents in one or more of the areas I listed in
responding to Question 1.
I currently receive services in one or more of the areas I listed in responding to Question 1.
answered question
Survey Input for 2016-2017 Community Action Plan
I know of someone in my community that does not currently receive, but needs services in one or more of the areas I listed in
responding to Question 1.
Answer Options
I work for a governmental agency that provides services to Contra Costa County residents in one or more of the areas I listed in
responding to Question 1.
I need, but do not currently receive services in one or more of the areas I listed in responding to Question 1.
I currently receive
services in one or more of
the areas I listed in
responding to Question 1.
I need, but do not
currently receive services
in one or more of the
areas I listed in
responding to Question 1.
I know of someone in my
community that does not
currently receive, but
needs services in one or
more of the areas I listed
in responding to Question
1.
I work for a non-profit
organization that provides
services to Contra Costa
County residents in one
or more of the areas I
listed in responding to
Question 1.
I work for a governmental
agency that provides
services to Contra Costa
County residents in one
or more of the areas I
listed in responding to
Question 1.
Series1 5.2%14.2%45.2%22.6%61.9%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%